Is a hollowed out fuselage ideal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter yrjosmiel73
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the implications of using a hollowed-out fuselage design in aircraft. Participants highlight that while many aircraft are essentially hollow tubes, integrating essential components like avionics and fuel becomes challenging due to the airflow through the fuselage. Increased skin friction drag is a significant concern due to the larger wetted area, which can negatively impact performance. However, there are scenarios where airflow through the fuselage can be beneficial, such as delaying airflow separation from wings.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of aerodynamics and airflow principles
  • Familiarity with aircraft design and structural integrity
  • Knowledge of skin friction drag and its effects on performance
  • Basic concepts of lift generation in aviation
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the effects of fuselage shape on airflow and lift generation
  • Explore the principles of skin friction drag in aircraft design
  • Study the integration of avionics and fuel systems in unconventional aircraft designs
  • Investigate historical examples of biplane and lifting body designs
USEFUL FOR

Aerospace engineers, aircraft designers, and aviation enthusiasts interested in innovative aircraft design concepts and aerodynamic efficiency.

yrjosmiel73
The air passes through the fuselage. Will it have bad effects on the aerocraft?
illustration.png

Yes, I have horrible drawing skills.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Why is this a good thing in your opinion?

I mean, lots of craft are essentially hollow tubes, but I suspect you weren't thinking in terms of a propulsion cavity.

North_American_F86-01.JPG
 
It becomes a pain to integrate avionics, fuel, and other essentials into the aircraft when a good portion of that internal volume exists so that air can flow through it. Not only that but skin friction drag would increase because there's more wetted area for boundary layers to form on.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: billy_joule
DaveC426913 said:
Why is this a good thing in your opinion?

I mean, lots of craft are essentially hollow tubes, but I suspect you weren't thinking in terms of a propulsion cavity.

North_American_F86-01.JPG

What if it's a plain 'ol tube? Without engines and that?
 
yrjosmiel73 said:
What if it's a plain 'ol tube? Without engines and that?
What is your rationale? What problem are you hoping it solves?

I'm not suggesting there is anything wrong with the idea, but if I posed a question such as 'what if I made a television shaped like a donut?', wouldn't you need to ask about my logic before answering?
 
DaveC426913 said:
What is your rationale? What problem are you hoping it solves?
I think of like manipulating the flow of air with the shape of the tube, like adding extra lift.
 
yrjosmiel73 said:
I think of like manipulating the flow of air with the shape of the tube, like adding extra lift.
Would it provide an advantage over the typical wing surfaces usually used? Enough to offset the disadvantages?
 
There are a cases where some air flow is diverted through the fuselage for beneficial effects. It can be used to delay separation from the wing or to avoid having too much air going through the engine. But it is done for specific reasons like those.

There were early biplanes. In this era of lift bodies, maybe there could be a "biplane" version of a lifting body. I don't know what the advantage would be, but there are all types of strange things being investigated these days.
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
909
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K