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.

 

Forward-Swept Wings

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 12:24 PM
link   
I think that aircraft with forward swept wings look great but I only know of two such aircraft and they are the Grumman X-29 and the Su-47 (




posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   
I dont think that there are any other foward swept wing fighters, besides the two you mentioned. I googled for FSW fighters, but all I got was pictures of the X-29, and the Su-47. I did see something mentioned of a S-37 fighter though.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   






posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Any ideas what those three actually are? Shame they are not as good looking as the Berkut.

-George



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 01:19 PM
link   
MBB Hansajet, Germany
Saab Safari, Sweden
Junkers Ju-287, Germany








[edit on 3-4-2006 by planeman]



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 01:42 PM
link   

posted by gfad: “Any ideas what those three actually are? -George


I do not recognize the other 2.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   
General Dynamics FSW F-16


North-American WS-110A (proposal)


The question is, are the extra manoeuvrability of FSW wings worth the trouble of designing super strong composite materials and wing structures? Thrust vector already makes planes like the Su-37 supermanoeuvrable anyway (can point nose in any direction while travelling in any other direction)

The aesthetic value is definitely not bad. Maybe there should be a new class of fighters built just to look good, and instead of fighting wars we can have fighter beauty contests instead

[edit on 3-4-2006 by Taishyou]



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   
I think the composite materials and structures are already available and the computer equpiment required to keep a FSW stable with great manouverability is much less expensive, easier to service and lighter than the equipment required for thrust vectoring.

Is the FSW F-16 a concept that was in competition with the X-29? And what is the North-American WS-110A? Passenger? Military? Bomber? Fighter?

Thanks so far....



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
And what is the North-American WS-110A? Passenger? Military? Bomber? Fighter?

It's just a proposal for a high speed bomber, but was rejected. The XB-70 Valkyrie proposal was accepted instead



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Forward swept wings help make aircraft more manuverable generally because they are used in configuratins that make them aerodynamicly less stable. This means the airframe itself has less resistance to being flung off axis for heavy manuvers.

is that Saab FSW, or straight wings whose dihedral give that impression from that angle?



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   
The Saab Safari / Supporter is technicaly a forward swept wing (FSW) design although the angle is mild and almost certainly to do with cockpit visibility and to allow the wing spar to behind the centre of gravity (rather than through the cockpit). The type did see combat in Nigeria where it was used by mercenaries and destroyed a number of Nigerian fast jets, but obviously lacks the appeal of the Su-47.





[edit on 4-4-2006 by Riwka]



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by gfad: " . . what is the North-American WS-110A? Passenger? Military? Bomber? Fighter? Thanks so far....


Once upon a time the DoD used WS for ‘Weapons Systems’ to describe the whole thing, rockets, guidance, ECM and etc.

Some of the Jane’s All the Worlds Weapons Systems annuals may have added to this, too.

[edit on 4/3/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   
I can kinda understand why the DoD chose the Valkerie over a design with FSW, surely for a high speed bomber agility can be sacrificed for speed, whereas in a fighter a FSW design could be much more useful.

Might sound like an idiot but what is a dihedral?



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
I can kinda understand why the DoD chose the Valkerie over a design with FSW, surely for a high speed bomber agility can be sacrificed for speed, whereas in a fighter a FSW design could be much more useful.

Might sound like an idiot but what is a dihedral?


It's a minor misconception that FSW = more agility - what it really means is less transonic drag (can increase speed/range etc) and slower stalling speeds(/higher angles of attack) allowing shorter (/slower) take-off and landings.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Northrop switchblade

though this plane design could change its wing shape FSW was on of the modes for "With its wings swept farther forward, the aircraft becomes extremely maneuverable for aerial combat."
link

[edit on 3-4-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by gfadMight sound like an idiot but what is a dihedral?

Dihedral is the upward slant of wings from an aircraft's fuselage, so they form a shallow "V" shape. It increases stability somewhat, as you get a greater amount of verticle lift off of the depressed wing in a shallow bank. Most commercial aircraft provide a good example of this.

Some aircraft have an Anhedral, or reversed dihedral. This is typicly intended to provide the opposite effect, and increase roll rates. Harriers are good examples.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 09:50 PM
link   

posted by Taishyou: "General Dynamics FSW F-16



I don't think the F16 with FSW ever made it past the drawing boards.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Northrop switchblade

though this plane design could change its wing shape FSW was on of the modes for "With its wings swept farther forward, the aircraft becomes extremely maneuverable for aerial combat."
link
It's safe to say that this is another popular fiction aircraft. True it's been patented, but then so have many aircraft that never flew. Stealth aircraft with swing wings, biting off a big chunk of appel there - in fact safe to day that the original patent design is not intended to be seriously stealthy.

[edit on 3-4-2006 by planeman]



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Travellar
Dihedral is the upward slant of wings from an aircraft's fuselage, so they form a shallow "V" shape. It increases stability somewhat, as you get a greater amount of verticle lift off of the depressed wing in a shallow bank. Most commercial aircraft provide a good example of this.


Thanks, I always wondered why the wings were angled.

The switchblade was quite a cool concept but I cant see how it could be steathly with so many non-parallel edges. And of course the swing-wing design is reliably heavy and difficult to service.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 07:36 AM
link   
Great work with the F-16...


Anybody know why the planes that use forward swept wings are so unstabile... they are maneuverable yes... but why...??



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join