sliding wings?

Not variable wingspan, but variable wings

http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/rk-i.html



http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/is-1.html



KH



"Karl-Heinz Kuenzel" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
There have been a lot of experimentals with variable wingspan.

One you will find here

http://www.aviafrance.com/4806.htm

KH

schrieb im Newsbeitrag
oups.com...

when I look at my eyeglass case, I see two closely overlapping
wing-type shapes that are being pulled apart for opening.

why would it not be worthwhile to extend wings this way for landing and
departure?

/iaw

wrote in message
oups.com...

when I look at my eyeglass case, I see two closely overlapping
wing-type shapes that are being pulled apart for opening.

why would it not be worthwhile to extend wings this way for landing and
departure?

This is a solution in search of a problem.

Rich S.

"Rich S." wrote in message
...
wrote in message
oups.com...

when I look at my eyeglass case, I see two closely overlapping
wing-type shapes that are being pulled apart for opening.

why would it not be worthwhile to extend wings this way for landing and
departure?

This is a solution in search of a problem.

Rich S.
Isn't that pretty much how the B-2 is controlled?

Harold
KD5SAK

From a book about the Horton Flying Wings

"... The Horton H VII had a new type of rudder installed. It consisted of
"tongues" that slid spanwise along the spar, and protuded from the tip for
additional wing tip drag. They worked very well, nevertheless the 20 H VII's
in production at Peschke at the end of the war, had conventional drag
rudders..."

around 1944

KH

"kd5sak" wrote

Isn't that pretty much how the B-2 is controlled?

Not really. On a B-2, there is a plain flap, or spoiler, on the top and the
bottom of the wing, out towards the tip. Yaw is done by extending the top
and bottom flap, about equally. You turn to that side, in a flat turn,
though.

To roll and turn left, the spoiler on the top left goes up. Fine tuning of
the yaw and roll, and so-forth, is done with the other flaps, with the fly
by wire doing all ot the thinking.

This is all a gross over simplification, of course.
--
Jim in NC

Rich S. wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

when I look at my eyeglass case, I see two closely overlapping
wing-type shapes that are being pulled apart for opening.

why would it not be worthwhile to extend wings this way for landing and
departure?

This is a solution in search of a problem.


Doesn't a swing wing accomplish pretty much the same thing?

--

FF

wrote in message
oups.com...

Rich S. wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

when I look at my eyeglass case, I see two closely overlapping
wing-type shapes that are being pulled apart for opening.

why would it not be worthwhile to extend wings this way for landing and
departure?

This is a solution in search of a problem.


Doesn't a swing wing accomplish pretty much the same thing?

--

FF

Yes, for supersonic fighters. Swept wings aren't a good choice for light
aircraft.

For slow propeller airplanes, the telescoping wing does have its
attractions. It's a way to keep the slow stall speed required for single
engine airplanes and stilll get a fast economical cruise. It probably
wouldn't help the venerable C-172 but an airplane that was already
aerodynamically clean might benefit quite a lot.

The airfoil could be any reasonable one for light aircraft. The outer wing
wouldn't make the innner wing more than an inch thicker. In addition to the
speed, another benefit would be a softer ride in turbulence with the much
higher wing loading.

Bill Daniels

Bill Daniels wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Rich S. wrote:
...
This is a solution in search of a problem.


Doesn't a swing wing accomplish pretty much the same thing?

--

FF

Yes, for supersonic fighters. Swept wings aren't a good choice for light
aircraft.

IIUC, sweeping the wing backwards has an adverse effect on stall
which is often offset with washout or twist.

How about swinging the wing forward instead?


For slow propeller airplanes, the telescoping wing does have its
attractions. It's a way to keep the slow stall speed required for single
engine airplanes and stilll get a fast economical cruise. It probably
wouldn't help the venerable C-172 but an airplane that was already
aerodynamically clean might benefit quite a lot.

The airfoil could be any reasonable one for light aircraft. The outer wing
wouldn't make the innner wing more than an inch thicker.

It would be easier to have the outer wing be the moving part from
a structural perspective, but then you have a longer chord on the
wing tip.

Another even more exotic alternative would be to design a wing
that could shape to higher or lower lift and drag airfoils. Actually
the Wright Brothers sort of did that.

Always happy to muddy the waters.

--

FF

wrote in message
oups.com...

when I look at my eyeglass case, I see two closely overlapping
wing-type shapes that are being pulled apart for opening.

why would it not be worthwhile to extend wings this way for landing and
departure?

/iaw


But, wouldn't the eyeglasses fall out onto the runway?

:-)
--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
Spell checking is left as an excercise for the reader.