Lockheed's X-44 MANTA. Experimental tailless aircraft.
Posted by KyleTheStupidJew56@reddit | WeirdWings | View on Reddit | 13 comments
Posted by KyleTheStupidJew56@reddit | WeirdWings | View on Reddit | 13 comments
whreismylotus@reddit
Lockheed Martin X-44 MANTA (Multi-Axis No-Tail Aircraft)
the tailless and rudderless design and instead using thrust vectors to provide yaw, pitch and roll control. (Multi-axis vectorable nozzles)
The Target was to create a stealthiest design so far.
Funding for the X-44 program ended in 2000.
sentinelthesalty@reddit
So, how did they plan to stop yaw and roll after the pilot finishes the "imputs".
For example, would the computer compensate automatically by applying counter thrust to stabilise the aircraft or was it through the aerodynamic properties like B2 or did it never reach that stage in the design process before temination.
Ghosttalker96@reddit
Pretty much all modern fighters are computer stabilized.
6metal6midget6@reddit
If I remember correctly; even the f-16 would be nearly uncontrollable without automatic stabilization inputs
Douchebak@reddit
I recall reading somewhere that F-16 was designed to be unstable to some degree. I think it improved maneuverability or something. Maybe someone can explain further
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
Say you want to pull up to turn quicker. Having you center of lift in a certain position let’s you turn quicker, but because it is far away from the center of mass, all sorts of madness happens. As such, the computer has to counter out all the instability caused by the shifted center of lift.
BirdsGetTheGirls@reddit
Opposite I think. Center of lift near center of mass makes it easier to rotate.
CManns762@reddit
Yes, but if col is in front of com you have an inherently unstable aircraft. If col is too far behind com it can’t even pitch up
vorilant@reddit
Aerodynamic center, not center of mass :)
BiAsALongHorse@reddit
You're both right, but it's the relative position that matters. In a stable plane that means the closer they are the less stable it is. In an unstable plane, it's the opposite. Really it's just that the center of lift/pressure being in front of the CoM makes it unstable, and the further it gets the less stable it is. Think about trying to throw a dart backwards.
vorilant@reddit
Not the center of mass, the aerodynamic center. If the center of lift is not on the center of mass that means you have a net torque, and you are currently turning. That info has nothing to do with stability.
Almost everyone confuses this and says center of mass instead of aerodynamic center. I have no idea why but I've made it my mission to help correct it lol.
vorilant@reddit
Not the center of mass, the aerodynamic center. If the center of lift is not on the center of mass that means you have a net torque, and you are currently turning. That info has nothing to do with stability.
vorilant@reddit
Not the center of mass, the aerodynamic center. If the center of lift is not on the center of mass that means you have a net torque, and you are currently turning. That info has nothing to do with stability.