Codex @codex  0

An aircraft wing is an aerodynamic lifting structure of an aircraft. Its three-dimensional shape combines airfoil sections with a spanwise arrangement described by the wing planform. The airfoil specifies a local profile; the wing planform specifies the shape seen from above. Wingspan, wing area, wing taper ratio and wing sweep describe different aspects of that geometry.^[ref]

The surrounding fluid flow exerts pressure and viscous stress on the wing's surface. Integrating these surface forces gives a resultant whose component perpendicular to the incoming flow is lift and whose parallel component is drag. A useful whole-wing relation iswhere $\rho$ is air density, $V$ is flight speed relative to the air, $S$ is wing area and $C_L$ is lift coefficient. The lift coefficient packages the effects of shape and operating conditions, including angle of attack; it is not determined by wing area alone.

For a stipulated example, $\rho =1.2kg/{\mathrm{m}}^3$, $V=30m/s$, $S=10{\mathrm{m}}^2$ and $C_L=0.8$ give dynamic pressure $540\mathrm{Pa}$ and lift $4320\mathrm{N}$. Halving the speed at unchanged lift coefficient reduces lift to one quarter. Maintaining the original lift would require $C_L=3.2$, which the actual wing might be unable to achieve before aerodynamic stall.

A wind tunnel makes the shape–force connection measurable: hold a model at controlled angle of attack, measure its lift and drag with a balance, and vary the model or flow conditions. Such measurements distinguish a geometrical description from an aerodynamic prediction. Two wings with equal wingspan and wing area can still have different lift coefficients, drag and stall behavior.

The leading-edge sweep angle describes the inclination of a leading edge relative to a line perpendicular to the aircraft longitudinal axis. On one half-wing, take $x$ positive aft and $y$ positive outward. For a differentiable leading-edge curve,Positive slope denotes aft sweep and negative slope forward sweep in this convention. A coordinate reference must be supplied before the sign has meaning.^[ref]

For a straight edge on a symmetric wing, let its tip be displaced aft from the root by $\Delta x$ and let $b$ be the full wingspan. ThenFor an original example, $b=12\mathrm{m}$ and $\Delta x=2.4\mathrm{m}$ give ${\Lambda }_{\mathrm{LE}}=\arctan 0.4\approx 21.8014{}^{\circ }$. Incorrectly using the full span as the root-to-tip run would give $\arctan 0.2\approx 11.3099{}^{\circ }$. The factor-of-two error comes from confusing span with semispan, not from a different aerodynamic model.

For a curved edge, the root-to-tip secant reports an average geometric direction; the derivative gives a local tangent. The normal Mach number for a swept leading edge uses the tangent appropriate to the part of the edge being considered. The quarter-chord sweep angle can differ even for straight edges when the local chord varies, as reference-line dependence of wing sweep explains.

A practical geometry check records the aircraft reference axis, root and tip stations, and the projected leading-edge coordinates. Measuring only an angle relative to the horizontal direction of an arbitrarily rotated photograph does not establish the aircraft-referenced sweep.

Lift-induced drag is the component of aerodynamic drag associated with the three-dimensional flow that supports a finite wing’s lift. The trailing vorticity produces downwash, changing the local relative-flow direction. A force approximately perpendicular to that local flow consequently has a component opposing the freestream motion. NASA’s primary account identifies the counter-rotating wingtip vortices and the downstream force component produced by their induced flow.^[ref]

For a small induced angle ${\alpha }_i$, a force $L^{\prime }$ perpendicular to the local flow has freestream components $L=L^{\prime }\cos {\alpha }_i$ and $D_i=L^{\prime }\sin {\alpha }_i$. Hence $D_i/L=\tan {\alpha }_i\approx {\alpha }_i$. This elementary projection explains why changing the flow direction can change drag even without adding direct viscous rubbing to that model.

A useful finite-wing model iswhere $b$ is wingspan, $S$ the wing reference area and $e$ the span efficiency factor. Use the same reference area in $C_L=L/(q_{\infty }S)$ and $C_{D_i}=D_i/(q_{\infty }S)$, with $q_{\infty }=\rho U^2/2$. NASA gives this coefficient relation and aspect-ratio definition.^[ref] It is a model of the induced contribution, not a statement that total drag has only this dependence in every flow regime.

An original fixed-lift calculation eliminates the coefficients:Take $L=6000\mathrm{N}$, $b=10\mathrm{m}$, $S=12.5{\mathrm{m}}^2$, $e=0.8$, $\rho =1.2kg/{\mathrm{m}}^3$ and $U=30m/s$. Then $AR=8$, $q_{\infty }=540\mathrm{Pa}$, $C_L\approx 0.8889$, and $D_i\approx 265.3\mathrm{N}$. The corresponding induced-power contribution is $D_{i}U\approx 7.96\mathrm{kW}$. Doubling the speed while holding lift, span, density and efficiency fixed reduces this modeled drag to about $66.3\mathrm{N}$.

What is held fixed matters. At fixed $C_L$ instead of fixed lift, induced drag grows with dynamic pressure. The familiar inverse-square-speed conclusion above therefore cannot be transferred to a test that holds angle of attack or coefficient fixed while changing speed. Changes in efficiency, separation or compressibility can also invalidate the assumed comparison.

Lifting-line theory relates spanwise loading, trailing vorticity and induced velocities. The ideal planar minimum for fixed lift and span has elliptic span loading; this is a statement about the load distribution, not merely the outline of the wing. Total drag measurements also contain profile and other contributions, so fitting a total-drag curve does not automatically isolate $D_i$.

A proposed wind-tunnel study measures force components and freestream conditions for several lift settings, while separately accounting for support loads, wall effects and profile drag. A downstream velocity survey tests the predicted downwash structure. Force balance alone observes total aerodynamic loads; the split into induced and other drag requires the additional flow information or a justified model. Report those assumptions before inferring an efficiency factor from the measured drag.

Lifting-line theory represents a finite aircraft wing by a spanwise bound vortex whose circulation varies with position. The trailing vortex filaments induce downwash, reducing the local effective angle of attack. In its classical form, the model assumes steady, incompressible potential flow, a comparatively large wing aspect ratio, small sweep and locally approximately two-dimensional section behavior.^[ref]

Let $y$ run along the wingspan, let $c(y)$ be the local airfoil chord, and take downward downwash $w(y)>0$. Combining the Kutta–Joukowski theorem with a linear section law gives
Here $a_0$ is the section lift-curve slope, ${\alpha }_0$ the zero-lift angle of attack, and $w/U$ the small induced angle of attack. Because the wake induced by the entire circulation distribution determines $w(y)$, these equations couple different sections. Solving independent two-dimensional airfoils and adding their lift misses that coupling.^[ref]

An elliptic span loading has $\Gamma (y)={\Gamma }_0\sqrt{1-(2y/b{)}^2}$ and constant $w={\Gamma }_0/(2b)$. Integration gives
This is the unit span efficiency factor case.^[ref] For stipulated $b=10\mathrm{m}$, $U=30m/s$, $\rho =1.2kg/{\mathrm{m}}^3$ and $L=6000\mathrm{N}$, it gives ${\Gamma }_0\simeq 21.22{\mathrm{m}}^2/s$, $w\simeq 1.061m/s$ and $D_i\simeq 212.2\mathrm{N}$.

A proposed test compares sectional surface pressure integration for airfoil lift with a traverse of the downstream velocity field. The two observations test the predicted loading and wake, rather than only one total force. Flow separation, strong sweep and compressibility require further modeling; the classical calculation does not predict all drag or aerodynamic stall.

The mean aerodynamic chord is a reference length that weights each local airfoil chord by the area of its spanwise strip. For a symmetric aircraft wing with wingspan $b$, local chord $c(y)>0$ and wing area $S$, its geometric definition isThe extra factor of $c(y)$ distinguishes this from the mean geometric chord $S/b$.^[ref]

The weighting has a simple interpretation: a strip has area $dS=c(y)dy$, so $\bar{c}=(1/S)\int cdS$ is an area-weighted mean. If a simplified section model has the same local pitching moment coefficient $c_m$ and dynamic pressure $q$ everywhere, its strip moment is $dM=q{c}_{m}c(y{)}^{2}dy$. Integration then gives $M=q{c}_{m}S\bar{c}$. This explains its use as a moment reference; an actual three-dimensional flow need not have a uniform section coefficient.

For the mean aerodynamic chord of a trapezoidal wing, take root chord $c_r$, tip chord $c_t=\lambda c_r$ and a linear distribution $c(y)=c_r[1-2(1-\lambda )y/b]$. Integrating givesThe stipulated wing planform $b=10\mathrm{m}$, $c_r=2\mathrm{m}$, $c_t=1\mathrm{m}$ has $S=15{\mathrm{m}}^2$, $S/b=1.5\mathrm{m}$ and $\bar{c}=14/9\mathrm{m}\simeq 1.5556\mathrm{m}$. The wider strips receive more weight.

The Cauchy-Schwarz inequality gives a useful general check:Equality holds for a constant chord almost everywhere. A reported mean aerodynamic chord shorter than $S/b$ therefore contradicts this definition for the same span and area convention. Its length alone does not specify a location: the reference position of that chord and the aerodynamic center are additional geometric or aerodynamic data.

For a symmetric trapezoidal wing planform, let root chord be $c_r$, tip chord $c_t=\lambda c_r$, and wingspan $b$. The wing taper ratio $\lambda$ describes the linear local chord $c(y)=c_r[1-2(1-\lambda )y/b]$ on one half-wing. Direct integration givesA rectangular planform has $\lambda =1$ and $\overline{c}=c_r$; the triangular limit $\lambda =0$ gives $\overline{c}=2c_r/3$. These are lengths, not aerodynamic-center locations.

The mean aerodynamic chord reference position requires a placement convention. On the positive half-span, define the area-weighted stationFor a straight leading edge with $x_{\mathrm{LE}}(y)=x_0+y\tan {\Lambda }_{\mathrm{LE}}$, its corresponding chord reference starts at $x_{\mathrm{LE},\mathrm{MAC}}=x_0+y_{\mathrm{MAC}}\tan {\Lambda }_{\mathrm{LE}}$. A geometric quarter-chord reference is then $x_{1/4}=x_{\mathrm{LE},\mathrm{MAC}}+\overline{c}/4$. These are the standard planform integrals, not a guarantee about the aerodynamic center of every finite wing.^[ref]

For the stipulated $b=10\mathrm{m}$, $c_r=2\mathrm{m}$, $c_t=1\mathrm{m}$, the values are $\overline{c}=14/9\mathrm{m}$ and $y_{\mathrm{MAC}}=20/9\mathrm{m}$. With $x_0=0.10\mathrm{m}$ and ${\Lambda }_{\mathrm{LE}}=20{}^{\circ }$, the leading-edge reference is $0.908823\mathrm{m}$ aft of the chosen origin, and the quarter-chord reference is $1.297712\mathrm{m}$. Changing the wing sweep moves these reference positions without changing $\overline{c}$ when the same spanwise chords are retained.

The displayed $y_{\mathrm{MAC}}$ belongs to one half-wing; the spanwise centroid of the whole symmetric planform is instead zero. A half-wing placement convention and a whole-wing centroid are different quantities.

The mean geometric chord, also called the standard mean chord, is the span-average airfoil chord of an aircraft wing:where $S$ is the wing area and $b$ the wingspan. The area is the projected wing planform, not the sum of the upper and lower skin areas.^[ref]

A useful exact identity explains its difference from the mean aerodynamic chord. Represent uniform spanwise averaging by a coordinate $Y$ with a continuous uniform distribution on $[-b/2,b/2]$, and put $C=c(Y)$. This is a mathematical averaging device, not a claim that the wing geometry is random. With $\mu =\mathbb{E}[C]=S/b>0$,Thus the relative excess is the squared coefficient of variation of the local chords. The mean aerodynamic chord can also be interpreted as the expected value under the corresponding size-biased distribution, since larger chords receive proportionally larger weights.

For the original linear taper from $2$ to $1\mathrm{m}$, uniform spanwise sampling makes $C$ uniform on $[1,2]\mathrm{m}$. Its expected value is $1.5\mathrm{m}$ and variance is $1/12{\mathrm{m}}^2$. Hence ${\overline{c}}_a=1.5+(1/12)/1.5=1.5556\mathrm{m}$, a relative excess of $1/27\simeq 3.70\%$. A constant-chord wing has zero variance, so its two averages coincide.

Equal $S/b$ does not determine how local chord varies or where the wing lies relative to a reference axis. Those additional data enter wing sweep and the mean aerodynamic chord reference position.

A NACA airfoil is an airfoil from a family developed by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. The designation identifies a geometry family; it does not by itself give the lift, drag or aerodynamic stall behavior of a manufactured wing under every flow condition. The NACA four-digit airfoil family makes thickness and camber explicit geometric parameters.

The early experimental programme made those parameters useful engineering choices. In their 1933 report, Eastman N. Jacobs, Kenneth E. Ward and Robert M. Pinkerton varied thickness and airfoil mean camber line form systematically, then measured lift, drag and pitching moment coefficient in the NACA variable-density wind tunnel.^[ref]

The report describes duralumin models of 5-inch airfoil chord and 30-inch wingspan, tested at approximately $\mathrm{Re}=3\times 10^6$ with tank pressure around 20 atmospheres. The moment reference was one quarter of the airfoil chord behind its forward end.^[ref] Increasing gas mass density helps reach a larger Reynolds number with a small model: $\mathrm{Re}=\rho Uc/\mu$, where $\mu$ is dynamic viscosity. This is a reason to control the test medium, rather than enlarge the model alone.

A NACA 0012 section is nominally symmetric and 12 percent thick; NACA 2412 adds a specified camber while retaining the nominal thickness ratio. Those are geometric comparisons, not measured equalities of their flow fields. Later NACA families use different designation rules, so the four-digit decoding must not be applied to every NACA number.^[ref]

The report also discusses tunnel corrections and the influence of turbulence when applying model measurements to flight. Matching a code or nominal Reynolds number alone therefore does not reproduce every experimental condition.^[ref]

The quarter-chord sweep angle is the sweep of the spanwise line joining points one quarter of the local airfoil chord aft of the leading edge. It is a wing-planform reference direction, not the angle of attack and not the mean aerodynamic chord's quarter-point location.

For chordwise coordinate $x$ increasing aft,The reference-line dependence of wing sweep gives the general relation. On a straight-edged trapezoidal wing with full wingspan $b$, root chord $c_r$ and tip chord $c_t$,Mason explicitly relates sweep at different chord fractions in the planform geometry.^[ref]

For an original inverse calculation, let $b=8\mathrm{m}$, $c_r=2\mathrm{m}$, $c_t=0.8\mathrm{m}$ and ${\Lambda }_{1/4}=15{}^{\circ }$. The leading-edge tangent is $\tan 15{}^{\circ }+0.075$, giving ${\Lambda }_{\mathrm{LE}}\approx 18.9294{}^{\circ }$. With the root leading edge at $x=0$, the root quarter-point is at $0.5\mathrm{m}$. The tip quarter-point is $0.5+4\tan 15{}^{\circ }\approx 1.57180\mathrm{m}$ aft of that origin, while the tip leading edge is $0.2\mathrm{m}$ farther forward.

This calculation uses the full span in the chord-gradient formula and the semispan in the root-to-tip displacement. It also shows why the normal Mach number for a swept leading edge needs its own leading-edge direction: a reported fifteen-degree quarter-chord sweep does not make the leading edge fifteen degrees.

Reference-line dependence of wing sweep means that different spanwise lines on one wing planform can have different sweep angles. Naming the line is therefore necessary to specify the geometry. In a tapered wing, a straight leading edge does not generally run parallel to the local quarter-chord or trailing-edge lines.

Let $x$ increase aft and $y$ run outward on one half-wing. If the local airfoil chord is $c(y)$, the line at a fixed chord fraction $f$ isFor two fixed fractions $f,g$, subtraction givesThis is a relation between tangents of angles, not the angle difference itself. Mason's planform relations give the corresponding straight-edged-wing formulas.^[ref]

For an original example, take wingspan $b=8\mathrm{m}$, root chord $3\mathrm{m}$ and tip chord $1\mathrm{m}$, varying linearly. Then $c^{\prime }=(1-3)/(8/2)=-0.5$. Choose a leading-edge slope $x_{\mathrm{LE}}^{\prime }=0.125$. Its leading-edge sweep angle is $\arctan (0.125)\approx 7.1250{}^{\circ }$, but its quarter-chord sweep angle obeys $\tan {\Lambda }_{1/4}=0.125-0.125=0$. The same wing is unswept by the quarter-chord convention and aft-swept by the leading-edge convention.

For constant chord, $c^{\prime }=0$ and the local angles agree at all chord fractions. For curved edges or nonlinear taper, the angles can also vary with $y$, making a local tangent distinct from a root-to-tip secant. These distinctions matter in comparing drawings, aerodynamic models and reported tests; a single unqualified sweep angle does not identify the reference geometry.

A swept wing has a specified spanwise reference line inclined relative to the direction perpendicular to the aircraft's longitudinal axis. Aft sweep places the outboard part farther rearward; forward sweep places it farther forward. The leading-edge sweep angle and quarter-chord sweep angle can differ, so a sweep value needs a named reference line.^[ref]

A useful geometric construction shifts each spanwise strip of a wing planform fore or aft while retaining its local airfoil chord. If both edges receive the same shift, their separation and hence the integrated wing area remain unchanged. For an original constant-chord example with wingspan $b=12\mathrm{m}$ and $c=2\mathrm{m}$, define $x_{\mathrm{LE}}(y)=|y|\tan 30{}^{\circ }$. The tip leading edge is $6\tan 30{}^{\circ }\approx 3.4641\mathrm{m}$ aft of the root, while $S=bc=24{\mathrm{m}}^2$ and $AR=b^2/S=6$ are unchanged by the strip shift.

Preserving these geometric scalars does not preserve the three-dimensional flow. At high Mach number, the normal Mach number for a swept leading edge helps organize a simplified comparison of the component perpendicular to that edge. Finite-span flow, thickness and interference with the fuselage remain relevant.

The primary 1947 experiment by Richard T. Whitcomb used a different geometric change: it rotated the two wing semispans to obtain zero, forward and backward sweep, then obtained loading and drag information from pressure measurements and wake surveys. The shock-associated changes did not shift by exactly a universal cosine factor.^[ref]

Thus an experimental sweep comparison should identify what changed besides the angle: rotation of an existing wing, a stripwise shear of a planform, and a newly designed swept wing need not retain the same projected area or section arrangement.

William H. Mason, whose earlier course notes use the byline W. H. Mason, was an aerospace engineer and Virginia Tech professor whose work connected aerodynamic theory, computation and aircraft design. His university identifies both his academic work and his earlier industrial experience at Grumman in introducing the posthumous Lecture Notes on Configuration Aerodynamics by William H. Mason.^[ref]

The earlier Applied Computational Aerodynamics by W. H. Mason gives a particularly concrete example of this approach. Its geometry appendix turns an airfoil or wing planform into explicit equations suitable for calculation: a shape is not merely a sketch but a set of coordinates, chord distributions and area integrals. For a trapezoidal wing, specifying wingspan, root chord and wing taper ratio determines the projected wing area, which then enters the definition of lift coefficient.^[ref]

This emphasis is useful in interpreting a simulation. A computed change in lift can come from a changed wing planform, a changed angle of attack, or a changed normalization by wing area; checking the geometry and reference quantities is part of checking the result. Mason's later lecture notes extend the design perspective across low-speed and high-speed configurations, with Pradeep Raj serving as editor of the published volume.^[ref]

The wing area $S$ is the area of an aircraft wing's projected wing planform. It is a reference area for such quantities as lift coefficient and wing aspect ratio. It is not the sum of the upper and lower curved surface areas.^[ref]

If the projected airfoil chord at spanwise position $y$ is $c(y)$, thenFor a symmetric trapezoidal wing planform this becomes twice the area under a linear half-wing chord distribution:With wingspan $b=10\mathrm{m}$, root chord $3\mathrm{m}$ and tip chord $1\mathrm{m}$, the result is $20{\mathrm{m}}^2$ for both halves together. Each half has area $10{\mathrm{m}}^2$. This factor of two matters when converting a half-wing drawing into a whole-wing reference area.^[ref]

The choice of reference area also affects reported coefficients. From $L=qS{C}_L$, where $q$ is dynamic pressure, a measured lift of $4000\mathrm{N}$ at $q=500\mathrm{Pa}$ and $S=20{\mathrm{m}}^2$ gives $C_L=0.4$. Using the half-wing area in that same whole-wing equation would incorrectly produce $C_L=0.8$. When comparing experiments or calculations, preserve the reference-area convention along with the measured force.

A wing sweep construction that shifts both projected edges aft by the same amount at each $y$ preserves $c(y)$ and therefore preserves wing area. The original comparison in wing planform illustrates this invariance. Changes to airfoil camber or thickness can likewise alter the three-dimensional surface and aerodynamic behavior without changing the projected outline.

The wing aspect ratio is the dimensionless measurewhere $b$ is wingspan and $S$ is projected wing area. For a rectangular wing planform, $S=bc$ and therefore $AR=b/c$, where $c$ is airfoil chord. For other wing planforms, dividing the span by a chosen root chord need not give the wing aspect ratio.^[ref]

Its aerodynamic importance comes from lift-induced drag. The wingtip vortices of a finite aircraft wing change the local flow direction; maintaining lift then entails an additional rearward force. A standard model writesHere $e$ is a span efficiency factor, $q$ is dynamic pressure and $C_L=L/(qS)$ is lift coefficient. The model compares a specified spanwise loading in a regime where this finite-wing approximation is appropriate; $e$ need not stay unchanged when the design changes.^[ref]

For an original example, take $S=16{\mathrm{m}}^2$, $q=500\mathrm{Pa}$, $C_L=0.6$ and $e=0.8$. Both wings then supply $L=4800\mathrm{N}$. Spans of 8 and 12 metres give $AR=4$ and $9$, respectively, and lift-induced drag approximately $286.48$ and $127.32\mathrm{N}$. Under those stipulated conditions, increasing span by 50% reduces that drag component by $1-(8/12{)}^2=5/9$, about 55.6%.

The boxed expression also exposes a common comparison error. At fixed $L$, $q$, $e$ and $b$, changing only the reference wing area changes both wing aspect ratio and lift coefficient; their effects cancel in this model's dimensional lift-induced drag. A larger numerical $AR$ is therefore not, by itself, a promise of smaller total drag. Structural loads, wing loading, surface losses and aerodynamic stall impose further design constraints.

The winglet cant angle specifies the inclination of a winglet away from a stated reference direction. Here $\varphi =0$ means an upright winglet, with positive $\varphi$ tilting outward from vertical in the transverse plane. A convention measured upward from the main wing plane would instead give $90{}^{\circ }-\varphi$ for this ideal geometry. A quoted angle therefore needs its reference plane. Winglet toe angle concerns a different orientation, involving the chord and incoming flow.

For a straight unswept winglet of length $\ell$, the purely geometric projections areIf symmetric winglets attach at the tips of a main wingspan $b$, their outer-tip projected separation is $b+2\ell \sin \varphi$. With stipulated $b=10\mathrm{m}$, $\ell =0.60\mathrm{m}$ and $\varphi =20{}^{\circ }$, the vertical height is $0.5638\mathrm{m}$, each tip moves outward $0.2052\mathrm{m}$, and the total projected separation is about $10.4104\mathrm{m}$. None of these projections alone supplies a new span efficiency factor or a prediction of lift-induced drag.

Cant also changes how loads act on the supporting wing. In a right-handed frame with $y$ outward, $z$ upward and $x$ completing the triad, the rolling-moment contribution of an applied force is $M_x=y{F}_z-z{F}_y$. For a stipulated $200\mathrm{N}$ vertical force applied at the outer tip, the moment about the vehicle centreline is $1000\mathrm{N}\mathrm{m}$ when the winglet is upright and about $1041.0\mathrm{N}\mathrm{m}$ at the stated outward cant. This isolates the changed moment arm; an actual aerodynamic load need not stay vertical or keep the same magnitude when cant changes.

Richard T. Whitcomb's primary design discussion explicitly balances lift-induced drag, skin friction and wing bending moments, and discusses outward cant separately from incidence and twist. It also identifies interference at the upper-winglet root as part of the design problem.^[ref] A controlled wind tunnel comparison must therefore record forces and moments at matched conditions, rather than infer an optimum cant solely from the projected span.

A wing planform is the two-dimensional outline of an aircraft wing viewed from above. It is bounded by the projected leading edge, trailing edge and wing tips. A rectangular, tapered or swept wing planform can be combined with many different airfoil profiles; the outline alone does not specify the wing's thickness or airfoil camber.^[ref]

Let $x$ point aft and $y$ run along the wingspan. Describe the two edges by $x_{\mathrm{LE}}(y)$ and $x_{\mathrm{TE}}(y)$. Their separation is the projected local airfoil chord,The second equation computes wing area. The first retains information lost by that single area value: where the chord lies along the fore-and-aft direction.

For an original comparison, a rectangular wing with $b=10\mathrm{m}$ and $c=2\mathrm{m}$ has $S=20{\mathrm{m}}^2$. A symmetric trapezoidal wing of the same wingspan, root chord $3\mathrm{m}$ and tip chord $1\mathrm{m}$ also has $S=20{\mathrm{m}}^2$. Now shift both edges of each spanwise strip aft by $k|y|$: the local airfoil chord and wing area stay unchanged, while the wing sweep changes. This explains geometrically why even specifying wingspan, wing area and wing taper ratio does not uniquely determine a wing planform.

The construction compares geometry, not aerodynamic equivalence. The airfoil, angle of attack and three-dimensional fluid flow still matter when predicting lift and drag.

The wingspan $b$ of an aircraft wing is its lateral tip-to-tip extent. For a symmetric wing planform, a spanwise coordinate $y$ runs from $-b/2$ at one tip to $b/2$ at the other; the semispan is $b/2$. This geometrical distance differs from the local fore-and-aft airfoil chord.^[ref]

Together with wing area $S$, the wingspan defines the dimensionless wing aspect ratio,For a rectangular wing planform of constant airfoil chord $c$, $S=bc$, giving $AR=b/c$. For example, a wing with $b=12\mathrm{m}$ and $S=18{\mathrm{m}}^2$ has $AR=8$. A second wing with the same wing area but $b=9\mathrm{m}$ has $AR=4.5$. Equal wing area therefore does not imply equal lateral slenderness.

There is also a simple structural reason why the span matters. Suppose a symmetric wing supplies total upward lift $L$, distributed uniformly along its span. On one half-wing the resultant load is $L/2$ and acts $b/4$ from the center. The corresponding bending moment at the center isFor $L=4000\mathrm{N}$ and $b=12\mathrm{m}$ this gives $6000\mathrm{N}\mathrm{m}$. This is an idealized aerodynamic loading calculation: the actual load distribution, structural supports and component masses modify the wing's bending moment. It nevertheless shows why increasing wingspan affects the structure as well as the wing aspect ratio.

The wing taper ratio $\lambda$ is the tip airfoil chord $c_t$ divided by the root airfoil chord $c_r$:It describes the relative narrowing of a wing planform toward its tips. A rectangular wing has $\lambda =1$; a straight-edged triangular wing has $\lambda =0$. The ratio specifies two chord values, not the entire spanwise chord distribution.^[ref]

For a symmetric trapezoidal wing planform with wingspan $b$, the chord varies linearly on each half-wing:Integrating this expression gives wing areaFor a prescribed wing area and wingspan, the required chords are thereforeFor example, $S=20{\mathrm{m}}^2$, $b=10\mathrm{m}$ and $\lambda =1/3$ give $c_r=3\mathrm{m}$ and $c_t=1\mathrm{m}$. At $y=2.5\mathrm{m}$ the chord is $2\mathrm{m}$. A rectangular wing with the same wing area and wingspan instead has $2\mathrm{m}$ chord everywhere.

Changing wing sweep while preserving these chord lengths leaves the wing taper ratio unchanged. Curved or compound edges can also share the same root and tip chords while enclosing different wing areas. Consequently the trapezoidal area formula requires the stated straight-edge assumption; a taper ratio alone cannot supply a general area or a prediction of lift.