September 13, 1931, Kalshot Sleeps, UK. The sun in cold water, fountains of splashes and the roar of aircraft engines! The gazes of thousands of onlookers are fixed on tiny dots rushing with terrifying speed over the mirror-like surface of the bay. Ahead are the favorites of the air race - "Supermarines" model S.6B. Blue and silver. They are followed by the Italian Makki M.67. Who will get the main prize?
The Schneider Cup went to the British. Flying boat Supermarine S.6B covered the route at a speed of 547 km / h. After 17 days, the seaplane set an absolute world record, accelerating to 655 km / h! For this achievement, aircraft designer Reginald Mitchell (the future creator of "Spitfire") was awarded the Order of the British Empire.
The record did not last long: wounded by the defeat, the Italians hastily completed their “Macchi”. On October 23, 1934, the pilot Ajello overcame the bar of 700 km / h. His record (709, 2 km / h) lasted until 1939.
Now, after 80 years, it seems incredible how these brace monoplanes with piston motors developed such tremendous speeds. But even more surprising is the fact that all the speed records of those years belonged to seaplanes with ridiculous big floats flying at sea level. While the best "land" fighters, flying in thin layers of the atmosphere, could not overcome the bar of 500 km / h.
Macchi M.67
The success secrets of seaplanes were: a) high specific wing loading; b) high engine power. If everything is clear with the motors, then the first point requires additional explanations.
It's no secret that the plane flies with its wings on the air. A necessary condition for creating wing lift is the difference between the direction of the incident air flow and the wing chord. This difference is the angle of attack: the angle between the wing chord and the projection of the aircraft's speed in the associated coordinate system. In a horizontal flight, the aircraft literally "pushes" the wing onto the air, due to which an area of increased pressure, an "air cushion", is formed on the lower surface of the wing, which allows the aircraft to stay in the air.
The value of the lift depends on the wing area, its profile, the angle of installation in relation to the air flow, as well as the density of the air medium and the aircraft speed. At high speeds, the aircraft no longer requires a large wing area. On the contrary, it creates unnecessary drag, hindering high-speed flight. Take a look at the little wings of cruise missiles to see how serious this is. Alas, unlike the CD, the plane must be able to make a soft landing. And this is where the problems begin.
The smaller the wing, the more kilograms of aircraft mass falls on each square meter of its surface. With a decrease in speed, at some point, the value of the lift becomes less than the load on the wing. Loss of stability, stall, disaster. Under normal conditions, the airplane should descend smoothly, maintaining sufficient lift up to touchdown. The larger the wing, the softer and safer the landing. The landing speed cannot be too high, otherwise the landing gear will break from the impact on contact.
Aircraft designers of the 1930s quickly realized that the smallest wing area (and, as a result, high maximum and landing speeds) was best implemented in the design of a seaplane. In fact, the seaplane has a runway of unlimited length, and the landing process itself can be performed at an unacceptably high speed.
As a result, Supermarine S.6B and McKee M.67 had a very small wing (13.3 - 13.4 sq. M). With a takeoff weight over two tons! And even huge ugly floats could not level the high-speed qualities of seaplanes, achieved due to the wing of a small area …
A wonderful example showing how deceiving looks can be and what possibilities can be achieved through knowledge of aerodynamics.
The jubilant waterfront of Portsmouth is hidden in the fog of time, and we are transported 80 years ahead, to the hangar of Eglin Air Force Base. Where, in the dim light of the lamps, a gray shadow spread its wings - the unobtrusive F-35 Lightning II fighter-bomber. The most discussed type of combat aircraft today, with its scandalous history and a huge amount of materials dedicated to it. Both enthusiastic and frankly unflattering.
It is not possible to conduct a full assessment of the capabilities of the F-35 within the framework of this article. Let us note in passing the main points: for objective reasons, Lightning's visibility should be lower than that of any of its analogs, with the exception of the F-22. The onboard sighting and navigation system is also out of competition - what is one radar worth (https://topwar.ru/63227-nobelevskaya-premiya-za-radar-dlya-f-35.html). At the moment, the main discussion is centered around the performance characteristics of the new aircraft. It is clear that at a great distance "Lightning-2" poses a mortal threat to any enemy. But what are her qualities in close combat? At first glance, nothing outstanding: one, albeit a very high-torque engine. High specific wing loading (more on that below). Someone repeats about the inefficiency of the F-35 aerodynamic design, disfigured by elements of stealth technology. However, unlike conventional fighters, the F-35 does not have to carry weapons and targeting stations on the external hardpoints - it has a pair of internal bomb bays. A significant argument in the debate about the aerodynamics of the new car.
The F-35's poor aerodynamic judgment raises another interesting point. The new American aircraft is completely unusable due to an unrecoverable drawback: a very wide midship, creating "simply unbearable resistance when flying at high speeds."
Dear reader has already caught the analogy between the Supermarine S.6B and the modern F-35. The laws of aerodynamics are unchanged. Like 80 years ago, the main drag of an aircraft in horizontal flight is created not by the fuselage, but by its wing. Dozens of square meters of surface (the wing area of the F-35A and 35B models is 42, 7 square meters), taking into account the sine of the angle of attack, continuously "piling up" on the air!
Therefore, all talk about "too large a frontal projection area" in the F-35 is unscientific. Even in level flight, without making maneuvers, it is the wing that is the main factor of inductive (frontal) drag. It is clear how the resistance increases during climb, when the wing alignment angle takes a value of tens of degrees. Or at supercritical angles of attack (for the F-35, this value exceeds 50 degrees).
At this point, we will again make a small remark on the basic principles of aviation.
The wing is responsible not only for lift and drag, but is also the main control element of the aircraft. Contrary to popular belief, an aircraft does not change its direction of flight due to the vertical rudder on the keel. The rudder is only an auxiliary tool (while the keel itself provides stabilization in flight). The turn is carried out by a roll in the direction where the plane should be directed. As a result, on the "lowered" plane of the wing, the value of the lift decreases, on the upper - it increases. The emerging moment of forces (and it is not small!) Turns the plane. Therefore, the parameter "specific load on the wing" is of importance: the less kilograms of mass falls on each square. meter wing, the more actively the aircraft maneuvers.
The wing area of the main modifications of the F-35 is 42, 7 sq. m (in the deck version - 58, 3 sq. m), while the max. takeoff weight can reach 30 tons! According to official sources, the specific wing loading of the F-35A with a takeoff weight of 24 tons is 569 kg / sq. m. For comparison: norms. the takeoff weight of the Su-35 is 25 tons (specific wing loading is 410 kg / sq. m).
Obviously, none of the above numbers makes much sense. The specific load value is entirely determined by the specific configuration of the aircraft (ammunition / fuel capacity). They enter air combat with a limited supply of fuel (less than 50% of the full capacity of the tanks) in the presence of several relatively light air-to-air missiles (the official "combat weight" of the F-35 is about 20 tons). In shock missions, the cars are filled up to the very neck and are hung with bombs. It is easy to imagine what the specific wing loading will be in this case. However, maneuverability in this case is no longer important. It is inconvenient for a bomber to engage in close air combat.
It is worth noting that the empty weight of the F-35A is about 13 tons. Domestic "Drying" is much larger - 19 tons. How much will both machines weigh for a specific mission? There are a lot of answer options. And they will all be true!
Well, now that all the dots on the "i" are dotted, it is worth paying attention to several interesting schemes. Comparison of the frontal projections of the F-35 with its closest counterparts - lightweight fighter-bombers.
The F-16 kid is always short of fuel: he has to carry on his back an ugly "hump" made of conformal fuel tanks. However, despite its curious appearance, there is no doubt about its combat effectiveness.
MiG-29. With huge root ridge of the wing, where the "gills" of the additional air intakes are located. Huge "beak" of the bow, engine nacelles and weapons on the external sling. But appearances are deceiving! MiG is one of the leaders in maneuverability among combat aviation at the end of the twentieth century
The Lightning is one of the smallest fighters of our time. Its wingspan is just over 10 meters, total length 15.5 m
