Will we ever see variable swept wing planes developed again?

>implying we don't have any flying right now

>>33751939
Probably not. They're expensive, maintenence hogs, and we can do almost everything they were good for now with modern aerodynamic shaping.

On top of that, the requirements they filled - good supersonic dash performance combined with good subsonic handling - aren't really relevant anymore.

Makes my eyes rain, they're A E S T H E T I C as fuck

>>33751939
B-1B is still flying, B-1C will retain swept wing feature

>>33751939
Develop a new one? ... only if we see a need for those performance characteristics again. The modern flight control systems and aerodynamic knowledge we have now make them a much more expensive choice for only a little performance improvement.

Quote "probably the strongest reason for abandoning this kind of design: software can adjust aerodynamic and flight control performance better than hardware can. These days, we just don't need mechanical contrivances to make aircraft fly the way we want them to"

>>33751939
Not a chance.

>>33751939
Doubtful, engine performance is good enough that the cost and weight of swept wing systems isn't all that important.

>we will never have sexy as fuck swing wing ssts

kill me

File: BI45764.jpg (73KB, 821x1024px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 821x1024px

>>33753223

>>33752029
>, B-1C will retain swept wing feature

b 1c will never happen.

File: Su-17 MiG-29 F-16 Polish Air Force.jpg (621KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

621KB, 1280x720px

>>33752012
>we can do almost everything they were good for now with modern aerodynamic shaping.
Yeah.... not really.
>On top of that, the requirements they filled - good supersonic dash performance combined with good subsonic handling - aren't really relevant anymore.
You can get subsonic handling well enough with a low-aspect wing, but not subsonic efficiency/range. That kind of performance can only be obtained with raw wingspan - which means either a low-sweep, subsonic-only airframe (a la B-2 or A-6), or variable sweep if you want to preserve supersonic performance.

Of course, swing wings definitely have their downsides too... they're structurally inefficient and heavy, impacting wing loading and especially thrust-to-weight ratio. For this reason I suspect that, if they DO ever return, it will be on long-range strike aircraft.

super cruise makes them obsolete.

they had to take away manual control of wing geometry from the F-14, F-111, and B-1 because the computer handled it better and reduced wear.

>>33754094
you know why soviet planes have fences on their wings? to keep the air from defecting.

>>33754094
>That kind of performance can only be obtained with raw wingspan
Not necessarily. There's plenty of fucky things you can do to get an oswald efficiency greater than one.

File: F-22N.jpg (119KB, 1100x582px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1100x582px

>>33751939
It's hard to say, my money's on no, at least not in the same way swing-wings have been in the past.

The general idea with swing-wings is to give you the ability to fly at high supersonic speeds without losing the ability to either cruise efficiently at subsonic speeds or take off in shorter distances. The problem is that, as of right now, there really aren't any procurement programs on the horizon for anyone that call for both a mach 2+ aircraft and either high subsonic efficiency or short-field performance. For bombers, the trend is overwhelmingly moving to flying wings, and fighters seem to compromise for lower speed to get a better design for transonic performance.

Plus, advances in aerodynamics have for the most part reduced the need for variable geometry wings to meet field-length requirements. Computational tools for developing wing twist profiles mean that you can get more efficient low aspect-ratio wings than when swing-wings were popular, and better CFD tools for design of things like high lift devices and airfoil sections mean that you can avoid many of the failings in designs that made swing-wings a viable option in the first place.

And that's not even getting into the failings of swing-wings themselves. Swing wings have problems like
>average 4% weight penalty compared to conventional aircraft
>high maintenance for wing joints
>center of pressure shift from swinging wing couples with aft center of pressure shift at supersonic speeds, increasing trim drag
>loss of internal space for things like payload or fuel

All that being said, a swing-wing design isn't completely out of the question. For a potential fleet-defense interceptor for the USN, a swing wing design is definitely a viable option.

File: 2707-200 model.png (1MB, 976x655px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 976x655px

>>33753223
>2707-200
>sexy
Anon, that thing was an abortion of a plane.

>>33754648
>super cruise makes them obsolete.
Nope. Currently available supercruising aircraft like the F-22 still have a specific range far higher at subsonic speeds than at supersonic speeds. And while it is possible to design aircraft that are most efficient at flying at supersonic speeds (like the XB-70 or Concorde), certain missions require loitering, which a supercruising aircraft can't do too well.

>>33755154
IT LOOKS SO COOL THOUGH

File: What the hell are you doing in my office.jpg (1MB, 2834x2888px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2834x2888px

>>33755210
>swing wings
>double slotted flaps
>engines installed on horizontal tail
>wings that swing back into tail
>double-jointed nose
>auxiliary intakes for inboard engines because main gear deploys in front of inboard engine intakes
anon

>>33755107
Lifting bodies bro.

File: F-35A bankedturn.jpg (43KB, 620x465px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 620x465px

>>33754950
>There's plenty of fucky things you can do to get an oswald efficiency greater than one.
None of which you'll ever find on a combat aircraft. When was the last time you saw a fighter or bomber with winglets on it?

>>33755333
shut up willy you don't know nuffin

File: oswalds for days.jpg (72KB, 937x608px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 937x608px

>>33755363
>winglets
you are like little babby

File: Say that to my face Juden and not in a camp and see what happens.jpg (14KB, 225x339px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 225x339px

>>33755383

>>33755353
Not the best thing for spanloading, actually. They do help with overall efficiency by reducing the amount of wetted area you need (more lift produced by fuselage -> less lift needed from wings -> smaller wings), but they're generally going to have a negative impact on the oswald efficiency, which means you'll still get more induced drag.

>>33755463
>fucking X wing layout

File: Rockwell oblique wing bomber concept.png (700KB, 558x509px) Image search: [Google]

700KB, 558x509px

>>33755504
One day, anon. One day.

>>33755504
>One big single piece wing
>it roatates
>plane is helicopter now

File: Ryan F-104 VTOL.jpg (169KB, 800x431px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 800x431px

>>33755634

>>33755677
>F-104 VTOL
>because we weren't killing enough Germans with the standard layout

File: Lockheed-Short CL-704.jpg (74KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 640x480px

>>33755715
Funny thing was, that was actually the better F-104 VTOL proposal.

>>33753232
>swing wings
>carry passengers

Choose one

>>33755107
>The problem is that, as of right now, there really aren't any procurement programs on the horizon for anyone that call for both a mach 2+ aircraft and either high subsonic efficiency or short-field performance. For bombers, the trend is overwhelmingly moving to flying wings, and fighters seem to compromise for lower speed to get a better design for transonic performance.
Yup... priorities have shifted, plain and simple.
>Plus, advances in aerodynamics have for the most part reduced the need for variable geometry wings to meet field-length requirements.
I'd argue this has more to do with engine improvements and weight reduction than aerodynamics, but yeah.
>Computational tools for developing wing twist profiles mean that you can get more efficient low aspect-ratio wings than when swing-wings were popular
Nonsense. They had all the tools they needed to perform vortex-lattice analysis 50 years ago. None of this is new. Never mind the fact that with a tapered, low-aspect wing like you find on a modern fighter, you're REALLY splitting hairs trying to use washout to squeeze out more efficiency, and that many modern fighters actually have much more washout than would be optimal efficiency-wise for the sake of stall characteristics and high-alpha handling (again, shifting priorities).
>>33755463
>Winglets on winglets
Anyways none of these present as much improvement as a span extension of equivalent length (and wetted area and parasite drag). Feel free to do the math yourself if you want. The only reason airliners use winglets instead of span extension is due to taxiway and gate width restrictions.
>>33755353
>Lifting bodies
>good at anything other than surviving conditions which would tear any other airframe to shreds

>>33755748
were they giving Darpa engineers LSD

>>33755107
How swing-wing fags can even compete?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBE41A9VT3Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slm9ksxU0HY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScE09SQRc4s

>>33755504
>sieg, heil

>>33755677
How could someone even finish sketching this without realizing it was a dumb idea much less get to modeling it?

File: Dornier Do 31.webm (2MB, 726x400px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 726x400px

>>33755748
>>33756370
That's at least got a basis in past success
(still had the "10 engines, lel" problem though)

>>33758137
To be fair, the production version of that was supposed to drop the lift jets.

>>33752150
>software can adjust aerodynamic and flight control performance better than hardware can

That's technically impossible when you think about it.

>>33754094
Your assertion is untrue, man. Modern wings have these flap things and extensions that adjust themselves for optimal performance.

>>33755463
>Biplanes are coming back
Aw yiss

>>33751939
Advances in autopilot technology have made unstable fighter aircraft viable even at low speeds, so I don't think they'll come back. Swing wings are such a structural challenge that most designers would like to ignore if performance allows.