Forward swept wings
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
http://theaviationist.com/2016/01/02/new-russian-fsw-trainer-makes-first-flight/
Is this design better for dogfighting?
Pretty shitty picture, they should have taken something to show off the wing.
>>28411477
Inherent instability really limits it's use. Kinda like an oblique wing. Feasable but not practical.
It's better for dogfighting, worse for literally everything else.
Not really worth it outside of niche applications such as this, really. And even then it's still a bad idea because high maintenance costs for a trainer is a terrible idea.
>>28411477
>designing an aircraft around dogfighting
The us needs a new service rifle, the M4 is too short to make an effective bayonet fighting weapon
>>28411477
Ill be patiently waiting for the news article about the new russian jet trainer literally ripping its wings off mid flight.
Stability problems are fixable with fly by wire.
But the real problem is aeroelasticity which limits the maximum speed of a forward swept wing fighter greatly.
The only way to fix it is making the wings sturdier with more material which increases weight or having a new material.
>>28411578
A wings swept that lightly forward doesn't have many disadvantages, it's a trainer any way so it doesn't have to go sanic.
>>28411758
It uses the same engine as the L-39 Albatros provided the specs are still roughly the same as they were in 2008/2009 which they likely are.
It's a subsonic trainer, it's not going to rip its wings.
>>28411787
Except that it has nothing to do with speed, but with how the wing generates lift. Since its forward-swept most of the lift force is generated closer to the wingtips, this means that under higher load (a sharp turn) the wings will want to twist and the torque force can literally tear the wing off. This is the exact reason why the forward-swept wing is only used on technology demonstrators and isnt even pushed hard.
>>28411824
Lift does have to do with speed, the wing will generate more lift when it goes faster relative to the air.
>>28411824
>Except that it has nothing to do with speed, but with how the wing generates lift. Since its forward-swept most of the lift force is generated closer to the wingtips, this means that under higher load (a sharp turn) the wings will want to twist and the torque force can literally tear the wing off. This is the exact reason why the forward-swept wing is only used on technology demonstrators and isnt even pushed hard.
composites, my friend, its composites. Flexible on one side, and intransigent on the other.
>>28411477
Yeah, they're super awesome. Remember how well this thing served us?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_X-29
>>28411477
>forward swept wings
>on a trainer
>an aircraft meant for safely training new pilots
I don't even
>>28413491
Composites aren't the be-all-end-all for aircraft components. They have their limitations all the same, and for the stresses these aircraft will have to take, I doubt it's the correct choice of material.
>>28411582
Pretty much every modern fighter is inherently unstable. Stability is the enemy of agility, and with enough computers is not an issue.
>>28411710
>Not just having a two and a half foot bayonet at the end.
