• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

F-35c at Eglin

J

jtmedli

Well-Known Member
pilot
magnetfreezer said:
Variable wings increase the complexity of CG management and flight control/stability systems, as well as pilot workload (unless you add yet another system to automatically sweep wings). Plus, it's another major system that can break (asymmetric wing sweep=bad) and requires sustainment/maintenance.

This is what can happen if you have to land with wings stuck full aft:
B1_fire.jpg
Click to expand...

What He ^ said.
Folding wings = cheaper, space-saving, relatively simple mechanical solution to CV life.
Sweeping wings = expensive, aerodynamic performance enhancing feature with lots of moving parts (that move while you're flying which can turn out poorly if they stop working).
 
PropAddict

PropAddict

Now with even more awesome!
pilot
Contributor
Navy Ship said:
How come they have folded wings as opposed to variable swept wings? If you are going to put movable parts on the wing to make it fold, then why not put the movable part to make the wings sweep back? This would serve a storage and performance purpose, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

You've already gotten a few very valid answers focusing on the wing sweep.

I'll take a different approach: we fold wings on the boat so we can pack more planes on the roof and in the hangar deck. You'd need on hell of a wing sweep to realize as much space savings that way. Look at the relatively huge spot factor of the Tomkitty, for comparison.
 
squeeze

squeeze

Retired Harrier Dude
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
Harrier wings don't fold, and we're on the boat all the time.
 
wink

wink

War Hoover NFO.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
squeeze said:
Harrier wings don't fold, and we're on the boat all the time.
Click to expand...
Small deck multiple to begin with. Design issues with hard points, pogo gear, and things I could only guess about. Designed to be used off airport/expeditionary so simplicity was paramount. Small number of embarked aircraft make for little net gain in space in exchange for added complexity. Take your pick. I'll admit to being out of the game for a long time but when I was in a PACFLT TACRON we frequently looked for good reasons to get the Harriers off the big deck and out of the way and a wing fold wouldn't have changed that.
 
Renegade One

Renegade One

Well-Known Member
None
I was always intrigued by the "Grumman-method"…sweeping wings down and aft, like still used for the E-2/C-2. First used, I think, on the early Grumman "Cats"…Wildcat, Hellcat, Bearcat, etc. Maybe others. Don't think the S-2 or C-1 used it, but the E-1 must have? Just don't recall.

Don't know it it was unique to the "Grumman Iron Works" aircraft or not…but don't recall seeing it on other carrier aircraft made by other companies.
 
jmcquate

jmcquate

Well-Known Member
Contributor
Renegade One said:
I was always intrigued by the "Grumman-method"…sweeping wings down and aft, like still used for the E-2/C-2. First used, I think, on the early Grumman "Cats"…Wildcat, Hellcat, Bearcat, etc. Maybe others. Don't think the S-2 or C-1 used it, but the E-1 must have? Just don't recall.

Don't know it it was unique to the "Grumman Iron Works" aircraft or not…but don't recall seeing it on other carrier aircraft made by other companies.
Click to expand...
TBF had it too. Bearcat was folded inboard because of the wide gear stance. I agree, neat fold, made a lot of deck space.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top