Wing sweep question
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Not too sure but it's damn cold
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which is why there are indeed limited clearances for 35 and 58 wg. Of course if your left hand is as slow to respond to nerve impulses as mine can be you often find the wings sweep evvvvvvveeeeeeerrrrrr so slowly, so slowly in fact that they seem to not be moving at all......
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leon,
You are ofcourse right. About intermediate wing sweeps. My undertsanding was that it was more to do with fatigue management, as the readings were only taken at certain wing sweeps (25,45,58,63,67).
SEP bar management on long transits did offer some good fuel savings / speed for Mach / Alt.
But overall, I like a bigger wing, lower loading and more thrust. Bit like Typhoon really!
Advo
You are ofcourse right. About intermediate wing sweeps. My undertsanding was that it was more to do with fatigue management, as the readings were only taken at certain wing sweeps (25,45,58,63,67).
SEP bar management on long transits did offer some good fuel savings / speed for Mach / Alt.
But overall, I like a bigger wing, lower loading and more thrust. Bit like Typhoon really!
Advo
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately one effect of not clearing fully all the available wing sweep positions led indirectly to the lack of auto wing sweep in the RAF. The problem was that the automatic schedule shaved off some corners of the performance envelope in order to ensure that wings reached the required sweep within the mach/airspeed limitations - and, when sweeping commenced, no other angle could be selected until the required setting was achieved. Although manual wing sweeping should also be performed in the same way, in practise pilots frequently do not anticipate and also change their selection in mid sweep contrary to the R to S.
It was thought that a competent pilot could do better than the automatic schedule but in practise this is simply not the case because the pilot has other more important priorities and frequently operates the jet at less than the optimum sweep angles and in excess of normal operating limits.
To those proponents just a few set sweep angles I would add that an aircraft like the Tornado can perform well as a bomber with just a few settings but it needs all the manoeuvring help it can get in the fighter role - even with AMRAAM and ASRAAM. With fully variable auto wing sweep and manoevres it would be a lot better off - and this could have been a no-cost option for the RAF. In Saudi service the auto wing sweep and manoeuvres on the fighter have proved their worth - fully variable would be even better.
It was thought that a competent pilot could do better than the automatic schedule but in practise this is simply not the case because the pilot has other more important priorities and frequently operates the jet at less than the optimum sweep angles and in excess of normal operating limits.
To those proponents just a few set sweep angles I would add that an aircraft like the Tornado can perform well as a bomber with just a few settings but it needs all the manoeuvring help it can get in the fighter role - even with AMRAAM and ASRAAM. With fully variable auto wing sweep and manoevres it would be a lot better off - and this could have been a no-cost option for the RAF. In Saudi service the auto wing sweep and manoeuvres on the fighter have proved their worth - fully variable would be even better.
Last edited by soddim; 7th Aug 2008 at 13:11. Reason: spelling
