"just a pleasing shape" says the good book. Well, firstly how do you get
a pleasing shape when supplied with only one sectional view (p 10-86a)
which shows a root radius equal to the gap. This would lead to a radius
varying from almost zero at the spar, to a maximum at the leading and
trailing edges ; hardly a pleasing shape. So are we supposed to saw out
the wing root flange for constant gap ? Providing you have some flange
left everywhere this would still enable the lower bid to run from the
underside as shown, but the radius would remain quite small -not like
that seen on standard aeroplanes which seem to be from half the wing
thickness to a fuselage radius (stealth bomber) or infinity for the
flying wing. And maybe it "doesn't matter" but it would be nice if we had
a plot of the parasite drag against radius to guide us (David Dykes ?).
Going for larger than gap-radius means departing from the parallel sided
bid design, as the lower bid, if still starting from the underside of the
flange will enclose volume above the wing. Whether or not the foam is
left in here, the structure will be much more rigid, which may or may not
be a bad thing, according to whether it is needed to take up fixed gap
error, or move with wing flexing.
What have the "fliers" done ?
gemin
|