project-navigation
Personal tools

Author Topic: about the aircrafts.  (Read 20080 times)

Offline TrashMan

  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 833
    • View Profile
Re: about the aircrafts.
« Reply #15 on: January 17, 2009, 01:00:19 pm »
I have no idea where you got all that, but I'll repeat once more - forward swept wings are not a good choice for high-speeds. At low speeds it offers great manuverabiltiy (but so do some other solutions).
It's an interesting experimental concept, but as you can see, despite such wing design being known for decades, it's rarely used anywhere. Nasa has got a few test planes, so do the russians. and that's it. Yay for the forward-swept wings.

It's not as good as you may believe.

Offline DuKe2112

  • Squad Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 102
    • View Profile
Re: about the aircrafts.
« Reply #16 on: January 17, 2009, 03:01:49 pm »
I have no idea where you got your aversion to those wings. And I can only repeat once more, The shape itself is quite good it only has the two problems of flight stability and structural integrity.
The first can be countered with fly by wire and the second with stronger materials.
Both of which have been missing in sufficient quality until lately. And that is the reason that such planes are rare but the technology of UFO:AI wwould have even less of a problem with it.

Offline TrashMan

  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 833
    • View Profile
Re: about the aircrafts.
« Reply #17 on: January 17, 2009, 03:35:18 pm »
I got no aversion for those wings - I just am in touch with reality.

Read on the wikipedia what it sez about forward-swept wings if you don't believe me. It only offers better manuverablity at transonic speeds (compared to other wing shapes).

Offline Psawhn

  • Squad Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
    • View Profile
Re: about the aircrafts.
« Reply #18 on: January 17, 2009, 07:00:35 pm »
You are right in that, realistically, they are a poor choice for modern aircraft. Their agility advantages do not outweigh the structural and stealth disadvantages, particularly because modern combat is focused on the missile.

They offer better maneuverability at all speeds, but their advantages are most pronounced at high angles of attack and transonic speeds - areas where more conventional wings suffer from very poor airflow. At supersonic speeds the greater potential of forward wings are wasted because conventional wings offer enough maneuverability without as many structural concerns.

I'm trying to say that without consideration for stealth (UFOs use gravitic detection), and with much better materials (80 years of materials science, plus the usage of alien materials), forward-swept wings become a viable alternative - especially considering that the Dragon is a high-altitude, high-performance dogfighter replacing the Stiletto.

Offline TrashMan

  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 833
    • View Profile
Re: about the aircrafts.
« Reply #19 on: January 17, 2009, 10:17:59 pm »
They offer better maneuverability at all speeds, but their advantages are most pronounced at high angles of attack and transonic speeds - areas where more conventional wings suffer from very poor airflow. At supersonic speeds the greater potential of forward wings are wasted because conventional wings offer enough maneuverability without as many structural concerns.

Proof or it didn't happen. In no source I know did I see that they offer better manuverabiltiy at all speeds.

Offline GopherLemming

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
Re: about the aircrafts.
« Reply #20 on: January 18, 2009, 05:22:53 pm »
I was under the impression that the true level of maneuverability provided by the basic shape of an aircraft is only slightly different at varying speeds (if there is any difference at all). The problem is that high velocity renders such agility pointless. Consider that mach 1 at 10000m or 35000ft is 11 miles a minute. In the pilots reaction time alone, the plane has covered a large distance. The "turning circles" of aircraft grow with the speed, nullifying the advantage a forward swept wing provides (but that advantage is still present). G forces also make these maneuvers dangerous both to the pilot and the structure of the aircraft.

The fact there is an agility advantage in a forward swept wing and that the 80 years between now and the games setting could potentially hold numerous material developments that compensate for the structural tradeoff means that the design should not be ruled out as a possibility.

Of course, I can't perform multiple scientific experiments of real value that support the articles I've read so feel free to quickly disregard this post ;)

Out of interest I would appreciate you posting your sources since I'm interested in reading more on the subject.

Proof or it didn't happen. In no source I know did I see that they offer better manuverabiltiy at all speeds.

You shouldn't consider all sources proof unless they back up opinion with real experimentally verified (and therefore provide proof of this experiment and its results) facts. Without this they are only opinions and theories, though I can't ignore the value in either. An example is wikipedia. It shouldn't be considered true 100 percent of the time but it's a good outline.

Offline TrashMan

  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 833
    • View Profile
Re: about the aircrafts.
« Reply #21 on: January 19, 2009, 01:46:32 pm »
I wasn't using Wikipedia as my main source. Untill recently I used to buy and read a monthly magazine about military technology, and forward-swept wings were the main article.

Offline Psawhn

  • Squad Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
    • View Profile
Re: about the aircrafts.
« Reply #22 on: January 19, 2009, 07:16:34 pm »
Proof or it didn't happen. In no source I know did I see that they offer better manuverabiltiy at all speeds.

I haven't seen anything that specifically states "forward wings give poorer performance than conventional wings in speeds ranging from..." which would be important for an article to state. But I was using that they delayed stalls to read that they were better at low speeds. Some more reading and I can see that my assumption was wrong- they do not give any particular aerodynamic advantages except in near-stall conditions (wingtips remain unstalled longer than the rest of the wing), and the transonic region (which is, technically, a near-stall condition.)

The structural concerns is that such a wing bends in the direction of increased angle of attack - which generates more lift, which introduces a stronger bending moment, et cetera. If the materials are not enough to take the strain, obviously the wing falls apart.

One structural advantage that hasn't been discussed is the wing mountings - forward swept wings allow the wing to be mounted farther aft than conventional or aft-swept wings. For the Dragon, which also utilizes those alien 'prongs,' this is almost a requirement - that or lengthening the fuselage.

Offline GopherLemming

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
Re: about the aircrafts.
« Reply #23 on: January 19, 2009, 08:42:19 pm »
the transonic region (which is, technically, a near-stall condition.)

Transonic refers to the velocity of a body at which the flow of fluid around it is at a subsonic state in some areas and a supersonic state in others. This occurs around mach 1 (the speed of sound), which isn't anywhere near a stalling speed for any aircraft I know. However, as far as I know you are still correct in that forward swept wings provide an "aerodynamic advantage" in near-stall and transonic speeds

Offline Psawhn

  • Squad Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
    • View Profile
Re: about the aircrafts.
« Reply #24 on: January 20, 2009, 08:23:28 pm »
A stall occurs when the airflow over a wing is interrupted and cannot produce lift. Most often this happens because the angle of attack is too steep - typically this happens because the aircraft is flying too slowly and a high angle of attack is needed just to keep in level flight. It is possible, though, to stall at any speed if the angle of attack becomes too high - performing a very aggressive pitch-up maneuver, for example.
In the transonic region, because parts of the airflow are supersonic and some are not, the air may not flow over the wings as wanted. (Shock waves, turbulence, etc.) An improperly designed aircraft can literally stall in level flight at mach 1.

Offline GopherLemming

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
Re: about the aircrafts.
« Reply #25 on: January 24, 2009, 11:15:50 am »
A stall occurs when the airflow over a wing is interrupted and cannot produce lift. Most often this happens because the angle of attack is too steep

Normally the airflow isn't interrupted in a traditional sense. Instead the the airflow on the "top" side of the aerofoil separates from the surface at a point imaginatively called the separation point and there is no longer a decreased pressure above the wing and there is much less lift provided.

An improperly designed aircraft

Modern fighter aircraft have millions of (realizes this forum is international) american dollars spent on development. An improperly constructed aircraft could stall, but it's designer must have been asleep (or drunk ;)) I stand by my statement that the transonic region isn't a typical stall speed for current aircraft.

In any case this doesn't change that forward swept wings do provide a agility advantage
« Last Edit: January 24, 2009, 11:30:49 am by GopherLemming »

Offline Wizard^^

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: about the aircrafts.
« Reply #26 on: February 15, 2009, 06:18:36 am »
What about replacing Forward-swept wing with a cranked-arrow delta wing like the one on the F-16XL.
It may not be better at Mach 1.1+ but it look like it would.. and when you look at the SR-71 Blackbird its just a big wing.

Just adding my two cents

Offline GopherLemming

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
Re: about the aircrafts.
« Reply #27 on: February 16, 2009, 04:27:45 pm »
I believe that delta wings are obsolete compared to other designs (in fighter craft). The main advantage in delta wings was stability and increased lift, but since modern fighters are fly-by-wire, stability is actually a hindrance.

As for the game model, BTAxis has already expressed that recognizable shapes are better then realistic ones... Unless you create a better model, It isn't going to change.

s300pmu1

  • Guest
Re: about interceptors, esspecially the saracen
« Reply #28 on: March 07, 2009, 11:31:13 pm »
You didn't notice the too small wings in the Stilleto (they can't possibly produce enough lift)?

With all due respect to the designers, the Stiletto does look ugly. I, too, mistook it for a helo the first time I saw it and spent about a minute trying to figure out where the rotores had gone.
't wood be great to have the darn thing rewoprked. It's easy - just fire up your ol' F-19/F-117 made by Microprose and look at the aircraft outlines it displays at startup for "aircraft recognition". Tinker a bit with any fighter outline, and you've got your better Stiletto.

A Saracen, though a bit ugly, reminds of SR-71 too much to really dislike it )

Offline Josh

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
Re: about the aircrafts.
« Reply #29 on: March 22, 2009, 01:40:11 pm »
I agree.

In fact I agree with a lot of the points made here. But I really can't help with this  :-\
I'm just the 2D guy. The best I can do is make some better concepts and hope somebody takes me up on the offer.