Laughable Airliner design by graphic designer

Non-military aviation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1154
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post28 Feb 2015, 15:23

Drop the canards.
Pull the air inlets forwards, and put levcons on them.

The one thing the Russians got right, are the levcons.

Levcons, plus Leading and trailing edge flaps, and you have a true variable airfoil geometry to play with from low speed flight up to supercruise.
Offline

thegroundeffect

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 38
  • Joined: 28 Oct 2012, 18:33

Unread post28 Feb 2015, 15:27

count_to_10 wrote:
KamenRiderBlade wrote:
Prinz_Eugn wrote:It seems like this guy is a futurist, so is deliberately trying to do new crazy things, and I doubt he seriously believes these designs would actually work. I feel bad for the people who do though, like apparently the guy who wrote that blog post.

I like to "design" airplanes too, but I'm under no illusions about whether or not they would fly. That they sort of look like they would fly to a non-expert is good enough:

Image


At least this one looks far more believable than the other one.

It looks inspired by the SR-71 with canards slapped on and some blending of engine nacelle into the frame.

That's far less of a stretch than that monstrosity that was posted in the article.

Whether it could fly or not would depend heavily on what it looks like in 3D and what was actually inside of it. I can see a big problem with those canards positioned in front of the engine inlets, though.


Having the engines that far to the back will result in a poor area distribution, so this aircraft will have huge wave drag. Not the thing you want for a high speed low AR aircraft.
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3300
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post28 Feb 2015, 16:19

Because they pass air through themselves, engines are somewhat neutral with regard to area ruling. Like I said, you would have to know what it looks like in 3D to judge it's aerodynamics, and that includes area ruling.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3300
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post28 Feb 2015, 16:21

vilters wrote:Drop the canards.
Pull the air inlets forwards, and put levcons on them.

The one thing the Russians got right, are the levcons.

Levcons, plus Leading and trailing edge flaps, and you have a true variable airfoil geometry to play with from low speed flight up to supercruise.

I don't know about levcons. Given that they hinge at the back, they have to require a lot of force to actuate at speed, and failure is libel to be fairly catastrophic at high speed.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5600
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post28 Feb 2015, 18:04

"Levcons" have always struck me as a kludge.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2640
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post28 Feb 2015, 20:34

count_to_10 wrote:
vilters wrote:Drop the canards.
Pull the air inlets forwards, and put levcons on them.

The one thing the Russians got right, are the levcons.

Levcons, plus Leading and trailing edge flaps, and you have a true variable airfoil geometry to play with from low speed flight up to supercruise.

I don't know about levcons. Given that they hinge at the back, they have to require a lot of force to actuate at speed, and failure is libel to be fairly catastrophic at high speed.


Basically higher probability of Mid Air FOD ingestion

=D
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1154
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post01 Mar 2015, 03:25

Levcons ; Airflow wise they are pure genious for body lift creation.
And they also work as ailerons. The differential movement is clearly visible in close-up video.
The forces are comparable with LEF torque.
But unlike LEF, there is almost no "twist under load torque" in them.
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3300
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post01 Mar 2015, 15:38

vilters wrote:Levcons ; Airflow wise they are pure genious for body lift creation.
And they also work as ailerons. The differential movement is clearly visible in close-up video.
The forces are comparable with LEF torque.
But unlike LEF, there is almost no "twist under load torque" in them.

Except levcons have something like ten times the lever arm and a tenth of the length to actuate on. F-16s have flown and landed safely with fully failed LEF. Can the same be said for levcons? I guess we will see.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline

steakanddoritos

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 112
  • Joined: 22 Nov 2013, 20:59

Unread post01 Mar 2015, 16:16

The problem with LEVCONS is that if the actuators and hinges break, the surface will come lose, fold downward and be ingested into the engine.
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2640
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post01 Mar 2015, 17:35

steakanddoritos wrote:The problem with LEVCONS is that if the actuators and hinges break, the surface will come lose, fold downward and be ingested into the engine.


Isn't that the same issue that you have to worry about as if the graphic designer mounted the canards in front of the air intakes?
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3300
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post01 Mar 2015, 21:07

KamenRiderBlade wrote:
steakanddoritos wrote:The problem with LEVCONS is that if the actuators and hinges break, the surface will come lose, fold downward and be ingested into the engine.


Isn't that the same issue that you have to worry about as if the graphic designer mounted the canards in front of the air intakes?

No -- canards will just disrupt the flow of air into the intakes. If they fail, they stream freely in the air because of how they are actuated. Levcons have the "suicide door" problem of being actuated in the back.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1154
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post02 Mar 2015, 00:32

Correction guys. Levcons and LEF failing under load will fold UPWARDS, not downwards.
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3300
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post02 Mar 2015, 00:56

vilters wrote:Correction guys. Levcons and LEF failing under load will fold UPWARDS, not downwards.

That depends on which way they were deflecting at the moment of failure.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2640
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post02 Mar 2015, 02:10

count_to_10 wrote:
vilters wrote:Correction guys. Levcons and LEF failing under load will fold UPWARDS, not downwards.

That depends on which way they were deflecting at the moment of failure.


So let's assume the LEVCON was positioned DOWNWARDS, then it fails and breaks off at that moment.

How bad of a FOD ingestion incident do you think it'll be.

Will the engine be gone?

Will the engine survive well enough to limp on home?

How tough are Russian engines when dealing with FOD?
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1154
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post02 Mar 2015, 02:44

Hey? What is happening? Where are the aero guys here? LOL.

LEF and LEVCONS work in the same way.

The negative pressure (suction) (lift) call it whatever you like, is ALWAYS on the top side.

Even at full DOWN position => That is while pulling high G and alfa, when they fail, they"ll be sucked UPWARDS into the airstream.

The ONLY way they can go in the engine is while failing under NEGATIVE "G".

They are build and tested to at least 15G, if not more.
Now, try to push that much "G" without breaking something else, driver included. LOL.
PreviousNext

Return to Civil and General Aviation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests