To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 18655
  Re: Historical fudging...
 
(...) That's why you make composite wings ;-) Actually, current research is moving away from the "ugly" or "dirty" flaps to wings that flex. Less drag, more control. -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (22 years ago, 18-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Historical fudging...
 
(...) Hmmm... wouldn't composite wings prove too costly for large passenger planes? They sure look like they can improve performance, and that is an invaluable factor when we are talking about fighter-jets (for instance). But would the increased (...) (22 years ago, 18-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Historical fudging...
 
(...) I suspect aircraft are expensive either way. The real question I would have is what would the psychological impact be on passengers who look out and see the wing of the aircraft bending up and down a lot? They might get additionally unnerved (...) (22 years ago, 18-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Historical fudging...
 
(...) The article I was reading was mentioning that the amount of flex needed in a wing was FAR less than the movement of a flap, as the wing surface was much larger than the flaps, and slight flexing made quite a difference in the airflow over the (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR