Why is it that most sixth gen concepts lack a tail? What's the advantage of having no tail?
>>29278262
It's just another step towards flying saucers anon.
>>29278262
Lower RCS.
Improved stealth
Less drag.
>>29278262
Think about what a planes tail does. Now think about ways to do that without a tail. There you go.
>>29278262
Drag, profile, looking futuristic on paper
I doubt the production aircraft won't have vertical stabilizers in some capacity, though in theory they could be done without
>>29278262
Looks more like the Roswell UFO we found, might as well emulate the ayyy lmaos (jk).
To lure governments into spending billions in development programs for things that have no relevance to combat.
>>29278262
>most
Only the two NGAD aircraft from Boeing and Northrup don't have a tail.
But hey, Russia is skipping 6th gen entirely and going right to 7th gen!
>>29278262
The lack of a tail greatly improves stealth characteristics from what I've been lead to believe. Thrust vectoring has also become popular talk lately.
>>29280229
Yeah particularly against lower radar frequencies. You want the exposed features to be as large as possible and you simply can't do that with tails.
>>29278262
What is the advantage of a tail?
Thrust vectoring can do everything that a tail could do.
>>29280229
>>29280264
Are there any negatives to getting rid of the tail?
>>29278270
>Boeing Bird of Prey
Fucking Klingons.
>>29280282
Loss of stability. There's a debrief/interview thing from one of the test pilots of the B-2 heavily warning another one not to stall on purpose because it will most likely kill him. Pilot A did so as a normal test maneuver at a "safe" altitude and barely managed to straighten out in time, I think it started just tumbling like crazy. Pilot B didn't heed his warning and ended up crashing IIRC.
>>29280306
Not that B2s are known for anything other than low wing loading turns anyway. It's not a rebuke, just an observation on what's essentially a delivery truck.
Rudderless planes have been done more effectively due to fly-by-wire, where less stable designs are actually preferred to make them more inherently maneuverable. That's where you get really strange computer controlled surfaces like flaperons, ruddervators, and all kinds of crazy shit a human would be too overwhelmed to use. The trade-off- no true backup. You have a flight computer failure, and you hit the silk.
>>29280282
Not anymore with modern fly by wire & computer systems preventing you from killing yourself
>>29278262
Would it work?
>>29280306
The only B-2 to crash was in 2008 during takeoff. The only other B-2 that has been 'lost' was the one that was used in stress testing and now sits in Dayton at the National Museum of the USAF.
>>29280476
Yes, it would. I mean, the YF-23 worked so I don't see why this wouldn't.
>>29278262
It looks cool and futuristic, and the added cost involved in making it flyable is a massive plus for aerospace companies and their subsidiaries.
>>29280476
The software would need to be changed having no tail requires a lot of corrections in-flight.
>>29278262
Lack of tail makes you a more efficient killer, ask Lanza and Rogers.
>>29280532
There is a tail. It's just minimalistic like the YF-23.
>>29280476
you need 2 thrust vectoring engines, else you can't roll.
>>29280436
>>29280485
I might be thinking of an earlier flying wing.
>>29280476
That was actually pretty much the McDD proposal.
>>29280634
You're thinking of the XB-35. The control systems on the B-2 won't let you stall.
>>29280623
say it with me
>single engine planes
>>29280623
But the YF-23 didn't have thrust vectoring and it could roll.
>>29278270
we making origami planes now?
>>29280670
>You're thinking of the XB-35
Yep, found the article.
http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/too-much-too-soon-137775401/?no-ist
>>29280623
You roll with ailerons and horizontal control surfaces. You yaw with rudder and thrust vectoring nozzles.
>>29280557
Oh you
>>29280557
Well done. Bravo.
>>29280557
kek
>>29280436
Just an observation here but as an MQ-1 pilot, our aircraft have triple redundant flight computers. In fact, almost every system on the aircraft, to include GPS, is triple redundant except the engine control which is only double redundant.
>>29282383
so is it called URT? how was san antonio?
>>29282394
Never been. I'm Army trained. I should have specified, I guess. I was a Warrior Alpha guy and am now Grey Eagle. So MQ-1C.
>>29278268
kek
underrated
>>29278269
>muh cross section
This is what stealth fighters actually believe.
Call me when you can fly in a bubble of microwaved air rendering yourself invisible to radar.
>>29283575
>microwaved air
>"why is that cloud formation traveling at mach 2"
>"iunno, it could be getting interference from your homosexuality"
>>29280083
>>29283575
>>29279745
Stealth is the most important part of modern aerial combat.
>>29278262
lowered RCS, less drag.
>>29285849
Who needs stealth when you can just shoot them out of the sky before they even see you
this 5th or 6th gen jet looks sexy as fuck in this BriteCloud video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_AQk4nYJF8
>>29285991
"Stealth" is the part of not being seen so that you can do that.
>>29283575
Keep in mind one of the factors involved an in F-117 getting shot down was because it opened it's bay doors, increasing RCS.
>>29280088
"5th" generation Russian fighter.
>skipping 6 and going directly to 7
>those hot naked engines
Pick one.
>>29280833
basically
Troll the enemy by throwing paper airplanes at them for weeks to the point they get used to it then launch the real fighters.
>>29280088
>But hey, Russia is skipping 6th gen entirely and going right to 7th gen!
Stop pulling stuff out of your ass, anon.
>>29287090
It was a joke. Russia recently announced that they were developing a 7th generation fighter. The anon was clearly poking fun at that absurd claim.
>>29280278
>Thrust vectoring can do everything that a tail could do.
Lol
No, it can't. At high Q an aerodynamic tailplane is far more effective than thrust vectoring.
>>29287266
>America
>Engineering for effectiveness
Thrust vectoring costs more, that's all that matters.
>>29287290
That's why all three variants of the F-35 needlessly employ it, right?
