It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can Somebody Explain

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: BigTrain



Design principles[edit]
Supersonic flight brings with it substantial technical challenges, as the aerodynamics of supersonic flight are dramatically different from those of subsonic flight (i.e., flight at speeds slower than that of sound). In particular, aerodynamic drag rises sharply as the aircraft passes the transonic regime, requiring much greater engine power and more streamlined airframes.

Wings[edit]
To keep drag low, wing span must be limited, which also reduces the aerodynamic efficiency when flying slowly. Since a supersonic aircraft must take off and land at a relatively slow speed, its aerodynamic design must be a compromise between the requirements for both ends of the speed range.

One approach to resolving this compromise is the use of a variable-geometry wing, commonly known as the "swing-wing," which spreads wide for low-speed flight and then sweeps sharply, usually backwards, for supersonic flight. However, swinging affects the longitudinal trim of the aircraft and the swinging mechanism adds weight and cost, so it is not often used.



en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

The diagram has a pointy hind end, but the picture doesnt.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: BigTrain

Flying wings tend not to play nice with transonic and supersonic speeds.

The cranked kite, however, isn't a really flying wing, and in the case of the Northrop LRS-B, where it is likely aided (especially in terms of yaw control) by some sort of 3-D fluidic vectoring system, it's aerodynamic principles would likely be closer to a fat delta wing (again, with the Vulcan connection) than they would be to say, the B-2.

The Vulcan couldn't get any faster than mach 1.0-1.2 in a dive, because it was optimized for flight in the mach .90s and didn't have the extensive, near-perfect area ruling, fancy intakes, and shockwave management of a true supersonic bomber such as the B-58 or B-1. In the Avro's case, it was because the UK didn't really have the budget to pull any of that off. In the LRS-B's case, it will likely be because all of those design elements would interfere with its "stealth at all costs" design and the extensive shaping and exotic skins needed to pull it off.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

It might be even more blunted than my Photoshop, but there's so much atmospheric distortion in the image that it's hard to ascertain any finer details from the picture other than sweep angle, and basic massing.

Or to put it this way, it probably won't look exactly like in my image, but the general proportions will be the same.

They also match the proportions in this image:


As well as those of the shadow seen in this ad:
youtu.be...



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Keep in mind when they are talking about speed, mach .95 at 20k feet is a different ground speed than .95 at 60k feet.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby
Don't you think if you push the engine in full power on a B-2 it can be possible to go mach 1 ? mach 0.95 top speed in public domain don't you think the real speed is still classified ?



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: darksidius

No. There are business jets that cruise at Mach 0.98 or even 0.99. That doesn't mean they can go supersonic if they pushed it. There's a finite line that an engine will not cross if it and the airframe are not optimized for it.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
Ok but why putting an Advent like engine if you don't want supersonic capability???, there is no interest, Advent engine was optimized for cruise and supersonic dash capability with a thid Stream. In this configuration of subsonic LRS-B no need for an Advent engine just taking the better turbofan can be enough. When we look back the USAF strategy ,there is a need to going quickly over the battlefield for destroy the mobile launcher , its impossible to do that with another low bomber. The time you take to arrive and the mobile launcher will not be here. It seem that the Generals are afraid by the speed capability all the program about speed capability was cancelled why ?? Lokcheed slogan " speed is the new stealth" i m totaly agree with that so why USAF don't go in for having supremacy for decade??
edit on 21-1-2016 by darksidius because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: darksidius

Advent was NOT optimized for supersonic dash. It was designed for huge fuel savings. You're telling me that if you could replace the engine in your car with an engine that would save you hundreds of dollars a month, if not more, you wouldn't do it because it wouldn't make your car go faster?

What do you think engine improvements are? They improve efficiency so that they can do things older engines can't, such as flying the same range as a larger aircraft in less fuel.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: [post=20283156]Zaphod58[/post
It look like the LRS-B will reproduce the old scheme of the 80s, I m realy sceptic it will dominate for decade and decade. In my opinion there is a need for some miltary aircraft pushing the technology decade away of the ennemy capabilities in term of aerodynamics and engine capability and no matter the cost it may have, I hope realy USAF stay the only master of the sky , I don't want to see China taking this place.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: darksidius

Just because an aircraft looks like something else doesn't mean it's not bleeding edge technology. We have KC-135s flying now that have cutting edge cockpits. I'd rather have a bleeding edge bomber that is slow and looks old that comes back most of the time than something that looks incredible, costs 10x as much, and doesn't come back as often.

This bomber is beyond bleeding edge in areas, and will do things the F-35 dreams about doing someday, but since it's not a supersonic bomber that looks good it's already being written off. Nice.
edit on 1/21/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Like Han Solo when he was defending the Millennium Falcon's looks to princess Leia, Zaphs right.

Never judge a book by it's cover.


That being said I'd imagine Northrop's laminar flow system, or whatever they are calling it, if it could hypothetically reduced drag, and along with extra range you'd get an engine that could push the plane faster. Granted it's got compressors or whatever that could handle the extra speed of the intake's airflow.

Whether the air frame could handle the extra speed is another question. But if the drags being reduced wouldn't that allow for higher speeds before compromising the bird.

That's a question I don't know the answer to. Zaph what do you think. If there was something, hypothetically, reducing drag to increase range and loiter, wouldn't reduced drag allow for a plane to fly slightly faster without too much compromise. I understand planform dictates speed but can't the envelop for said planform be slightly expanded just a smidge if there was some sorta drag reduction going on....hypothetically?
edit on 21-1-2016 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-1-2016 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: darksidius

The engine power might be there, but the wingtips would sick out well into any shock cone that it would produce, so you'd have to explain to your commander why you made the airframe rip itself to pieces due to transonic flutter. That is, if you even lived to tell about it.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby


There are ways to push the shockfront further from the nose of the plane.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Yes, but it's the difference between 0.95 and 0.98.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

what if the Northrop bird had a Cranked Kite configuration but with variable geometry so It could turn it's self into a delta when it wanted too? Basically have the ability to make it's planform variable? Could it hypothetically push it's speed envelope further than 3%? Hypothetically .... if the Northrop LRS-B had MAW?



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Then it would cost a lot more than it does.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 08:03 PM
link   
what if maw was a fairly established thing an maybe cheaper than the public thinks? could they get away with selling the delux or sport package at regular package prices?



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

You're way overestimating what they can do. Yes there's rudimentary shape changing, but that's all it is. It just changes the shape of the wing, making it more efficient.



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I was under the impression that the farthest along that shape-memory alloys have got today is just far enough to make a cessna, or maybe even a business jet that could change its airfoil shape on command.

And even then, it'd be something along the lines of shifting from one NACA profile to a couple other preset ones that are fairly similar to begin with.
edit on 22-1-2016 by Barnalby because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join