Modern biplane/split winger for dogfighting?
David E. Powell
ship with a second or even a second and third pair of "Switchblade"
wings for extra maneuvering in a close turning battle?
Lock S Foils in attack position!
kirk....@gmail.com
wrote:
Congratulations, you've invented the F-14.
Seriously (?), all you would achieve is more weight, drag, and
complexity - which means lower T/W, less persistence (weapons and
fuel) and less stealth. Biplanes are not inherently more maneuverable
than monoplanes - they were initially a design solution (how to build
big enough wings that didn't collapse) that became a fashion - only to
be dropped when the advantage of the cantilever monoplane became
obvious.
When you are thrust limited, wingloading is important to
maneuverability. But as you increase the T/W past one, control
surface effectiveness (& thrust vectoring) becomes more important,
because you are able to maintain enough energy to use the wing you
have (sized for takeoff).
If you look at how modern competition airplanes have evolved, they are
following the same evolution that fighters went through in the 30s -
from slow, low power biplanes to fast, high power monoplanes. The US
is pretty much the last bastion of competition biplanes.
Anyway, to be true to the biplane ethos you would have to have an open
cockpit, and it's really hard to keep your scarf on in a M1.5 breeze!
Cheers,
Kirk
Eunometic
The concept of the supersonic/hypersonic biplane goes back to the same
time that Adolf Busmann developed the concept of the supersonic wing
around 1933. It lead to the SCRAM-Jet as well. The idea is that two
wedge shaped wings create self cancelling shockwaves to both eliminate
shock drag and the sonic-boom.
Here is some Japanese work on a biplane SST:
http://www.ad.mech.tohoku.ac.jp/yamazaki/RESEARCH/busemann/index.html
http://www.ifs.tohoku.ac.jp/edge/publications/ifs-biplane.pdf
People have also attempted to produce drag free catamarans which ties
in neatly with Busmann claiming he was imnspired to the swept wing
concept while watching bow waves on the Rhine. Richard Whitcomb had
his Eureka momment on the Area-Rule at a Busmann lecture where he was
explaining who one must immagine that the shcok waves were pipes and
aeronautical engineers need to think like plumbers (manipulate the
pipes postion). , all the other Americans laughed at Whitecombe when
he proposed his own form of the Area rule him but Busmann defended him.
Ed Rasimus
The OP asked about a multi wing aircraft and then confused the issue
with "switchblade" which raised the F-14 comment. Clearly a monoplane
with a variable sweep wing isn't a bi-plane nor is an F-8 with a
variable incidence wing.
But, if you want to consider biplane aerodynamics for purposes of
enhance maneuvarability, look at the very popular home-built series
from about 15-20 years ago, the Vari-eeze crop. By using compinations
of rear wing and/or canard they built a bunch of very stable (not good
in a fighter), virtually stall-proof, aircraft.
In a fighter, the closest to a "bi-plane" is the canard fighters. They
are exceptionally maeuverable. The problem is that improvements in
applications of thrust vectoring make use of canards less attractive,
especially when you consider the desire for stealth. A flapping canard
provides just one more major reflective surface offering random
aspects for sensors to detect.
Finally, get over "dog-fighting". It isn't a primary or essential
capability in an air-dominance aircraft today. It is impressive, it
sells aircraft, it is a good way to waste your airplane and die in
battle.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
www.thunderchief.org