Questions about wing designs, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 10-3-2009 @ 02:54 AM by Zaphod58
reply to post by junglejake



Another factor to wing design is lift v drag. The more curve to the top of the wing, the more lift it provides. The curve lets the airflow go smoother over the top of the wing, and the shape to the back of the wing prevents the air from being sucked off the top of the wing. But having a thick wing it also allows for structure and necessary components such as fuel tanks. The downside is that the thicker the wing, the more drag it creates. Commercial planes want as much lift as they can get, so they go for a thicker wing. Fighter type planes want more speed and maneuverability, so they go for as thin a wing as they can get.

One of the drawbacks to a standard wing is what they call a Mach Tuck. That's when they get up into the transonic range, and there is a problem with the wave drag over the top of the wing. This led to research into supercritical wings. They have a much flatter top surface, with more curve to the back of the wing. This lets them fly closer to Mach 1 without the Mach Tuck. They used this on the Boeing 777, and the AV-8B.


reply posted on 10-3-2009 @ 03:47 AM by neformore
reply to post by waynos



SAAB J-35 Drakken?

Its about the only one I could think of.

I'd tentatively argue for the Mig25 as well, but I'm not so sure of the uniqueness of the design at the time.

You could also argue a case for the Buccaneer, as the blown wings were fairly unique?



[edit on 10/3/09 by neformore]



reply posted on 10-3-2009 @ 06:10 AM by Zaphod58
reply to post by tristar



That's not a production aircraft. It was just a testbed, and never planned to go into any kind of production.


reply posted on 10-3-2009 @ 06:17 AM by tristar
Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to
post by tristar



That's not a production aircraft. It was just a testbed, and never planned to go into any kind of production.


Umm...why is it they have a squadron of these ?. Not being rude or arrogant, but i have been shown a photo of a full squadron of these. But then again it may be an on going test bed, either way im looking forward to it.


reply posted on 10-3-2009 @ 06:25 AM by C0bzz
reply to post by tristar



There is no squadron of them. There was a single testbed; and I'm not even sure if that's flying either.


reply posted on 10-3-2009 @ 06:31 AM by Zaphod58
reply to post by tristar



Because its a fake picture. It WAS marketed as a production fighter, but no one has bought it to date.

Like the X-29 though, the Su-47 was primarily a technology demonstrator, one intended to lay the foundation for the next Russian fighter. Such a fighter must not only be as advanced as the US F-22 and Eurofighter Typhoon, but must also compete for funding with the more conventional MiGs. However, Sukhoi is now attempting to market the Su-47 to the Russian military and foreign customers as a production fighter in its own right. Initial reaction was not good, but the aircraft's performance has been so impressive that the Russian government has made funds available for further testing of the design.
Still, the low budgets of the Russian military and the aircraft's high price tag make it unlikely that the Su-47 will be purchased any time in the near future.

www.flymig.com...

They've been trying to sell them since 2004, but the price has been too high for anyone to buy them.
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



In Case Of Videos Of Flying People
  Posted 12 days ago with 9 member flags
First flight for \'flapless\' plane - the Evolution of Aviation
  Posted 15 days ago with 4 member flags
F22 mishap or more that meeets the eye?
  Posted 4 days ago with 4 member flags
Boeing X-37 and X-40 - the ultimate history
  Posted 8 days ago with 3 member flags
Its a bird, its a plane, no its a ....
  Posted 17 days ago with 0 member flags