Any aeronautical engineering fags out there? Can this fly? Variable

>>7964549
>can this fly
>is clearly flying in the picture

gee bill

>>7964549
General wing surface area looks like it'd be fine, looks like it'd flip shit if you put any kind of roll on it though. Yaw seems like it would be finnicky as fuck in the early MET, but I'm guessing it'd stabilize-ish after awhile.
That's a big ass intake though, and I can't tell if it's mirrored or not.
Seems like a huge waste of drag surface if it's just a big-ass ram scoop. It's a bit odd for a normal intake, though.

>>7964549
no it can not fly
i recommend the people in that car to jump off now

>>7964549

Given enough thrust, any plane turns into a rocket and lifting surfaces become a mute point. There's a reason why the F-4 was a called a flying brick.

>>7964620
It could be falling, with style

As with all forward swept wings, you'd have some problems with structural static divergence. Apart from that I see no conceptual aerodynamic problem.

>Variable geometry
>AND forward sweep
Structurally it would have to be heavy as fuck, but sure, it could fly.

File: northrop switchblade.png (27KB, 220x327px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 220x327px

>>7964549
Theoretically you could do a forward swing wing. It wouldn't be practical though. Forward swept wings have several inherent drawbacks (Strength issues and severe aerodynamic problems at high speed are two of the big ones) and making them move solves a few of them but adds more problems which are even harder to deal with. Among the new issues added by making them move are the need for a complex and heavy, expensive and mechanically complex system to change the sweep of the wings and the requirement for an airfoil that can generate lift with airflow from both the front and back (As the forwards and aft edges of the wing are reversed when folded compared to when unfolded). All in all the drawbacks outweigh the benefits. The fact that both the US and Russians tried forward swept wings and dropped the, coupled with the fact that the US never even tried to build pic related, strengthens the argument against forward swing wings

>>7964620
>is clearly CGI.

Poor anti-aliasing as well

>>7964549
It's Russian so the metal will bend around the air.

>In soviet russia plane bends around air

File: image.jpg (131KB, 736x848px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 736x848px

>>7964656
It's mirrored

File: image.jpg (40KB, 327x316px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 327x316px

>>7964549
I tried it in ksp with FAR nevermind.

>>7964549
>>7964761
Wyvern is best plane. The ADFX-01 can suck a dick.

Though it's doubtful you make those wings work in real life like they show them in the game(s). There's little slats that open on the leading edge of the fixed wing and the wingtips fold inside.

>>7964742
>severe aerodynamic problems
No...?
The only severe problem I'm aware of is pitch-up, but aft-swept wings suffer the same problem. And unlike aft-swept wings, forward-swept wings inherently have a more favorable lift distribution (for less induced drag) and tend to stall at the root first (which is far more predictable and controllable than stalling at the tip first, except for the aforementioned pitch-up issue).
The only real reason why forward-swept wings never caught on is their tremendous structural drawbacks. Even with modern anisotropic composites, it's just not worth the trouble, especially when you can sort of emulate the performance of forward-swept wings by adding aggressive taper and washout to an aft-swept or trapezoidal wing (albeit only across a particular AoA range).

File: X02takeoff.jpg (53KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 640x480px

>>7964778
This is what I'm referring to.

>>7964711
ur mum fell on my dick, without style loma