 | | Re: Historical fudging... —Thomas Stangl
|
| | | (...) 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... —Pedro Silva
|
| | | | (...) 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... —John P. Henderson
|
| | | | (...) 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... —Thomas Stangl
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
