Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] OT Interesting slide show

Subject: Re: [OM] OT Interesting slide show
From: Charles Geilfuss <charles.geilfuss@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 14:02:08 -0500
Chris,
   I believe the USAF still flies the B-1B bomber which is swing-wing. I
actually saw one flying over Charleston a few years ago; only time I've
seen one.

Charlie

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Chris Barker <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Well, apart from the fact that I had already seen that particular dream
> machine, courtesy of Rick B, it is difficult to conceive of the combination
> of capabilities: M3.5, 4,000nm range and carrier landing capability.
>
> Oh and to have Low-Observable capabilities with that strange swing-wing
> contraption would be pretty difficult -- too many edges.  Finally,
> swing-wing is an old way of doing things.  The USA's military aviation
> industry has moved away from changing the wing's shape or size in favour of
> making clever flight computers to run fly-by-wire systems.
>
> It's only us Brits who still operate swing-wing, as far as I can make out.
>  Before I had been more than a couple of years on the Tornado GR1 I
> realised that it was a pretty useless way of doing things.  The weight of
> the mechanism, the extra hydraulic power needed and the extra bulk to
> accommodate the whole structure are big disadvantages against the very
> minor advantage of adjusting the planform.  We should have welded the
> Tornado's wings at 45degrees 20 years ago, allowed the flaps to move at
> that sweep and stopped worrying about the tiny increments of speed that
> variable geometry gave us.  With a fixed wing we could simplify the speed
> limitations as well, and stop practising swept-wing approaches (an approach
> in 63/67 wing sweep is a wacky thing to do).
>
> Chris
>
> On 29 Nov 2011, at 17:56, Paul Laughlin wrote:
>
> > My first thought, which I foolishly ignored, was that an aircraft with
> > those capabilities would just be  away too much for launching off a
> > catapult.  Or off a carrier at all, for that matter.
> > Paul in Portland OR
> >
> > On 11/29/2011 3:54 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
> >> Yes, the aircraft is a mockup for a film, apparently.  But the whole
> setup looks like a very expensive way to get publicity shots.
> >
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz