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.

 

What are advantages of Forward Swept Wings?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 01:37 AM
link   
I sound n00b, but I have not really learned the advantages of forward swept wings. Don't they cause massive instability? But then again, they add to agility, correct me if I'm wrong, please.




posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 01:40 AM
link   
Actually, with the X-29 it was found that it increased lift and manuverability, but the problem at the time was that the tips twisted so badly that they thought they were going to snap off at first.

I don't know how true this is, but I heard a story that during a high speed taxi test, the plane went airborne because of the lift provided by the wings.



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Actually, with the X-29 it was found that it increased lift and manuverability, but the problem at the time was that the tips twisted so badly that they thought they were going to snap off at first.

I don't know how true this is, but I heard a story that during a high speed taxi test, the plane went airborne because of the lift provided by the wings.



Hmm, I knew that they were supposed to increase maneuverability, but I hadn't known about increases lift. Any idea about loss of stability?



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 01:47 AM
link   
www.globalsecurity.org...


There ya go. There's a lot of good info on the X-29 for you. From what they were saying there, it sounds like it was horribly unstable, but that's good. Most supermanuverable designs ARE very inherantly unstable.

[edit on 2-7-2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 03:56 AM
link   
Forward sweeps are like back sweeps, but the airflow is different.

In back swept wings, the airflow goes along the fuselage, following the wing, and leaves off the wingtip. With forward swept wings, the airflow hits the wingtip first, and follows it along the fuselage.

Forward sweeps are highly unstable, and are prone to extreme twisting, which in turn requires strong materials to avoid it. With the advent of fly-by-wire systems, the computer can very easily keep the aerodynamically unstable airplane completely stable.

That way the computer can just make the necessary changes to perform tighter manuevers, which wouldn't be possible in back swept wings.

You could liken it to a dart and a bird. The dart, being back swept wings, would be hard to manuever in mid-air. The bird on the other hand, the forward swept wings, can easily change direction.

Most forward swept wing designs are decided too costly and complex where they outweigh the benefits.



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 08:36 AM
link   
Forward swept wings provide the best manuverability in sub sonic speeds.

The Nazi's were responsible for all of the forward swept wings research and development and the US and USSR stole their tech and got a few built for them from kidnapped Nazi scientists.



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Awww, poor ickle nazi's. (sarcasm) Why do you love them so much, do you want to be one? Under Nazi rule you would ,most likely, have been exterminated. Odd that you love them so much.



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
Forward swept wings provide the best manuverability in sub sonic speeds.

The Nazi's were responsible for all of the forward swept wings research and development and the US and USSR stole their tech and got a few built for them from kidnapped Nazi scientists.

And where does your glorious India get their tech for their "indigeonous" weaponery?
It's not totally indigeonous - nobodiy's weapons are totally indigeonous, because they are built on the steps of others, so it is with all tech development.

[edit on 7/2/2005 by bios]



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 06:19 PM
link   
The Nazis are responsible for EVERY aviation design ever built. I'm sure they ever had something to do with the Wright Flyer. [/sarcasm]

I love the forward swept wing designs. The only drawback was that at the time they were built they didn't have the materials to make them light and strong among other drawbacks. I'd like to see them build more of them. I got to see the X-29 after they stopped flying it, at Aames one year. That was a beautiful bird.



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The Nazis are responsible for EVERY aviation design ever built. I'm sure they ever had something to do with the Wright Flyer. [/sarcasm]


:shk: There seems to be this resurgence of Nazi Tech glory going on here at ATS. As you pointed out above, Wilber and Orvil were brownshirts no doubt...

One inherent problem other than the total lack of stability making fly by wire or nowadays fly by light a must is the tendancy of the wing to twist or warp as it were. The term I believe is aeroelastic divergence.

Planes like the S-47 and the X-29 had very rigid wing structures. A composite airframe would no doubt be of great benifit for this type of application.

That being said, you can be manuverable way beyond the pilots capacity and still get killed by the BVR slammer.



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 09:50 PM
link   
I'm still waiting to hear about how the Nazis were responsible for the SR-71. heh

Manuverability is a wonderful thing, but if you don't know the missile is coming, or don't have the countermeasures to defeat it, you're just as dead. I'd love to see a forward swept wing design put into production. They're just so pretty. I heard at first when they were flying the X-29 they thought the wingtips were going to snap off, they twisted so badly in flight.



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by bios
And where does your glorious India get their tech for their "indigeonous" weaponery?
It's not totally indigeonous - nobodiy's weapons are totally indigeonous, because they are built on the steps of others, so it is with all tech development.


When did i ever comment on the contrary. And whats the point in talking about india. Sure not even 20% of india's weaponry is indegenous.

But why use india as an excuse to run away from the facts. is there any shortage of links on the nazi roots of forward swept wings that was taken by by russia and america ?

and i am not anti-semetic or anything.

since some people have trouble giving credit to the "nazi's", please read the phrase "nazi" as "german" since they are unrelated and give them the credit they deserve.

[edit on 3-7-2005 by Stealth Spy]



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 10:38 AM
link   
I thought reduced drag was a key selling point of forward swept wings as well. I seem to remember that the configuration was also advantageous for trans-sonic speeds as it somehow minimized boom overpressure.



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
and i am not anti-semetic or anything. since some people have trouble giving credit to the "nazi's",


I do not think anybody has ever called you a Nazi or anti semetic in any thread (lots of other things though) SYmantics aside, there seems to be this mythology that has been and is currently being built up around Nazi ttechnology during WWII. No doubt they had some interesting concepts, but people lose sight of the fact that the US and UK also did as well.



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
since some people have trouble giving credit to the "nazi's", please read the phrase "nazi" as "german" since they are unrelated and give them the credit they deserve.


Then if you want to refer to germans, simply call them "germans". The National Socialists were a political party like any else political interest group. Hence "the Nazis" didnt invent or develop anything.

Just like not the "Republicans" or "Democrats" or the "Communistic Party" invent this or that, it always was a company and, subsequently, some people of these countries. Why use a controversial term when it isnt correctly used here anyway?



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
I do not think anybody has ever called you a Nazi or anti semetic in any thread.


Check this out : *shakes head*



you worship nazis . you think your a masterace which the nazis decened from.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and lonestar i agree with you and will comply with your views.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 01:35 AM
link   
Well, I ain't gona say something that isn't already said...
But there is still a reason why nobody builds planes like that right...?


[edit on 4-7-2005 by Figher Master FIN]



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Partly because it would be a radical change, and it's hard to push change through with the militaries of the world. They know what works, and what they like and want, and this is Different. But I think mostly because of the cost. You would have to make it out of composite materials, so that the wings wouldn't snap from the twisting, and have to have all kinds of computer controls, etc built into it, which would drive the cost up.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 09:49 AM
link   
wow so now that we got side tracked how about back to the actual disscusion? From what I've read on the X-29 it was highly unstable, had increased lift and had massive flexing of the wing tips. it seems we all agree on this much anyone else care to add anything?



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 09:53 AM
link   
I would have to agree about the cost issue Zaphod but when you look at a plane like say the F-22(just a comparesion please no agruements about this) and its program and how much its cost you woulld think that if indeed it was a huge increase in the agility of the plane and its lift they (US) would of followed up on it. perhaps they have with a black project? A high flying (increased lift) plane with high speeds and high agility would capitalise on the short comings of say the 71.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join