Hello All,
Was just wondering after looking at some pictures of the German Stuka, why the bent wing design?
I know the Corsair had it because of mating the large propeller to the most powerful engine at that time.
Just curious, because the Stuka doesn’t look as though the prop is that large. Was it because of the non-retractable landing gear?
Were there other notable aircraft with the bent wing design?
Thanks to any and all who might take time to answer.
Regards,
Joe
This is quoted directly from Squadron in action #73 and is echoed in two other Stuka books that I grunged through:
The thick two-spar wings were an inverted-gull configuration to provide optimum diving strength, clearance for both the propeller and bomb load, and allow for the shortest possible undercarriage to reduce drag.
I wouldn’t call the Heinkel He 112 notable, but it had an inverted-gull wing design. Although it wasn’t as pronounced as on the Corsair or the Stuka…
Fade to Black…
The Corsair gull wing wasn’t just about the prop size. It also meant a shorter, and therefore sturdier, undercarriage (important for a carrier aircraft), and it also meant that the wings joined the fuselage at a 90 degree angle, which reduced drag. It also looked dead cool!! [:D][:D][:D]
Hey Guys,
Thanks for the replies. Was the Corsair design “borrowed” from the Germans? Seems it would have at least provided some inspiration.
Regards,
Joe
I don’t think so. The gull wing design on both aircraft was utilized for different reasons. The corsair was just designed like that to provide enough height for the prop to clear the deck but without making the landing gear legs too long. They wanted a bogger prop so the power from the P&W R-2800 engine was best used and the short landing gear was neccesary so on rough carrier landings the legs wouldn’t buckle.
And as Blackwolf said the stuka needed the design for the extra strength it gave in a dive and because the gear wasn’t retractable they wanted to make it as short as possible to reduce drag. Also clearance was needed for bomb load and prop.
hope this helps.
Then there is the B-25 with an inverted Gull wing design.
You do mean ‘gull’ and not ‘inverted gull’, right? [;)]
Fade to Black…
O.K. folks. If the B-25 had the gull wing design (bend to the upper side?), what was the reason for that?
Regards,
Joe
Joe,
The B-25 was first produced with a constant dihedral wing. I think only the first nine were built this way.
Anyhoo, there were stability problems which led to the redesign of the wing resulting in the gull configuration which we all know and love today…
Fade to Black…
BlackWolf3945,
As you might guess from my user name I’m a bit more familiar with armor than aircraft. Would you please explain “constant dihedral wing”? And as far as what it looks like now I’ll have to take a head on look at a B-25 to see what it looks like.
Regards,
Joe
Yeah, I guess I shoulda explained before, but I’m a lazy bastige sometimes! LOL
Anyhoo, there’s dihedral and anhedral. Dihedral is the upward angle of an aircraft’s wings, from wingroot to wingtip. Anhedral is just the opposite, being the downward angle of an aircraft’s wings. (the Harrier being a good example of an aircraft whose wings have anhedral)
The first nine B-25’s had a constant dihedral wing, referred to some as a ‘straight wing’, as seen below:
All subsequent B-25’s had the gull wing as seen below:
Fade to Black…
I don’t think anybody borrowed the idea from anybody - the gull and inverted gull design had been around for quite a while. Hard to say what was the first plane to use it.
BlackWolf3945,
Thanks for the explanation. So, is the gull wing a dihedral wing? Do all aircraft have either anhedral or dihedral wings? Are there any with a straight (from wing root to wing tip) parallel to the ground? You know, zero degree of rise or fall?
Regards,
Joe
The inverted gull wing is usually considered a dihedral wing, as the tips of the wing are higher than the wing roots.
Dihedral in general creates a given amount of stability about the longitudinal axis (roll axis). The amount of stability required by the aircraft’s design specs is what determines the degree of dihedral.
Anhedral is less stable, in general, about the roll axis.
Not all aircraft have pronounced anhedral or dihedral. Many aerobatic aircraft have very little to NO dihedral, as they want neutral static and dynamic stability characteristics about the longitudinal axis (roll axis) of the aircraft. What neutral static and dynamic stability does for the aerobatic plane is allow it to essentially “stay where the pilot puts it” in regards to pitch/roll/yaw. This is good for flying precise aerobatic maneuvers, as you aren’t constantly fighting design-induced aircraft tendencies to roll wings level or drop it’s nose, etc.
CaptainBrazilia,
Thanks, I think. Only thought I was confused before the explanation.
So, what are the advantages (in English) of one design over the other espescially when combat aircraft are concerned?
And why have something like the F-4 PhantomII where the wing is upswept and the tail down?
Regards,
Joe
P.S. please don’t feel bad that I got lost on your explanation, shucks, they do it to me all the time on the armor board and I’m a bit more familiar with that stuff.
Sorry about that…heh…
The advantage of dihedral is that it typically makes an airplane more stable. This can be good or bad, depending upon what the purpose of the aircraft is. In a fighter, you want less stability and more maneuverability. In a trainer (i.e. a Cessna 172) you want more stability than maneuverability. A happy medium is usually sought on each aircraft design depending upon what the requirements for that particular aircraft are.
As far as the Phantom is concerned, it has basically a flat wing (with the tips slightly up-swept) with an anhedral tail. I’m not 100% sure about why the tail is swept down, but I’d imagine it has a bit to do with the interaction of the horizontal tail with the airflow around the aft part of the fuselage. I’d guess that in order to get the tail more into the slipstream and therefore make it more effective, the had to angle it down some.
But of course, I didn’t design THAT aircraft, so I could be wrong! 
I was tryin’ to keep it simple for 'ya Panther! The best laid plans usually get mucked up… [:p]
Fade to Black…
Come on! That wasn’t THAT confusing, was it? [:(]
Well, ya gotta remember, he IS a tread-head… [;)]
Fade to Black…
BlackWolf3945,
It wasn’t your explanation that got me turned on my head. That one from CaptainBrazilia is the one I’m still trying to recover from. He did very well in his follow up. Also, thanks for understanding the limitations of this “tread head”.
CaptainBrazilia,
Thanks for the follow up, it did help quite a bit.
And thanks to ChrisJH666, pingtang, rjkplasticmod, and John P for the information you provided. It was a real pleasure reading all the replies. As Rocky Gooch would say “blue skies”.
Regards,
Joe