Dropped out of school, Submarines for a short time, ME degree, Aircraft in structural design.
Fuel cost as such was not an issue. Range was a significant design requirement. Meeting a proper area rule was an element of drag in transitional speed and supersonic, due to undesirable drag due to shock waves. In the wrong place, separation/ drag/ shock waves could ruin aircraft control also.
Everytime I wanted to to change the outside mold line for better structure or cost, the first thing was to see if it would penalize aerodynamics and ruin the aerodynamic testing which defined the performance. I virtually always lost, especially when the change was near the max cross section or affected the tails and wings.
You don't see a wasp waist just due to the extensive integration of the whole exterior surface.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kach22i
I thought you were a submarine guy?
I imagine that fuel cost was a factor over packaging concerns on that project. Or perhaps an aircraft which spends a lot of time in the transitional speeds between subsonic and supersonic speeds.
On boats and hovercraft there is " getting over the hump (hump speed)" transition from displacement mode to planing or hover mode. It would be of interest to me to find out if there is a similar Whitcomb Rule/Area Rule for these types of watercraft. Thinking perhaps narrow bow and wide stern so the front pops up with the rear to follow. Triangular not rectangular footprint.
Why do super sonic fighter jets have narrow waist? [duplicate]
supersonic - Why do super sonic fighter jets have narrow waist? - Aviation Stack Exchange
 |