Would a reverse wing sweep be better for speeds above Mach 2

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the feasibility of reverse wing sweep designs for aircraft operating above Mach 2, highlighting the trade-offs associated with yaw stability in modern fighters. While forward-swept wings can enhance maneuverability, they also reduce yaw stability, which is critical for safe flight. The Grumman X-29 serves as a case study, demonstrating the complexities of wing design and the need for advanced control systems to manage instability. The conversation emphasizes that while instability can enhance maneuverability, it must be carefully balanced to ensure safety and control.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of aerodynamic principles, particularly related to wing design.
  • Familiarity with aircraft stability and control concepts.
  • Knowledge of the Grumman X-29 and its design features.
  • Awareness of aeroelasticity and its implications for wing performance.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the aerodynamic principles of reverse wing sweep designs.
  • Study the stability and control requirements for modern fighter aircraft.
  • Examine the engineering solutions implemented in the Grumman X-29.
  • Explore the effects of aeroelasticity on high-speed aircraft performance.
USEFUL FOR

Aerospace engineers, aircraft designers, and aviation enthusiasts interested in advanced wing design and stability considerations for high-speed aircraft.

Joseph Wood
I am curious about a reverse wing sweep because it could be used on an aircraft for turning at high speeds at higher than Mach two.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
There are a lot of trade-offs with a forward swept wing. One that comes to mind in modern fighters is that the yaw stability is reduced. If stealth is desired, the vertical tail is minimized and there is already a danger of yaw instability. But that is just one of many considerations.
 
FactChecker said:
One that comes to mind in modern fighters is that the yaw stability is reduced.

I thought stability is the last thing you want in a modern fighter? I mean - aren't they designed to be unstable, as it allows fast maneuvering?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
Borek said:
I thought stability is the last thing you want in a modern fighter? I mean - aren't they designed to be unstable, as it allows fast maneuvering?
You are right that you don't want too much stability because the plane will be slow to react. But that is mostly in the roll and pitch axes that are critical for maneuvering. I don't think that there is any benefit to having a low yaw stability margin (this is pushing the limits of my knowledge of the subject). Of course the plane must not be so unstable in any axis that the flight controls can not handle it. The Air Force will specify that the plane must have a certain minimal closed loop stability phase and gain margins. The margin allows for some safety, even with deterioration in the plane and controls, future modifications, and new weapons loaded.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
Earlier concept.
f55be65ba547d5b1ba16cb173427847b.jpg
 
Noisy Rhysling said:
Earlier concept.

Considering that Grumman need a computer to control the X-29 I wonder what the results of the test flight of the German prototype were.
 
  • #10
gleem said:
Considering that Grumman need a computer to control the X-29 I wonder what the results of the test flight of the German prototype were.
Never flew.
 
  • #11
A big problem with reverse wing sweep is that it is liable to cause nasty instability and flutter problems (described as "aeroelastic divergent twisting" in the Wikipedia article on the X-29) when the wing flexes. A small amount of flexing obviously tends to twist the end in a direction which will tend to amplify the effect. For the X-29 they did some clever engineering tricks to overcome that such that bending the wing one way caused the end to twist in the opposite direction.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: FactChecker

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K