X-56 and the implications to modern flight

NASA recently released an interesting multi series video on the X-56, the study of wing flutter and the efforts to better understand and mitigate its effects. They are using the X-56, a Lockheed Skunk Works UAV that was specifically designed to study the effects of wing flutter and active and passive countermeasures to it during flight. The potential implications to better understanding and mitigating flutter are rather great, leading to not only more efficient aircraft but greater top speeds as wing structures and bracing can become lighter and less intrusive to the structure and aerodynamics of the aircraft's overall design.





en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Sammamishman

I've read that the X-56 might be a direct, white world response by Lockheed to problems encountered with a decidedly different aircraft they worked on that may or may not have had a similar planform to the X-56. There any truth that?

a reply to: Barnalby

It does look similar to the darkstar I must admit.

great video peek into that bunch's project.....flutter needs ballast i think.....


saw some of the neatest films there....that one showing the fuselage being warped scared me











i'm curious though

a reply to: Barnalby

I can't say that I have any direct knowledge of the program that needed this research but it would be more than plausible that they had similar issues with one of their black projects and needed NASA's help. With NASA involved it also makes it more conducive to a white world experimental program and the potential white world applications of this tech will payout far more than anything that lives in the black world.

a reply to: Barnalby

Flutter has long been an issue for all of aviation. There are indications that at least one Piper model has had several in flight breakups due to flutter

a reply to: Zaphod58

Didn't the prototype 747 experience a lot of wing flutter at first?

a reply to: Woody510

More than expected. Not dangerous amounts, just more than they thought they'd see.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I thought so I remember it from a documentary I watched about it was it true they also used some depleted uranium as a ballast? Is it still in use or did they move on to another material?

Yes I remember seeing this from the documentary

a reply to: Woody510

The 757 and 767 were the last to use DU ballast, and I believe that was only in the early aircraft.

a reply to: Woody510

Boeing uses big ballast tanks filled with different amounts of water now to test different CG set ups and loading stresses during flight testing. Not sure they use static ballast in production anymore.

a reply to: Sammamishman

Up until the 757 and 767 they had several hundred pounds of depleted uranium in selected points on the airframe to act as ballast during flight. It helped them to keep the CG stable. They used other materials for the late 757 and 767 aircraft, and on the 787 I believe. I want to say tungsten or something along those lines.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I'll bet the handling of those aircraft were really fun for the maintainers. Didn't need to pull your hair out since it was all going to fall out anyway.

a reply to: Sammamishman

I think there was a lot controversy over crashes and fires as well I'm sure the 92 Amsterdam crash had depleted uranium in it if I remember correctly from the documentary.

a reply to: Sammamishman

What was really fun was when they crashed. Solid DU isn't nearly as bad as when it dustifies and gets into the air. Then you end up breathing it in, where it does Bad Things to your body.

a reply to: Woody510

That was where it became more well known that there were a godawful number of planes flying with DU on them. That was one of the incidents that drove the change to other materials.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Just had a quick Google it had 282kg of DU in the tailplane I'm guessing like you said if it breaks up during the crash and burns then it's not going to have a good outcome especially for first responders.

a reply to: Woody510

There are no confirmed effects, and a number of accidents it wouldn't have been as dangerous, simply because the tail was so likely to survive with less damage, but it was bad enough.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Did the B52 use any as ballast do you know?

a reply to: Woody510

Probably, but I can't say for sure.