A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why a Swept-Wing?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 15th 04, 05:30 AM
Mary Shafer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 18:20:34 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

As I recall the X-29 project, one of the objectives was evaluation of
the instability as a means of gaining agility for future highly
maneuverable aircraft. The "urban legend" was that the aircraft
required minimum of triple redundant FBW augmentation as loss of the
augmentation would result in immediate excursions from stable flight
and structural failure within seconds. The ultimate in "JC maneuvers".


Well, it didn't have to have all three computers working, just one,
which could have been the fourth, back-up one. But that wasn't a
long-term sort of thing.

However, it didn't hang around for seconds before it pitched up.
stalled, and departed controlled flight. Time to double amplitude was
a small fraction of a second, although I can't remember the number.
It was smaller than that of the F-16, but the F-16 isn't very unstable
(it's neutrally stable clean and full of fuel and could be flown,
albeit rather oddly, without augmentation until enough fuel burned
off, not that anyone except VISTA would try this).

The X-29 was statically unstable because the project was a technology
demonstrator for agile aircraft with forward-swept wings, aircraft
that were stall-resistant. It wasn't statically unstable because it
had a forward-swept wing.

Always thought it made for an extremely ugly airplane.


I thought it wasn't all that bad looking, myself. The X-31 was rather
plain, but the X-29 was OK.

Wasn't the basic structure from an F-16A?


No, that was the X-31, I think, at least for the gear and cockpit.
The X-29 used a couple of F-5s for the fuselages. I don't remember
how far aft the F-5 airframe went, but it definitely included the
cockpit and surrounding structure, as well as the gear, as I recall.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

Ads
  #22  
Old January 15th 04, 05:04 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...

snip
However, it didn't hang around for seconds before it pitched up.
stalled, and departed controlled flight. Time to double amplitude was
a small fraction of a second, although I can't remember the number.
It was smaller than that of the F-16, but the F-16 isn't very unstable
(it's neutrally stable clean and full of fuel and could be flown,


This is closer than Mary's claim that the F-16 is statically unstable, but
the F-16 continues to remain 5% pitch stable.


  #23  
Old January 19th 04, 09:14 AM
JasiekS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Uzytkownik "Alan Dicey"
napisal w wiadomosci ...
As far as I can recall, forward sweep confers the advantage that
spanwise flow is now inwards, and the wingtips (with associated control
surfaces) stall last instead of first, so control authority is retained
at higher angles of attack or "deeper into the stall". In the X-29 they
were combined with canards, a supercritical wing and aerodynamic
instabilty in a search for enhanced maneuverability. See here

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/Fa...-008-DFRC.html

for the NASA Dryden infosheet. I seem to remember that the advantages
gained did not warrant the construction costs/difficulties (aeroelastic
tailoring with composites in the wing structure, as I recall) and so the
technique was not carried forward into new fighter design. Perhaps Mary
Shafer may know more of the projects findings?


I dug through my old notices on X-29A and X-31X and found these references:
[1] Bandyopadhyay G. - "Low-Speed Aerodynamic Characteristics of
Close-Coupled Canard Configuration at Incidence and Sideslip", Journal of
Aircraft, Vol. 28, No. 10, October 1991
[2] Er-El J. - "Effect of Wing/Canard Interference on the Loading of a Delta
Wing", Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 25, No. 1, January 1988
[3] Manoeuvring Aerodynamics, AGARD CP 497, Toulouse, France, May 1991
(especially papers)
[3.a] Ross Hannes - "X-31 Enhancement of Aerodynamics for Maneuvering beyond
Stall", Paper 2
[3.b] Kraus W. - "X-31, Discussion of Steady State and Rotary Derivatives",
Paper 13
[3.c] Ferretti A., Bartoli A., Salvatore A. - "Prediction of Aerodynamic
Phenomena Limiting Aircraft Manoeuvrability", Paper 5
[3.d] Visintini L., Pertile R., Mentasti A. - "Parametric Effects of some
Aircraft Components on High-Alpha Aerodynamic Characteristics", Paper 6

Close-Coupled Canard was my main area of interest these days so sweep
(-forward or -back) can be treated mariginally in these papers, but I hope
they can help you.

Regards
JasiekS
Warsaw, Poland


  #24  
Old January 23rd 04, 04:35 AM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"JasiekS" wrote in message
...

Close-Coupled Canard was my main area of interest these days so sweep
(-forward or -back) can be treated mariginally in these papers, but I hope
they can help you.


The major interesting fearure of the X-29 was the two poles in the right
half of the s-plane.


  #25  
Old January 23rd 04, 07:34 PM
W. D. Allen Sr.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Two poles in the right half s plane made it inherently unstable, right?

Does that mean LOT, the Polish airlines, can have seats only on the lefthand
side of their airplanes.

WDA

end

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"JasiekS" wrote in message
...

Close-Coupled Canard was my main area of interest these days so sweep
(-forward or -back) can be treated mariginally in these papers, but I

hope
they can help you.


The major interesting fearure of the X-29 was the two poles in the right
half of the s-plane.




  #26  
Old January 25th 04, 02:31 AM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"W. D. Allen Sr." wrote in message
...
Two poles in the right half s plane made it inherently unstable, right?


Pitch unstable, but the poles being complex in nature eliminates most folks
(including aero engineers) from the discussion.

Does that mean LOT, the Polish airlines, can have seats only on the

lefthand
side of their airplanes.


No.


  #27  
Old January 25th 04, 07:54 AM
machf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 10:34:23 -0800, "W. D. Allen Sr."
wrote:

Two poles in the right half s plane made it inherently unstable, right?

Does that mean LOT, the Polish airlines, can have seats only on the lefthand
side of their airplanes.

Engineering humor... LOL.

--
__________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke
\_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru
_H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com
'-_____|(

remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying
  #28  
Old November 29th 11, 12:00 AM
tonini tonini is offline
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by AviationBanter: Nov 2011
Posts: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Dandy View Post
Pardon my ignorance on all matters concerning modern aviation but just
why the hell would you want to sweep a wing forward?

Doesn't that make any aircraft unstable? If so, why would any pilot
feel safe in it?

Has anyone ever made one work?

James Dandy
Swept-wing spread - low speed and manouverability.
Unspread - higher speed and intercepting
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
German forward swept wing WWII fighter projects. Charles Gray Military Aviation 4 January 11th 04 02:49 PM
Canard planes swept wing outer VG's? Paul Lee Home Built 8 January 4th 04 09:10 PM
Props and Wing Warping... was soaring vs. flaping Wright1902Glider Home Built 0 September 29th 03 03:40 PM
Can someone explain wing loading? Frederick Wilson Home Built 4 September 10th 03 02:33 AM
Wing Extensions Jay Home Built 22 July 27th 03 12:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.