Close

Member Login

Logging In
Invalid username or password.
Incorrect Login. Please try again.

not a member? sign-up now!

Signing up could earn you gear and it helps to keep offensive content off of our site.

The Truth about "Wing Incidence"

By Peter Garrison / Published: Feb 13, 2012
Rate it! or

(February 2012) Books about airplane design often mention wing incidence as if it were a parameter of some importance. It isn’t. In fact, “wing incidence” is a misnomer. I propose — and fully expect my proposal to have no effect — that the term be abandoned, and that we speak of “fuselage incidence” instead.

The so-called angle of incidence is the angle between the chord line of the wing at the fuselage and the fuselage’s longitudinal axis. Now, this sounds as if it ought to matter, because after all, if the wing is not at the correct angle it will not have enough lift, or will have too much, and the airplane will mush, or plow, or otherwise behave inappropriately. But to think that way is to slip into the mindset of the lubber who says, “The airplane flew into a storm and the wings fell off.” Wings never fall off. It is the fuselage that falls off the wing.

When you fly, what you are flying is not a fuselage; it is a wing. To fly straight and level, you adjust the angle of attack of the wing so that its lift (actually, the lift of the entire airplane taken together, but the wing is by far the dominant contributor) is exactly equal to the weight of the airplane. Most likely, you change the adjustment in the course of the flight. You might consume 10 percent of the weight of the airplane in fuel in the course of a long flight; if you never retrimmed, you could find yourself climbing a couple of hundred feet a minute at the end of the trip.

None of these trim adjustments has anything to do with the fuselage, however. Aerodynamically, the fuselage is a minor player.

Somewhere between full and empty tanks, between full and empty seats and between economy and high cruise power is the airplane’s “design point” — an average cruising case used by the designer to establish the positions of various parts of the airplane and their angles with respect to one another for the purpose of minimizing drag. The designer begins by determining the angle of attack required for the lift to equal the weight at the design point; that will be the position of the wing in level cruising flight. The fuselage is then placed on the wing in the position in which its drag is at a minimum.

You might think that, as a streamlined body, the fuselage should be pointing exactly the way it’s going.

Actually, however, the drag of fuselages, especially tubular ones, is not very sensitive to the angle at which they meet the air. Besides, the wing and empennage themselves distort the airflow around the fuselage so that the meaning of “straight ahead” is no longer obvious.

Comments (2) Post a comment

All Comments

DeSouza's picture

Hello Peter Garrison,
I enjoy reading your articles; they always promote a feeling of “wish I had pursued that degree in aeronautical engineering.” You convinced me that wing incidence has no sense at all, I even agree that “fuselage incidence“is a more congruent term; however this subject, in my humble opinion, should be relevant. The relevance is conditionally only to take-off & landing, especially at STOL considerations. The problem is derived from the fact that while the fuselage is at contact with the ground it becomes invariable; hence the only variable to consider is wing incidence. It is prudent to analyze the case of F-8 Crusaders; the equipment is capable of changing its wing incidence for take-off and landing. I would agree that once in flight it is the fuselage that will change its incidence to return to flight configuration. Furthermore an argument can be made with the possibility of certain airframes to change the AoA during take-off and landing without fuselage incidence/wing incidence considerations by simply utilizing the ability of changing the angle of the fuselage in relation to the ground, examples are noticeable in the case of F-4 Phantoms with the ability of extending further down the nose undercarriage, creating a pitch up attitude for take-off. Other considerations are the ubiquitous tail draggers with the ability to raise the tail at pitch control. Maybe the whole thing is just a technicality after all; but I believe the ability of the F-8 Crusaders in changing wing incidence warrant further analysis.

Michael.R's picture

Now see, the fuselage falling off the wings is not what many people say. It does sound like it is something that people need to learn and be mindful of if they are describing an incident.

 

It is interesting how, when situations occur with aircraft, so many people can get it wrong because of the pros and cons and they don't understand how planes work.

Top Rated

Your Comment
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
All submitted comments are subject to the license terms set forth in our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use