rcycles, after you hit 150 mph if you move your helmet 2-4 inches you are immediately in the next lane. It does not take much. Ailerons really are quite responsive at those speeds; spoilers used for maneuvering are as well. I doubt the canard type system to stabilize at high speeds makes sense at all;

http://teacherlink.ed.usu.edu/tlnasa/units/ExploringExtreme/02.pdf

Likewise one might enjoy this conversation recently as well:

http://www.aeroworld.net/aid/messages/25/1498.html?FridayMarch1219990818pm

But a small protruding airfoil change at high-speed makes a big difference. We know this from missile technology?

http://people.nas.nasa.gov/~smurman/high_alpha.html

http://www.dbf.ga

A recent think thank has suggested a concept of using a concept of expandable, inflatable, extendable wings in UAVs and fighter Aircraft. In this concept it was debated whether aerodynamic current methodology and design would apply. Such a concept in fact would transcend many current and future technologies. So there was some discussion on similar known aerodynamic theory and most of those close to such concepts would agree with what has been said for the most part, it is good common sense. For instance the need for simplicity and the weight and complexity of motors and moving parts.

And in thinking on this one would see the benefits of “no or few extra parts and complexity” as we must be concerned with EA; “electronic attack” in the future. The more electronic components the more problem for failure or “Murphy’ism!” The USAF Research Lab discusses this in their recent annual report. Simplicity of material memory and no motors means less space needed so more is available for fuel. In a UAV design using these concepts we also can lose the pilot for less space, cost and complexity.

Slow and high-speed aircraft have always been important and discussed;

http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/people/journals/aero/hange/ls.html

Here is some worthy talk on the subject matter as well:

http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/aero/updates/aero109.html

http://www.texastech.edu/news/vistasmag/Vistas2005_13_1/stories/theory.html

Here is one of NASA’s solutions to this issue:

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20031206/bob9.asp

It makes sense, but one would think that we can do better, using some of these new technologies and materials. We know quite a bit about what is needed from so much research in the past;

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88679main_H-2389.pdf

Some in the think tank had indicated the need for Stealth being on of the keys to survival. Many tend to agree with much of that line of reasoning. Indeed, in the future warfare will be so fast that he who sees first and shoots first, wins forever. There would of course be no points for second place and absolutely no need for a mandatory or regulated on-going educational requirement, you would be no longer amongst the living. So, with that said stealth and in the future: cloaking, being invisible or coming in from an out of time and space dimension would be worthy. For now; speed, rapid fire, multiple targets, net-centric instantaneous BLOS are the other necessary components of the game. In the future you can add; faster than light communication and quantum computing to that. It will all be here before we know it, in respect to the whole of known written human history.

The idea of using material memory for the leading edge/end-cap makes sense and yes a change out there at high speed would immediately cause a roll of the airframe. Just like racing motorcycles, after you hit 150 mph if you move your helmet 2-4 inches you are immediately in the next lane. It does not take much. Ailerons really are quite responsive at those speeds; spoilers used for maneuvering are as well. I doubt the canard type system to stabilize at high speeds makes sense at all;

http://teacherlink.ed.usu.edu/tlnasa/units/ExploringExtreme/02.pdf

Likewise one might enjoy this conversation recently as well:

http://www.aeroworld.net/aid/messages/25/1498.html?FridayMarch1219990818pm

But a small protruding airfoil change at high-speed makes a big difference. We know this from missile technology?

http://people.nas.nasa.gov/~smurman/high_alpha.html

http://www.dbf.ga

lectronic attack” in the future. The more electronic components the more problem for failure or “Murphy’ism!” The USAF Research Lab discusses this in their recent annual report. Simplicity of material memory and no motors means less space needed so more is available for fuel. In a UAV design using these concepts we also can lose the pilot for less space, cost and complexity.

Slow and high-speed aircraft have always been important and discussed;

http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/people/journals/aero/hange/ls.html

Here is some worthy talk on the subject matter as well:

http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/aero/updates/aero109.html

http://www.texastech.edu/news/vistasmag/Vistas2005_13_1/stories/theory.html

Here is one of NASA’s solutions to this issue:

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20031206/bob9.asp

It makes sense, but one would think that we can do better, using some of these new technologies and materials. We know quite a bit about what is needed from so much research in the past;

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88679main_H-2389.pdf

Some in the think tank had indicated the need for Stealth being on of the keys to survival. Many tend to agree with much of that line of reasoning. Indeed, in the future warfare will be so fast that he who sees first and shoots first, wins forever. There would of course be no points for second place and absolutely no need for a mandatory or regulated on-going educational requirement, you would be no longer amongst the living. So, with that said stealth and in the future: cloaking, being invisible or coming in from an out of time and space dimension would be worthy. For now; speed, rapid fire, multiple targets, net-centric instantaneous BLOS are the other necessary components of the game. In the future you can add; faster than light communication and quantum computing to that. It will all be here before we know it, in respect to the whole of known written human history.

The idea of using material memory for the leading edge/end-cap makes sense and yes a change out there at high speed would immediately cause a roll of the airframe. Just like racing motorcycles, after you hit 150 mph if you move your helmet 2-4 inches you are immediately in the next lane. It does not take much. Ailerons really are quite responsive at those speeds; spoilers used for maneuvering are as well. I doubt the canard type system to stabilize at high speeds makes sense at all;

http://teacherlink.ed.usu.edu/tlnasa/units/ExploringExtreme/02.pdf

Likewise one might enjoy this conversation recently as well:

http://www.aeroworld.net/aid/messages/25/1498.html?FridayMarch1219990818pm

But a small protruding airfoil change at high-speed makes a big difference. We know this from missile technology?

http://people.nas.nasa.gov/~smurman/high_alpha.html

http://www.dbf.ga

p>

Here is one of NASA’s solutions to this issue:

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20031206/bob9.asp

It makes sense, but one would think that we can do better, using some of these new technologies and materials. We know quite a bit about what is needed from so much research in the past;

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88679main_H-2389.pdf

Some in the think tank had indicated the need for Stealth being on of the keys to survival. Many tend to agree with much of that line of reasoning. Indeed, in the future warfare will be so fast that he who sees first and shoots first, wins forever. There would of course be no points for second place and absolutely no need for a mandatory or regulated on-going educational requirement, you would be no longer amongst the living. So, with that said stealth and in the future: cloaking, being invisible or coming in from an out of time and space dimension would be worthy. For now; speed, rapid fire, multiple targets, net-centric instantaneous BLOS are the other necessary components of the game. In the future you can add; faster than light communication and quantum computing to that. It will all be here before we know it, in respect to the whole of known written human history.

The idea of using material memory for the leading edge/end-cap makes sense and yes a change out there at high speed would immediately cause a roll of the airframe. Just like racing motorcycles, after you hit 150 mph if you move your helmet 2-4 inches you are immediately in the next lane. It does not take much. Ailerons really are quite responsive at those speeds; spoilers used for maneuvering are as well. I doubt the canard type system to stabilize at high speeds makes sense at all;

http://teacherlink.ed.usu.edu/tlnasa/units/ExploringExtreme/02.pdf

Likewise one might enjoy this conversation recently as well:

http://www.aeroworld.net/aid/messages/25/1498.html?FridayMarch1219990818pm

But a small protruding airfoil change at high-speed makes a big difference. We know this from missile technology?

http://people.nas.nasa.gov/~smurman/high_alpha.html

http://www.dbf.ga

ated on-going educational requirement, you would be no longer amongst the living. So, with that said stealth and in the future: cloaking, being invisible or coming in from an out of time and space dimension would be worthy. For now; speed, rapid fire, multiple targets, net-centric instantaneous BLOS are the other necessary components of the game. In the future you can add; faster than light communication and quantum computing to that. It will all be here before we know it, in respect to the whole of known written human history.

The idea of using material memory for the leading edge/end-cap makes sense and yes a change out there at high speed would immediately cause a roll of the airframe. Just like racing motorcycles, after you hit 150 mph if you move your helmet 2-4 inches you are immediately in the next lane. It does not take much. Ailerons really are quite responsive at those speeds; spoilers used for maneuvering are as well. I doubt the canard type system to stabilize at high speeds makes sense at all;

http://teacherlink.ed.usu.edu/tlnasa/units/ExploringExtreme/02.pdf

Likewise one might enjoy this conversation recently as well:

http://www.aeroworld.net/aid/messages/25/1498.html?FridayMarch1219990818pm

But a small protruding airfoil change at high-speed makes a big difference. We know this from missile technology?

http://people.nas.nasa.gov/~smurman/high_alpha.html

http://www.dbf.ga

rcycles, after you hit 150 mph if you move your helmet 2-4 inches you are immediately in the next lane. It does not take much. Ailerons really are quite responsive at those speeds; spoilers used for maneuvering are as well. I doubt the canard type system to stabilize at high speeds makes sense at all;

http://teacherlink.ed.usu.edu/tlnasa/units/ExploringExtreme/02.pdf

Likewise one might enjoy this conversation recently as well:

http://www.aeroworld.net/aid/messages/25/1498.html?FridayMarch1219990818pm

But a small protruding airfoil change at high-speed makes a big difference. We know this from missile technology?

http://people.nas.nasa.gov/~smurman/high_alpha.html

http://www.dbf.gatech.edu/performance.ppt

http://www.fluent.com/solutions/examples/x175.htm

http://www.sm.go.dlr.de/SMinfo/WTKinfo/arbeitsgebiete/flugkoerper/flugkoerper_e.html

http://www.cfdrc.com/bizareas/aerospace/aeromechanics/missile_launch.html

http://www.nearinc.com/near/project/MISDL.htm

The expandable wing concept for a missile goes like this, somewhat similar:

http://ezinearticles.com/?Lockheed-Loitering-Missile-Expandable-Wing-Concept&id=63205

Much of the issues with flight control for roll rates, pitch and yaw have been done already and there would be no reason to complicate those issues only use additional technologies to incorporate the material memory and expandable parts for slow speeds. Hopefully you will remember the NASA Tests of the fold out wings on a UAV, which was dropped from a transport plane. Has Mars UAV mission applications as a drone also, as well as a flying communication and surveillance component. Dryden Test of the 2001 if you will recall; see the Wing deployment sequence using the deployable Inflatable wing technology demonstrator. The experimental wings are fully deployed during flight following separation from its carrier aircraft; it is an entire wing, not just a section of wing as in the expandable, inflatable, extendable wings in UAVs and Fighter Aircraft concept in the think tank discussions using a strong hard leading edge/spar concept.

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/InflatableWing/index.html http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/NewsReleases/2001/01-46.html

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/pdf/80065main_9401Astrogram.pdf Also the Navy’s “Monarch” has expandable wings once deployed, many UAVs also have expandable wings prior to flight and many loitering missile concepts have wings, which depart in flight when ready to attack target. The original idea was more in line with a flying car with an expandable wing, here is another thought on this issue:

http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/AIAA2002-5877.pdf

There needs to be research and some test and evaluation using the newest new inflatable material, which has the capacity to take on the required wing loading of a fighter aircraft. We need to be thinking here.