User Panel
That's pretty weird. I remember seeing something similar at Ames Research Center back in the late 70's, but it wasn't a flying wing. It was an oblique wing aircraft, though. IIRC, it used an F-104 fuselage.
|
|
|
Ya, what is the point of this new thing? What does it do? |
|
|
|
||
|
Exactly right. I must have thought at the time that it was made from an F-104, but now I don't think it was. Maybe just the canopy, I don't know. I found this: www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-019-DFRC.html |
||
|
nice computer graphic of a plane.... I don't like it when companies do that, to make it look like they have something flying.
|
|
It costs us lots and lots of money. |
||
|
It had better be unmanned, stealth, bulletproof and made out of solid gold, because I guarantee you we'll be spending enough on it that it could be. |
|
|
I was wondering what they were doing with the engine pods from retired B-52s!
|
|
You are the same guy that said "Why would I want to send information from one computer to another?" back in the 70s... Fess up! |
|||
|
What will this do for us that we can't do with what we have? If we had the will to use the ICBM's we have and stay out of conflicts not worthy of a nuke we'd be a lot better off. |
||||
|
Let's go back to using sticks and rocks. |
|
|
Looks like JD Jone's spirit got to the DARPA folks, but then, it is DARPA.
I bet Jack Northrop (founder of Northrop) is turning in his grave. The NASA aircraft that was built back in the 70s is called AD-1 (Ames, Dryden-1), and the final report of the series of flight test indicates that it was very difficult to control, and recommend the airframe to be used for the study of unstable flight platform. The idea or oblique wing is to fly at low sonic speed with minimal drag cause by breaking the "sonic barrier", reduction of sonic boom effect, and have a high aspect ratio wing for take-off landing, and sub-sonic flight. The problem is the A/C flys at M=1.05, supersonic, but not much faster than A/C flying at M=0.8 at lower altitude. On top of that, JD Jones, (aerodynamicist who develop the concept) had his control equation wrong. (I did the research of the oblique wing concept a few years ago) Good luck with NG-ACD. We at LM-ADP are glad they won this program. |
|
I'm curious to your thoughts on "morphing wing" studies/tech as being viable. |
|
|
It’s the most efficient design available for a broad range of flight characteristics. Think high lift at low speed and low drag at high speed. If we can get a variable geometry design like this to work well, it will see applications in every aircraft built for the next five or six decades. Example: Think about a UAV that takes off from someplace in Kansas, cruses for 3 or 4 hours out to someplace over the pacific and then makes a 10,000 MPH sprint across China and then slows down again to land on some island. Can't do that with today’s tech; fuel consumption is too high, drag is too high, thermal problems tear stuff apart. |
|
|
We based an A/C design on mission, not concept, not theory. The little I know about "morphing wing" design is an A/C which can change its wing shape (aspect ration, sweep), based on the mission needs. It can have a high aspect ratio wing during cruise and lottering, and low apsect sweep back wing during high speed penetration or attack. Interesting concept, but execution is difficult, because every mechanism that is added to an A/C, we pay with both weight and structural issue. Sometimes these issues cannot be re-solved. More importantly is, can the same mission be fulfilled with a fixed wing geometry A/C? We already are flying or have flown a form of "morphing wing" A/C, they are known as variable geometry or sweep wing (B-1, F-111, F-14, Tornado, Russian Backfire, Mig and Su). F-111 even experimented with variable camber. |
|
|
By clicking on this thread you have just activated the government's tracking device installed in your skull.
|
|
Precisely, pulse propulsion technology. The act you describe above has already been successfully done. Hopefully, no clintonista type president will be next and just sell it away for the sake of parity. |
||
|
|
I've seen those in New Mexico over 50 years ago. But it is cool to see photos of them in day light.
|
|
This is where people outside the loop post this: |
|
|
Northrop Grumman - Advanced Capabilities Development Lockheed Martin (Skunk Works) - Advanced Development Programs |
|
|
Cole
They are our actual flying R/C version of the aircraft. First picture is the attack shape, the second is the loitering shape.
OKAY, in English: JD Jones, a PhD in aerodynamics, develop the concept of the oblique wing aircraft, back in the 20-30's. Jack Northrop, founder on Northrop, once called JD Jones a "Nut" case for his oblique wing concept. Northrop himself was being considered a "Nut" himself because he is pushing the flying wing concept. It is ironic that Northrop Grumman wind up building JD Jone's oblique flying wing. The advantage offer by the oblique flying wing does not balance out the disadvantage, especially the control issue, extra structural weight plus mechanisms to rotate the engine mount. The design is very limited in term of supersonic speed. Ground speed wise, the oblique wing might fly faster than a conventional jet by maybe 50 to 70 mph or 10% faster. |
|
|
The purpose of the oblique wing is to increase the critical Mach number of the wing. That alone does not mean the airplane is supersonic, although that appears to be part of this airplane's mission.
Well, I guess that's going to free up a few more folks here to work on other things, mostly helping Seattle. |
|
Lock-Mart seems to be looking fairly hard at "morphing" planes. I also like the Cormorant idea for the SSGN. |
||
|
UAV seems to open up a bunch of possibilities, since we do not need to fit the airframe around a 6' 200 pound pilot plus his/her equipment and gear, and the computer and control system can be distributed among the airframe, and ther A/C need not to be man rated.
Morphing is one idea, which airframes can be better fit for a wider variety of mission. There are other concepts up in our sleeves. |
|
You can tell us, we promise not to say anything. |
|
|
"No need to be man rated" for UAV's is a wive's tale; they still must posses sufficient structural integrity and systems reliablilty that they can be flown over populated regions without fear of crashing into a pre-school or the midst of the garden club. The airworthiness requirements are not relaxed for unmanned vehicles. |
|
|
...to put the word "catywampus" back in popular military jargon, of course! |
|
|
Air worthiness is different from man-rated requirements, and that is all I have to say. |
|
|
That's splitting hairs, just slightly. Wrong, too. |
||
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.