Hubbry Logo
Wing configurationWing configurationMain
Open search
Wing configuration
Community hub
Wing configuration
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Wing configuration
Wing configuration
Wing configuration
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The Spitfire wing may be classified as: "a conventional low-wing cantilever monoplane with unswept elliptical wings of moderate aspect ratio and slight dihedral".

The wing configuration or planform of a fixed-wing aircraft (including both gliders and powered aeroplanes) is its arrangement of lifting and related surfaces.

Aircraft designs are often classified by their wing configuration. For example, the Supermarine Spitfire is a conventional low wing cantilever monoplane of straight elliptical planform with moderate aspect ratio and slight dihedral.

Many variations have been tried. Sometimes the distinction between them is blurred, for example the wings of many modern combat aircraft may be described either as cropped compound deltas with (forwards or backwards) swept trailing edge, or as sharply tapered swept wings with large leading edge root extensions (or LERX). Some are therefore duplicated here under more than one heading. This is particularly so for variable geometry and combined (closed) wing types.

A forward-swept-wing Sukhoi Su-47 alongside the more conventional swept-back Su-27 and Su-30MK2.

Most of the configurations described here have flown (if only very briefly) on full-size aircraft. A few theoretical designs are also notable.

Note on terminology: Most fixed-wing aircraft have left hand and right hand wings in a symmetrical arrangement. Strictly, such a pair of wings is called a wing plane or just plane. However, in certain situations it is common to refer to a plane as a wing, as in "a biplane has two wings", or alternatively to refer to the whole thing as a wing, as in "a biplane wing has two planes". Where the meaning is clear, this article follows common usage, only being more precise where needed to avoid real ambiguity or incorrectness.

Number and position of main planes

[edit]

Fixed-wing aircraft can have different numbers of wings:

  • Monoplane: one wing plane. Since the 1930s most aeroplanes have been monoplanes. The wing may be mounted at various positions relative to the fuselage:
    • Low wing: mounted near or below the bottom of the fuselage.
    • Mid wing: mounted approximately halfway up the fuselage.
    • Shoulder wing: mounted on the upper part or "shoulder" of the fuselage, slightly below the top of the fuselage. A shoulder wing is sometimes considered a subtype of high wing.[1][2]
    • High wing: mounted on the upper fuselage. When contrasted to the shoulder wing, applies to a wing mounted on a projection (such as the cabin roof) above the top of the main fuselage.
    • Parasol wing: raised clear above the top of the fuselage, typically by cabane struts, pylon(s) or pedestal(s).
" "
Low wing 		" "
Mid wing 		" "
Shoulder wing
" "
High wing 		" "
Parasol wing

A fixed-wing aircraft may have more than one wing plane, stacked one above another:

  • Biplane: two wing planes of similar size, stacked one above the other. The biplane is inherently lighter and stronger than a monoplane and was the most common configuration until the 1930s. The very first Wright Flyer I was a biplane.
    • Unequal-span biplane: a biplane in which one wing (usually the lower) is shorter than the other, as on the Curtiss JN-4 Jenny of the First World War.
    • Sesquiplane: literally "one-and-a-half planes" is a type of biplane in which the lower wing is significantly smaller than the upper wing, either in span or chord or both. The Nieuport 17 of World War I was notably successful.
    • Inverted sesquiplane: has a significantly smaller upper wing. The Fiat CR.1 was in production for many years.
    • Busemann biplane: a theoretical supersonic wing configuration, in which shock waves between the wing planes interfere to reduce their energy and wave drag.
" "
Biplane 		" "
Unequal-span biplane 		" "
Sesquiplane 		" "
Inverted sesquiplane
" "
Busemann biplane in cross-section
  • Triplane: three planes stacked one above another. Triplanes such as the Fokker Dr.I enjoyed a brief period of popularity during the First World War due to their manoeuvrability, but were soon replaced by improved biplanes.
  • Quadruplane: four planes stacked one above another. A small number of the Armstrong Whitworth F.K.10 were built in the First World War but never saw service.
  • Multiplane: many planes, sometimes used to mean more than one or more than some arbitrary number. The term is occasionally applied to arrangements stacked in tandem as well as vertically. The 1907 Multiplane of Horatio Frederick Phillips flew successfully with two hundred wing foils. See also the tandem wing, below.
" "
Triplane 		" "
Quadruplane 		" "
Multiplane

A staggered design has the upper wing slightly forward of the lower. Long thought to reduce the interference caused by the low pressure air over the lower wing mixing with the high pressure air under the upper wing; however the improvement is minimal and its primary benefit is to improve access to the fuselage. It is common on many successful biplanes and triplanes. Backwards stagger is also seen in a few examples such as the Beechcraft Staggerwing.

" "
Unstaggered biplane 		" "
Forwards stagger 		" "
Backwards stagger
  • A cruciform wing is a set of four individual wings arranged in the shape of a cross. The cross may take either of two forms:
    • Wings equally spaced around the cross-section of the fuselage, lying in two planes at right angles, as on a typical missile.
    • Wings lying together in a single horizontal plane about a vertical axis, as in the cruciform rotor wing or X-wing.
" "
Cruciform wing weapon 		" "
Cruciform rotor wing or X wing rotor

Support

[edit]

To support itself a wing has to be rigid and strong and consequently may be heavy. By adding external bracing, the weight can be greatly reduced. Originally such bracing was always present, but it causes a large amount of drag at higher speeds and has not been used for faster designs since the early 1930s.

The types are:

  • Cantilevered: self-supporting. All the structure is buried under the aerodynamic skin, giving a clean appearance with low drag.
  • Braced: the wings are supported by external structural members. Nearly all multi-plane designs are braced. Some monoplanes, especially early designs such as the Fokker Eindecker, are also braced to save weight. Braced wings are of two types:
    • Strut braced: one or more stiff struts help to support the wing, as on the Fokker D.VII. A strut may act in compression or tension at different points in the flight regime.
    • Wire braced: alone (as on the Boeing P-26 Peashooter) or, more usually, in addition to struts, tension wires also help to support the wing. Unlike a strut, a wire can act only in tension.
" "
" "
Cantilever 		" "
" "
Strut braced 		" "
" "
Wire braced
A braced multiplane may have one or more "bays", which are the compartments created by adding interplane struts; the number of bays refers to one side of the aircraft's wing panels only. For example, the de Havilland Tiger Moth is a single-bay biplane where the Bristol F.2 Fighter is a two-bay biplane.[3]
" "
Single-bay biplane 		" "
Two-bay biplane
  • Closed wing: two wing planes are merged or joined structurally at or near the tips in some way.[4] This stiffens the structure and can reduce aerodynamic losses at the tips. Variants include:
    • Box wing: upper and lower planes are joined by a vertical fin between their tips. The first officially witnessed plane to take off and fly, the Santos-Dumont 14-bis, used this configuration. Tandem box wings have also been studied (see Joined wing description below).
    • Annular box wing: A type of box wing whose vertical fins curve continuously, blending smoothly into the wing tips. An early example was the Blériot III, which featured two annular wings in tandem.
    • Annular (cylindrical): the wing is shaped like a cylinder. The Coléoptère had concentric wing and fuselage. It took off and landed vertically, but never achieved transition to horizontal flight. Examples with the wing mounted on top of the fuselage have been proposed but never built.[5]
    • Annular (planar): the wing is shaped like a disc with a hole in it. A number of Lee-Richards annular monoplanes flew shortly before the First World War.[6]
    • Joined wing: a tandem-wing layout in which the front low wing sweeps back and/or the rear high wing sweeps forwards such that they join at or near the tips to form a continuous surface in a hollow diamond or triangle shape.[7] The Ligeti Stratos is a rare example.[8]
      • Rhomboidal wing: a joined wing consisting of four surfaces in a diamond arrangement. The Edwards Rhomboidal biplane of 1911 had both wings in the same plane but failed to fly.[9]
" "
Box wing 		" "
Annular box wing 		" "
Cylindrical wing 		" "
Joined wing
" "
Flat annular wing 		" "
Rhomboidal wing

Wings can also be characterised as:

  • Rigid: stiff enough to maintain the aerofoil profile in varying conditions of airflow. A rigid wing may have external bracing and/or a fabric covering.
  • Flexible:
    • The surface may be flexible, typically a thin membrane. Requires external bracing and/or wind pressure to maintain the aerofoil shape. Common types include the Rogallo wing, parafoil and most kites.
    • An otherwise rigid structure may be designed to flex, either because it is inherently aeroelastic as in the aeroisoclinic wing, or because shape changes are actively introduced.
" "
Rigid delta wing 		" "
Flexible Rogallo wing

Planform

[edit]

The wing planform is the silhouette of the wing when viewed from above or below.

See also variable geometry types which vary the wing planform during flight.

Aspect ratio

[edit]
Main article: Aspect ratio (wing)

The aspect ratio is the span divided by the mean or average chord.[10] It is a measure of how long and slender the wing appears when seen from above or below.

  • Low aspect ratio: short and stubby wing. Structurally efficient, high instantaneous roll rate, low supersonic drag. They tend to be used on fighter aircraft, such as the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter, and on very high-speed aircraft including the North American X-15.
  • Moderate aspect ratio: general-purpose wing, very widely used, for example on the Douglas DC-3 transport.
  • High aspect ratio: long and slender wing. More efficient aerodynamically, having less induced drag at subsonic speeds. They tend to be used by high-altitude subsonic aircraft such as the Lockheed U-2 spy plane and by high-performance sailplanes such as the Glaser-Dirks DG-500.
" "
Low aspect ratio 		" "
Moderate aspect ratio 		" "
High aspect ratio

Most variable geometry configurations vary the aspect ratio in some way, either deliberately or as a side effect.

Chord variation along span

[edit]

The wing chord may be varied along the span of the wing, for both structural and aerodynamic reasons.

  • Constant chord: parallel leading & trailing edges. Simplest to make, and common where low cost is important, such as on the Piper J-3 Cub but inefficient as the outer section generates little lift while adding both weight and drag. Sometimes known in North America as the Hershey Bar wing due to its similarity in shape to a popular chocolate bar.[11][12]
  • Tapered: wing narrows towards the tip. Structurally and aerodynamically more efficient than a constant chord wing, and easier to make than the elliptical type.
    • Trapezoidal: a tapered wing with straight leading and trailing edges: may be unswept or swept.[13][14][15] The straight tapered wing is one of the most common wing planforms, as seen on the Messerschmitt Bf 109.
    • Inverse or reverse tapered: wing is widest near the tip. Structurally inefficient, leading to high weight. Flown experimentally on the XF-91 Thunderceptor in an attempt to overcome the stall problems of swept wings.
    • Compound tapered: taper reverses towards the root. Typically braced to maintain stiffness. Used on the Westland Lysander army cooperation aircraft to increase visibility for the crew.
  • Constant chord with tapered outer section: common variant seen for example on many Cessna types.
" "
Constant chord
 " "
Tapered (Trapezoidal)
 " "
Reverse tapered 		" "
Compound tapered 		" "
Constant chord,
tapered outer
  • Elliptical: leading and trailing edges are curved such that the chord length varies elliptically with respect to span. Sometimes mistakenly said to be the most efficient (in aerodynamics theory, the term "elliptical" describes the optimal lift distribution over a wing of given span and not its shape), and also difficult to make. Famously used on the Supermarine Spitfire.
    • Semi-elliptical: only the leading or trailing edge is elliptical with the other being straight, as with the elliptical trailing edges of the Seversky P-35.[16]
" "
Elliptical
 " "
Semi-elliptical
  • Bird wing: a curved shape appearing similar to a bird's outstretched wing. Popular during the pioneer years, and achieved some success on the Etrich Taube where its planform was inspired by the zanonia (Alsomitra macrocarpa) seed.
  • Bat wing: a form with radial ribs. The 1901 Whitehead No. 21 has been the subject of claims to the first controlled powered flight.
  • Circular: approximately circular planform. The Vought V-173 used large propellers near the tips, which helped to counteract its strong wingtip vortices, and had an outboard tail plane for stability.
" "
Birdlike 		" "
Batlike 		" "
Circular 		" "
Flying saucer 		" "
Flat annular
  • Delta: triangular planform with swept leading edge and straight trailing edge. Offers the advantages of a swept wing, with good structural efficiency and low frontal area. Disadvantages are the low wing loading and high wetted area needed to obtain aerodynamic stability. Variants are:
    • Tailless delta: a classic high-speed design, used for example in the Dassault Mirage III series.
    • Tailed delta: adds a conventional tailplane, to improve handling. Used on the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21.
    • Cropped delta: wing tips are cut off. This helps avoid tip drag at high angles of attack. The Fairey Delta 1 also had a tail. At the extreme, merges into the "tapered swept" configuration.
    • Compound delta or double delta: inner section has a (usually) steeper leading edge sweep as on the Saab Draken. This improves the lift at high angles of attack and delays or prevents stalling. By contrast, the Saab Viggen has an inner section of reduced sweep to avoid interference from its canard foreplane.
    • Ogival delta: a smoothly blended "wineglass" double-curve encompassing the leading edges and tip of a cropped compound delta. Seen in tailless form on the Concorde supersonic transport.
" "
Tailless delta 		" "
Tailed delta 		" "
Cropped delta 		" "
Compound delta 		" "
Ogival delta

Sweep

[edit]

Wings may be swept back, or occasionally forwards, for a variety of reasons. A small degree of sweep is sometimes used to adjust the centre of lift when the wing cannot be attached in the ideal position for some reason, such as a pilot's visibility from the cockpit. Other uses are described below.

  • Straight: extends at right angles to the line of flight. The most structurally-efficient wing, it has been common for low-speed designs since the very first days of the Wright Flyer.
  • Swept back (aka "swept wing"): The wing sweeps rearwards from the root to the tip. In early tailless examples, such as the Dunne aircraft, this allowed the outer wing section to act like a conventional empennage (tail) to provide aerodynamic stability. At transonic speeds swept wings have lower drag, but can handle poorly in or near a stall and require high stiffness to avoid aeroelasticity at high speeds. Common on high-subsonic and early supersonic designs such as the Hawker Hunter.
  • Forward swept: the wing angles forward from the root. Benefits are similar to backwards sweep, also it avoids the stall problems and has reduced tip losses allowing a smaller wing, but requires even greater stiffness to avoid aeroelastic flutter as on the Sukhoi Su-47. The HFB 320 Hansa Jet used forward sweep to prevent the wing spar passing through the cabin. Small shoulder-wing aircraft may use forward sweep to maintain a correct CoG.

Some types of variable geometry vary the wing sweep during flight:

  • Swing-wing: also called "variable sweep wing". The left and right hand wings vary their sweep together, usually backwards. Seen in a few types of military aircraft, such as the General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark and the Grumman F-14 Tomcat.
  • Oblique wing: a single full-span wing pivots about its midpoint, so that one side sweeps back and the other side sweeps forward. Flown on the NASA AD-1 research aircraft.
" "
Straight 		" "
Swept 		" "
Forward swept 		" "
Variable sweep
(swing-wing) 		" "
Variable-geometry
oblique wing

Sweep variation along span

[edit]

The angle of a swept wing may also be varied, or cranked, along the span:

  • Crescent: wing outer section is swept less sharply than the inner section, to obtain a best compromise between transonic shock delay and spanwise flow control. Used on the Handley Page Victor.[19]
  • Cranked arrow: aerodynamically identical to the compound delta, but with the trailing edge also kinked inwards. Trialled experimentally on the General Dynamics F-16XL.
  • M-wing: the inner wing section sweeps forward, and the outer section sweeps backwards. Allows the wing to be highly swept while minimising the undesirable effects of aeroelastic bending. Periodically studied, but never used on an aircraft.[20][21][22]
  • W-wing: A reversed M-wing. Proposed for the Blohm & Voss P.188 but studied even less than the M-wing and in the end never used.[20][22]
" "
Crescent 		" "
Cranked arrow 		" "
M-wing 		" "
W-wing

Asymmetrical

[edit]

On a few asymmetrical aircraft the left and right hand sides are not mirror-images of each other:

  • Asymmetric layout: the Blohm & Voss BV 141 had separate fuselage and crew nacelle offset on either side to give the crew a good field of view.
  • Asymmetric span: on several Italian fighters such as the Ansaldo SVA, one wing was slightly longer than the other to help counteract engine torque.
  • Oblique wing: one wing sweeps forward and the other back. The NASA AD-1 had a full-span wing structure with variable sweep.
" " " " " "
Asymmetrical Torque counteraction
by asymmetric span 		Variable-geometry
oblique wing

Tailplanes and foreplanes

[edit]

The classic aerofoil section wing is unstable in pitch, and requires some form of horizontal stabilizing surface. Also it cannot provide any significant pitch control, requiring a separate control surface (elevator) mounted elsewhere - usually on the horizontal stabilizer.

  • Conventional: "tailplane" surface at the rear of the aircraft, forming part of the tail or empennage. It did not become the convention for some years after the Wrights, with the Blériot VII of 1907 being the first successful example.
  • Canard: "foreplane" surface at the front of the aircraft. Common in the pioneer years, but from the outbreak of World War I no production model appeared until the Saab Viggen in 1967.
  • Tandem: two or more main wings, one behind the other. Both provide significant lift. An example is the Rutan Quickie. To provide longitudinal stability, the wings must differ in aerodynamic characteristics: typically the angle of incidence and/or the aerofoils chosen differ between the two wings. The wings on each side may meet at their tips to form a joined wing (see above).[7]
  • Three surface:[23] both conventional tail and canard auxiliary surfaces. Modern examples include the Sukhoi Su-33, while pioneer examples include the Voisin-Farman I.
  • Outboard tail: split in two, with each half mounted on a short boom just behind and outboard of a wing tip. It comprises outboard horizontal stabilisers (OHS) and may or may not include additional boom-mounted vertical stabilisers (fins). In this position, the tail surfaces interact constructively with the wingtip vortices to significantly reduce drag. Used for the Scaled Composites SpaceShipOne.
  • Tailless: no separate surface, at front or rear. The lifting and stabilizing surfaces may be combined in a single plane, as on the Short SB.4 Sherpa whose whole wing tip sections acted as elevons. Alternatively the aerofoil profile may be modified to provide inherent stability, as on the Dunne D.5. Aircraft having a tailplane but no vertical tail fin have also been described as "tailless".
" "
Conventional tail 		" "
Canard 		" "
Tandem
" "
Three surface 		" "
Outboard tail 		" "
Tailless

Dihedral and anhedral

[edit]

Angling the wings up or down spanwise from root to tip can help to resolve various design issues, such as stability and control in flight.

  • Dihedral: the tips are higher than the root as on the Santos-Dumont 14-bis, giving a shallow 'V' shape when seen from the front. Adds lateral stability.
  • Anhedral or catahedral: the tips are lower than the root, as on the first Wright Flyer; the opposite of dihedral. Used to reduce stability where some other feature results in too much stability.

Some biplanes have different degrees of dihedral/anhedral on different wings. The Sopwith Camel had a flat upper wing and dihedral on the lower wing, while the Hanriot HD-1 had dihedral on the upper wing but none on the lower.

" "
Dihedral
  		" "
Anhedral
  		" "
Biplane with dihedral
on both wings 		" "
Biplane with dihedral
on lower wing

In a cranked or polyhedral wing the dihedral angle varies along the span. (Note that the description "cranked" varies in usage.[24][25][26][27] See also Cranked arrow planform.)

  • Gull wing: sharp dihedral on the wing root section, little or none on the main section, as on the PZL P.11 fighter. Sometimes used to improve visibility forwards and upwards and may be used as the upper wing on a biplane as on the Polikarpov I-153.
  • Inverted gull wing: anhedral on the root section, dihedral on the main section. The opposite of a gull wing. May be used to reduce the length of wing-mounted undercarriage legs while allowing a raised fuselage, as on the German Junkers Ju 87 Stuka dive bomber.
  • Cranked or canted tip: tip section dihedral differs from the main wing. The tips may have upwards dihedral as on the F-4 Phantom II or downwards anhedral as on the Northrop XP-56 Black Bullet.
" "
Gull wing 		" "
Inverted gull wing 		" "
Dihedral tips 		" "
Anhedral tips
  • The channel wing includes a section of the wing forming a partial duct around or immediately behind a propeller. Flown since 1942 in prototype form only, most notably on the Custer Channel Wing aircraft.
" "
Channel wing

Wings vs. bodies

[edit]

Some designs have no clear join between wing and fuselage, or body. This may be because one or other of these is missing, or because they merge into each other:

  • Flying wing: the aircraft has no distinct fuselage or horizontal tail (although fins and pods, blisters, etc. may be present) such as on the B-2 stealth bomber.
  • Blended body or blended wing-body: a smooth transition occurs between wing and fuselage, with no hard dividing line. Reduces wetted area and can also reduce interference between airflow over the wing root and any adjacent body, in both cases reducing drag. The Lockheed SR-71 spyplane exemplifies this approach.
  • Lifting body: the aircraft lacks identifiable wings but relies on the fuselage (usually at high speeds or high angles of attack) to provide aerodynamic lift as on the X-24.
" "
" "
Flying wing 		" "
" "
Blended body 		" "
" "
Lifting body

Some designs may fall into multiple categories depending on interpretation, for example many UAVs or drones can be seen either as a tailless blended wing-body or as a flying wing with a deep centre chord.

Variable geometry

[edit]

A variable geometry aircraft is able to change its physical configuration during flight.

Some types of variable geometry craft transition between fixed wing and rotary wing configurations. For more about these hybrids, see powered lift.

Variable planform

[edit]
  • Variable-sweep wing or Swing-wing. The left and right hand wings vary their sweep together, usually backwards. The first successful wing sweep in flight was carried out by the Bell X-5 in the early 1950s. In the Beech Starship, only the canard foreplanes have variable sweep.
  • Oblique wing: a single full-span wing pivots about its midpoint, as used on the NASA AD-1, so that one side sweeps back and the other side sweeps forward.
  • Telescoping wing: the outer section of wing telescopes over or within the inner section of wing, varying span, aspect ratio and wing area, as used on the FS-29 TF glider.[28]
  • Detachable wing. The WS110A study proposed a long wing for subsonic takeoff and cruise, which then detached the outer panels to drop away, leaving a short-span wing for supersonic flight. (See also Slip wing below.)
  • Extending wing or expanding wing: part of the wing retracts into the main aircraft structure to reduce drag and low-altitude buffet for high-speed flight, and is extended only for takeoff, low-speed cruise and landing. The Gérin Varivol biplane, which flew in 1936, extended the leading and trailing edges to increase wing area.[29]
" "
Variable sweep
(swing-wing) 		" "
Variable-geometry
oblique wing 		" "
Telescoping wing
  		" "
Extending wing
 
  • Folding wing: part of the wing extends for takeoff and landing, and folds away for high-speed flight. The outer sections of the XB-70 Valkyrie wing folded down to enhance compression lift and directional stability during supersonic cruise. (Many aircraft have wings that may be folded for storage on the ground or onboard ship; these are not folding wings in the sense used here.)
" "
Folding wing

Variable section

[edit]
  • Variable incidence: the wing plane can tilt upwards or downwards relative to the fuselage. The wing on the Vought F-8 Crusader was rotated, lifting the leading edge on takeoff to improve performance. If powered prop-rotors are fitted to the wing to allow vertical takeoff or STOVL performance, at extreme angles it merges into the Convertiplane class.
  • Variable camber: the leading and/or trailing edge sections of the whole wing pivot to increase the effective camber of the wing and sometimes also its area. This enhances manoeuvrability. An early example was flown on the Westland N.16 of 1917.[30]
  • Variable thickness: the upper wing centre section can be raised to increase wing thickness and camber for landing and take-off, and reduced for high speed. Charles Rocheville and others flew some experimental aircraft.[31][32][33]
  • Adaptive compliant wing: an adaptive compliant wing may be capable of varying span, sweep, chord length, dihedral, twist, camber, and thickness, as seen on NASA's Advanced Fighter Technology Integration (AFTI) Program F-111.[34][35][36]
" "
Variable incidence
wing 		" "
Variable camber
aerofoil 		" "
Variable thickness
aerofoil

Polymorphism

[edit]

A polymorphic wing is able to change the number of planes in flight. The Nikitin-Shevchenko IS "folding fighter" prototypes were able to morph between biplane and monoplane configurations after takeoff by folding the lower wing up into a cavity in the underside of the upper wing.

The slip wing is a variation on the polymorphic idea, in which a low-wing monoplane is fitted with a second detachable "slip" wing above it to assist takeoff. The upper wing is then released and discarded once in the air. The idea was first flown on the experimental Hillson Bi-mono.

" "
Polymorphic wing 		" "
Slip wing

Minor independent surfaces

[edit]
Various minor surfaces

Aircraft may have additional minor aerodynamic surfaces. Some of these are treated as part of the overall wing configuration:

  • Winglet: a small fin at the wingtip, usually turned upwards. Reduces the size of vortices shed by the wingtip, and hence also tip drag.
  • Strake: a small surface, typically longer than it is wide and mounted on the fuselage. Strakes may be located at various positions in order to improve aerodynamic behaviour. Leading edge root extensions (LERX) are also sometimes referred to as wing strakes.
  • Chine: sharp-edged profile running along the fuselage. When used aerodynamically it is extended outwards to form a lifting surface, typically blending into the main wing. As well as improving low speed (high angle of attack) handling, provides extra lift at high supersonic speeds for minimal increase in drag. Seen on the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird.
  • Moustache: small high-aspect-ratio canard surface having no movable control surface. Typically is retractable for high speed flight. Deflects air downward onto the wing root, to delay the stall. Seen on the Dassault Milan.

Additional minor features

[edit]

Additional minor features may be applied to an existing aerodynamic surface such as the main wing:

High lift

[edit]
High-lift devices

High-lift devices maintain lift at low speeds and delay the stall to allow slower takeoff and landing speeds:

  • Slat and slot: a leading-edge slat is a small aerofoil extending in front of the main leading edge. The spanwise gap behind it forms a leading-edge slot. Air flowing up through the slot is deflected backwards by the slat to flow over the wing, allowing the aircraft to fly at lower air speeds without flow separation or stalling. A slat may be fixed or retractable.
  • Flap: a hinged aerodynamic surface, usually on the trailing edge, which is rotated downwards to generate extra lift and drag. Variations include plain, slotted, and split flaps. Some, such as Fowler Flaps, also extend rearwards to increase wing area. The Krueger flap is a leading-edge device.
  • Cuff: an extension to the leading edge which modifies the aerofoil section, typically to improve low-speed characteristics.

Spanwise flow control

[edit]
Spanwise flow control device

On a swept wing, air tends to flow sideways as well as backwards and reducing this can improve the efficiency of the wing:

  • Wing fence: a flat plate extending along the wing chord and for a short distance vertically. Used to control spanwise airflow over the wing.
  • Dogtooth leading edge: creates a sharp discontinuity in the airflow over the wing, disrupting spanwise flow.[37]
  • Notched leading edge: acts like a dogtooth.[37]

Vortex creation

[edit]
Vortex devices

Vortex devices maintain airflow at low speeds and delay the stall, by creating a vortex which re-energises the boundary layer close to the wing.

  • Vortex generator: small triangular protrusion on the upper leading wing surface; usually, several are spaced along the span of the wing. Vortex generators create additional drag at all speeds.
  • Vortilon: a flat plate attached to the underside of the wing near its outer leading edge, roughly parallel to normal airflow. At low speeds, tip effects cause a local spanwise flow which is deflected by the vortilon to form a vortex passing up and over the wing.
  • Leading-edge root extension (LERX): generates a strong vortex over the wing at high angles of attack, but unlike vortex generators it can also increase lift at such high angles, while creating minimal drag in level flight.

Drag reduction

[edit]
Drag-reduction devices
  • Anti-shock body: a streamlined pod shape added to the leading or trailing edge of an aerodynamic surface, to delay the onset of shock stall and reduce transonic wave drag. Sometimes called a Küchemann carrot.
  • Fairings of various kinds, such as blisters, pylons and wingtip pods, containing equipment which cannot fit inside the wing, and whose only aerodynamic purpose is to reduce the drag created by the equipment.
  • Fillet, a type of fairing: a small curved infill at the junction of two surfaces, such as a wing and fuselage, blending them smoothly together to reduce drag.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Wing configuration

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Wing configuration in refers to the geometric arrangement, shape, and positioning of the wings relative to the , encompassing parameters such as planform shape, , sweep angle, dihedral, and attachment location, all of which critically determine lift generation, drag reduction, stability, and overall flight performance. The aspect ratio, defined as the square of the wing span divided by the wing area (AR = b²/S), is a fundamental metric that influences aerodynamic efficiency; high aspect ratios, common in gliders and long-range transports, minimize induced drag and enhance lift-to-drag ratios for extended endurance, while low aspect ratios in fighter aircraft prioritize maneuverability at the cost of higher drag. Planform shapes vary widely to suit mission requirements: rectangular wings offer simplicity and uniform stall characteristics but higher induced drag, tapered wings reduce tip vortices for better efficiency, swept wings delay compressibility effects at high speeds, thereby increasing the critical Mach number depending on the sweep angle, and delta or elliptical planforms optimize lift distribution for specific applications like supersonic flight or minimal drag. Wing positioning relative to the fuselage further refines stability and handling: high-wing configurations, where wings attach near the top of the fuselage, provide inherent lateral stability through a keel effect that restores level flight after disturbances, equivalent to several degrees of effective dihedral, making them suitable for trainers and transports; in contrast, low-wing setups reduce this stability for improved roll response and maneuverability but often require added dihedral to compensate. Dihedral (upward wing angle, typically 2-5°) enhances roll stability by promoting restoring moments during sideslip, while anhedral (downward angle) counters excessive stability in high-wing designs or boosts agility in fighters. Sweepback, often 10° or more, not only aids high-speed performance by shifting the center of pressure aft of the center of gravity but also contributes approximately 1° of effective dihedral per 10° of sweep, though it can promote spanwise flow leading to outer wingtip stalls if not managed. Historically, early configurations like the ' 1903 Flyer featured rectangular, low wings with positive anhedral for basic control, evolving through testing to optimized cambered airfoils; modern designs balance these elements for diverse roles, from efficient subsonic cruise in airliners to agile operations in combat , underscoring wing configuration's role as a cornerstone of .

Basic Layout

Number and Position of Main Planes

The number and position of main planes refer to the quantity and vertical placement of an aircraft's primary lifting surfaces, which generate the majority of aerodynamic lift through over curved airfoils. A features a single main wing, while a has two wings stacked vertically, typically with a small gap between them; incorporate three such planes, and rarer multiplane designs use four or more, though these have largely remained experimental curiosities due to escalating structural complexity. The configuration originated with the ' 1903 Flyer, which prioritized structural rigidity and high lift for early powered flight, dominating aviation through as wooden framing and wire bracing limited viability. emerged briefly during the 1917 fighter "craze" for enhanced maneuverability and pilot visibility in dogfights, exemplified by the British , but production ceased by war's end due to repair challenges and minimal performance gains over . The transition to accelerated in the and solidified by the 1930s, driven by advances in wing using metal , which eliminated bracing wires and reduced drag for higher speeds. In designs, the main wing's position relative to the influences stability, , and clearance. High-wing configurations mount the wing above the , often on or directly attached, enhancing roll stability and downward for applications like . Mid-wing placements align the wing at mid-height, minimizing interference drag for streamlined performance in fighters and transports. Low-wing setups position the wing below the , improving upward and enabling shorter for weight savings, though they may complicate cabin access. wings elevate the single plane high above the on , often for improved pilot and reduced aerodynamic interference in early monoplanes, and in seaplanes to shield from water spray, as seen in 1920s designs like the Heath homebuilt. Aerodynamically, monoplanes excel in high-speed efficiency due to lower induced drag from larger, unbraced spans, making them ideal for modern commercial and military jets. Biplanes and triplanes, conversely, provide superior low-speed lift through higher wing area in a compact footprint, suiting early fighters like the 1917 , a rotary-engined renowned for agile combat turns at speeds below 100 mph. Structurally, multiplane setups like s distribute loads across multiple surfaces, enabling up to 60% lighter weight and greater integrity under stress compared to equivalent monoplanes, though at the cost of increased profile drag from interplane and wires. This allows shorter overall spans for easier storage and roll rates, a trait retained in contemporary ultralights such as the Dingo and aerobatic aircraft like the Pitts S-2C, which leverage compactness for unlimited-g maneuvers in airshows. These configurations form the basis for lift generation via pressure differentials over the wing, setting the stage for refinements in planform without altering core aerodynamic principles.

Wing Support and Attachment

Wing support and attachment refer to the structural mechanisms that connect wings to the , ensuring the transfer of aerodynamic, inertial, and ground loads while maintaining rigidity and minimizing weight. These methods have evolved to balance structural integrity with aerodynamic efficiency, primarily through internal or external bracing systems. wings are self-supporting structures that rely on internal and skins to bear all loads without external bracing, a design prevalent in modern monoplanes such as the , where the wing box integrates , , and to form a torsionally rigid beam. The primary spar, often placed at the point of maximum wing thickness, carries the majority of bending moments, while secondary structures like and stringers prevent and distribute shear. This configuration uses a mono-spar or multi-spar system, with the mono-spar offering up to 40% weight savings over two-spar designs under optimal conditions, though actual implementations include additional bracing for torsional stiffness. In contrast, braced wings employ external or wires to supplement internal structure, as seen in early biplanes like the of 1903, which utilized drag and anti-drag wires tensioned between vertical to form a rigid that resisted and shear. These wires, running diagonally across wing bays, maintain alignment and counteract compression loads, enabling lighter internal but introducing from the bracing elements. Attachment to the fuselage typically occurs via root fittings, where wing spars connect to fuselage bulkheads using high-strength bolts or pins to transfer shear and moment loads directly. Wing boxes, common in large aircraft, encapsulate the root section as a closed-cell structure for enhanced torsional resistance, while pylon mounts are used in high-wing designs to elevate the wing above the fuselage, isolating engine or landing gear loads. In pylon configurations, such as those on cargo aircraft with four engines, the pylons act as short cantilever beams bolted to the wing lower surface, distributing vertical and lateral forces.
AspectCantilever WingsBraced Wings
AdvantagesLower induced and due to clean external surface.Lighter overall structure (up to 25% wing weight savings); allows higher aspect ratios with reduced bending moments; potential for higher (up to 28% improvement over cantilever in optimized designs).
DisadvantagesRequires stronger, heavier materials for internal load-bearing (e.g., thicker ); higher complexity.Increased drag from /wires (5-10 times higher for non-streamlined elements); potential flutter risks at high speeds.
The historical transition from braced to cantilever designs began in the early , with the of 1915 marking the first practical all-metal wing, driven by the need to reduce drag as speeds increased beyond limitations. Post-World War I advancements in aluminum stressed-skin construction accelerated this shift, culminating in the dominance of cantilever monoplanes by and fully internal structures in after , as external bracing became incompatible with speeds. Load paths in wing roots primarily involve shear forces from lift distribution and bending moments from asymmetric loading, peaking at the attachment point where the entire wing's vertical shear (e.g., up to 1.5 times limit load per FAA standards) and moment are reacted by the fuselage. Shear is carried by spar webs in vertical and chordwise directions, while bending moments induce tension in lower spar caps and compression in upper caps, with stresses calculated as σ=MyI\sigma = \frac{M y}{I} where MM is the moment, yy the distance from neutral axis, and II the moment of inertia—highest at the root due to cumulative outboard loads. This distribution necessitates oversized root fittings to prevent fatigue, ensuring the wing box or carry-through structure in the fuselage absorbs up to 100% of the bending relief.

Planform Characteristics

Aspect Ratio

The (AR) of a wing is a key planform characteristic defined as the square of the wing span bb divided by the total wing planform area SS, expressed by the formula AR=b2SAR = \frac{b^2}{S} This dimensionless parameter quantifies the relative slenderness of the wing, with higher values indicating longer, narrower designs and lower values denoting shorter, broader ones. For rectangular wings, AR simplifies to the ratio of span to chord length. In practice, AR directly influences aerodynamic efficiency by affecting induced drag, which arises from wingtip vortices and is inversely proportional to AR. High aspect ratio wings, commonly exceeding 20 in gliders and sailplanes, minimize induced drag, promoting efficient cruise performance and extended endurance. For instance, the reconnaissance aircraft features an AR of approximately 10.6, enabling high-altitude loitering with glider-like efficiency. These designs excel in applications requiring low drag during unpowered or long-range flight, such as sailplanes, where AR values up to 39 have been documented. Conversely, low aspect ratio wings, typically below 4 in , enhance maneuverability and structural robustness by reducing spanwise bending loads and allowing higher roll rates. The General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon, with an AR of 3.2, exemplifies this approach, prioritizing agility in combat over cruise efficiency. Such configurations provide greater resistance to gusts and simplify construction, making them suitable for short takeoff and landing () aircraft operating in turbulent environments. The aspect ratio significantly impacts the maximum lift-to-drag ratio (L/D), primarily through its role in the induced drag coefficient CDi=CL2π⋅AR⋅eC_{D_i} = \frac{C_L^2}{\pi \cdot AR \cdot e}, where ee is the Oswald efficiency factor accounting for planform non-idealities. Higher AR values increase ee (often approaching 1 for elliptical plans) and reduce CDiC_{D_i}, thereby elevating peak L/D and improving overall aerodynamic performance. This relationship underscores AR's centrality in optimizing range and fuel economy for transport and reconnaissance roles. Trade-offs arise with extreme AR values: high AR designs demand reinforced structures to counter increased wing root bending moments from distributed lift, elevating overall weight in composite implementations compared to lower AR equivalents. Additionally, they heighten stall risks due to spanwise flow divergence, promoting early tip stall and potential lateral instability at high angles of attack. In contrast, low AR mitigates these issues but incurs higher induced drag, limiting efficiency in sailplanes versus STOL platforms like tactical transports. For irregular planforms, AR computation employs the mean aerodynamic chord (MAC), defined as the chord length yielding equivalent total lift and moment to the actual wing. As of , projects like the European HERWINGT initiative are developing high composite wings for hybrid-electric regional , aiming to reduce fuel consumption by 20-30% while managing aeroelastic challenges through and active controls.

Chord Variation Along Span

Chord variation along the span refers to how the wing's chord length—the straight-line distance from the to the trailing edge—changes from the (where the wing attaches to the ) to the tip. This variation influences lift distribution, induced drag, structural , and overall aerodynamic performance. Common types include rectangular, tapered, and elliptical planforms, each offering distinct trade-offs in simplicity, , and manufacturing complexity. Rectangular wings maintain a constant chord length along the entire span, resulting in a simple, uniform geometry. This design simplifies manufacturing and while providing a relatively even lift distribution, though it generates higher induced drag due to stronger tip vortices. Such wings are commonly used in basic trainers and low-speed , exemplified by the , where ease of production and predictable handling outweigh efficiency losses. Tapered wings feature a chord that decreases linearly or otherwise from to tip, defined by the λ, which is the tip chord divided by the chord. Typical values range from 0.2 to 0.5, balancing aerodynamic and structural demands; lower ratios (e.g., 0.2) reduce induced drag by approximating an elliptical lift distribution and minimize tip vortices, enhancing . Structurally, tapering places more material at the to handle higher moments, resulting in lighter tips that improve roll response and overall weight savings compared to rectangular designs. For instance, many and employ linear tapers for this compromise between performance and build simplicity. Elliptical wings achieve the ideal chord variation for minimum induced drag, with the chord following an elliptical curve that tapers smoothly to the tips, producing a uniform and lift distribution across the span according to Prandtl's . This configuration minimizes induced drag for a given by eliminating higher-order terms, as the lift varies elliptically with spanwise position. However, elliptical planforms are rare due to manufacturing challenges, such as requiring custom spars; the of the 1930s remains a notable exception, where the design contributed to low drag and high maneuverability despite added complexity. In modern applications, particularly for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) since the , computational fluid dynamics (CFD) has enabled optimized chord variations beyond traditional shapes, such as lambda wings—cranked configurations with varying taper for enhanced low-speed stability and reduced drag. These designs, often iteratively refined via CFD simulations, improve lift-to-drag ratios in and drones by tailoring spanwise loading to mission-specific flows, demonstrating up to 10-15% efficiency gains over uniform tapers in low-Reynolds-number regimes.

Sweep and Taper Configurations

Wing sweep refers to the angle at which the wing is angled relative to the fuselage, typically measured as the angle between a line perpendicular to the root chord and the 25% chord line along the span. This measurement at the quarter-chord point accounts for the aerodynamic center's location, providing a consistent metric for performance analysis. Sweep configurations include aft-swept (backward-angled), forward-swept (forward-angled), and variable-sweep designs, with the latter allowing in-flight adjustment for optimized performance across speed regimes. Aft-swept wings primarily benefit and supersonic flight by delaying the formation of shock waves, as the component of velocity normal to the spanwise direction is reduced, effectively lowering the local and postponing effects. The , operational in 1944 as the first swept-wing jet aircraft, exemplified this through its 18.5-degree aft sweep, which balanced center-of-gravity issues while serendipitously enhancing stability and speed, influencing postwar designs like the . Combining sweep with taper optimizes structural efficiency and aerodynamic loading; compound taper, where the chord varies nonlinearly along the span, alleviates bending moments by shifting lift inboard on aft-swept wings, reducing wing-box structural weight for a given aspect ratio. In oblique wing configurations, one wingtip sweeps forward while the opposite sweeps aft relative to the fuselage centerline, promoting symmetric loading and potential drag reduction; NASA's AD-1 demonstrator in the 1980s tested this pivot-based design to explore efficiency gains over conventional sweeps. Variations in sweep along the span, such as cranked designs, further tailor performance by blending low-sweep inboard sections for high-lift with high-sweep outboard for drag reduction, elevating the overall —the speed at which local supersonic flow first appears. The F-14 Tomcat's , incorporating a double-delta-like cranked profile when partially extended, achieved a around 0.8 at low sweeps, rising to over 1.0 at full 68-degree aft sweep to enable Mach 2.4 dashes while maintaining maneuverability. Despite these advantages, swept wings exhibit drawbacks at low speeds, including reduced lift generation due to spanwise flow that diminishes the effective angle of attack and aspect ratio, necessitating higher takeoff and landing speeds. Stall progression often initiates at the tips because outward-migrating boundary layers reduce local lift there first, potentially causing pitch-up and loss of aileron effectiveness before root stall. For compressibility corrections, the effective of a swept wing is adjusted as Meff=Mcos⁡ΛM_{\text{eff}} = M \cos \Lambda, where Λ\Lambda is the sweep , approximating the wing's to that of a straight wing at a reduced for flow analysis. In hypersonic applications, highly swept configurations integrate the wing and body to ride their own for lift and compression; the X-51A, tested successfully in the , featured a cranked-sweep forebody at about 50 degrees to attach the , enabling sustained operation at Mach 5.1 for over 200 seconds during its 2013 flight.

Angular and Symmetrical Features

Dihedral and Anhedral

Dihedral refers to the upward angle of an 's wings relative to the horizontal plane, forming a positive V-shape when viewed from the front, which enhances lateral stability by creating a restoring roll moment during sideslip. This configuration mimics a effect, where a sideslip causes the lower wing to experience a higher relative , generating greater lift on that side to return the to level flight. In commercial airliners, such as the , dihedral angles typically range from 5° to 7° to balance stability with performance. Anhedral, conversely, involves a downward angle of the wings relative to the horizontal, creating a negative V-shape that reduces lateral stability but improves roll responsiveness, particularly in high-wing configurations where inherent stability from the wing position might otherwise limit maneuverability. This design is evident in aircraft like the , which employs approximately 7° of anhedral to enhance agility despite its high-wing layout. The dihedral or anhedral angle is measured from the horizontal plane at the outward to the wingtip, with variations possible along the span; for instance, a gull-wing configuration features an inverted dihedral (anhedral) in the inboard section transitioning to positive dihedral outboard, as seen in designs like the to optimize ground clearance and stability. Aerodynamically, dihedral induces a lift differential during sideslip: the relative wind component perpendicular to the low wing increases its local , producing a rolling moment that opposes the disturbance, while also influencing dynamics by coupling roll and yaw oscillations. Anhedral reverses this effect, promoting quicker roll rates at the expense of self-righting tendency. The roll moment contribution from dihedral can be approximated using the stability derivative ClβC_{l_\beta}, the rolling moment coefficient due to sideslip angle β\beta, where Clβ≈kΓC_{l_\beta} \approx k \Gamma (with kk a configuration-dependent factor involving the lift curve slope and aspect ratio, and Γ\Gamma the dihedral angle in radians), leading to a total roll moment coefficient Cl≈ClββC_l \approx C_{l_\beta} \beta. This relation highlights how larger Γ\Gamma increases lateral stability, though practical values are limited by drag penalties. In applications, sailplanes utilize high dihedral angles, often exceeding 4°-5°, to maximize lateral stability for efficient soaring in variable winds without constant pilot input. Conversely, fighters incorporate anhedral, as in the , to prioritize roll agility and rapid maneuvering over inherent stability, relying on systems for control. Historically, the adoption of dihedral in early monoplanes followed stability challenges and crashes around 1910, as pioneers recognized the need for inherent roll restoration; Sir George Cayley had proposed dihedral wings in the early 19th century for this purpose, influencing post-1910 designs to mitigate lateral instability.

Asymmetrical and Unswept Designs

Asymmetrical wing designs deviate from the conventional symmetry of aircraft wings, where one wing may feature sweep while the other remains straight, creating intentional imbalance for specific aerodynamic advantages. A prominent example is the NASA Ames-Dryden AD-1 oblique wing aircraft, tested from 1979 to 1982, which featured a single pivoting wing that could rotate up to 60 degrees to produce asymmetry, allowing the left and right sides to have different sweep angles during flight. This configuration aimed to combine the low-speed efficiency of unswept wings with the high-speed benefits of swept wings, while the inherent asymmetry provided enhanced yaw stability and control authority without relying solely on traditional rudders. In modern applications, asymmetrical wings have been explored for improved yaw control in challenging conditions, such as crosswinds during operations. For instance, bio-inspired drones can induce controlled wing asymmetry to generate yaw moments independently of altitude adjustments, reducing by up to 85% in gusty winds and decoupling directional control from primary lift mechanisms. Such designs are particularly beneficial for VTOL vehicles, where symmetrical configurations may struggle with lateral stability in uneven , allowing asymmetrical setups to provide corrective torques that mitigate sideslip and enhance maneuverability. Unswept wing designs, characterized by straight leading edges with zero sweep angle, prioritize performance at low speeds by maximizing the maximum (C_L max), typically achieving values around 1.5–1.8 for clean configurations compared to 1.2–1.4 for moderately swept wings. This higher C_L max enables superior stall characteristics and shorter takeoff/landing distances, making unswept wings ideal for and operating below Mach 0.3. The , introduced in 1936, exemplifies this with its nearly straight rectangular wings, which contributed to efficient low-speed handling and reliability in regional transport roles, though they limit performance due to earlier onset of shock waves and drag rise. Aerodynamically, unswept wings excel in subsonic regimes by maintaining attached flow at higher angles of attack, but their lack of sweep restricts maximum speed to avoid effects, often capping cruise at 250–300 knots for piston-engined types. In contrast, asymmetrical variants can augment this by leveraging differential lift for active control, aiding VTOL transitions where crosswind stability is critical. Joined-wing configurations represent a rare asymmetrical variant, forming a box-kite-like where forward and aft wings connect at their tips, distributing loads truss-style for reduced weight and induced drag. The SensorCraft concept from the early 2000s explored this for high-altitude, long-endurance UAVs, achieving up to 20% lower drag through optimized spanwise lift distribution. More recently, post-2020 designs like the MyDraco have adopted joined wings to enhance efficiency in , minimizing vortex drag while supporting distributed for vertical lift. Stability in joined-wing aircraft benefits from the mutual bracing of the wings, which can be analyzed through longitudinal equilibrium equations for dual-wing systems. The force balance is given by: Lf+La=Wcos⁡αL_f + L_a = W \cos \alpha where LfL_f and LaL_a are lifts from the forward and aft wings, WW is aircraft weight, and α\alpha is the angle of attack. The moment balance about the center of gravity requires: xfLf−xaLa=0x_f L_f - x_a L_a = 0 with xfx_f and xax_a as the horizontal distances from the CG to the aerodynamic centers of the forward and aft wings, respectively; positive static margin emerges when the aft wing's destabilizing effect is countered by appropriate sizing and positioning. This setup provides inherent pitch stability superior to conventional monoplanes, with experimental models demonstrating neutral points shifted aft by 10–15% of mean chord.

Auxiliary Lifting Surfaces

Tailplanes and Foreplanes

The tailplane, also known as the horizontal stabilizer, is a fixed or adjustable lifting surface mounted aft on the empennage of conventional fixed-wing aircraft, providing longitudinal stability by counteracting pitching moments from the main wing. Positioned behind the center of gravity, it typically operates at a negative angle of incidence to generate downforce, balancing the upward lift of the wing and ensuring the aircraft returns to equilibrium after pitch disturbances. Common placements include low-tail configurations at or near the fuselage base for easy stall recovery and T-tail designs where the horizontal surface mounts atop the vertical fin to minimize interference from wing downwash or propeller slipstream. Tailplanes appear in various types, with the cruciform configuration—integrating a horizontal stabilizer with a central vertical fin—serving as the standard for most aircraft, offering balanced pitch and yaw control. An alternative is the V-tail, or butterfly tail, which combines horizontal and vertical stabilization into two converging surfaces controlled by ruddervators for combined pitch and yaw inputs; this design debuted on the Beechcraft Model 35 Bonanza in 1947. Intended to reduce drag with fewer surfaces, the V-tail encountered issues with structural integrity and flutter, contributing to a higher accident rate and leading to FAA-mandated modifications; production of V-tail models ended in 1983. Tailplanes are sized relative to the main wing, typically comprising 20-40% of the wing area to achieve a horizontal tail volume coefficient of 0.5-1.0, ensuring adequate moment arm for stability without excessive weight. They may be fixed with trailing-edge elevators for control or configured as stabilators, fully movable surfaces that enhance effectiveness at high speeds, as seen in many fighter jets. Aerodynamically, the damps short-period pitch oscillations by producing restoring moments proportional to changes and enables trim adjustments via incidence shifts or deflections to maintain steady flight across center-of-gravity variations. In conventional setups, it often exerts , influenced by that reduces its effectiveness at low speeds. Historically, tailplanes evolved from the braced tail booms and wire-supported empennages of early biplanes, which provided basic stability amid structural limitations, to the integrated, swept designs in that accommodate compressibility effects and higher dynamic pressures. T-tail configurations, prominent in rear-engine jets like the , offer advantages such as clearance from exhaust plumes and reduced aerodynamic interference but introduce risks like deep stall, where wing wake blankets the tail at high angles of attack, potentially locking the in an unrecoverable pitch. Foreplanes, as forward-mounted horizontal stabilizers, serve similar stabilizing roles but ahead of the wing, contrasting with aft tailplanes.

Canards and Other Foreplanes

A canard is a small forewing or foreplane mounted on the forward ahead of the main wing in , primarily to enhance and pitch control. This configuration dates back to the of 1903, the first successful powered airplane, where the brothers employed a controllable canard surface for pitch control to compensate for the lack of inherent stability in their design. Modern examples include the , a multirole fighter that integrates canards for improved maneuverability in high-angle-of-attack regimes. Canards are classified into lifting and control types based on their primary function. Lifting canards contribute significantly to overall aircraft lift, often sized to generate positive force during cruise and climb, which helps optimize trim without requiring the main wing to produce excess lift. In contrast, control canards, as seen in the Eurofighter Typhoon, primarily serve pitch control and trim functions with minimal lift contribution, acting like forward-mounted elevators to adjust the aircraft's attitude. Pusher-propeller configurations are common with canards, as the rear-mounted propeller avoids interference with the foreplane and accommodates the aft-shifted center of gravity typical of these designs. Key advantages of canards include efficient pitch control that avoids the download force required on conventional tailplanes for trim, allowing both the canard and main to produce positive lift and thereby reducing induced drag. When properly sized, lifting canards enhance stall resistance by stalling before the main , which naturally lowers the and prevents deep stalls, improving safety in low-speed maneuvers. However, disadvantages arise from potential tendencies if the canard does not stall first, leading to unstable nose-high attitudes, and from the canard's wake shadowing the main , which can disrupt and reduce main efficiency at certain angles of attack. Beyond standard canards, other foreplane configurations include tandem wings, where forward and aft surfaces of comparable size share lift duties for enhanced low-speed and structural efficiency. The , a 1970s homebuilt , exemplifies this approach with its lifting canard and pusher propeller, achieving high efficiency in recreational flying. Canard designs typically feature a short static margin—the distance between the center of gravity and the neutral point—resulting in relaxed or even negative , which demands controls for safe operation but enables superior agility in fighters. The leverages this with its close-coupled canard-delta layout, providing rapid pitch response and enhanced maneuverability for air-to-air combat. Post-2015 advancements in additive manufacturing have facilitated the development of 3D-printed canard UAVs, enabling of complex foreplane geometries for aerodynamic testing. For instance, the TERES-02 canard UAV model, fabricated via fused deposition modeling (FDM) in 2017, allowed precise evaluation of lift and drag characteristics in experiments, accelerating design iterations for small unmanned systems.

Fuselage Integration

Conventional Wings Versus Blended Designs

Conventional wing configurations feature discrete attachments where the wing roots are joined directly to the , creating a sharp junction that separates the lifting surfaces from the body, as seen in aircraft like the Airbus A320. This design simplifies manufacturing and maintenance, allowing independent access to and components, but it introduces aerodynamic penalties at the interface. In conventional setups, the - junction generates interference drag through the formation of horseshoe vortices and separation, where the fuselage interacts with the , typically contributing 1-2% of total drag. Blended designs mitigate this by incorporating smooth fairings or transitional surfaces that gradually merge the and , reducing vortex strength and flow disruption via principles like area ruling, which smooths the overall cross-sectional area distribution to minimize . For instance, contoured -body fairings on modern airliners promote attached flow at the junction, yielding interference drag reductions of up to 20% compared to unblended configurations in blended -body studies. The shift toward blended configurations accelerated in the post-1950s era with the adoption of Richard Whitcomb's , which addressed drag issues in early jets by reshaping for smoother wing integration; the F-102, initially limited by sharp junctions, achieved a 25% speed increase and broke after area-ruled modifications that indented the fuselage waist. Structurally, blended designs distribute loads more evenly across the integrated , reducing root bending moments by up to half in optimized cases, though they complicate due to inaccessible internal junctions. Examples include early post-war jets with abrupt attachments giving way to modern like the B-2 Spirit, which employs extensive blending to further suppress and aerodynamic signatures.

Flying Wings and Lifting Bodies

Flying wings are configurations in which the entire consists of a single structure that generates all aerodynamic lift, eliminating separate fuselage and components. This design integrates and within the , optimizing structural efficiency. Pioneering examples include the German , a jet-powered developed in 1944–1945 that featured a swept- layout for high-speed performance. In the United States, Northrop's YB-49, first flown in 1947, represented a turbojet-powered evolution of earlier piston-engine flying wings, achieving endurance flights exceeding 6.5 hours above 40,000 feet. The modern B-2 Spirit, with its first flight in 1989 and entering service in 1997, exemplifies operational success with its all-wing form enabling global strike capabilities while minimizing radar detectability. Lifting bodies, by contrast, are airframes where the fuselage shape itself provides the majority of lift without relying on conventional wings, often featuring a wing-like body with minimal or no attached lifting surfaces. NASA's M2-F1, an unpowered built in 1962 and first flown in 1963, validated this concept through over 100 towed and air-launched glides, demonstrating stable reentry and landing for . These designs address space vehicle recovery needs, with subsequent powered variants like the M2-F2 advancing control techniques in the late 1960s. Stability in flying wings and lifting bodies presents unique challenges due to the absence of traditional . Longitudinal stability in pitch is achieved through wing sweep angles and reflexed trailing-edge airfoils, which position the aft of the center of gravity, ensuring a negative pitching-moment with to (C_{m_\alpha} < 0) for inherent restoring moments. Yaw stability and control rely on split rudders or differential drag devices at the wingtips, such as the elevons on the B-2, which create asymmetric drag to induce sideslip without vertical surfaces. These configurations offer advantages like reduced drag from minimized wetted surface area and enhanced stealth through low-observable shaping, as seen in the B-2's radar cross-section reduction. However, they introduce control complexities, including inherent instability requiring advanced systems for trim and maneuverability. Historically, flying wing development faced setbacks, such as the YB-49 program's cancellation in 1950 due to structural and engine issues, but concepts persisted. Modern advancements include NASA's demonstrator, tested from 2007 to 2012, which explored efficient subsonic transport with up to 20% fuel savings over conventional designs. Ongoing NASA and industry into blended wing-body configurations as of 2025 continues to target up to 30% reductions in fuel burn and emissions for future commercial transports by 2035. In the 2020s, electric vertical takeoff and landing () vehicles have incorporated elements of distributed propulsion for , with several companies advancing toward FAA type certification and targeting commercial operations in the mid-2020s.

Variable Geometry Systems

Variable Sweep and Planform

Variable sweep wings, also known as swing wings, enable to adjust the sweep angle of their wings during flight, thereby altering the planform to optimize aerodynamic performance across a range of speeds. This configuration pivots the outer wing sections around a fixed root, typically using a located near the , allowing the sweep angle to vary from a low value for enhanced lift at subsonic speeds to a high value for reduced drag at supersonic speeds. A prominent example is the , where the wings pivot between 20° and 68° sweep, facilitating efficient takeoff, landing, and high-speed dash capabilities. In some designs, smaller auxiliary surfaces provide targeted planform adjustments for specific flow regimes. Glove vanes, for instance, are pivoting panels on the fixed leading-edge root extensions of the wing, which deploy upward at low speeds to alleviate drag and improve lift without requiring full wing sweep changes. The General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark employed glove vanes integrated into its wing gloves, hinging to optimize over the engine intakes and enhance low-speed handling while the main wings swept from 16° to 72.5°. These vanes represent a hybrid approach to planform modification, combining fixed and variable elements for relief. Broader planform alterations in variable sweep systems occur through the extension or retraction of wing sections relative to the , effectively changing the and wetted area. As the wings sweep forward, the planform extends outward, increasing effective span for better low-speed lift; conversely, aft sweep retracts this projection, streamlining the profile for high-speed flight. This dynamic adjustment is achieved via the primary pivot mechanism, which repositions the trailing and leading edges in relation to the . The actuation of these systems relies on robust mechanical components to ensure reliable operation under high loads. Hydraulic actuators, often powered by the aircraft's central hydraulic , drive the pivot motion, with rates up to 8° per second in designs like the F-14. These actuators are synchronized across both wings via interconnecting shafts or electronic controls to maintain , while mechanical locks engage at selected sweep positions to provide structural against aerodynamic and inertial forces. Redundant systems, including emergency hydraulic backups, mitigate failure risks in these complex assemblies. The primary benefits of variable sweep and planform adjustments stem from their ability to balance conflicting aerodynamic demands: unswept configurations maximize lift coefficients (C_L) for short takeoffs and landings, as seen in the Panavia Tornado's 25° to 67° range, while swept positions delay formation and reduce at and supersonic speeds. This versatility expands the operational envelope, enabling multirole missions from low-level strikes to high-altitude intercepts. The impact of sweep on effects is quantified by the effective Mach number perpendicular to the , given by Meff=Mcos⁡ΛM_{\text{eff}} = M \cos \Lambda, where MM is the freestream and Λ\Lambda is the sweep angle; this reduction in MeffM_{\text{eff}} postpones the onset of drag divergence. Despite these advantages, variable sweep systems introduce significant drawbacks, including increased weight from actuators, hinges, and reinforcements—adding significant additional structural mass compared to fixed wings—and heightened mechanical complexity that elevates maintenance costs and failure potential. Gaps at the pivot points can generate or signatures, compromising stealth. Consequently, many variable-sweep have been retired, such as the U.S. F-14 in 2006, though the remains operational as of mid-2025, with Germany's maintaining 22 electronic combat reconnaissance variants for suppression of enemy air defenses missions.

Variable Camber and Section

Variable camber refers to the dynamic adjustment of an 's , primarily through modifications to the trailing edge, to optimize the (CLC_L) without altering the wing's planform area. This is typically achieved using trailing edge flaps or flexible surfaces that conform smoothly to the shape, allowing for real-time adaptation to flight conditions. In the F-111 Mission Adaptive Wing () program, variable camber was implemented via hydraulically actuated flexible skins on the leading and trailing edges, enabling seamless deflection to adjust CLC_L for enhanced performance across subsonic and regimes. Section changes involve varying the airfoil's thickness ratio, often through compliant structures and flexible skins that allow the wing profile to thicken or thin in response to aerodynamic demands. These designs employ elastomeric or composite skins that stretch or compress to maintain structural while altering the local thickness, thereby influencing distribution and drag characteristics. For instance, rigid-flexible coupled leading-edge structures with variable-thickness composite skins have been developed to achieve precise deformation angles under load, supporting camber adjustments without discrete gaps. Actuators for these systems include hydraulic mechanisms for high-force applications in larger aircraft and piezoelectric materials for lightweight, rapid-response control in smaller platforms. Hydraulic power drive units (PDUs), as used in the F-111 MAW, provide robust deflection with gear ratios up to 975:1, ensuring smooth contour changes via rotary actuators integrated into the wing structure. Piezoelectric actuators, such as macro-fiber composites (MFCs), enable solid-state morphing by bonding directly to the skin, producing distributed strains for high-frequency camber variations without mechanical linkages. Shape memory alloy (SMA) actuators, explored in post-2010 research, offer compact, low-weight solutions by exploiting phase transformations for one-way or two-way shape recovery, as demonstrated in mission-adaptive flap systems for unmanned vehicles. Such configurations enhance cruise efficiency by optimizing camber for minimum drag at high speeds and provide maneuver load alleviation by redistributing lift to reduce wing root stresses during dynamic flight. In the Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) tests conducted in 2005 on a modified F/A-18, trailing-edge flaps and leading-edge devices were actuated to induce controlled twist and camber changes, successfully alleviating gust loads and improving roll performance while meeting handling quality criteria. Aerodynamically, camber modifications increase CLC_L by effectively augmenting the , approximated in thin as CL=2π(α+τ)C_L = 2\pi (\alpha + \tau), where α\alpha is the geometric and τ\tau represents the camber-induced twist or deflection parameter. This approach allows lift tailoring without area penalties, though practical implementations are constrained by bandwidth and skin fatigue limits observed in extended testing.

Morphing and Polymorphic Wings

Morphing wings enable continuous, seamless adaptation of wing shape during flight, allowing to optimize aerodynamic performance across varying conditions by altering parameters such as twist, camber, and spanwise bending. This technology draws inspiration from natural flight mechanisms, where wings dynamically adjust to enhance efficiency, maneuverability, and lift. In contrast, polymorphic wings involve discrete, mode-specific transformations, such as folding or reconfiguring sections to switch between flight regimes or storage configurations. Both approaches represent advanced evolutions in wing configuration, integrating multi-attribute changes beyond isolated adjustments like camber alone. A prominent example of morphing technology is NASA's 2010 Fund on elastically shaped future air vehicles, which demonstrated spanwise twist and outboard bending deflections on flexible wings to improve and reduce noise. These adaptations were applied at specific spanwise locations, achieving up to 10% drag reduction in flight through continuous . Further advancements include NASA's 2017 mission-adaptive digital composite aerostructures, which used servo-actuated carbon fiber rods to induce spanwise , enabling real-time adjustments for diverse mission profiles. In the 2010s, collaborative efforts between MIT and developed modular, lightweight morphing wings capable of twisting and bending without traditional hinges, mimicking bird-like flexibility to enhance low-speed handling and high-speed cruise performance. Polymorphic wings facilitate abrupt, discrete shifts in configuration, such as folding mechanisms for compact storage or mode transitions in vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) operations. NASA's Ingenuity Mars helicopter, which operated from 2021 to 2024, incorporated foldable rotor blades that deploy from a stowed position, enabling efficient launch from the Perseverance rover and autonomous flight in the thin Martian atmosphere. Similar concepts extend to winged vehicles, where polymorphic designs allow rapid reconfiguration between rotorcraft and fixed-wing modes, as explored in advanced Mars aerial vehicle prototypes that switch between hovering and forward flight for extended range. These discrete changes support multi-mission versatility, particularly in constrained environments like planetary exploration. Enabling these transformations are smart materials, including shape memory alloys (SMAs) and adaptive composites, which respond to thermal, electrical, or mechanical stimuli for precise actuation. SMAs, such as nickel-titanium wires, contract upon heating to drive wing twisting or folding, offering high force density in compact forms integrated into composite skins. Advanced composites with embedded SMA actuators allow for seamless surface morphing without gaps, as demonstrated in torsional tube designs that achieve large deformations while maintaining structural integrity. These materials facilitate both continuous morphing and discrete polymorphism, with applications in UAVs where wings adjust (AR) to balance loiter efficiency (high AR for ) and strike maneuverability (low AR for ). Such multi-mission capabilities can yield up to 20% improvements in range and payload efficiency compared to fixed-wing designs. Despite these advantages, challenges persist in actuation energy demands and material , particularly for SMAs that exhibit low energy efficiency (often below 5%) and degrade after thousands of cycles due to phase transformation . The Smart Wing program in the early highlighted these issues during wind-tunnel tests of adaptive trailing-edge flaps, where integrated piezoceramic actuators achieved seamless deflection but faced limitations in bandwidth and under repeated loading. Ongoing addresses fatigue through hybrid composites and optimized control systems to minimize energy penalties. Recent developments in the incorporate AI-driven simulations to optimize morphing shapes, as of 2025 including NASA's continued work on flexible technologies for improved . Bio-inspired concepts, like bat-like folding wings, further advance VTOL capabilities; modular drone designs replicate bat wing kinematics with hinged segments that fold for storage and deploy for flapping or gliding, achieving agile perching and takeoff in confined spaces.

Aerodynamic Optimization Features

High-Lift Devices

High-lift devices are deployable aerodynamic surfaces on aircraft wings designed to augment lift during low-speed operations such as , primarily by altering the wing's camber, effective chord, or area while managing airflow separation. These mechanisms address the inherent in wing design, where high cruise efficiency requires thin airfoils with limited low-speed lift capacity. Leading- and trailing-edge devices work in tandem to delay and increase the maximum (C_L max), enabling shorter runways and safer operations. Leading-edge high-lift devices, including slats and , prevent airflow separation at high angles of attack by accelerating air over the wing's upper surface. Slats are auxiliary airfoils that extend forward and downward from the , creating a slot that energizes the with high-energy airflow from below the wing; typical deployments reach 15° to 38° deflection, with slot gaps of 1-2% of wing chord. , often used inboard on , pivot downward and forward from the wing's underside at angles of 60° to 85°, forming a drooped leading edge that increases effective camber and extends the chord by approximately 20-25%. These devices are particularly effective on swept wings, where they mitigate the tendency for early at the root. Trailing-edge flaps modify the wing's rear profile to enhance lift through increased camber and, in some cases, area expansion. Plain flaps hinge downward to increase camber without slots, limited to about 20° deflection to avoid separation. Split flaps deflect only the lower surface, producing high drag but moderate lift gains. Fowler flaps, the most advanced type, combine slotting with rearward and downward translation via tracks or linkages, extending the wing area by up to 25-30% (e.g., a 30% chord flap can add significant effective area during full deployment). Slotted variants, such as single-, double-, or triple-slotted Fowler flaps, incorporate gaps to channel high-pressure air over the flap surface, delaying separation and allowing deflections up to 40° for single-slotted or 65°-80° for multi-slotted designs. Deployment of high-lift devices is typically actuated by hydraulic systems for precise control and high , using actuators, , or rotary mechanisms connected to power drive units (PDUs); pneumatic actuation is less common but used in some lighter systems for . Slotted configurations in both leading- and trailing-edge devices are critical for boundary layer energization, as the slot directs accelerated airflow to reattach the on the main wing and flap surfaces, sustaining lift at higher angles of attack. The primary effects of high-lift devices include elevating C_L max from typical clean-wing values of 1.2-1.5 to 2.0-2.5 in full configuration, which reduces stall speed by 20-30% and improves performance by shortening required distances. For instance, during takeoff, partial deployment (e.g., 10°-20° flap) balances lift and drag for optimal climb gradients, while landing uses maximum settings for steep approaches and low speeds. An approximate relation for lift increment with simple flaps is given by ΔCL≈0.9×(δf20∘)\Delta C_L \approx 0.9 \times \left( \frac{\delta_f}{20^\circ} \right) where δf\delta_f is the flap deflection angle in degrees, valid for moderate deflections on unswept wings. Notable examples include the Boeing 737 Next Generation's double-slotted trailing-edge flaps, which provide efficient lift augmentation with reduced complexity compared to earlier triple-slotted designs, enabling reliable operation across 1° to 40° settings. Historically, the slotted wing concept originated in the 1910s with Handley Page's experiments, where fixed slots near the leading edge demonstrated early boundary layer control to boost maximum lift, influencing subsequent slat developments patented around 1919-1921. Despite their benefits, high-lift devices introduce trade-offs, including increased drag (up to 2-3 times cruise levels in configuration) that necessitates higher settings, and added structural from actuators, tracks, and fairings—e.g., multi-slotted systems can weigh 4,000-5,000 lb per , comprising 2-3% of empty . These penalties are mitigated through optimized designs but limit cruise .

Spanwise Flow Control

Spanwise flow control encompasses a range of aerodynamic techniques aimed at regulating the flow of air in the direction parallel to the wing span, thereby mitigating issues such as spanwise , uneven lift distribution, and premature at the wing tips. By promoting more uniform airflow across the wing, these methods enhance overall aerodynamic performance, reduce induced drag, and improve without significantly increasing structural complexity. Early developments in this area focused on passive devices, while recent advancements incorporate active systems for . Winglets represent a foundational passive approach to spanwise flow control, consisting of upturned or curved extensions at the wing tips that weaken tip vortices by redirecting outward-spilling air upward and inward, thus approximating an elliptical lift distribution. The -300ER, entering service in 2004, utilizes raked wingtips as a winglet alternative, which sweep backward to create a natural barrier against spanwise flow, yielding up to a 2% improvement in through reduced drag. Similarly, blended winglets—smoothly curved structures integrated into the wing—have been retrofitted on variants, delivering approximately 5% fuel savings by minimizing vortex-induced drag. The exemplifies advanced passive control with its raked wingtips, which provide a winglet-like effect without added vertical surfaces, achieving about 5.5% drag reduction while offering weight savings and structural simplicity. fences and vortex generators further address spanwise flow by employing small, fixed plates or protrusions that create localized vorticity to block low-momentum migration toward the tips. On the , vortilons—short, fence-like tabs along the —effectively disrupt spanwise flow, suppressing tip stall and promoting attached flow across the span. These passive techniques yield benefits such as more even lift distribution along the , which delays onset and enhances roll stability, particularly at high angles of attack. Aerodynamically, they reduce induced drag by 10-20% in optimized designs, as demonstrated in foundational wind-tunnel tests where winglets altered effective and vortex geometry. One simplified metric for winglet efficiency is given by η=1−11+(tb)2,\eta = 1 - \frac{1}{1 + \left(\frac{t}{b}\right)^2}, where η\eta represents the efficiency factor, tt is the tip chord or effective height parameter, and bb is the span, illustrating how geometric ratios influence drag mitigation. Active methods, such as spanwise blowing, involve directing compressed air jets along the wing span from slots or nozzles to re-energize the boundary layer and counteract separation tendencies. This approach delays flow separation by inducing spanwise momentum that mixes high-energy freestream air into the boundary layer, increasing lift coefficients and postponing stall to higher angles of attack. NASA investigations on fighter configurations confirmed that spanwise blowing improves induced drag polars and enhances overall wing loading capabilities. Post-2015 innovations in active flow control include plasma actuators, which use to ionize air and generate body forces for spanwise flow manipulation without mechanical components. These devices, embedded along the span, produce micro-vortices that control separation on swept wings, offering potential for adaptive, low-power operation in real-time flight conditions. Research on subscale models has shown plasma actuators effectively suppress spanwise instabilities, contributing to uniform lift and reduced drag in flows.

Vortex Management and Drag Reduction

Vortex generators are small, low-profile vanes or tabs mounted on the surface to create micro-vortices that energize the and delay . These devices induce controlled spanwise , mixing high-momentum fluid from the outer flow into the near-wall region, thereby reducing the likelihood of on aircraft at high angles of attack. For instance, vane-type vortex generators aligned with the flow can be rotated upon detection of separation to enhance control, as demonstrated in wind-tunnel experiments on low-speed models. Strakes and leading-edge extensions (LEX) are forebody or wing-root structures that generate stable leading-edge vortices to augment lift during high-angle-of-attack maneuvers on . These sharp-edged surfaces promote vortex formation along their leading edges, where the vortex core induces low-pressure suction over the wing, contributing to nonlinear lift increments beyond the linear regime of attached flow. On the F/A-18 Hornet, LEX vortices interact with the main wing flow to maintain lift at angles up to 50 degrees, enabling post-stall maneuverability. Similarly, the employs LEX to stabilize inner wing vortices by merging with intake ramp flows, enhancing overall at high alpha. Chines, sharp-edged protrusions at the fuselage-wing junction, manage forebody vortices to prevent asymmetric bursting and improve stability. By controlling vortex shedding from the fuselage blend, chines generate inboard rotational flows that augment lift while mitigating side forces in yawed conditions. This vortex interaction shifts the effective center of pressure, enhancing pitch control on advanced fighters like the F-22. The lift from these vortices, known as vortex lift CLvC_{L_v}, can be approximated by the relation CLv≈KΓVSC_{L_v} \approx K \frac{\Gamma}{V S} where KK is a configuration-dependent constant, Γ\Gamma is the vortex circulation, VV is the freestream velocity, and SS is the reference wing area; this derives from the Kutta-Joukowski theorem adapted for leading-edge vortices on swept wings. For drag reduction, riblets—microscopic grooves inspired by shark skin denticles—align with the flow to suppress turbulent fluctuations in the , yielding net skin friction reductions of up to 8% on surfaces. Boeing's 1980s flight tests on a B-757 demonstrated this through vinyl-film appliqués, confirming sustained drag benefits without significant operational penalties. Passive dimple-like roughness, analogous to dimples that trip the to early and delay separation, has been explored conceptually for but primarily serves as a reference for understanding transition effects rather than widespread implementation. Laminar flow control via , particularly in hybrid systems, mitigates vortex-induced transition to on modern hybrid designs. NASA's 2020s investigations into hybrid control (HLFC) use leading-edge slots to maintain laminar extent over 30-50% of the chord, reducing overall drag by suppressing early vortex formation in favorable pressure gradients on transports.

References

  1. https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/beginners-guide-to-aeronautics/wing-geometry/
  2. https://eaglepubs.erau.edu/introductiontoaerospaceflightvehicles/chapter/wing-shapes-and-nomenclature/
  3. https://pressbooks.lib.vt.edu/aerodynamics/chapter/chapter-1/
  4. https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/07_phak_ch5_0.pdf
  5. https://eaglepubs.erau.edu/introductiontoaerospaceflightvehicles/chapter/aerospace-structures/
  6. https://www.britannica.com/technology/triplane
  7. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19950020536/downloads/19950020536.pdf
  8. https://www.historynet.com/the-triplane-fighter-craze-of-1917/
  9. https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/wings-wright-brothers-present
  10. https://albertaaviationmuseum.com/part-one-bye-plane-the-transition-from-biplane-to-monoplane/
  11. https://engre.co/blogs/articles/from-ailerons-to-flaps-the-main-stages-of-design-of-an-aircraft-wing/
  12. https://www.britannica.com/technology/parasol-wing
  13. https://generalaviationnews.com/2010/03/02/the-parasol-era/
  14. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19840020710/downloads/19840020710.pdf
  15. https://highsierrapilots.club/f-1-sopwith-camel-aircraft-profile/
  16. https://www.skycombatace.com/blog/top-4-aerobatic-aircraft
  17. https://www.facebook.com/EAA/posts/the-dingo-ultralight-biplane-is-a-modernized-take-on-bob-hoveys-1971-wing-ding-d/1025600392927250/
  18. https://www.kitplanes.com/design-process-cantilever-wings/
  19. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19930090899/downloads/19930090899.pdf
  20. https://www.kitplanes.com/what-a-drag/
  21. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19950006580/downloads/19950006580.pdf
  22. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19800023869/downloads/19800023869.pdf
  23. https://archive.aoe.vt.edu/mason/Mason_f/KoMS.pdf
  24. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19960004074/downloads/19960004074.pdf
  25. https://aerotoolbox.com/wing-structural-design/
  26. https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/VirtualAero/BottleRocket/airplane/geom.html
  27. https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/beginners-guide-to-aeronautics/induced-drag-coefficient/
  28. https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/unlimited-horizons.pdf
  29. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/low-aspect-ratio-wings
  30. https://aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f16/
  31. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19660028848/downloads/19660028848.pdf
  32. https://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/OPerA/OPerA_PUB_DLRK_12-09-10.pdf
  33. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20120011870/downloads/20120011870.pdf
  34. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19710021678/downloads/19710021678.pdf
  35. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19930091829/downloads/19930091829.pdf
  36. https://www.flightglobal.com/aerospace/herwingt-project-progresses-wing-designs-for-next-generation-regional-turboprop/163634.article
  37. https://www.boldmethod.com/blog/lists/2015/06/6-wing-planform-designs/
  38. https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/16-01-unified-engineering-i-ii-iii-iv-fall-2005-spring-2006/67bd719047babb2159b4d6460250d66d_spl8a.pdf
  39. https://eaglepubs.erau.edu/introductiontoaerospaceflightvehicles/chapter/lifting-line-theory/
  40. https://www.key.aero/article/spitfires-elliptical-wing-explained
  41. https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.C037258
  42. https://www.mdpi.com/2504-446X/9/7/462
  43. https://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/HOOU/AircraftDesign_7_WingDesign.pdf
  44. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19900019224/downloads/19900019224.pdf
  45. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19640014908/downloads/19640014908.pdf
  46. https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/probing_the_sky.pdf
  47. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19910019863/downloads/19910019863.pdf
  48. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19960023626/downloads/19960023626.pdf
  49. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19850015391/downloads/19850015391.pdf
  50. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19960045290/downloads/19960045290.pdf
  51. https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/aerodynamics/dihedral-keeping-your-wings-level/
  52. https://airvectors.net/avb747.html
  53. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/dihedral-effect
  54. https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/aerodynamics/dutch-roll/
  55. https://theaviationgeekclub.com/heres-why-the-harrier-jump-jet-needs-anhedral-wings-to-hover/
  56. https://www.britannica.com/technology/history-of-flight/Construction-of-the-sustaining-wings-the-problem-of-lift
  57. https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ThinkingObliquely-ebook.pdf?emrc=509d00
  58. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/aisy.202200297
  59. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367285207_Wind_Defiant_Morphing_Drones
  60. https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/82211/how-do-coefficient-of-lift-drag-variation-with-speed-differs-between-swept-and-u
  61. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/swept-wings
  62. https://evtol.news/mydraco
  63. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1392873
  64. https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2015-1182
  65. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/tailplane
  66. https://eaglepubs.erau.edu/introductiontoaerospaceflightvehicles/chapter/aircraft-stability-control/
  67. https://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/HOOU/AircraftDesign_9_EmpennageGeneralDesign.pdf
  68. https://planeandpilotmag.com/beechcraft-v-35-v-tail-bonanza/
  69. https://airfactsjournal.com/2012/06/tail-tale-what-was-wrong-with-v-tail-bonanza-pilots/
  70. http://aero.us.es/adesign/Slides/Extra/Stability/Design_Tail/Chapter%206.%20Tail%20Design.pdf
  71. https://skybrary.aero/articles/canard
  72. https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2018/february/flight-training-magazine/what-am-i-canard
  73. https://simpleflying.com/what-are-canards-in-aviation/
  74. https://pilotinstitute.com/canard-wings/
  75. https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=772139
  76. https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/83584/are-canards-actually-more-efficient
  77. https://www.aeroclass.org/planes-with-canards-advantages-and-drawbacks/
  78. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19870013196/downloads/19870013196.pdf
  79. https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/rutan-varieze/nasm_A19860067000
  80. https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdfplus/10.2514/6.1985-1803
  81. https://www.matec-conferences.org/articles/matecconf/pdf/2017/47/matecconf_bultrans2017_01002.pdf
  82. https://www.sjsu.edu/ae/docs/project-thesis/Brar.Randhir%202Nov14.pdf
  83. https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/beyond_tube-and-wing_tagged.pdf
  84. https://www.nasa.gov/history/SP-4219/Chapter5.html
  85. http://oddjob.utias.utoronto.ca/dwz/Miscellaneous/ReistZingg2014.pdf
  86. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20010013825/downloads/20010013825.pdf
  87. https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/858861/northrop-yb-49/
  88. https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104482/b-2-spirit/
  89. https://www.nasa.gov/aeronautics/nasa-the-m2-f1-look-ma-no-wings/
  90. https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/sp-4220.pdf
  91. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19950006282/downloads/19950006282.pdf
  92. https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/195832/northrop-b-2-spirit/
  93. https://www.afmc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2041005/flashback-back-to-the-future-the-resurgence-of-the-flying-wing-in-the-21st-cent/
  94. https://www.nasa.gov/aeronautics/x-48b/
  95. https://ir.jobyaviation.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/156/joby-begins-power-on-testing-of-first-conforming-aircraft
  96. https://pilotinstitute.com/variable-sweep-wing/
  97. https://www.airvectors.net/avf111.html
  98. https://ijmret.org/paper/V4I6/04060911.pdf
  99. https://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/paper/SCHOLZ_PRE_DLRK2005_Mach_Number_Wing_Relative_Thickness_2005-09-26.pdf
  100. https://www.key.aero/article/germanys-tornado-wild-weasels
  101. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19920012951/downloads/19920012951.pdf
  102. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1000936123003084
  103. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1045389X13500575
  104. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20140006948/downloads/20140006948.pdf
  105. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20050212234/downloads/20050212234.pdf
  106. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19930027277/downloads/19930027277.pdf
  107. https://www.mdpi.com/2673-8392/5/3/101
  108. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20110023698/downloads/20110023698.pdf
  109. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20170006192/downloads/20170006192.pdf
  110. https://news.mit.edu/2016/morphing-airplane-wing-design-1103
  111. https://rotorcraft.arc.nasa.gov/Publications/files/An_Advanced_Helicopter_Design_SW_ASCEND_final.pdf
  112. https://science.nasa.gov/mission/mars-2020-perseverance/ingenuity-mars-helicopter/
  113. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666691X25000739
  114. https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/SMASIS/proceedings/SMASIS2014/46155/V002T02A014/286239
  115. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1270963817316954
  116. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249357290_Overview_of_the_DARPA_smart_wing_project
  117. https://www.nasa.gov/aero-morphing-wing-technology/
  118. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346687464_Design_and_Analysis_of_a_Modular_VTOL_Drone_With_Bat-Inspired_Wings
  119. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19960052267/downloads/19960052267.pdf
  120. https://skybrary.aero/articles/krueger-flaps
  121. https://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/HOOU/AircraftDesign_8_HighLift.pdf
  122. https://www.b737.org.uk/flightcontrols.htm
  123. https://eaglepubs.erau.edu/introductiontoaerospaceflightvehicles/chapter/airfoil-characteristics/
  124. https://econterms.net/aero/Slotted_wing
  125. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19760019075/downloads/19760019075.pdf
  126. https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2002-10-01-New-Boeing-777-Raked-Wing-Tips-Improve-Fuel-Efficiency-Good-for-the-Environment
  127. https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2010/t_5.html
  128. https://simpleflying.com/boeing-787-winglets/
  129. https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/351749-why-vortilons-dc-9-md-80-b717.html
  130. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19750022030/downloads/19750022030.pdf
  131. https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.J057876
  132. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20030000983
  133. https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2020-0788
  134. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19970001799/downloads/19970001799.pdf
  135. https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdfplus/10.2514/1.C034473
  136. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20040090503/downloads/20040090503.pdf
  137. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19970016457/downloads/19970016457.pdf
  138. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19670003842/downloads/19670003842.pdf
  139. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19880005573
  140. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0376042102000489
  141. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20200000702/downloads/20200000702.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.