Chinese UCAV/UAV/CCA - news & technology

Sferrin said:
Could be extra structure to keep the wing flex down. That's a pretty high aspect wing and would want to flap.
Click to expand...
Makes you think if NG succeed with active flutter control on RQ-180 long thin wings and someone did not.
 
Last edited:
flateric said:
Makes you think if NG succeed with active flutter control on RQ-180 long thin wings and someone did not.
Click to expand...
Could just be supports for very long wings, the outer section is about as wide as RQ-180's but overall span is significantly longer.
 
Tomboy said:
Go on CNKI, search up active flutter control and see for yourself. It's pretty hilarious to suggest a Chinese design in the 2020s is behind that of equivalent American ones.
Click to expand...
If it was using active flutter control it wouldn't need those extra chunks of structure compromising its RCS.
 
Tomboy said:
How so?
Click to expand...

I often wish Flateric would spend an extra two sentences of effort to explain why people are wrong.

My guess is that aircraft are under aerodynamic loads which increase with the size of the part. So, simply scaling up a surface doesn't solve the issue, as the forces on the surface grow as well (and in some circumstances grow more rapidly),
 
Sferrin said:
Such as? The B-2 did it to increase stiffness during low-level flight.
Click to expand...

Well, it is more a matter of expressing some humility.

But let's say you were very committed to a sweep angle for reasons related to RCS, but you also had your wingspan limited to 52 metres, and you needed a certain lifting area to optimise for a specific cruise s[eed, but you couldn't allow your centre of lift to move too far backwards... it might be structurally lighter way to achieve this? That said, there may well be a better way (e.g. redesigning the central component).

But, truth is, I don't really know (as I said, regarding humility).

I just know that there are usually multiple design trade-offs for any choice - so there is usually also more than one set of reasons one could use to attempt to justify a design choice.
 
Sferrin said:
Such as? The B-2 did it to increase stiffness during low-level flight.
Click to expand...
Plus the GLAS for B-2. You can see this new Chinese wing not for low-level flight. Larger inboard elevons for more pitch authority possibly but all surfaces would be involved with and contribute to gust load alleviation. Depends on the flight regime and where their critical structural bending nodes are.
 
Avimimus said:
I often wish Flateric would spend an extra two sentences of effort to explain why people are wrong.

My guess is that aircraft are under aerodynamic loads which increase with the size of the part. So, simply scaling up a surface doesn't solve the issue, as the forces on the surface grow as well (and in some circumstances grow more rapidly),
Click to expand...

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...utility-technology-testbed.14417/#post-190476

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...tier-systems-w570-arrow-shadow.511/#post-3732

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/northrop-grumman-rq-180.20900/page-22#post-891319
 
If you want a configuration which is a semi, flying wing, the Northrop Low Altitude Penetrator concept would be a configuration of choice, stiff and very high wing loading.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom