Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Can we increase the wing area vertically?

  1. Jun 4, 2007 #1
    hmmm... i was just wondering, if we increased the area of a wing and sacrifice drag, we should get more lift right? and if we got more lift, should we not be fly with a low velocity?

    And im not talking like gliders and increasing the wingspan, im thinking about increasing their area vertically... is this possible??

    Im not an aeronautical engineer or anything, i just thought it should be possible after going through how a wing works... so if you can help me out, it would be good... :approve:
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 4, 2007 #2
    what do you mean by increasing the area vertically? do u mean increasing the thickness?
     
  4. Jun 4, 2007 #3

    FredGarvin

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    It's not a simple tradeoff like you are thinking. The result of lift is drag. Not only parasitic, but induced drag. Also you increase the weight.

    I have no idea what you mean about increasing the area vertically.
     
  5. Jun 4, 2007 #4
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2007
  6. Jun 5, 2007 #5

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Well, I guess that it depends upon what you mean by increasing it vertically. There are devices called Whitcomb winglets that look like vertical stabilizers on the tips of the wings. I have no idea of how they work from an aeronautical engineering standpoint, but I'm sure that Fred, Russ, Rainman Aero and a few others can tune you in on that. The essence, however, is that they 'trick' the wings into acting as if they're much longer than they really are. My best semi-educated guess would be that it has something to do with harnessing wingtip vortices, but I really don't know.
     
  7. Jun 5, 2007 #6
    winglets produces the infinite wing span effect
     
  8. Jun 6, 2007 #7
    No and yes .. The "only" effect of a winglet is to reduse drag due to wing tip wotex'es. Possibly it has som other effect as well as a slightely increased lift and improved stability.


    http://www.b737.org.uk/winglets.htm
     
  9. Jun 6, 2007 #8

    FredGarvin

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    That is, in essence, what an infinite wing span is. It does not suffer from drag induced at the tips. Winglets do not produce that effect, but try to simulate it. We will never fly a wing that exactly reproduces an infinite wing's performance.

    I have read a couple of papers in which they claimed that there was also a slight propulsive force created at the winglets due to their aerodynamics.
     
  10. Jun 6, 2007 #9
    Hmmm... what I meant was since that since the lift depended on the angle of attack and area of the wing, if we were to increase the area of the wing linearly as in not the wingspan, but the actual breadth of the wing. These probably aren't the best words, what i mean is as illustrated in the diagram below....

    So... if we can increase the breadth of the wing would we be able to increase the lift, sacrificing the drag? this is what i wanted to know...:smile:
     

    Attached Files:

  11. Jun 7, 2007 #10
    You mean making the wings Deeper instead of Longer or Taller? Sort of like the space shuttle or the XB-70?
     
  12. Jun 7, 2007 #11
    exactly... XB70?
     
  13. Jun 7, 2007 #12
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XB-70_Valkyrie

    It used a delta-wing design, for ease in supersonic speeds, had sort of an accident.

    Also, this isn't "Vertical" as you first asked, but I'm running with it.

    And almost the opposite of what you're asking, the Delta Wing design I'm assuming you are thinking of was use a lot more for High-Speed (and supersonic) than low speed because it was a lot of weight. They suffer from flow separation at a higher angle of attack (probably didn't help in the Valkyrie crash), which normal wings are better at preventing. They also don't provide as much of a L/D Ratio as you'd think, as planes like the B-52 (long wings) outperform them.

    More of the earlier jets used that design, but some (like the Eurofighter and the F/A-18 Hornet, F-16, etc.) still use some variant of it. Normal wing design won out in the long run though.

    The wiki article sums most of it up, Here
    And Here.

    Someone else can probably explain more in detail though.
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2007
  14. Jun 7, 2007 #13

    FredGarvin

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Are you referring to increasing the chord length? I'm still a bit confused, even with your diagram.

    The XB-70...what a great aircraft. Absolutely awe inspiring to stand underneath it back at the engines and look forward.
     
  15. Jun 7, 2007 #14
    no actually what i meant by the whole vertical thing is that...

    Why even bother with the whole combination of both the bernoulli and newton thing and just instead use the newton idea...

    I hope this very poorly drawn diagram can represent the question I am trying to ask... :rolleyes:

    also... why even bother with the thrust what with all the drag and all? why not just provide actual thrust in an inclined direction and forget the wing thing? as provide the thrust from the bottom with an engine and incline it in the required direction?

    Oh... thx for clarifying my thoughts so far...:smile:
     

    Attached Files:

  16. Jun 7, 2007 #15

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  17. Jun 7, 2007 #16
    giving thrust sounds pretty much easy. but as far as i understand a wing also gives you the required stability. consider this idiotic example, what if the thruster blows up?, we all die, haha. but add the wings into the story, you can easily glide to safety.
    also wing can give much more lift at lower speeds of engines then a thruster would do. cost is also a factor, you cant put big thrusters on every aircraft
     
  18. Jun 7, 2007 #17

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Gah, you're really killing me, Thinker. Look HERE for airfoil terminology.

    The vertical dimension is thickness.
    The front-to-back dimension chord.
    The side-to-side dimension is span.

    It sounds to me like you want to increase the chord. Is that correct?

    If it is the chord you are looking to increase, the primary drawback of that is what the guys were discussing above: with a long chord, short span (aka, low aspect ratio) wing, the wingtip vortices are proportionally larger, increasing drag and decreasing lift.
     
  19. Jun 7, 2007 #18

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    You mean like with a helicopter? The main reason is efficiency: the type of thrust that is most efficient for lifting is high volume, low velocity. The type that is most efficient for high speed is high velocity, low volume. You'll note that most airplanes do not have thrust to weight ratios greater than 1.
     
  20. Jun 7, 2007 #19
    That Thing would scare the crap out of me.


    Because that takes a Lot of fuel. With wings you let nature do Some of the work by gliding, and you glide as long as you're moving forward (albeit a powered glide). With that, you basically have a rocket, and we don't have motors efficient enough to stay on for that long of time. You also get that there are no control surfaces, so your motors have to do that as well. Plus unless you have yet another engine that is reserved for only forward thrust, with an engine at a 45 or 60 degree angle to also provide lift, you'll never get the full forward-velocity that you Could get.


    I also didn't see there was a second page.
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2007
  21. Jun 7, 2007 #20
    yeah I did mean the "chord"... and well...
    hmmm... well actually I meant like the X-22..
    here:

    V/STOL Aircrafts

    Regarding the bigger chord:
    RIght... so its less efficient... thats okay... but one can produce good lift at low velocities right... besides, after reaching a certain height, the wing can be folded or lowered or rised or something, to reduce the drag right?

    Regarding the vertical thrust:
    Also... Let me get this straight... its more efficient to induce drag to a plane to make it take off and less efficient to supply the thrust on your own? Ah... could you show we the equations involved? :smile:

    And... well... about the safety thing, thats why we have parachutes right?:rolleyes:
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2007
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Can we increase the wing area vertically?
Loading...