Biplane Jet Fighter
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sandhurst
Age: 50
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biplane Jet Fighter
Ok, this is going to be ridiculed I know but, I have been trying to think of a good reason why a modern jet fighter would not benefit from some kind of biplane configuration.
Modern emphasis seems to be on manoeuvrability as opposed to outright speed yet surely with modern aerodynamics and wing sections, an extra wing would not cause too many problems with drag.
You would have extra fuel load, enhanced payload capability, greater lift etc.
If not a fighter then perhaps a good design for CAS as the increased fuel and ordinance would increase loiter time and firepower.
< Retreats and awaits comments along the lines of 'Stupid Boy'.
Modern emphasis seems to be on manoeuvrability as opposed to outright speed yet surely with modern aerodynamics and wing sections, an extra wing would not cause too many problems with drag.
You would have extra fuel load, enhanced payload capability, greater lift etc.
If not a fighter then perhaps a good design for CAS as the increased fuel and ordinance would increase loiter time and firepower.
< Retreats and awaits comments along the lines of 'Stupid Boy'.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Drag - airframe (all those extra bracing bits and interplane struts)
Drag - induced (twice as many wingtips)
Compression - interaction of airflow between the planes
Visibility - piss poor fwd vis as someone has left a wing in the way, poor rearwards as the pilot tends to sit low to overcome the fwd vis issues!
Biplanes, huh - I love 'em
I've flown the SEPECAT Jag, the Extra 300 and they were fun but I wouldn't swap my bipe for either!
Stik
Drag - induced (twice as many wingtips)
Compression - interaction of airflow between the planes
Visibility - piss poor fwd vis as someone has left a wing in the way, poor rearwards as the pilot tends to sit low to overcome the fwd vis issues!
Biplanes, huh - I love 'em
I've flown the SEPECAT Jag, the Extra 300 and they were fun but I wouldn't swap my bipe for either!
Stik
I believe the only biplane jet was the Polish PZL-Mielec M-15 Belphegor. Only a Mother could love it!
PZL M-15 Belphegor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Airliners.net | Airplanes - Aviation - Aircraft- Aircraft Photos & News
TJ
PZL M-15 Belphegor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Airliners.net | Airplanes - Aviation - Aircraft- Aircraft Photos & News
TJ
OK then how about a "hollow oval" wing (in front view)? The bottom surface curves up to meet the top wing and still only one set of wing tips?
Twice the number of flaps, etc, space in lower wing for undercarriage and weapons bays, plenty of room for fuel in the top wing. Could still fit winglets and other fancy paraphenalia, swept or straight....
Any designers out there, it's MY patent!!
Twice the number of flaps, etc, space in lower wing for undercarriage and weapons bays, plenty of room for fuel in the top wing. Could still fit winglets and other fancy paraphenalia, swept or straight....
Any designers out there, it's MY patent!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sandhurst
Age: 50
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stiknruda,
fair points, thank you.
I don't think it would need interplane struts or bracing
Drag, regarding wingtips, yes thats a problem
Compression likewise
But visibility would depend on config, if it was like a modern jet then the pilot is way out in front of the wing anyway.
fair points, thank you.
I don't think it would need interplane struts or bracing
Drag, regarding wingtips, yes thats a problem
Compression likewise
But visibility would depend on config, if it was like a modern jet then the pilot is way out in front of the wing anyway.
Ok If we're getting silly...
How about upper wing swept forward, lower swept back, crescent shaped wings (plan view) and joined at the tips...
....with winglet/endplates that extend to the ground with outrigger wheels on their ends. Both ends, then you can land upside down.
How about upper wing swept forward, lower swept back, crescent shaped wings (plan view) and joined at the tips...
....with winglet/endplates that extend to the ground with outrigger wheels on their ends. Both ends, then you can land upside down.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: N.Ireland
Age: 39
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought the whole point of a biplane was due to early aviation materials not having the structural rigidity to use in a monoplane configuration, so two were used, one to support the other, the aerodynamics of which still only gave the lift equivalent of 1 wing?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Biplanes went out when it was found you could get the same gains by making a single wing thicker which lead to a simpler design with room for the undercarriage, fuel and weapons etc.
There is a case for tandem wings, of various designs such as the LM design, for larger aircraft; but they tend to make the platform more stable, which isn't design feature you want in a fighter.
The compromise in the fighter world is the canard combined with relaxed stability, which is what you have in the Typhoon.
There is a case for tandem wings, of various designs such as the LM design, for larger aircraft; but they tend to make the platform more stable, which isn't design feature you want in a fighter.
The compromise in the fighter world is the canard combined with relaxed stability, which is what you have in the Typhoon.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,002
Received 2,893 Likes
on
1,238 Posts
They did do a Biplane Hurricane fighter that had a jettisonable top wing. it carried extra fuel and reduced takeoff runs, but was dropped ( excuse the pun) after the requirement was no longer there.
see
The Hawker Hurricane
see
The Hawker Hurricane
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well as already pointed out, it is not practical.
BUT there has been research into supersonic biplane configurations, because it is possible to take advantage of compressible flow in such a configuration to produce a very low-drag lifting device. I'm afraid my uni days are too long ago to remember the exact details, but basically the idea was to arrange the separation of the biplanes so that at a given mach number the reflected internal shock waves cancelled out the external shock waves.
BUT there has been research into supersonic biplane configurations, because it is possible to take advantage of compressible flow in such a configuration to produce a very low-drag lifting device. I'm afraid my uni days are too long ago to remember the exact details, but basically the idea was to arrange the separation of the biplanes so that at a given mach number the reflected internal shock waves cancelled out the external shock waves.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
CirrusF, are you talking about the "wave rider" effect?
It was used to great effect in the XB-70, but that used a single wing with downward folding wing tips which captured and compressed the wave to allow the aircraft to 'surf" on it's own wave.
It was used to great effect in the XB-70, but that used a single wing with downward folding wing tips which captured and compressed the wave to allow the aircraft to 'surf" on it's own wave.
The idea of a supersonic biplane is quite old, certainly back to von Karman, and not necessarily silly.
I've seen a picture of a von Karman design where the lower wing sweeps back and the upper wing sweeps forward and the tips angle to join which also gave improved structural strength (rather important on forward swept wings). I can't find a link to a picture unfortunately. At the time we were wondering about using the shock wave interaction to get a reduced acoustic signature for an SSBJ design. The original von Karman intent was to improve L/D. The best link I can find is :
1958 | 1- - 0474 | Flight Archive
Regards,
I've seen a picture of a von Karman design where the lower wing sweeps back and the upper wing sweeps forward and the tips angle to join which also gave improved structural strength (rather important on forward swept wings). I can't find a link to a picture unfortunately. At the time we were wondering about using the shock wave interaction to get a reduced acoustic signature for an SSBJ design. The original von Karman intent was to improve L/D. The best link I can find is :
1958 | 1- - 0474 | Flight Archive
Regards,
It's been done
I saw this plane at the CAF show in 2002
Jet Biplane
Its a Jet Waco with a T85 and Pratt and Witney Radial
Jet Biplane
Its a Jet Waco with a T85 and Pratt and Witney Radial
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CirrusF, are you talking about the "wave rider" effect?