Swing wings: old hat now?
Author
Discussion

LotusOmega375D

Original Poster:

9,313 posts

182 months

Friday 19th October 2012
quotequote all
We've had F-111, Tomcat, Tornado, B-1, some older Soviet fighter and fighter/bomber designs, as well as their big Backfire & Blackjack bombers, but none of the latest military aircraft designs seem to incorporate this technology. Any opinions on why this should be?

Composite Guru

2,497 posts

232 months

Friday 19th October 2012
quotequote all
I would say that technology has bought us forward so we can design shorter wings that create more lift than they ever did. Also weight is a big factor in swing wing as i'm sure the systems to run them aren't lightweight.

Simpo Two

92,670 posts

294 months

Friday 19th October 2012
quotequote all
I suspect fly-by-wire is behind the scenes doing a lot of fiddling too.

Composite Guru

2,497 posts

232 months

Friday 19th October 2012
quotequote all
Also i think the fuselage on these advanced fighters are lift producing too.


anonymous-user

83 months

Friday 19th October 2012
quotequote all
A swinging wing is a solution to the "be able to go both slow, and fast with the same plane" problem. Materials technology (like composite structures) has enabled thinner section wings (lower drag), with CFD resulting in a better LD characteristic, especially at higher AOA, meaning that modern jet fighters can manage with a fixed wing planiform. Also, i suspect that just "going very fast" is less of an issue in modern fighter/small bomber design, where Stealth and missile advances has made just outrunning your oponent a null game. Add in more efficient engines and multi axis stabilised flight controls (maybe with thrust vectoring too) and the low speed performance of current planes relies less on pure wing lift. Finally, swinging wings makes weapons fit a bit of a 'mare (swiveling missile rails etc) and results in a fusilage that must support a significant point loading (at the pivot) When you start to put ultimate maneouverablity above pure speed (you can't out run an anti-aircraft missile these days (well, maybe unless you're M3.0+ ;-) so it's better to have an airframe that can tollerate higher loading (more G), not something that a pivoting wing helps with.

rhinochopig

17,932 posts

227 months

Friday 19th October 2012
quotequote all
Max_Torque said:
A swinging wing is a solution to the "be able to go both slow, and fast with the same plane" problem. Materials technology (like composite structures) has enabled thinner section wings (lower drag), with CFD resulting in a better LD characteristic, especially at higher AOA, meaning that modern jet fighters can manage with a fixed wing planiform. Also, i suspect that just "going very fast" is less of an issue in modern fighter/small bomber design, where Stealth and missile advances has made just outrunning your oponent a null game. Add in more efficient engines and multi axis stabilised flight controls (maybe with thrust vectoring too) and the low speed performance of current planes relies less on pure wing lift. Finally, swinging wings makes weapons fit a bit of a 'mare (swiveling missile rails etc) and results in a fusilage that must support a significant point loading (at the pivot) When you start to put ultimate maneouverablity above pure speed (you can't out run an anti-aircraft missile these days (well, maybe unless you're M3.0+ ;-) so it's better to have an airframe that can tollerate higher loading (more G), not something that a pivoting wing helps with.
What he said, and my money would AAW technology being the next big thing as the technology potentially offers manifold benefits in terms of manoeuvrability, weight savings, and drag.

e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Aeroelastic_Wi...

LotusOmega375D

Original Poster:

9,313 posts

182 months

Friday 19th October 2012
quotequote all
Hmm, not entirely convinced. Surely modern wing technology can be applied to swing wings too? That would mean greater payloads on take-off with the wings forward and still retain high speed with the wings back if needed. As for positioning the weapons, well that was sorted back in the 1970s so clearly not a problem.

davepoth

29,395 posts

228 months

Sunday 21st October 2012
quotequote all
LotusOmega375D said:
Hmm, not entirely convinced. Surely modern wing technology can be applied to swing wings too? That would mean greater payloads on take-off with the wings forward and still retain high speed with the wings back if needed. As for positioning the weapons, well that was sorted back in the 1970s so clearly not a problem.
Aerodynamics has moved on a lot since then - one of the main reasons for it was that it was the best solution at the time to find a way of making a plane capable of doing fast and slow, and high and low.

What we have now is a better understanding of how the air works on the wings, and much more efficient engines, so they can bin the tonnes of complicated swing wing mechanisms and go with a simpler design.

Eric Mc

125,606 posts

294 months

Sunday 21st October 2012
quotequote all
Yes - swing wings always impose a severe weight penalty. It was this which scuppered the US's plans to build a swing-wing supersonic aiirliner.

Today, it would be possible to use lighter materials in swing-wing designs - but as has been pointed out, there are other more elegant and smarter way to achieve the atribuites once only achievable with swing-wings.

Mojocvh

16,837 posts

291 months

Sunday 21st October 2012
quotequote all
Max_Torque said:
you can't out run an anti-aircraft missile these days
actually any m-> has a finite battery/hydraulic pressure life once activated ... wink

Eric Mc

125,606 posts

294 months

Sunday 21st October 2012
quotequote all
Of course it's still possible to evade an anti-aircraft missile.