MARCH I I ,

1920

THE CASE FOR THE CANTILEVER WING

BY " MARCO POLO the first example of aeroplanes with wings having expected to give in the way of maximum lift coefficients no external wing bracing, or, as they are now generally called, L/D, etc. What chiefly prompted the writer to take an interest in cantilever wings, to fall into our hands was the Fokker trithe thick cantilever wing was not any surmise based on deep plane, a specimen of which was on view at the Enemy Aircraft aerodynamical knowledgeHeaven forfend such a presumpExhibition at the Agricultural Hall, Islington. Although this tionbut the evidence of growing popularity of this type machine was by no means beyond criticism as regards its of wing in Germany. Common sense appeared to indicate wing construction, it nevertheless marked a very important that the German authorities, " up against it " as they were, step in wing design, one that was to play an important part would scarcely allow this type of wing to be so extensively in the future development of German wing design as applied employed, merely to oblige private firms like Fokker or to small and medium-sized machines. One need only refer
PROBABLY

/
/

OIS O-I4 013 0-12

06 P.?. 0 OS

Aerefat H ? l

C "0-0817

s,

JlDrc
u

fe r- /
10/

7" N
pro^.
^X y

XL
> ^

1 Xy

/
^vop fx

on
o-vo ft-O9

u o

O-4

Ul

o-s
02

//L r 1 1
i
{

4 >

0-

ooa 007
0-0& 0 05

/ /
> <

n d
n

IO-O

vn

y
y
^

001

01

y
-2-0
1

1 2'O

Iy

?
2-O
1

003 008

001 0

>-0 I

8O 1

too 1

I2-O 1.

I&O

to such well-known typeg as the Fokker D VII, the armoured Junkers, and the Hansa Brandenburg seaplanes, which latter at one time were a serious menace to our aerial supremacy in the North Sea. In spite of the successes scored by the different types of cantilever wing machines, our own authorities remained singularly indifferent to the thick wing section. So much so, that, up to the time of writing, no deep wing resembling the Fokker or Junkers has been subjected to wind tunnel tests at the National Physical Laboratory. It is true that a thick section has been tested in model form, but this represented the centre section of a Fokker wing, and thus is by no means a criterion of the characteristics of the complete wing. From tests it was known, long before the advent of the German cantilever wings, that a deeply cambered section, although it may have a high maximum lift coefficient, is not as efficient as some thinner wings, i.e., has a relatively low value of L/D. This fact it was, apparently, which kept our designers and aeronautical experimenters from paying any attention to the thick, tapered wing section. The writer has discussed this wing section with several of our designers, and in the majority of cases their argument was somewhat as follows : " Yes, that is all very well, but the thick section is inefficient. There is nothing in it." I entirely agree, so long as one means by a thick section a uniform thick section. But when we come to the tapered section, washed out in camber, incidence, and chord from root to tip, then it is possible that quite a dAHerent light is thrown on the subject. It is in order to attempt an estimate of the characteristics of a thick tapered aerofoil that the writer has summed up his courage and has dared to oppose the consensus of opinion of those whose experience is vastly superior, and has tried to form an approximate estimate of what a complete wing of thick section at the root, tapering in plan form and having a decreasing camber towards the tip, may reasonably be

AeroloU H4. 1-0-127

) TO /t 0B
.<

o.nr

J
0A

IQ- 4

(frfi

\
\
\ / /

I \

5.

0 ai

r 5
> j

|daa no /

/ \ \

1 a-o
0-4 \

0-2

\
\ \

Ski. 0
-I 1 _ ^ -1

f ] / /
/

/
TO &O Stil

[ /

\ \ / \
HS

vI
V

OJfe

U5

p
0

DOL

/
/

/_ -ptc^ru A
y
< 1a 16

\1

z
iOi [U2fi
[YO

20

a4-

/7C 2