well as bae does have a stake in airbus and airbus IS EADS (or the other way around if you like, it doesnt seem to matter to the europeans) then i would assume they at least have a secondry stake in eads……I think that this is the right choice, and BAe Systems has plenty to be getting on with without adding too much more in terms of workload…….

coanda

thanx for the link…….the TSR2 is my fave aircraft…..ever!

flanker_man is correct the appendix skips from 1221 to 1226……i think that this is because of the way tony has decided to include designs……doesnt look like this one made it very far at all……..

coanda

I used to scoff at the idea of a plasma based stealth……..I am now a believer…….

……..you will have to become one too.

coanda

true, if the programs not up to the job then its not worth anything….but the program they have at uni is good enough for our purposes I suppose…needless to say we wont be doing much full vehicle 3d dynamics….as a matter of interst I’m going to put the nose section of the F22 into the prog (CFX5) with a sting and measure (and at least view) the vortex pattern created by the nose chine.

coanda

I think i am in the lucky position of both experiencing these devices in flight and learning about them through my aerospace degree.

You’ll see that there are certain advantages over certain types of leading edge devices.

Leading edge devices are useful not only in terms of lift, but perhaps more critically in reducing the effective angle of attack of a flapped airfoil.

A flapped airfoil it can be proven stalls before a none flapped airfoil (in the more well known sense of TE stall, as most airfoils in general use have ‘nice’ flow appreciative curved leading edges).

The way in which this can easily by shown is by drawing a line from the trailing edge to the leading edge of an airfoil with and without some kind of flap extension.

Thus you will see that the flapped wing has an effectively higher angle of attack.

with a drooped leading edge it can be seen that this same angle of attack is reduced as the leading edge of the airfoil is lowered.

another advantage of leading edge slats is the increase in speed produced through the ‘throat’ of the system between the trailing edge of the slat and the leading edge of the rest of the wing. this increases flow speed in this region and provides a more laminar flow over the wing at higher angles of attack, which otherwise would increase the chances of flow transition(and leading edge flow seperation) leading to the stall from an artificially ‘sharper’ leading edge.

Perhaps another way of thinking of a wing with leading edge device and a flap is to remember the shape of first world war (and indeed the wrightflyer craft) airfoils. nothing more than a curved sheet in practice.

in this case pressure differential and thus lift occurred because of the low pressure vortex occuring within the confines of the undersurface of the airfoil and the free stream flow. The sharp leading edge partly permitted flow breakaway and the free stream kept that vortex in place. in effect this completes the airfoils shape and provided the shape required for lift.

High lift devices do increase drag in increased frontal area drag besides drag due to lift.

There is more than one way of explaining what ‘lift’ fundamentally is and those ways are sometimes applicable in one area only (the vortex theory is useful in symmetrical airfoils with nil angle of attack for example) and situations occur when more than one theory will provide the same equally valid result.

However as i progress through my course (only 5 months left now) I have come to see that using CFD as a tool for analysis really is the best way to achieve the required results as by using the navier stokes equations there are no ‘conditional’ equations and you can solve everything you want at the same time. Computing power is however still a severe restriction.

hope this helps some what!

coanda