Box Wings?
Thread Starter
Box Wings?
Interesting concept....any thoughts on the concept being a viable replacement for the V-22 style aircraft?
Next Big Future: Vertical takeoff and landing boxwing planes capable of twice the speed of helicopters
Next Big Future: Vertical takeoff and landing boxwing planes capable of twice the speed of helicopters
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paper airplanes fly very very well, Sasless! I notice the two designers have made plenty of software in the past, but they haven't been confused by having developed any aircraft. This make the performance figures easier to make up.
You could call it a Biplane - the idea could catch on perhaps call it the Tiger Moth.
There seems to be many concepts out there these days - it will be interesting to look back in 25 years and see which have made the grade.
There seems to be many concepts out there these days - it will be interesting to look back in 25 years and see which have made the grade.
Thread Starter
Seems feasible. Is there a down side?
Hugely inefficient trying to lift a big machine with little props. Moving lots of air slowly with a big rotor, is far better than moving smaller amounts faster with a small rotor. Downwash, noise, power requirements.
Ring wings have been tried since the 20s, biplanes were dumped due to the interference between wings.
Ring wings have been tried since the 20s, biplanes were dumped due to the interference between wings.
Is there a down side?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems feasible. Is there a down side?
I fail to see where there any of the required substantial or outstanding advances in aeronautical design, materials, or technology, that would make this "new design" a winner, are present here.
Thread Starter
Odd...I seem to recall the Germans did Quite well with a three winged aircraft....and the AN -2 is still earning an honest living.
Hugely inefficient trying to lift a big machine with little props. Moving lots of air slowly with a big rotor, is far better than moving smaller amounts faster with a small rotor. Downwash, noise, power requirements.
Ring wings have been tried since the 20s, biplanes were dumped due to the interference between wings.
Ring wings have been tried since the 20s, biplanes were dumped due to the interference between wings.
Sassy, how long ago was the AN-2 designed? And the 3-winger was 1917 wasn't it? I recall a video of a plane with a wing like a venetian blind, it got to about 4 knots and it folded up, like a ... well, like a venetian blind.
Why doesn't Boeing or Airbus make biplanes, if they are still considered to be a worthwhile idea?
Why doesn't Boeing or Airbus make biplanes, if they are still considered to be a worthwhile idea?
A NASA paper on the box and closed wing system. Lockheed even came up with a design for a large airliner with a closed wing, not unlike the subject of this thread. Some serious disadvantages though, fuel volume, landing gear integration, CLmax penalties, and lower section Reynolds numbers.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...9960023622.pdf
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...9960023622.pdf
Thread Starter
how long ago was the AN-2 designed?
How long ago was the DC-3 designed....and yet some of them are still out there working today....perhaps most with Turbo Props now but the basic airframe design is the same.
The C-130 continues...as does the Chinook....and the Huey...sometimes a good design can find its niche in the market.
Sassy, I wasn't criticising a good aircraft, merely pointing out that it is a LONG time since anybody thought it worthwhile making a biplane or triplane. Yes, the Goonybird and the Huey are timeless designs, the Herc is continually evolving, as is the Chook. But nothing like Hollywood remaking old classics and totally stuffing them up.
