Aerodynamics of Wings and Bodies by Holt Ashley & Marten Landahl

Are you currently pursing either a Diploma in Aerospace Avionics or Aerospace Engineering? Or, are you interested in aircraft and would like to know more about how airplanes are able to fly in the sky despite carrying heavy loads? If the answer is ‘Yes’ to either of the above, I have an excellent book to recommend to you.

Aerodynamics of Wings and Bodies focuses on the dynamics of aircrafts’ wings and bodies. Comprising 13 chapters, each chapter has been arranged in a sequential manner to aid readers’ understanding and begins by explaining the fundamentals then subsequently progressing to dealing with the specifics.

The authors have also allocated two separate chapters to explain the aerodynamics of wings and bodies, thereby allowing readers to have a clearer perspective of these two distinct parts. After having understood how these work, the concepts of aircraft flow and drag are explained.

To sum it all, this book will likely serve as a useful tool for aspiring aerospace engineers to analyze problems which they will face under both academic and practical settings. So, perhaps, you may wish to check out this book while studying at RP!

Location: North

Call number: TL 570 ASH 1985

Written by Chen Si Kai

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Aerodynamics of Wings and Bodies by Holt Ashley & Marten Landahl

  1. Mark Brorson says:

    I’m wondering why flying wings are said to have less drag and have the potential to go much faster than conventional designs? Aren’t the effects of drag similar in all fluids? If so why don’t submarines have the same shape, or bullets? Certainly I understand the necessity of lift but biplanes have more drag than monoplanes and the speedsters we know about (SR-71, F-104, B2-B etc.) are all based on a fusalage design.

  2. Yit Chin Chuan says:

    Mark, I think you need to put that statement into a more suitable perspective. Flying wings are generally considered to have less drag is more based on a comparison of the overall surface area being exposed to the drag effect. If you compare a flying aircraft which is basically just consisting of wings to another aircraft which has the same wings + fuselage – it is obvious that the second aircraft would have to handle more drag when compared with the first.

    Submarines aren’t a suitable comparison as they work in a slightly different environment – the main purpose of wings is really for lift – submarines don’t need lift as how deep or how shallow they need to be in water is controlled by ballast. So yes, to reduce drag – it makes more sense to have a sharp end-to-end design.

    Bullets are meant as a projectile so not appropriate to compare (so are missles) who’s main purpose is to hit a target. We don’t really design aeroplanes to fly and hit something. We need them to be able to land safely too. The bullet design whilst meaningful to achieve high speeds – doesn’t offer a good safe option for landing.

    B2-B is very close to a wing design (notice it’s missing a tail) – but yes it has a protuberating cockpit which doesn’t totally qualify it as a flying wing. The blackbird SR71 achieved its speed (for its time) more due to the innovation to the engine (i.e. achived through propulsion technology rather than anything to do with whether it is a fuselage design versus flying wing design. The Starfighter (F-104) needed a change in its wing design from the conventional delta wings.

    End of the day – it’s not really about wings versus fuselage approach. The fuselage method had been employed for a very long time – and it is unlikely to make much headway at increasing speeds – that’s why some have proposed a focus on the wings only approach. But the wings only approach has a big challenge in terms of enabling the housing of the flying crew and other equipment needed to be carried by a plane. For all we know – maybe the UFO fanatics have it right that flying saucers might be a more suitable design (i.e. a spinning disc has a potential to reduce drag too).

    Just sharing my perspective.

    Yit

  3. Francy Chong says:

    I’m wondering why flying wings are said to have less drag and have the potential to go much faster than conventional designs?
    A flying wing is a type of aircraft design with no tail, one in which the majority of the fuselage is inside a thickened wing. Since a wing is necessary for any aircraft, removing everything else theoretically results in a design with the lowest possible trim drag. A modification in which the fuselage is still retained is known as the tail-less design. The interaction drag (e.g., between wing and fuselage) and the fuselage drag will be less for the flying wing as well.

    Aren’t the effects of drag similar in all fluids?
    No. It is not similar. The magnitude of drag depends on the Reynolds number of the fluids. Drag gets affected by density, viscosity, temperature of the fluids.
    If so why don’t submarines have the same shape, or bullets?
    The best aerodynamic design and drag of the external shape will strongly depend on the airspeed (low subsonic, high subsonic or supersonic), density, AoA, wetted area, frontal area and Reynolds number.
    Certainly I understand the necessity of lift but biplanes have more drag than monoplanes and the speedsters we know about (SR-71, F-104, B2-B etc.) are all based on a fusalage design.
    Higher lift produces more induced drag. Biplanes will have more platform area and wetted area. That’s why the drag is higher for a biplane wing.

    By Hamid Saeedipour

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s