BAE fly flapless plane.

[rhinochopig]

I recall there being an x-plane with flexible surfaces, but this uses air-jets.

Clever stuff.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11431662

Edited by rhinochopig on Thursday 30th September 09:00

[Flintstone]

Interesting but, bloody BBC

No control surfaces in the form of ailerons and rudder, now that's interesting. No flaps, meh.

Wish they'd do their research properly. I also can't see why the CAA would have to authorise the flight, 'flaps' or no. It's a model. What's the threshold in terms of size and/or weight before they become involved?

[Ian Lancs]

Pretty sure the CAA didn't auth it as it was flapless; more the fact it is classed as a lar4ge model aircraft (>20kg)
http://www.largemodelassociation.com/CAAdocuments....

[john_p]

I fly a flapless plane on most weekends

[spitfire-ian]

Plane without flaps...



Plane without moving control surfaces...

[shouldbworking]

I gather its exhaust gas not bleed air - can imagine it has some fairly 'interesting' handling characteristics?

[rhinochopig]

shouldbworking said:

I gather its exhaust gas not bleed air - can imagine it has some fairly 'interesting' handling characteristics?

I doubt it - it'll be through a DFCS so the "pilot" will not notice anything unusual.

[dr_gn]

rhinochopig said:

shouldbworking said:

I gather its exhaust gas not bleed air - can imagine it has some fairly 'interesting' handling characteristics?

I doubt it - it'll be through a DFCS so the "pilot" will not notice anything unusual.

Unless the engine stops

[rhinochopig]

dr_gn said:

rhinochopig said:

shouldbworking said:

I gather its exhaust gas not bleed air - can imagine it has some fairly 'interesting' handling characteristics?

I doubt it - it'll be through a DFCS so the "pilot" will not notice anything unusual.

Unless the engine stops

No because as the plane falls out of the sky the air passing through the engine is redirected so control is restored.

[dr_gn]

rhinochopig said:

dr_gn said:

rhinochopig said:

shouldbworking said:

I gather its exhaust gas not bleed air - can imagine it has some fairly 'interesting' handling characteristics?

I doubt it - it'll be through a DFCS so the "pilot" will not notice anything unusual.

Unless the engine stops

No because as the plane falls out of the sky the air passing through the engine is redirected so control is restored.

I'd expect any practical version would retain conventional control surfaces for landing/take-off/emergencies, and switch to the boundary layer control thing at other times?

[tinman0]

This test plane did have flaps, they were simply turned off during the tests once it was airborne.

[rhinochopig]

dr_gn said:

rhinochopig said:

dr_gn said:

rhinochopig said:

shouldbworking said:

I gather its exhaust gas not bleed air - can imagine it has some fairly 'interesting' handling characteristics?

I doubt it - it'll be through a DFCS so the "pilot" will not notice anything unusual.

Unless the engine stops

No because as the plane falls out of the sky the air passing through the engine is redirected so control is restored.

I'd expect any practical version would retain conventional control surfaces for landing/take-off/emergencies, and switch to the boundary layer control thing at other times?

I doubt it otherwise there's no point. Two sets of controls = added weight and complexity. A modern fighter isn't going to flyable if you get a common mode failure of the DFCS.

The tech will probably only be used on drones anyway.

[dr_gn]

rhinochopig said:

dr_gn said:

rhinochopig said:

dr_gn said:

rhinochopig said:

shouldbworking said:

I gather its exhaust gas not bleed air - can imagine it has some fairly 'interesting' handling characteristics?

I doubt it - it'll be through a DFCS so the "pilot" will not notice anything unusual.

Unless the engine stops

No because as the plane falls out of the sky the air passing through the engine is redirected so control is restored.

I'd expect any practical version would retain conventional control surfaces for landing/take-off/emergencies, and switch to the boundary layer control thing at other times?

I doubt it otherwise there's no point. Two sets of controls = added weight and complexity. A modern fighter isn't going to flyable if you get a common mode failure of the DFCS.

The tech will probably only be used on drones anyway.

I thought it was for stealth? If there are no flapping control surfaces stabilising an inherently unstable aircraft it gives less radar reflection no?

Maybe I should actually read the article?

[rhinochopig]

dr_gn said:

rhinochopig said:

dr_gn said:

rhinochopig said:

dr_gn said:

rhinochopig said:

shouldbworking said:

I gather its exhaust gas not bleed air - can imagine it has some fairly 'interesting' handling characteristics?

I doubt it - it'll be through a DFCS so the "pilot" will not notice anything unusual.

Unless the engine stops

No because as the plane falls out of the sky the air passing through the engine is redirected so control is restored.

I'd expect any practical version would retain conventional control surfaces for landing/take-off/emergencies, and switch to the boundary layer control thing at other times?

I doubt it otherwise there's no point. Two sets of controls = added weight and complexity. A modern fighter isn't going to flyable if you get a common mode failure of the DFCS.

The tech will probably only be used on drones anyway.

I thought it was for stealth? If there are no flapping control surfaces stabilising an inherently unstable aircraft it gives less radar reflection no?

Maybe I should actually read the article?

The article doesn't say. However, a military aircraft is only as useful as the payload it can deliver - two sets of controls is a lot of parasitic weight.

[shouldbworking]

rhinochopig said:

shouldbworking said:

I gather its exhaust gas not bleed air - can imagine it has some fairly 'interesting' handling characteristics?

I doubt it - it'll be through a DFCS so the "pilot" will not notice anything unusual.

Even with a DFCS though, there must be a difference in pitch, roll + yaw rates at different power levels?

If the control jets take as much of the exhaust as they can get then you have variable outputs, but presumably the control jets will only take a certain pressure of the exhaust output - so you'll need the engine capable of producing that pressure all the time which would in my head either mean a high idle or a low pressure to the control jets.

Disclaimer : I have no experience in this field or any idea how much pressure would be required to generate the required level of manouverability.

[Conian]

there is advantages everywhere with this system
less control mechanisms means less weight
which means more passengers/cargo/bombs

every one wins!!! except the people getting bombed obviously

[davepoth]

hardly news though, is it? I mean the Harrier has been doing this for nigh on 50 years in a hover, with completely manual control.

[rhinochopig]

davepoth said:

hardly news though, is it? I mean the Harrier has been doing this for nigh on 50 years in a hover, with completely manual control.

Shhhhhhh

[dr_gn]

rhinochopig said:

davepoth said:

hardly news though, is it? I mean the Harrier has been doing this for nigh on 50 years in a hover, with completely manual control.

Shhhhhhh

But the Harrier uses air jets, not boundary layer control (which presumably the BAE thing uses). The X-15 used small rocket motors for attitude control at high altitudes too, but it's a totally different concept.

[Conian]

this tech is comparbale to McLaren's F-duct surely?