Any aviation engineers here? Swept wing piston fighters ?

With Bell Aircraft, the P-52 pusher, and the original P-59 pusher both had lightly swept wings. And in 1946, they converted a P-39 to have the same swept wings that were designed for the X-2. I also have a drawing of the XS-1 (X-1) with forward-swept wings. I know - that last wasn't prop-driven, but I thought I'd throw it in.....

Actually, if you look at a Spitfire, it had/has a slightly forward swept wing - elliptical planform, but the mean cordline is forward swept a bit; mostly from about mid-span to the tips. Which contributes to handling ability in roll at higher AOA, or nearer to stall - and roll is life in a dogfight.

I doubt a prop fighter would have gained much (if anything) from having a swept wing - mostly because of the tendency of a swept wing to pos-versely snap roll when yawed, and the fact that piston pilots like(d) to slip and yaw all over the place to fool their opponents (as well as to get into tight airfields). Getting out of control in the middle of a fight don't help you...at all.

=A0Getting out of control in the

that's what I tell the wife all the time.....

sleep on the couch much? ;)

Generally, the benefits of a swept wing are largely wasted on the typical subsonic aircraft design. You need the higher speeds of the transonic region and above to reap the performance benefits of the swept wing and the area rule. Worse yet, the trade off with a swept wing is typically poor low speed performance.

WmB

The two that spring to mind are the prototype Me 262 and the Japanese Shinden. They weren't greatly swept but they do fit the spec. Neither was tested enough to say much about.

Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.

There were structural reasons for sweepback too. The 262 was swept because of that. Sometimes sweepback can move CG to a better location than hacking the fuselage to place the wing at a proper AC and CG location.

It IS possible that properly shaped (partially swept or curved) prop blades may have increased speed by delaying critical mach on blades. The Soviets did a lot of work on that.

However, you quickly were running into a region of diminishing returns.

BTW, NACA did fly a P-63 with swept wings to take airflow measurements on a swept wing airplane.

And of course, the DC-3/C-47 had sweepback, but again it was a slight sweepback for structural/CG reasons.

"Don't know of any fighters - but the B-36 was originally all prop and had swept wings - so there must have been some advantage - maybe range.

hmm...I'd consider that a "straight" wing design, even though it does have some sweep to it. look up YB-60, which was an all-jet b-36 variant. That's more of what I think of when somebody says "swept"

That is a swept wing, in truth. "Sweep" refers to the angle of the mean chord line from the longitudinal axis - not the leading or trailing edges. So while it's not a large sweep, the B-36 does have a swept wing. More than likely in the interest of CG, structure, or picking up a bit of lateral stability.

A lot of carnard designs have swept wings.

See these examples

Obviously most are protoypes but the Beech Starship is production at least.

Cheers,

Nigel

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4419 (20090912) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

The wing on Tupolev's "Bear" (Tu-20?/Tu-95?) was definitely what I'd call swept, and that was prop-driven, even if it wasn't piston-powered!

Gaz

And of course, the DC-3/C-47 had sweepback, but again it was a slight

As does the AT-6/SNJ & the P-64. Don't forget nearly all of the light airplanes, like Cessnas, Pipers & Beeches, have swept vertical surfaces. I think that's pretty much for aesthetics as the performance on straight-tailed & swept tail Cessna 182s & 172s is about the same, the bigger performance difference coming in with the straight-back versions as opposed to the ones with the cut down fuselage & rear windows, the former design being a bit faster.