ifguqerfg79t Show full post »
LukeWarm
Quote:
The problem with forward swept wings is the torsional rigidity needed to keep the wings tips from bending upwards and backwards under load (aeroelasticity). This bending causes the outboard wing to bend further leading to failure. The X-29 was only able to be flown when rigid composite wings could be built. So if you do try a forward swept design use plenty of composite rods from the wing tip to the wing route to keep the wings from failing.

I would like to build a Talon, I never thought about how I need to design the wings and there mounts. Discusing things like this, is how a good design starts.

Quote 0 0
ifguqerfg79t
Now that I think about it, I want to do both EDI and the F/A-37
Quote 0 0
ifguqerfg79t
Maybe I could change this project into a twin EDF EDI EDI has VTOL ability so it might work. Its gonna be huge though but the electronics should not be a problem.
Screen Shot 2013-01-02 at 3.22.29 PM.png 
Quote 0 0
LukeWarm
Whenever the wings are curved down on the ends, it cups the air under the plane. That sounds like a great feature till you try to fly it. You have to fight it to keep it upright; it flies like it's on a bubble, because it is. Add the tailless feature to that, and you have more than a handful.

Good luck. It is a beautiful jet though.
Quote 0 0
jmrpb
I made this incredible Swept Forward Wing (SFW) plane. You can see the video below while performing some 3D arobatic. SFW rocks!
By the way you will only need one carbon fiber tube in the wings. Check out mine!



For more details you can se my thread: http://www.rcpowers.com/forum/showthread.php?3203-Swept-Forward-Wing


It looks great in the air and it’s guaranteed that you’ll receive all the attention of other RC fellow pilots!
Follow your dreams and fly like there is no tomorrow!

José Bernardo,
Portugal, Europe
Quote 0 0
PitchRate
Based on the video, you may be getting more lift from the fuselage than the wings. That would reduce the bending on the wing tips as the wings are relatively "short".
Quote 0 0
PitchRate
Lets face it you can make just about anything "fly" if you work at it long enough.

Quote 0 0
ifguqerfg79t
Probably would make the wing-tips ruddas and add thrust vectoring, though ultimately the curve down wings are harder to make and less strong than a flat wing. And of course harder to control.
Quote 0 0
ifguqerfg79t
Besides that, VTOL is the main point of the project sooo...oh wait, single engine...oh well, gonna make the plane smaller but still EDF cos of torque roll from props
Quote 0 0
bobdabilduh55
Check out this Israeli company's three rotor VTOL UAV.


I wonder if Boxermad's new prop gimbal would do this.
Three of his gimbals and you could build you're own.
OK, you might need a Gyro too.
"Five Easy Pieces"
WATT FLYER Forum's 2012 Scratch-Builder Award Winner
(For Posting outstanding scratch building threads on Wattflyer)
Quote 0 0
ifguqerfg79t
Interesting...(rubs invisible beard) though I would try to stick to at most 2 engines...I dunno, that's just me
Quote 0 0
bobdabilduh55
Quote:
Interesting...(rubs invisible beard) though I would try to stick to at most 2 engines...I dunno, that's just me

Yup. I just saw this while surfing and drinking my morning coffee and thought of your thread here.
I was watching a video series on the new JSF on History channel yesterday and they mentioned that the F-35 JSF VTOL model routes turbine exhaust air to balancing nozzles at the wingtips. I wondered how they kept her steady. So the F-35 actually stands on four legs of air not just two not unlike the British Harrier.
"Five Easy Pieces"
WATT FLYER Forum's 2012 Scratch-Builder Award Winner
(For Posting outstanding scratch building threads on Wattflyer)
Quote 0 0
PitchRate



In the mid-80s to mid-90s DARPA funded a program to develop a lift system for fighter aircraft called Advanced Short Take-Off/Vertical Landing (ASTOVL). At that time both P&W’s F119 engine and GE’s F120 engine were in competition also. There were two main propulsion concepts that were submitted. McDonnell Douglas submitted concepts for both gas-coupled lift fan and shaft-coupled lift fan, while Lockheed submitted a shaft-coupled lift concept. DARPA awarded two contracts, one to McD for the gas-coupled lift system for the F120 and one to Lockheed for the shaft coupled lift fan for the F119. That decision sealed the fate for McD as the F119 was selected to power the JSF and McD was told it would have to include the development cost of the F120 in its JSF cost estimate. As a result McD had to find a lower cost alternative lift system and eventually teamed with Northrop who had devenoped a separate mid-mounted lift engine. This site has some information, but is not complete, on the McD JSF entry: LINK

That decision by DARPA (the program was run by a retired Marine colonel at DARPA) resulted in McD losing the JSF competition and eventually having to merge with Boeing.
Quote 1 0
bobdabilduh55
Quote:



In the mid-80s to mid-90s DARPA funded a program to develop a lift system for fighter aircraft called Advanced Short Take-Off/Vertical Landing (ASTOVL). At that time both P&W’s F119 engine and GE’s F120 engine were in competition also. There were two main propulsion concepts that were submitted. McDonnell Douglas submitted concepts for both gas-coupled lift fan and shaft-coupled lift fan, while Lockheed submitted a shaft-coupled lift concept. DARPA awarded two contracts, one to McD for the gas-coupled lift system for the F120 and one to Lockheed for the shaft coupled lift fan for the F119. That decision sealed the fate for McD as the F119 was selected to power the JSF and McD was told it would have to include the development cost of the F120 in its JSF cost estimate. As a result McD had to find a lower cost alternative lift system and eventually teamed with Northrop who had devenoped a separate mid-mounted lift engine. This site has some information, but is not complete, on the McD JSF entry: LINK

That decision by DARPA (the program was run by a retired Marine colonel at DARPA) resulted in McD losing the JSF competition and eventually having to merge with Boeing.

Thanks for the visual and the aviation History. I wish the History Channel would do more programs like that than Ancient Aliens .
"Five Easy Pieces"
WATT FLYER Forum's 2012 Scratch-Builder Award Winner
(For Posting outstanding scratch building threads on Wattflyer)
Quote 0 0
jmrpb
Sorry! The above thread link doesn't work anymore. Now with correct link:

http://www.rcpowers.com/community/threads/swept-forward-wing-su-47-version-2.13206/#post-133833
Quote 0 0