Thoughts about variable forward swept wing fighter jet which can also transform into a HGV?
implessive!
>>64190641>simulating separated flow with standard RANSngmi
>>64190641>here's your chinksect wunderwaffe bro
Since there's nothing left to steal from the USA, now the chinks have to resort to stealing designs from sci-fi. Grim
>>64190641lol they played Ac Combat and thought the Wyvern was actually a good idea, those idiots.
Can anyone tell me what the fuck even is the point of this retardation?As I understand it the variable sweep wing aircraft of the 3rd gen, while not all variable for the exact same reasons, generally all were variable because they wanted to be able to land and take off without needing fuck-off long runways, without also not wanting to be stuck with speed limitations. They were mostly all done away with the minute non-variable planes that could do their jobs showed up because they were maintenance nightmares.What does this do other than be even more of a maintenance nightmare, AND be harder to control all of the time?
>>64190700It looks very good
>>64190700It seems like it's an HGV aircraft at first, but then can swing it's wings or for take off and land at lower speeds.
>>64190700You don't really understand China's military doctrine. Their whole thing is that they're so overwhelming powerful compared to their neighbours, that they are focusing hard on destroying American aircraft carriers, since that's the only thing that can really challenge them. That's why they are investing so much into hypersonic missiles and antiship ballistic missiles, weapons that don't really make sense for any other military due to their costs. For any other nation, a billion dollar antiship missile doesn't make any sense, but for China, it it even slightly improves their chances of sinking a carrier, it's worth it. In this case, if the plane can really act as some kind of HGV, it might make sense for it to act as a regular fighter at first to engage a carrier air wing, and once it runs of missiles, it just go max thrust HGV mode and ram into a carrier and act as an impromptu missile. A lot more expensive and maintenance heavy than a regular fighter or just a regular HGV yes. But for Beijing, worth it if it adds another potential carrier killer into their arsenal. That's what I think it's role is anyway
>>64190700Because Northrop thought it was cool 25 years ago.
>>64190655how can you tell? its been too long since I used ansys
>>64190766I guess they forgot about strategic stealth bombers that can deliver missiles which are also stealth
>>64190818They're also working on that. But it doesn't hurt to have more options.
>>64190766So its a kamikaze jet?I don't recall that strategy working particularly well for the japanese
>>64190849Well they didn't have supersonic UAVs back during WW2
>>64190790Just look at the flow patterns, you see transience, but the wakes are basically all averaged out. If it were even URANS, you'd see more transience in the wake, if it were DES or LES you'd see the individual eddies resolved. Sure this is a conceptual stage paper, but I'd argue if you're gonna do CFD on a configuration like this with separated flow you'd better at least use URANS. Frankly, I think at such a conceptual stage the use of CFD is retarded since the design is completely immature and you'd be better off using a panel method or hell VLM to just kinda sorta do your configuration design studies, but hey, even in the west random images of CFD are pretty and make your paper seem more serious than it actually is.
>>64190849I think it's a regular fighter, with the side benefit of being able to kamikaze if it can get within range of a carrier and penetrate it's air wing. That or some kind of super long range jet that vastly extend it's range via waverider gliding. I'm talking out of my ass here.
>>64190641Forward swept wing AND variable geometry?Would work due to structural strength problems. Forward swept wings require extra rigidity, they are not practical because they become to heavy to achieve that rigidity.
>>64190641You don't have to be a super smart scientist to understand why that's retarded, so let me break it down to you:Imagine you have an extended inch rule or a staff of a broom, and your task is to hold it exactly vertically with your hand. You may find that there's several different places, where you could grab it to do so.So let's look at three scenarios:1) you try to hold it at the top end, so it's dangling down from your finger tips.2) you hold it in the middle.3) you hold it at the bottom end, with the staff pointing up.You may find that it's actually really hard to keep it stable in option 3, and even option 2 might be tricky depending on how jittery your hands are, but option 1 - hanging down - is easy and very stable.So why is that? Because the system is self stabilizing, and falling out of balance does not create a feedback loop of needing increased counter forces to stabilize again.Now going back to the plane: The wings fall under the same principle. A wing that is tipped forward, is like holding a broom at the lower end. It's very unstable, and you will have to work really hard to keep it stable and from starting to vibrate etc.It cranks up the complexity of the problem to be solved for no other reason than: "it looks kind of cool". It makes the system more prone to malfunction because it is not self stabilizing.In conclusion: There's a reason why almost all planes look the same. It's the result of physics. Forward tipped wings are not yielding advantages worth investing into.
>>64190881Forward swept wings have been solved with composites
>>64190885The twist is optimized for a certain loading direction, if you have a variable geometry that trick no longer works as well. To begin with forward swept wings aren't really necessary with modern aerodynamics.
>>64190641Why are you so butthurt chink?
>>64190641Implessive
>>64190641>"Tinman confirms, Talon 1"But the movie introduces the next step anyway: Tinman is Hypersonic + VTOL, which solves the landing issue in what is probably a slightly more realistic way than reverse swingwing nonsense.
>>64190700> Can anyone tell me what the fuck even is the point of this retardation?Yes.Swing wing makes my ding go schwing
>A fucking buttplug
>>64190882>you will have to work really hard to keep it stable and from starting to vibrate etc.>It cranks up the complexity of the problem to be solved for no other reason than: "it looks kind of cool". It makes the system more prone to malfunction because it is not self stabilizing.which is exactly what I was implying here >>64190700If they really want a plane with variable geometry for more maneuverability at low speed, the why not just make a conventional dorito like everyone else?
>>64190873>I'm talking out of my ass here.So's China. This is just viewgraph engineering with modern graphics.
I feel like this is a worthwhile project in the vein of the Airforce X series.Ever since the f22 bludgeoned every pre-existing fighter with a lead pipe, the focus on fighter development has been informational dominance in acquiring and sharing targets.Aeronautical performance has taken a back seat since everyone had one look at the no escape zone of the aim9 and decided the best bvr tactic is to never get acquired to begin with.However, if unmanned aircraft is to be taken seriously (jury is still out on whether it should), an airframe with comparable performance to missiles (not limited by human g-limits) could theoretically bring back visual range engagements without being splatted as soon as they appear on radar.Whether this specific airframe can reach those target performance is yet to be seen, but I think it's neat that they're at least trying.
>we have Grunder Industries at home
>>64190700scientific grant fraud, if you include the words "hypersonic" or "ai" you get funding for a few months or years regardless if the research is practical
>>64192346g limits are set relatively low for the sake of the airframe, not the pilot
>>64190641This is actually a great idea>ultra dorito stealth for bvr>supermaneuverability for short range fightingBut I dont think they need to necessarily make it forward swept. Having it perpendicular to the body could do the trick too.
>>64190790>>64190863You faggots are way too smart for this board
>>64190700Your explanation is retarded. Variable sweep wings were invented because straight wings have superior low speed performance (stall, maneuverability, handling, climb, etc) while swept wings have better high speed performance. But better control surfaces, engines and aerodynamic design software recovered a lot of the benefit of straight wings at low speed, variable wing died.
>>64190700Because they watched too much Macross as a kid and want to make their own Veritech fighter.>but China not NipponMacross was huge in Asia.
>>64190863Any recs for learning how to do CFD? Or fuck, recommendations for teaching myself the entirety of aerospace engineering from scratch? I hold a patent for an aircraft propeller, but had a significant accident with bad TBI just after the beginning of the pandemic (I wish I was fucking joking) and there's this huge fucking gap in my memories and level of cognitive function that has taken literal years to heal to the point where I can start approaching shit that involves intelligent thought again.I don't remember any of the shit I had previously known regarding aero engineering, I don't even know what the fuck I don't know, what I was thinking when I produced my first prototypes.I've got like ten years remaining to learn and design and airframe around this thing that I've got intellectual property rights for and am having difficulty figuring out where to start approaching it.
>>64194398For CFD I highly recommend this channel https://www.youtube.com/@fluidmechanics101/videosthat being said it starts off complex, there's no real easing in, the videos are out of order in terms of the concepts and while his notation and information are not incorrect, I think he teaches somewhat poorly and doesn't give you an intuitive understanding. I'd start from here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9_kyXjtRHc anyways though, with regards to CFDIn your case though, I think starting from there is putting the cart before the horse, I'd start with Anderson's books, Fundamentals of Aerodynamics is a good starting point, followed by Compressible Flow. For viscous flow, Frank White's text is fairly widely recommended, I would also recommend Wilcox's Turbulence Modelling for CFD. Finally, CFD-wise I'd recommend Numerical Computation of Internal and External Flows by Hirsch.In terms of general aerospace design texts, I think the universal gold standard is still Raymer. Incidentally, if you want to learn optimization, the MDO Book (available completely for free) by Andrew Ning and Martins (the former of which is pretty famous even amongst casual enthusiasts from his YouTube lectures) is a great resource.Software wise, I recommend SU2 in terms of CFD software, open source and very powerful, they've even got higher order methods if you want to fuck with those (I'd just stick to the standard 2nd order FVM RANS with Spalart-Allmaras setup). Pointwise is the go-to in industry for meshing, but it's expensive as all hell. gmsh is the most commonly used open source alternative.For conceptual design though, which is where I assume you're at, I highly recommend sticking to VLM codes like AVL, way faster, easier to deal with and sufficient fidelity at that stage. OpenVSP is also a great toolbox, they offer a panel solver, though it takes some finagling to get working. Always remember to check your answers with basic back of the napkin math though.
>>64194527 (me)For structures, frankly any old book will do, for the vast majority of GA it's basically just beams and trusses. You will need to learn about buckling though, especially if you plan to design anything monocoque/semi-monocoque, that's gonna be a major consideration. FEA-wise, finite element is also a fairly simple concept, any old book will do for that as well, you only really have to dip your toes into that topic, any CAD software worth its salt has a version of NASTRAN packaged into it, and let's face it, if you're serious you're gonna end up paying for a CAD package, and that software is gonna be fairly intuitive to use given that you're paying for it.
>>64194527 (me)BTW I'm giving your reccs for open source software since I'm assuming you're on your own dime and you're willing to spend the time dealing with open source software to get the results you want. If we're talking an actual commercial setting where time is money, ANSYS FLUENT or Star-CCM+ are gonna get the job done way faster and way easier. That's not to diss SU2 in any way shape or form (I am dissing gmsh though), it is an extremely powerful piece of software and once you get the hang of things it's pretty easy to use, but it doesn't have the convenience of commercial software, you don't have customer service on call for when you can't figure out something, you need to have pretty good knowledge of CFD in general, and the manual and tutorials are sparse compared to either commercial option.
>>64193750no such thing, I'm just a retard with slightly more knowledge than the average joe.
>>64194527 (me)Oh also XFoil for airfoil analysis. EXTREMELY powerful tool, you can even unironically use it to design supercritical airfoils, as long as your flow stays below Mach 1 along the airfoil your results will be MOSTLY accurate, you can do some further refining of the geometry with proper compressible CFD. Learn about airfoils and pressure distributions, and the inverse design tools in XFoil become IMMENSELY powerful. As in "design a custom airfoil optimized for your specific needs in 30 minutes" powerful.
>>64193992>Your explanation is retarded. Variable sweep wings were invented because straight wings have superior low speed performance (stall, maneuverability, handling, climb, etc) while swept wings have better high speed performance. But better control surfaces, engines and aerodynamic design software recovered a lot of the benefit of straight wings at low speed, variable wing died.No, my explanation was oversimplified.>straight wings have superior low speed performance (stall, maneuverability, handling, climb, etc)things that are universally important to take off or landing, especially if you don't want a multiple mile long runway due to high stall speeds>swept wings have better high speed performance. see the part about speed limitations
>>64194600I'm not him and I'll probably never use all or any of this but I appreciate you typing it all out, anon.
>>64190766>Their whole thing is that they're so overwhelming powerful compared to their neighbours,
>>64194723https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Paracel_Islandshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_South_Reef_skirmish
>>64194736>won the battle>lost the warChina is literally an IRL parable.
>>64194736>"le might red dragon" got pushed back into the mountains by literal mud hut rice farmers>we got some islands though IMPLESSIVE
>>64194745>>64194753Who controls the largest islands in the SCS after their war with Vietnam? France? The USA?
>>64194723Why are you trying to compare 1979 China to 2025 China?
>>64194760>moving the goalpostsChina lost a war to rice farmers lol>>64194778Haven't fought a war since. Unless you count the wacky actions in Africa which are even less flattering.
>>64194781Why yes, combat experience is single most important factor , which is why Russia is currently the most powerful nation in the world by a wide margin
>>64194778Because the USA always compares 2025 USA with 1991 USA and in terms of naval warfare with 1944-45.
>>64194784>combat experienceit's not, because this war lost them combat experiencemost of their actually operationally experienced and trained troops are dead and they aint getting them back.the mobiks either sitting in a trench doing nothing or rushing to their immediate deaths aren't getting "experience, nigger.
>>64194966>This retard thinks that experience that matters is the grunts squatting in a trenchThe real experience wartime gives you, is the experience of conducting wartime logistics, the experience of having your equipment being tested in actual RL conditions, experience in electronic warfare, commanders being able to test out actual tactics in a rapidly changing battlefield etc etc. Go back to the 18th century if you want a time period where the average infantry grunt's experience was the most important factor.
>>64190641Much harder to area rule for minimal gains.Variable sweep as a whole has proven to maintance intensive in practise and will need some huge matsci advances to change that.
>>64194527>>64194567>>64194586You seem pretty knowledgeable about CFD, any idea what software etc. should be used for simulating the functioning of a suppressor? I recon the problem comes with having to have a moving bullet in the mix and also it's not just a constant speed but a high pressure event.
>>64190641What Ace Combat game is this from
>>64195788The X-02 debuted in Shattered Skies as a reward plane.
>>64195728Major pain in the ass to do, even with commercial software. It can be done, but you're looking at a problem that usually requires someone with a masters or a PhD to solve, and even then it's a major pain in the ass. You need a dynamic mesh, sliding mesh probably makes the most sense, basically setting it up such that the mesh of the path of the bullet (cylinder through the bore) slides through the suppressor with the bullet. The high pressure part is fine, the shockwaves are a different matter though, and resolving them properly is also pretty difficult, especially with a dynamic mesh since you can't just refine the mesh at the shocks unless you do adaptive meshing at each step, which opens a whole new can of worms.Anyways, commercial software can do it, ANSYS FLUENT and Star-CCM+ both have the capabilities required. In terms of open source software, SU2 can do it, but there's no good tutorials on how to set that up, I think there's a few exemplars in the test cases but you're gonna need to be pretty comfortable with CFD and SU2 to figure it out. OpenFoam can also do it, but setup is very esoteric there is this presentation https://www.wolfdynamics.com/training/movingbodies/OF2021/dynamicmeshes_2021_OF8.pdfOftentimes with these problems it very much becomes a painful trial and error process, not trying to discourage you, but I don't want to present this like it's a walk in the park, there's research papers published about this kind of stuff.
>>64190641>trailing edge becomes leading edge>elevons become leading edge slatsNightmare fuel
>>64194527>>64194567>>64194567>>64194586>>64194600Genuinely, thank you so much for these pointers man. I actually did manage to get a copy of Anderson's Fundamentals at some point and am going through it now. Things have been extremely tough for the past few years, but it feels like I'm getting close to pushing beyond this incredible brain fog I've had for half a decade.It's so unbelievably frustrating to wake up every morning and know I used to be so much more intelligent and knowledgeable than I am now. When I look back at the CAD project files and physical prototypes I created, I curse myself every day for not writing down the exact specifics and minutiae to give myself a leg up.Hopefully I'll make better mistakes tomorrow.
>>64194778Because modern China lost to Indian men in medieval-style combat.
>>64196435Sheesh that sounds harsh. I'm guessing that this guy probably spent a good number of months of his life to get to this level on openfoam?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_x4fDtraTk
>>64197012Meant to post thishttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDLr8d27gZ8
>>64197012>>64197021The former is running his own code, that probably took him a year or two at minimum to perfect the code, the latter is a company specializing in CFD, probably took them maybe a week or so tops to set up and run the case. Once you know how to set it up it's not too bad, especially with the simple geometries, but the barrier for entry is pretty high. In both cases the shocks were also a bit smeared (they're not very crisp), they weren't super focused on results, just demonstrating capability. If shocks are an important part of the problem, then like I said you'll have to do adaptive meshing at each timestep which complicates things.
>>64196910Good luck anon. Hope everything works out for you!
>>64190646Holy your god, you people sure are born gayNo wonder your daddy, uncle, priest likes to touch you all the time
>>64197247>Holy your god, you people sure are born gay>No wonder your daddy, uncle, priest likes to touch you all the time
