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

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of reverse wing sweep for aircraft, particularly its implications for high-speed turning at speeds exceeding Mach two. A key point raised is the trade-offs associated with forward-swept wings, notably reduced yaw stability, which poses challenges for stealth designs that minimize vertical tails. While modern fighters are often designed to be unstable for agile maneuvering, a balance is necessary to ensure that yaw stability does not become too low, as this can hinder flight control effectiveness. The conversation references the Grumman X-29, which tested these aerodynamic concepts but required computer assistance for stability management. Concerns are highlighted regarding the potential for instability and flutter in reverse wing sweep designs, particularly due to aeroelastic effects that can exacerbate wing flexing. The engineering solutions employed in the X-29 to mitigate these issues are noted as significant advancements in this area.
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.
 
Physics 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 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 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 FactChecker
Back
Top