Could This Change Air Travel Forever (The Oblique Wing)?

The concept has been around since the 1940s, was tested with a flying demonstrator by NASA in the 1970-80s... and has basically not gone anywhere since.

Lots of talk about "this might be good for xxxxxx" - but nobody has tried to make a useful aircraft with that kind of wing.
 
Red flags for YouTube:

A question mark. Carried over from newspapers, if the headline's a question, the answer is 'no.'

'This changes everything.' ...but infinitesimally.

'Game changer.' Yes, if the game's tiddlywinks.

'[Insert name of thing here, e.g., F-22] killer.' Last time I checked, powerpoint presentations never last long in combat.

'You've been doing X wrong your whole life.' That's because I like it that way.

'They don't want you to know'/'The truth about...' Ah, 'They'/'Them' again. Investments in tinfoil look good.

'The forgotten'/'That nobody knows about...' Only by people with Korsakoff's syndrome. I bought a book about it a few years ago. Let me check my shelves...

Anything in ALL CAPS! WITH EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!1!!!1!11!!!ELEVEN!!

'X destroys Y.' In which 'destroys' means that someone simply expresses their opinion contrary to someone else.

Anything where then thumbnail shows frickin' laser beams coming out of someone's eyes.

'Scientists...' What kind of scientist? I'm not interested in an astrophysicist's view of molluscs and if it isn't at least specific about the discipline, then it probably has nothing to add.
 
Last edited:
Unlikely. Adds complexity and maintenance requirements, which is a death sentence for civilian flight. The basic swept supercritical wing works just fine for nice low-speed handling and good high-speed efficiency, and doesn't involve the weight of the entire aircraft hanging on a single giant hinge pin.

Was proposed a lot in the late 1960s and into the 1970s for various military craft, which don't care as much about maintenance costs as the civilian transportation side does. I'm not sure any of those even made it to sub-scale models.

Note that even things like cruise missiles and glide bombs that have natively have folding wings and you'd think would be good candidates for an oblique wing have not been fielded with an oblique wing!

(edited for spelling)
 
Last edited:
1635yankee said:
Citation please
Click to expand...
I don't remember in which technical analysis I read it, many years ago.
However, NASA's site at
www.nasa.gov

AD-1 Oblique Wing - NASA

The oblique wing was the brainchild of NASA aeronautical engineer Robert T. Jones, whose analytical and wind tunnel studies at the NASA Ames Research Center,
www.nasa.gov www.nasa.gov
says something related (but admittedly less specific) at end of page: "the unpleasant flying characteristics of the AD-1 at extreme wing-sweep angles may have discouraged aircraft designers from adopting this configuration." YMMV
 
dan_inbox said:
I don't remember in which technical analysis I read it, many years ago.
However, NASA's site at
www.nasa.gov

AD-1 Oblique Wing - NASA

The oblique wing was the brainchild of NASA aeronautical engineer Robert T. Jones, whose analytical and wind tunnel studies at the NASA Ames Research Center,
www.nasa.gov www.nasa.gov
says something related (but admittedly less specific) at end of page: "the unpleasant flying characteristics of the AD-1 at extreme wing-sweep angles may have discouraged aircraft designers from adopting this configuration." YMMV
Click to expand...
Other than the fact that this report was made long before fly by wire or fly by light was a thing, something that would radically change the calculations here.

Also it was a poorly funded test program with a somewhat cobbled together test aircraft.
 
I can't remember where I read this, but supposedly making the horizontal oblique swing in the opposite direction helps improve stability.
 
I can appreciate NASA having tested the AD-1, and even Rockwell having been crazy enough to once suggest an oblique wing fighter to meet a Navy requirement, but I have just never been able to take this concept very seriously. In my amateur opinion, if you're going to pay the cost in money and increased weight for the potential benefits you might as well pay a bit more and "do it right" with a variable sweep wing instead.
 
General word of wisdom:
If no other development of a technology has continued since, then many very smart people (that include scientists, engineers, and economists that combined have far more context of the situation) have likely concluded:
  • It's technologically immature or unfeasible
  • It's economically unnecessary or there is no demand
Also there's nothing wrong with the aviation industry being so conservative. Arguably it's a very good thing for a industry that is responsible for the transporting of millions of people in a inherently dangerous manner.
Look at tech if you want an example of the risks involved with a fast pace volatile industry.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I can appreciate NASA having tested the AD-1, and even Rockwell having been crazy enough to once suggest an oblique wing fighter to meet a Navy requirement, but I have just never been able to take this concept very seriously. In my amateur opinion, if you're going to pay the cost in money and increased weight for the potential benefits you might as well pay a bit more and "do it right" with a variable sweep wing instead.
Click to expand...
It's significantly simpler than regular variable-geometry wings. Only one actuator, no wing sweep equalizers, etc.

So it makes sense to try that idea.

I'm still surprised that nobody has made any glide bombs or cruise missiles with an oblique wing for that reason.
 
Scott Kenny said:
It's significantly simpler than regular variable-geometry wings. Only one actuator, no wing sweep equalizers, etc.

So it makes sense to try that idea.

I'm still surprised that nobody has made any glide bombs or cruise missiles with an oblique wing for that reason.
Click to expand...
There's frequently very little reason for defense contractors to consider a lower-cost solution.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm still surprised that nobody has made any glide bombs or cruise missiles with an oblique wing for that reason.
Click to expand...

Boeing offered one for LRCSW back around the end of the Cold War.

Post in thread '1989 Navy/USAF Long Range Conventional Standoff Weapon (LRCSW)' https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ntional-standoff-weapon-lrcsw.1121/post-34350

Raytheon proposed one probably in the 1970s.

Thread 'Rockwell Oblique Wing Cruise Missile' https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/rockwell-oblique-wing-cruise-missile.7719/
 
Folding oblique wings I'd like to see on a Falcon like rocket.

No landing legs...instead you'd fold out scissors style on a pivot stop and wheels beneath the octoweb...tail above the intertank and tail wheel below.

The engine block is the nose...and it resembles a long lanky giant radial coming in a tad like B-52.
 
Flyaway said:
Other than the fact that this report was made long before fly by wire or fly by light was a thing, something that would radically change the calculations here.

Also it was a poorly funded test program with a somewhat cobbled together test aircraft.
Click to expand...
According to another video, the AD-1 had low-speed stall characteristics as nasty as most other sharply-swept wings. Add in asymmetric handling and you get a truly nasty airplane too complex for the average human pilot. Basically, any turbulence migrated span-wise to the rear-most wing-tip, which made the rear-most wing-tip stall first, creating a pitch-up moment. That pitch-up moment can create an un-recoverable stall-spin.
Add in pitch/roll coupling (asymmetric wing-sweep) and you get some truly nasty low-speed handling.
That is why oblique wings proven impractical for flight.
I also wonder if pitch-roll coupling would be a problem during cruise. Anything less than perfectly-balanced ailerons could add pitch deviations during any roll control input.

Nowadays oblique wings are limited to naval aircraft that need to fold to stow below-decks in cramped aircraft carriers (e.g. CV-22 Osprey VTOL).

The only civilian applications have been a handful of light sport airplanes like “Backyard Flier” that pivot their wings to reduce storage space and make them easier to trailer to an airstrip.
 
There are numerous configurations that never make it to production, such as Volkovitch and annular wings, and passenger-carrying flying wings. Commercial canards are limited to the failed Beech Starship and the only three-surface aircraft to see the artificial lights of a production floor is the Avanti.

We could have a very long thread on VTOL concepts that went nowhere.
 
riggerrob said:
According to another video, the AD-1 had low-speed stall characteristics as nasty as most other sharply-swept wings. Add in asymmetric handling and you get a truly nasty airplane too complex for the average human pilot. Basically, any turbulence migrated span-wise to the rear-most wing-tip, which made the rear-most wing-tip stall first, creating a pitch-up moment. That pitch-up moment can create an un-recoverable stall-spin.
Add in pitch/roll coupling (asymmetric wing-sweep) and you get some truly nasty low-speed handling.
Click to expand...
Oh, eeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwww.... *hurk*
 
publiusr said:
Folding oblique wings I'd like to see on a Falcon like rocket.

No landing legs...instead you'd fold out scissors style on a pivot stop and wheels beneath the octoweb...tail above the intertank and tail wheel below.

The engine block is the nose...and it resembles a long lanky giant radial coming in a tad like B-52.
Click to expand...

But then the rocket body requires design and construction to take the horizontal stresses involved and that adds mass and cost.
Let the rockets live peacefully in their natural land of vertical stresses.

p.s. Yes, I am aware that the rockets are transported horizontally on the ground - resting on transport trailer, railway car/wagon as with Soyuz, and barge, transporter support structures is a different ballgame from taking dynamic flight loads and runway touchdown and subsequent braking loads.
 
Last edited:
Relevant e-book from NASA itself.
I've not read it yet, merely skimmed through it.
Noting a few things such as the following which stood out because of its indentation ,

Sim and Curry noted:
Although the AD-1 geometry was chosen for its similarity to supersonic oblique-wing transport designs, many of the maneu-vers performed to evaluate the handling qualities were not transport-aircraft maneuvers. For example, windup turns are often used to evaluate the capability of a maneuvering airplane. Because deficiencies in transport-aircraft handling qualities tend to be amplified in maneuvers like windup turns, these types of maneuvers are excellent for highlighting deficiencies and for ascer-taining the need for stability augmentation.47
Click to expand...

www.nasa.gov

Thinking Obliquely: Robert T. Jones, the Oblique Wing, NASA's AD-1 Demonstrator, and its Legacy - NASA

On December 21, 1979, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) AD-1 Oblique Wing Research Aircraft (OWRA) took off from the main runway at
www.nasa.gov www.nasa.gov

"

Thinking Obliquely: Robert T. Jones, the Oblique Wing, NASA’s AD-1 Demonstrator, and its Legacy​

Chapter 1 reviews the life of NASA aerodynamicist Robert T. Jones and his path to the oblique wing. Chapter 2 covers the extensive wind tunnel, model, computer-code, and simulation testing, first at Langley and later at Ames, as well as a number of NASA industry design contracts undertaken by Boeing and Lockheed. Chapter 3 reviews the design and fabrication of the AD-1 Oblique Wing Research Aircraft and its subsequent proposed use as a joined-wing demonstrator. Chapter 4 describes the flight testing and flight evaluation of the AD-1. Chapter 5 reviews the supersonic F-8 follow-up oblique-wing program. And, finally, chapter 6 reviews the subsequent oblique-wing plans and proposals. Appendices present the physical characteristics of the AD-1 aircraft, a detailed description of it, and a summary flight log of its flight research program.





Author: Bruce I. Larrimer
"
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom