HOME | DD

StardustXIII In reply to Anzac-A1 [2017-02-08 14:51:05 +0000 UTC]

Not really. For start and landing you need high lift force, this means as large wing area as you possibly can make, this means you cant design aircraft where you cut your lift by half for it It would work, yes, plane like this would fly, but whole conception have no sense.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Anzac-A1 In reply to StardustXIII [2017-02-08 21:53:32 +0000 UTC]

Not necessarily. All reducing your wing area does is increase wing loading, but if it's done gradually, then the problems would be minimized. And besides, planes like the F-104 show that you don't need huge wings. Also, looking at the wing shape here, the reduction in area would be closer to 1/3, as it's the narrower part of the wings that are folding.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

StardustXIII In reply to Anzac-A1 [2017-02-11 13:09:34 +0000 UTC]

Yea, sure, F-104 or MiG-21 show you can make an aircraft with high wind loading, but this doesn't change fact that landing with these planes was more dangerous than other, because landing speed had to be higher and if you'll add high weight to it, it's just asking for disaster. Also this is supposed to be carrier based aircraft, where dangerous manouver that is landing is even more dangerous. No, sorry, this would not work well at all, this conception has no sense at all.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Anzac-A1 In reply to StardustXIII [2017-02-11 20:54:24 +0000 UTC]

Yes, but this plane is much lighter than those two jets, and therefore needs less lift. And again, the design here doesn't reduce the wing area that much. And with arresting gear, a high landing speed would not necessarily be a problem. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

StardustXIII In reply to Anzac-A1 [2017-02-12 18:58:02 +0000 UTC]

Doesn't matter that it's lighter.
Doesn't reduce that much? It fold wings in the middle of its length, even considering that its taper wing, it's at least 1/3 of it's area.
Sorry, but you are wrong, and you don't have to belive me, belive in a fact that no one ever made serious aircraft like this (I added serious because I don't know every single weird prototype someone made in aviation history).

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Anzac-A1 In reply to StardustXIII [2017-02-12 21:47:13 +0000 UTC]

Sorry, but there have been far weirder aircraft that have actually been built and flown. Also, there are a number of ways that you could increase the lifting power of the wing as the tips fold down:

1. Travelling flaps, which move backwards to increase the wing area as they are lowered. These were beginning to appear prior to WWII.
2. A combination of leading-edge slats & slots, which would increase the lift coefficient, reduce stall speed and improve low-speed handling. Developed in 1919.

By using either one or both of these methods, it would be possible for the aircraft we're discussing to work. Just because no one has ever built such an aircraft, is not proof that it couldn't have been done. Just that no one ever thought to try it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

StardustXIII In reply to Anzac-A1 [2017-02-13 18:37:20 +0000 UTC]

To work, like fly at all, you dont need any method, you just speed it up enough and it'll fly. It'll also land. But that's not the point. Whole point is - this wont make it successfull construction that work very well as combat aircraft.
And yea, they've made a lot of weird constructions, but still nothing that folds it wings in half for landing and take off entered production.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Jimbowyrick1 In reply to StardustXIII [2017-02-20 22:13:28 +0000 UTC]

What a pair you are!
Taking a beer-enhanced design and arguing seriously about it!
LOL, Jimbo

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Jimbowyrick In reply to Anzac-A1 [2017-02-08 03:06:32 +0000 UTC]

That's why so many thousands were built, and why the enemy committed mass scuttle.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0