/kc/ - Krautchan

Highest Serious Discussion Per Post on Endchan

Posting mode: Reply

Check to confirm you're not a robot
Drawing x size canvas

Remember to follow the rules

Max file size: 100.00 MB

Max files: 4

Max message length: 4096

Manage Board | Moderate Thread

Return | Catalog | Bottom

Expand All Images

(178.50 KB 800x571 Dassault_Mirage_G8.jpg)
(124.86 KB 800x640 800px-MiG-23MLD2.jpg)
Swing-wing Bernd 11/14/2019 (Thu) 15:01:25 [Preview] No. 31969
Was the whole "swing wing" phenomenon the dumbest chapter in the history of aircraft design?

Holy shit this was a stupid idea. And as is usual, Americans had the idea, then much later copied it to create shittier versions.

Bernd 11/14/2019 (Thu) 15:02:12 [Preview] No.31970 del

I meant Russians copied it much later to create shittier versions.

Bernd 11/14/2019 (Thu) 15:14:02 [Preview] No.31973 del
no, wait for gender neutral non-opressive planes

Bernd 11/14/2019 (Thu) 15:17:02 [Preview] No.31974 del
if you want 'technically dumber' version

Bernd 11/14/2019 (Thu) 17:12:41 [Preview] No.31983 del
(761.12 KB 2000x1518 bachem-ba349.JPG)
I'm breddy sure some dumber ideas can be listed.

Bernd 11/14/2019 (Thu) 17:35:25 [Preview] No.31990 del
Was ist das

Bernd 11/14/2019 (Thu) 17:54:21 [Preview] No.31994 del
It's basically a rocket propelled flying coffin.
As a weaponry it would have used rockets to shoot at Allied bombers. After it's own propulsion ceased working it should have ejected that part of the fuselage and the cockpit would have landed with the help of a parachute.
It had three advantage:
1. cheap and easy to produce;
2. pilot needs way shorter training than an actual pilot;
3. strong armament.
It had one disadvantage:
1. wasn't a viable idea the testpilot died during the first test.

Bernd 11/14/2019 (Thu) 18:10:25 [Preview] No.31997 del
>the whole "swing wing" phenomenon the dumbest chapter in the history of aircraft design

Hmm, why do you think so?

Air resistance patterns are pretty different at different speed. For example, serious supersonic speed requires narrow, arrow-like design without large wings, because air travels much different than at transonic or subsonic speed. Transonic and "low" subsonic requires angled wing, and best performance on subsonic is achieved with straight wing.

You may see this in different designs, i.e. compare F-104 with F-4 or Sabre - they had different initial design goals and very different in appearance. And they all have flaws, for example, F-104 had pretty bad handling and crashed often. Good all-around wing design is very hard to achieve, especially in past, when no computer models exist (even F-117 was rugged-square-like not because they want this, but because they couldn't model radar deflection properly in 70s).

Another reason is lack computer-aided control - it is very hard to pilot a plane that has bad performance on specific speed. Especially on takeoff/landing. You want your fighter to 1) operate from non-high-class airports (they are rare) 2) don't crash often.

Even now most of modern fighters aren't too fit to constant supersonic flight, although they weren't made for this. But in 60s people really thought that dogfights are gone and planes will just shoot missiles at each other on 1.5M.

So, variable-sweep wing is pretty interesting and rational answer to all these problems. One big drawback is a large, complex and heavy mechanism that need to be operated even in flight, but it is still a solution.

They aren't user much because some problems are solved (computer models can fix aerodynamics), and change in plane usage tactics - no one cares much about high-altitude high-speed flying because you can be hit by SAM even there, it isn't 60s. Multipurpose (i.e. cost-efficient) planes now require good subsonic performance, not supersonic.

>Americans had the idea

It was German idea. What did you expect from nation of autists?

Bernd 11/14/2019 (Thu) 18:39:23 [Preview] No.32000 del
(84.14 KB 800x550 grumman-x-29.jpg)
>Air resistance patterns are pretty different at different speed
Yeah, this led to the experimentation with forward pointing wings can't remember the exact term too.
picrel probably the most known example

Bernd 11/14/2019 (Thu) 18:43:04 [Preview] No.32002 del
(33.65 KB 500x375 51VYWVPVS8L[1].jpg)
(3.93 MB 640x360 boomerfield 1942.webm)
Man did I fucking love this in BF1942 Secret Weapons

Bernd 11/14/2019 (Thu) 18:56:12 [Preview] No.32005 del
>Holy shit this was a stupid idea.
>I meant Russians copied it much later to create shittier versions.
In other words, our Russian friends hated the idea because they can't into maintenance. And so, the idea never really worked out for them as well as it should have.

As per: >>31997 it was a good idea for it's time and place. Also, I might add, the name of the game now is made up of an apocalyptic four, for our heirs of the Red Baron.

1) Sufficiently stealthly.
2) Electronic warfare.
3) Nightmarishly sophisticated intelligent long range missiles. And,
4) Science fictionally advanced airflow physics modeling.

The 1960's eggheads really knew their stuff. They understood what was coming from just over the horizon. They just couldn't deliver fast enough and had to innovate as best they could with the more limited technologies of their day. In that respect, they delivered.

Today, I know of no fighter pilot willing to drop his Winchester; lesson learned. That day is coming though, once they see the advantages it holds for themselves.

Bernd 11/14/2019 (Thu) 19:39:52 [Preview] No.32013 del
>our Russian friends hated the idea because they can't into maintenance. And so, the idea never really worked out for them as well as it should have.

But it worked well. MiG-23 was very successful long-living plane, it's late fighter-bomber variant (MiG-27) was decommissioned not because it was bad, but for other reasons (simply economics after USSR collapse). Late versions (MLD) were especially good for plane of that age they could even fly without pilot like in Belgium in 1989

Su-24 was also pretty successful too, it is phased out just because of age. Tu-160 still active and will serve for long.

Bernd 11/14/2019 (Thu) 20:02:10 [Preview] No.32016 del
MiG-23's in hands of experienced pilots are typically expected to beat MiG-29s, based off of some notable testing and real world experience. All are good aircraft, except it's not all about capabilities in the air. The problem is getting off the ground. Readiness counts as part of an aircraft's capabilities, and the Russians had embarrassingly low readiness numbers with all their swing wing kites.

Lest we veer into "AMERICA FUCK YEAH" territory, it should be noted the Americans are also have trouble delivering on the readiness percentages of their most modern aircraft as well. They've never been as good as what was promised, but it's never been as bad for them as the Russians had it either.

Bernd 11/14/2019 (Thu) 20:15:03 [Preview] No.32019 del
They look fun on children's toys.

Bernd 11/14/2019 (Thu) 20:43:11 [Preview] No.32035 del
Sure do.
Also I had an F-14 model, built meself. That's the ebinest and most butifel aircraft ever produced.

Top | Return | Catalog | Post a reply