Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Aerospace / Re: Lockheed Martin F-35: News ONLY topic
« Last post by Arjen on Today at 01:37:04 am »
Ah. The joys of concurrent development and production.
User Artwork / Re: My Aviation art
« Last post by pometablava on Yesterday at 10:17:48 pm »
Postwar Aircraft Projects / JSTARS Recap
« Last post by Triton on Yesterday at 09:21:08 pm »
Lockheed Martin Skunk Works JSTARS Recap proposal

Published on Sep 20, 2017

It keeps getting more and more like a regular aircraft.  :P  Pretty soon we'll be looking at a Fokker 614  and calling it an HWB.

I wouldn't be surprised if they keep going with their multidisciplinary FEM/unsteady RANS/ LES / CFD/ PIV/wind tunnel/adjoint method/insert-random-three-letter acronym analysis, they will find out the optimum real world design is...a tube and wing.

But seriously, i am not sold on the whole premise of the HWB. Just from first order considerations.
The tube and wing configuration has lots of wetted area but excellent stability. The BWB on the other hand has minimum wetted area but it's harder to get the cg range. So you say "let's combine the two!". Problem is, you inherit both the qualities and the flaws of the parent configurations. When i look at the HWB, i don't see less wetted area, and the non-circular pressure vessel is still there. So most of the overall benefits must come from the powerplant using very large bypass ratio, and large usage of composites, which you can still apply to tube and wing (well, not with engines under the wing) or BWB configurations.

Man, i am really cynical of late. :(

Aerospace / Re: Lockheed Martin F-35: News ONLY topic
« Last post by Dragon029 on Yesterday at 08:14:17 pm »
This is nonsensical. Why go to the trouble and expense of engineering modules with TR1 processor when you know the final version of software for the end product (being the aircraft) will require a TR2 processor?
Because of the development length of the program; the performance per watt of TR2 tech just wasn't available 10 years ago.

I work in EE these days on vehicular electronics modules... Do you know the time and money it takes to change processors? It is huge! If this were my company, this would be called incompetence and waste. Even if the new processor is just a variant of the previous, the testing/validation/verification costs and time are the same as a totally new processor.
Maybe that's the case, but regardless they intend to do tech refreshes about every ~8 or so years - a TR3 is going to be part of Block 4.2 which will enter service by the end of 2023.
Do you have information about this concept?

User Artwork / Re: My Aviation art
« Last post by starviking on Yesterday at 06:45:07 pm »
Nice stuff! Thanks for sharing!
Model of Tupolev Tu-230

Model of Tupolev Tu-130 circa 1993

Military / Re: Boeing CHAMP Missile Completes 1st Flight Test
« Last post by TomS on Yesterday at 05:07:49 pm »
One would hope they were new-built airframes but you just know they retired a nuke for each one made.

The operational version is supposed to be based on JASSM-ER, so no loss to the ALCM inventory.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10