Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

BDF said:
Is that ship #2?
Click to expand...
Or is it the third flying test article heading for Edwards? I'm guessing that it was heading for Edwards since there were no vids of it coming back. You would think they would keep the gear up if this was the first flight? Maybe they are beyond that by now?
 
Call me crazy but is it possible that the aux intake doors also serve as tiny vertical stabilizers for yaw stability in during landing/liftoff?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Elysium said:
Call me crazy but is it possible that the aux intake doors also serve as tiny vertical stabilizers for yaw stability in during landing/liftoff?
Click to expand...
While you are not wrong, there are other parts of the aircraft that do this far better: the main landing gear doors.

I read some time ago that there was some intentionality/functionality in the design of the B-2 MLG doors for stabilization when landing and taking off. B-21 doors are somewhat sizeable (although smaller), so I would assume that they enact similar benefits.
 
Elysium said:
Call me crazy but is it possible that the aux intake doors also serve as tiny vertical stabilizers for yaw stability in during landing/liftoff?
Click to expand...
No in fact. Everything vertical that is frwd of the CG will increase offset angle in yaw with airstream action instead of decreasing it. That's why you want your tail at the most aft point of the airframe.
 
TomcatViP said:
No in fact. Everything vertical that is frwd of the CG will increase offset angle in yaw with airstream action instead of decreasing it. That's why you want your tail at the most aft point of the airframe.
Click to expand...
I see your point, I did some thinking and normally you'd be right, however I think there might be a completely different mechanism at play here. You see, on the outward side of the door (from the center of fuselage) there's an intake sucking in air, creating a major low pressure zone and low speed (Bernouilli), which means the whole thing behaves like an airfoil with its lift vector towards the center of fuselage and tilting outwards (you can see the outwards tilt of these doors). By this logic, yawing to the left would increase the AoA on the left door, increasing the inwards pointing lift, and decrease it on the other. This would counteract the yawing force, naturally returning the aircraft to zero yaw.
(might be useful to draw a diagram for this but I'm lazy)
 
4decaa said:
While you are not wrong, there are other parts of the aircraft that do this far better: the main landing gear doors.

I read some time ago that there was some intentionality/functionality in the design of the B-2 MLG doors for stabilization when landing and taking off. B-21 doors are somewhat sizeable (although smaller), so I would assume that they enact similar benefits.
Click to expand...
The large single MLG doors are to keep things simple in the area of gear sequencing, I'm sure the B-21 and B-2 gear extension and retraction systems are similar and the doors due offer some stability related to yaw but with FWB, yaw is stable anyway. However, the B-21 nose gear strut door seems to be mechanically linked to the nose from the side instead of mounted to the front of the gear like on the B-2 then the wheel door closes after the nose gear is up and locked. Basically, looks like the B-21 is using the B-2 extension and retraction method, makes sense, if it works, don't change it.

Also, there quite a few deployable (pop-out) blade antennas top and bottom, the B-2 only had one on the bottom. I assume there is redundancy in the actuators, would suck when the aircraft is in pen mode and a antenna is not fully stowed.
 
When the “RQ-180” was flying over Greece earlier this year was there any pictures of its engine outlets to contrast and compare to this?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom