Peter Stickney wrote:

In article ,
Mike Marron writes:
"John Keeney" wrote:
"Gord Beaman" wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

In other words, in your scenario above when the pilot increases
the wing angle of incidence (7-deg's), he simultaneously adjusts
his pitch and throttle settings as needed so as to remain stabilized
on the glideslope. He just doesn't gaily "pop the AoI switch" and
then react to what the airplane does...he thinks ahead and anticipates
what the airplane will do and plans accordingly (e.g: "fly the
plane" and pitch for airspeed power for altitude" etc.).

Of course Mike, I understand that but I just broke it down so
that it's easier for me to describe.

I still don't see what this AoI control will do _other_ than
give the pilot better downward visibility for landing and less
drag for high speed operation. Is there some other aspect that
I'm not seeing?...or is that it in a nutshell?...

As I mentioned in my response to you (the important part that you
snipped), besides just increasing the visibility, the variable
incidence wing also enabled the sleek and very fast fighter to
maintain the slower speeds required for carrier ops.

In other words Gord, the variable incidence wasn't designed to give
the F-8 "less drag for high speed operation," it was designed to give
the F-8 MORE drag (as the result of more LIFT) for SLOW speed
operation in order to land aboard carriers.

Bit of both, actually. Here's what Steve Pace writes (yeah, I know, but he
seems to be quoting from a CVA source here) in the Ginter book on the
Crusader:

"The Crusader's wing answered the problem of pilot visibility in a supersonic
a/c while keeping low canopy drag. Without the tilted wing, a carrier pilot
would be forced to sit higher in order to see flight decks and signal officers
due to the high AoA of a normal fixed wing, and attached fuselage, at landing
approach.

"Under the above conditions, a large canopy would be required for adequate
visibility. CVA aerodynamicists found that the required canopy size would
increase drag at supersonic speed by some 35%, so another solution was
required. Ideas considered included elevating the canopy and pilot seat upon
landing, or tilting the nose section downward. Neither idea was acceptable,
which prompted one engineer to ask, ' Why not tilt the entire wing?'

[skipping a bit] "Tilting the wing upward during landing maneuvers allowed a
relatively slow landing speed, yet kept the F-8's fuselage at an AoA of about
5.5 deg. rather than 12.5 deg. as required with its wing down."

OK Mike, tell me how that would occur. The wing doesn't care whether
the fuslage is aligned with it, is hanging down a bit from a hinge,
like an F-8, or is hanging underneath it by a flexible coupleing like
your trike. An F-8 will stall at the same EAS wing up or down, flap &
slat settings being the same. There's no extra lift. As far as the
wing is concerned, the Clmax, and the Angle of Attack required to get
it, is the same.

Now, if you're trying to say that, with a Crusader's wing up, it can
reach that Angle of Attack with a lower fuselage angle, than you are
in violent agreement with the rest of us.

Also, if you peddle back to that website that you posted depicting
a close-up of the Crusader's wing in the raised position, you will
clearly see how the raised portion of the wing assembly directly
above the fuselage is flat as a sheet of plywood and protrudes
right into the relative wind -- effectively functioning as a speed
brake.

Irrelevant as far as lift is concerned. And if they needed a Speed
Drake, they'd have designed the speed brake differently. (The F-8's
board was under the fuselage, much like an F-100's, and couldn't be
used for landing.)

snip

I suppose that the extra drag might come in handy to keep the engine revs
during the landing apporach a bit higher in lieu of usable speed brake(s) (the
J57 was certainly better in spool-up time than the preceding generation of jet
engines, but it wasn't all that quick). However, the wing was also up for cat
shots, and the extra drag would be counter-productive then. I suspect the
flat section had more to do with the center section being a fuel tank than any
other purpose. I have a vague memory that the reason for it was discussed
over on r.a.m.n. in the not too distant past by one or more of the former F-8
jocks there, so if anyone wishes to pursue the reason for it further, they may
wish to post a question there.

Guy