you can use any material you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a wrong, innefective shape.
If I make a cube-shaped ship with alien materials, will that make it good ship? No.
So why bother with a wing shape that is difficult to implement, makes the plane unstable and simply doesn't work, when you have a dozen other shapes that would work far better. Not to mention that the dragon has a a really strange design front, that looks like it would create as much wind resistance as a house.
If I try to make a car out of tin foil, does that mean all cars are a bad design?
A forward-swept wing is a
very effective shape, allowing for much higher maneuverability at all speeds, from high-alpha at near-stall, or transonic speeds. The inherent instability is a good characteristic in a fighter plane - it allows for greater agility. As long as you have a computer between the control surfaces and the pilot, it becomes a machine that will almost do whatever he thinks of.
It's not an inherently bad design, just a different one. It's a case of F1 racer versus NASCAR, not cube vs. airfoil.
Its primary disadvantage is its advantage: at high speeds it creates forces that want to twist the wing right off. This is why today's composite materials make a forward-swept wing merely impractical, not just impossible. Furthermore, fighter combat today is centered around the missile, not the cannon, so speed, altitude, and stealth are the primary components with the aim of getting a missile kill without being killed by a missile. A forward-swept wing doesn't degrade any of those components, but it adds an engineering challenge that could be done without. That's what things like the
X-29 and the
Su-47 have shown engineers: "It works, but for what we want it's too much trouble."
But for a close-in knife fight, in the successor of the Stiletto, a forward-swept wing is a very strong design. Alien materials would mitigate the engineering problem of a forward wing, and radar stealth is not as strong a consideration. I actually believe that if modern air combat were centered on gunfights, not missiles, we'd see a lot more forward-wing fighter planes.
I will agree with you, though, that the fuselage is not an ideal aerodynamic design. Using three prongs is likely to yield poorer performance than 'filling' them in.
On the topic of names: I thought of a few more, named after blades: Sabre, Sai, Shiv (being the first hybrid aircraft), Scimitar, Saif, Sappara, and Shamshir. Looking at the
Shamshir, I like how the shamshir has an unconventional shape, reminding me a lot of the Dragon.
Show Posts
)