NASA Tests Aircraft With Shape Shifting Wings 55
Zothecula writes In January, we first heard about FlexFoil; a variable geometry airfoil system that seamlessly integrates into the trailing edge of the wing. During the year the system has made the leap from the test bench to the sky, with NASA conducting tests of the FlexFoil on a modified Gulfstream III business jet.
Re: (Score:2)
Flaps or slats, depending on whether they're at the front or back. They've been around for a LONG time.
Flaps and slats are a single hinged panel each. Perhaps this is more elaborate?
Re: (Score:3)
It looks like it is flexible wing without hinges. I thought that they started testing that a while ago on the F-111.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember the aeroelastic wings on the f-18
Where it had variable wing foil and flexibility.
Re:Aren't those just called FLAPS? (Score:4, Insightful)
It looks like it is flexible wing without hinges. I thought that they started testing that a while ago on the F-111.
Oh, you mean wing warping? Now where have I see this before? [si.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Not exactly. I mean this http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dr... [nasa.gov]
Wing warping is more like twisting the airfoil while the MAW actually changes the airfoil.
Re: (Score:1)
Ah yes. But the North Vietnamese all still holding on to the tests results.
Major /. faux pas (Score:4, Informative)
I know, I know...never read the article. I'll save you from the horror of having to read the whole thing:
"This allows the FlexFoil to act like a flap in its various positions while still providing an unbroken air surface. This makes for a more streamlined wing and reduces noise during takeoffs and landings."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
What is the point of linking to the "GizMag" article which is only a regurgitation of the NASA article? Oh, that's right, page views on some Dice website.
If one looks at the top article posters, many (though certainly not all - Hugh Pickens for example, though perhaps a closer look at his links is due as well) are Dice shills. The relationship between articl posters and Slashdot is very incestuous.
Re:Aren't those just called FLAPS? (Score:5, Informative)
According to TFA, they're replacements for flaps or slats that are a panel, continuous with the wing surface, that flexes, rather than pivoting or sliding.
This eliminates the gap, which starts vortices (causing noise and other issues).
So wing shape changing via pivoting panels has been stock for a while, while (comparably sized) profile changes done by flexing wing sections with skins continuous with the rest of the wing are what is new.
(Note that adjusting a wing by flexing it - slightly, over its full surface - has been around for a VERY long time. The Wright Brothers used it for yaw control, though they augmented (not replaced) it with a vertical rudder, starting with the glider that immediately preceded the "first powered flight" craft.)
Re:Aren't those just called FLAPS? (Score:4, Interesting)
(Note that adjusting a wing by flexing it - slightly, over its full surface - has been around for a VERY long time. The Wright Brothers used it for yaw control, though they augmented (not replaced) it with a vertical rudder, starting with the glider that immediately preceded the "first powered flight" craft.)
All of which makes the article's breathless touting of this "innovation" pretty funny.
Two of the most basic moves in engineering are:
1) Take two functions that used to be separate and integrate them into a single component. This increases efficiency.
2) Take two functions that are performed by a single component and split them apart. This increases robustness.
Which move is a good idea at any time depends heavily on technology. Wing-warping (lift and control both done by the same component) was a poor fit for wood-and-fabric technology, so ailerons (lift and control done by separate components) was a good move. Metal frames and skins were not much different from wood and fabric in this regard, but now we are making aircraft mostly out of plastic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner) it may be time to reconsider the problem (which I guess has been done for some military aircraft already).
But it's not like this is a super-innovative work of genius. It's a pretty standard move that any good engineer is likely to consider when faced with a problem of efficiency (although exactly why integrated flaps are supposed to be such a huge improvement is not at all clear from TFA).
Re: (Score:3)
I STRONGLY disagree. This Is VERY innovative technology.
Flexture / compliant structural engineering is NOT trivial.
We're talking about a complex interaction of kinematics, material science, fatigue, structures, non-linear dynamic loads, and in this case even thermal loads because temperatures drop significantly at altitude and you're not going to want a brittle material failure. Not to mention the controls engineering and software required to control and monitor the structure or the exotic manufacturing
Re: (Score:2)
Those air gaps are essential to keeping the air flow attached to the wing surfaces at the large angles of attack required at landing and takeoff speeds.
Re: (Score:2)
Those air gaps are essential
Right. These are called slats [wikipedia.org] or Krueger flaps [wikipedia.org]. Or slotted faps [wikipedia.org] if they are on the airfoil trailing edge.
Re: (Score:1)
I thought so too. Yes, NASA has become a PR Company, like so many others.
Don't blame them, what with trillions being sucked up by NSA and private tax breaks.
There's something rotten in the States of the US.
Highway to the danger zone. (Score:2)
For some strange reason some old Kenny Loggins song is playing in my head.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Need Another Shuttle Agency?
Isn't that what killed Spaceship2 (Score:2)
Is this really the right time to talk about this?
Re: (Score:2)
To make a somewhat haphazard analogy, you're saying that we shouldn't have ABS on vehicles, because there was an instance of someone crashing their car while applying the throttle pedal.
Without Reading TFA... (Score:2)
Or more than the first sentence of TFS, this reminds me of some of the tech in the novel [wikipedia.org] I'm re-reading just now.
All we need now is clothes to fit these guys.
I would be more curious about how well it works... (Score:1)
in icing conditions.
As a changeable wing structure MIGHT be able to shed ice better.
I would also be curious about it changing the camber of a wing... That would make it more efficient at slow speeds.
The Carreidas 160. (Score:2, Offtopic)
Immediately I thought of the fictional Mach 2 "Carreidas 160" from the Tintin comic book (written before the Concorde made supersonic jet travel possible). Swing wing design was also used on the F-111, but seems to have fallen out of favor.
Carreidas 160 [photobucket.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks AC, your comment (and presumed moderation) really contribute to the discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
Swing wing design was also used on the F-111, but seems to have fallen out of favor.
Yeah, the swing mechanim is very, very heavy because it has to be able to pivot the wings which support the entire weight of the aircraft out on the end of a lever arm.
Basically wing design has advanced so that static wings which are good enough for the various regimes can be designed. Good enough being that the tradeoff that the penalty for fixed geometry is smaller than the penalty for a swing mechanism.
I'm still waiting f
Re: (Score:2)
~~
Re: (Score:2)
The B1 is a design fro 1974. Modern designs of stealth aircraft don't use swing wings. My guess is the big joint is going to throw back quite a bit of radar, but at the time it was less than the alternative.
Re: (Score:2)
The Panavia Tornado (British, German, Italian, Saudi air force) still uses swing wings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I lost my entire Tintin collection :'(
Re: (Score:3)
You can't feather a jet.
Re: (Score:2)
Back to the Future... (Score:1)
Just as the current NASA effort is to re-create the Apollo capsule of 50 years ago, albeit without any mission this time.... the aeros guys are using thier tiny sliver of NASA's budget to re-create the Wright Brothers' original (and patented) control mechanism: warping the wing (Glenn Curtiss dodged that patent by using hinged control surfaces, which the entire industry then adopted both because of the Wright patents and for mechanical simplicity).
Oh, and in case some Orion-hugger takes issue with my take o
welcome to Arrakis (Score:2)
It looks like a case of Submarines, mobile phones etc: engineering is finally catching up with the technical possibilities.