Inverted Wing Planes

My latest question is about Inverted-Wing Plane Technology. I know most of the skivvies on it. Fly-By-Wire controlled, extreme manuverability, Russian and United States have both flown prototypes to prove the tech was possible, etc.

I wanted to know most especialy if invert-wing designs could become an alternative to producing F-22 Raptor-Style aircraft and if a Swing Wing aircraft, specificaly the S-37 Berkut (which I realise is only a testing platform, but is the only fighter type to use the technology. I am not sure if the U.S prototype is for fighter technology.) could take on a raptor.

Now I know that last bit is treading on some pretty thin ice, so I digress. I know this is not my place to say it, but please try and refrain from bashing other countries doing this. I am trying to figure out if this Fith-Generation technology could be a contender for a more 'conventional' aircraft like the F-22 (conventional as in layout of the wings).

Keep it clean, please! I dont want to get in trouble for starting something.

Forward swept wings have their major advantages, yes. But there has to be a reason why they haven't been used in latest operational aircraft. For europeans it could be the lack of testing (ironic since germans have used the design among the first), for russians it could be the lack of experience with composites. Even though berkut is claimed to have wings made 90% out of composites, so i may be wrong. For US i would guess it could be the relative lack of stealth. Its just that when i see that wingroot, where forward swept wing meets the fuselage - that cannot provide same or smaller front RCS as the backwards swept wing. There is a reason why newest us planes (f22 and f35) feature a somewhat of a diamond shaped wing, to be stealthy from both front and back. yf23 had a true diamond shaped wing - which corresponds with the claims it was stealthier than yf22.

Still, it does seem rather superior to backward swept wing - both in lift (to smaller extent) and allowing higher angles of attack (in bigger extent). If one doesn't care about radar stealth and has very good grasp of strong and elastic composites - forward swept design might find its use in the military in the coming decades.

Well, the Russians have been working on plasma stealth so they probably see less need for backward-swept wings if they can make inverted wings work. The Su-47 won't be much use unless that stealth can work. Supposedly it can and reduces the RCS by 100. Pretty impressive. Meaning, if they can make something as stealthy as the Eurofighter, with plasma they can have the stealthiest fighter in the world.

, and nothing else, i have come up with the following information about forward swept wings.

Disadvantages
Structural stresses: from what i gather the main problem with why the technology hasn't been tested as throughly as other wing designs is that there is simply to much stress on the wings causing them to break. Only with the advent of composites could the wings be built. Unfortunately the US soon got vector thrusting, with gives many of the same advantages but less redesign, please note however that together they should make a super maneuverable fighter.

Supersonic abilities (or lack there of) apparently when a fighter plane goes supersonic with forward swept wings the sonic boom happens on the wing which slows down the fighter, and possible damages it if it isn't strong enough. Whereas a diamond shaped wing the sonic boom happens behind it, but its subsonic agility suffers, recall the f14 pulls back its wings for supersonic, then extends for fighting.

Advantages:
maneuverability, i don't think i have heard of a wing design that is more maneuverable than a forward swept wing subsonic.

For the future:
considering that all modern nations seem to have a requirement of their fighters to go supersonic, it seems unlikely that there will be an air superiority fighter with forward swept wings. That being said i see no reason why a UAV shouldn't get them or perhaps a new VTOL craft, bring back the WW2 concept of the interceptor.

Final note, BVR fighting isn't everything, the last thing you want to do in todays media environment is shot down some civilian airliner because you never saw it. Also John Boyd was strongly against the missile based fighters, a believe validated by Vietnam.

I think you underrate it. While granted, supposedly the Su PAK FA will have a normal wing design, inverted wings aren't a bad idea. Keep in mind, most planes aren't even design to be able to fly anymore without a lot of tottering about. technology overcame the need for an aerodynamically-stable design and I think it can just as easily overcome the problems of an inverted wing design.

TVC or no, the stealthy design of many aircrafts means they are not as manueverable as a less-stealthy aircraft with the same TVC. With an inverted wing design an aircraft can be even more manueverable than normal and with TVC it would improve even more. It makes it far more manueverable than an aircraft going with a conventional layout and TVC. It also doesn't stress the engines as much.

If one can have plasma stealth, stealth that can be turned on and off given a certain situation is invaluable especially when it allows for more manueverability.

The gull wing design found its way into seaplanes by the early 1930s. As engine power increased, so did the need for large propellers that could effectively convert power to thrust. The alternative was placing the engine on a pylon. Possibly the first flying-boat to utilize the gull wing configuration was the Short Knuckleduster, which flew in 1933. The Dornier Do 26, a high-speed airliner a. The configuration was also used on the US Navy's PBM Mariner and P5M Marlin maritime patrol aircraft. The emergence of long range, land-based jets in the 1950s and the subsequent demise of the seaplane prevented widespread use of the gull wing, although it was still used in some post-war designs, like Beriev Be-12 Chaika

it is nice post

this is nice site

i want to know

please tell me about site