Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Tests Aircraft With Shape Shifting Wings

Posted by samzenpus on from the a-shape-for-all-occasions dept.

Zothecula writes In January, we first heard about FlexFoil; a variable geometry airfoil system that seamlessly integrates into the trailing edge of the wing. During the year the system has made the leap from the test bench to the sky, with NASA conducting tests of the FlexFoil on a modified Gulfstream III business jet.

55 comments

  1. Aren't those just called FLAPS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um, anyone?

    1. Re:Aren't those just called FLAPS? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Flaps or slats, depending on whether they're at the front or back. They've been around for a LONG time.

      Flaps and slats are a single hinged panel each. Perhaps this is more elaborate?

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    2. Re:Aren't those just called FLAPS? by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

      It looks like it is flexible wing without hinges. I thought that they started testing that a while ago on the F-111.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    3. Re:Aren't those just called FLAPS? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 5, Informative

      According to TFA, they're replacements for flaps or slats that are a panel, continuous with the wing surface, that flexes, rather than pivoting or sliding.

      This eliminates the gap, which starts vortices (causing noise and other issues).

      So wing shape changing via pivoting panels has been stock for a while, while (comparably sized) profile changes done by flexing wing sections with skins continuous with the rest of the wing are what is new.

      (Note that adjusting a wing by flexing it - slightly, over its full surface - has been around for a VERY long time. The Wright Brothers used it for yaw control, though they augmented (not replaced) it with a vertical rudder, starting with the glider that immediately preceded the "first powered flight" craft.)

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    4. Re:Aren't those just called FLAPS? by peragrin · · Score: 1

      I remember the aeroelastic wings on the f-18

      Where it had variable wing foil and flexibility.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    5. Re:Aren't those just called FLAPS? by erice · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It looks like it is flexible wing without hinges. I thought that they started testing that a while ago on the F-111.

      Oh, you mean wing warping? Now where have I see this before?

    6. Re:Aren't those just called FLAPS? by radtea · · Score: 3, Interesting

      (Note that adjusting a wing by flexing it - slightly, over its full surface - has been around for a VERY long time. The Wright Brothers used it for yaw control, though they augmented (not replaced) it with a vertical rudder, starting with the glider that immediately preceded the "first powered flight" craft.)

      All of which makes the article's breathless touting of this "innovation" pretty funny.

      Two of the most basic moves in engineering are:

      1) Take two functions that used to be separate and integrate them into a single component. This increases efficiency.

      2) Take two functions that are performed by a single component and split them apart. This increases robustness.

      Which move is a good idea at any time depends heavily on technology. Wing-warping (lift and control both done by the same component) was a poor fit for wood-and-fabric technology, so ailerons (lift and control done by separate components) was a good move. Metal frames and skins were not much different from wood and fabric in this regard, but now we are making aircraft mostly out of plastic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner) it may be time to reconsider the problem (which I guess has been done for some military aircraft already).

      But it's not like this is a super-innovative work of genius. It's a pretty standard move that any good engineer is likely to consider when faced with a problem of efficiency (although exactly why integrated flaps are supposed to be such a huge improvement is not at all clear from TFA).

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    7. Re:Aren't those just called FLAPS? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Not exactly. I mean this http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dr...
      Wing warping is more like twisting the airfoil while the MAW actually changes the airfoil.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    8. Re:Aren't those just called FLAPS? by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

      I thought so too. Yes, NASA has become a PR Company, like so many others.
      Don't blame them, what with trillions being sucked up by NSA and private tax breaks.
      There's something rotten in the States of the US.

    9. Re:Aren't those just called FLAPS? by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

      Ah yes. But the North Vietnamese all still holding on to the tests results.

    10. Re:Aren't those just called FLAPS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This allows the FlexFoil to act like a flap in its various positions while still providing an unbroken air surface.

      The article is clear that this is an improvement on flaps.

    11. Re:Aren't those just called FLAPS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      u and erice get modded up, imo
      the nasa thing is outstanding

    12. Re:Aren't those just called FLAPS? by jbengt · · Score: 1

      This eliminates the gap, which starts vortices (causing noise and other issues)

      Those air gaps are essential to keeping the air flow attached to the wing surfaces at the large angles of attack required at landing and takeoff speeds.

    13. Re:Aren't those just called FLAPS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, I think the Wright Brothers used wing-warping for roll control. Their system co-ordinated yaw and roll control and so provided an aircraft that could change direction in a (reasonably) stable and predictable manner.

    14. Re:Aren't those just called FLAPS? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Those air gaps are essential

      Right. These are called slats or Krueger flaps. Or slotted faps if they are on the airfoil trailing edge.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    15. Re:Aren't those just called FLAPS? by brad3378 · · Score: 2

      I STRONGLY disagree. This Is VERY innovative technology.

      Flexture / compliant structural engineering is NOT trivial.
      We're talking about a complex interaction of kinematics, material science, fatigue, structures, non-linear dynamic loads, and in this case even thermal loads because temperatures drop significantly at altitude and you're not going to want a brittle material failure. Not to mention the controls engineering and software required to control and monitor the structure or the exotic manufacturing processes required to make open celled structures. Are we talking about isotropic materials? Because if we're talking about composite materials, the complexity just became exponentially more complex. Did I even mention the Aerodynamicists role in this project yet?

      Frankly, I'm having more difficulty trying to think of engineering displines that are *not* used by this technology.

      Here's a "Simple" two dimensional cross section of a compliant wing design. http://www.topology-opt.com/wp...

      In a real world 3D example, it's not likely that the 3D design would be a extruded version of the 2D profile.

      --
    16. Re:Aren't those just called FLAPS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are basically muliple flaps with a stretchable skin over the gaps which would appear when the flaps are deployed.

  2. Highway to the danger zone. by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    For some strange reason some old Kenny Loggins song is playing in my head.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    1. Re:Highway to the danger zone. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Footloose?

  3. Business jet != space travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh NASA, how far you have fallen.

    1. Re:Business jet != space travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What do you think the first "A" in NASA stands for? This is far more appropriate than the money they are wasting on the SLS - private industry is doing that quite nicely (except for the congressional pork aspect).

    2. Re:Business jet != space travel by mandark1967 · · Score: 1

      Need Another Shuttle Agency?

      --
      Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
  4. Major /. faux pas by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Informative

    I know, I know...never read the article. I'll save you from the horror of having to read the whole thing:

    "This allows the FlexFoil to act like a flap in its various positions while still providing an unbroken air surface. This makes for a more streamlined wing and reduces noise during takeoffs and landings."

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Major /. faux pas by LehiNephi · · Score: 1

      "noise during takeoffs and landings"? I've been on plenty of airplane flights, from a Cessna up to a 747, and on none of them have I ever noticed noise from flaps. I don't get the whole fuel-savings bit, either. That's kinda the point of flaps--increase lift at lower speeds, with a corresponding increase in drag. When you're landing, your engines are running at reduced power anyway, and when you're taking off, the flaps don't stay extended for very long--just the first few minutes of flight. Now, if you told me they were making wings that could alter the thickness of the airfoil or the length of the wing in-flight, I'd be interested.

      --
      Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde
    2. Re:Major /. faux pas by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1, Informative

      What is the point of linking to the "GizMag" article which is only a regurgitation of the NASA article? Oh, that's right, page views on some Dice website.

      If one looks at the top article posters, many (though certainly not all - Hugh Pickens for example, though perhaps a closer look at his links is due as well) are Dice shills. The relationship between articl posters and Slashdot is very incestuous.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    3. Re:Major /. faux pas by jbengt · · Score: 1

      I doubt that this could allow the large angles of attack provided by the flaps that deploy with multiple separated segments that are used on most commercial aircraft.

  5. Isn't that what killed Spaceship2 by gurps_npc · · Score: 1
    That is, the ship 'shape shifted' when it wasn't supposed to, causing the crash?

    Is this really the right time to talk about this?

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Isn't that what killed Spaceship2 by Iniamyen · · Score: 1

      As I understand, Spaceship 2 didn't use the same technology, and the mechanism of actuation that supposedly caused the crash was initiated by a human, so it wasn't an accidental deployment as far as the craft's systems are concerned.

      To make a somewhat haphazard analogy, you're saying that we shouldn't have ABS on vehicles, because there was an instance of someone crashing their car while applying the throttle pedal.

  6. Disappointed by actual story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Headline made me think they were going with a dynamic shifting wing as one large control surface, like those used on the Wright Flier. Instead it's just a quieter flap mechanism. Not a bad subject to research, but not as interesting as I expected.

  7. Without Reading TFA... by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

    Or more than the first sentence of TFS, this reminds me of some of the tech in the novel I'm re-reading just now.

    All we need now is clothes to fit these guys.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
  8. I would be more curious about how well it works... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    in icing conditions.

    As a changeable wing structure MIGHT be able to shed ice better.

    I would also be curious about it changing the camber of a wing... That would make it more efficient at slow speeds.

  9. Re:bennett haselton freq. con. please comment on t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    Fuck you modders! Parent is the troll and OP is Insightful or Funny!

  10. The Carreidas 160. by Rakarra · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Immediately I thought of the fictional Mach 2 "Carreidas 160" from the Tintin comic book (written before the Concorde made supersonic jet travel possible). Swing wing design was also used on the F-111, but seems to have fallen out of favor.

    Carreidas 160

    1. Re:The Carreidas 160. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Swing wing design was also used on the F-111, but seems to have fallen out of favor.

      Yeah, the swing mechanim is very, very heavy because it has to be able to pivot the wings which support the entire weight of the aircraft out on the end of a lever arm.

      Basically wing design has advanced so that static wings which are good enough for the various regimes can be designed. Good enough being that the tradeoff that the penalty for fixed geometry is smaller than the penalty for a swing mechanism.

      I'm still waiting for my bottle of Sani-Cola.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:The Carreidas 160. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Thanks AC, your comment (and presumed moderation) really contribute to the discussion.

    3. Re:The Carreidas 160. by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      I lost my entire Tintin collection :'(

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    4. Re:The Carreidas 160. by CaptQuark · · Score: 1

      I guess neither of you have ever looked at the design of the B-1 bomber. It uses a swing wing to change the profile of the plane during the different phases of its mission. Swept back wings make a much smaller radar cross section.

      ~~

    5. Re:The Carreidas 160. by stiggle · · Score: 1

      The Panavia Tornado (British, German, Italian, Saudi air force) still uses swing wings.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

    6. Re:The Carreidas 160. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      The B1 is a design fro 1974. Modern designs of stealth aircraft don't use swing wings. My guess is the big joint is going to throw back quite a bit of radar, but at the time it was less than the alternative.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  11. PREPARE FOR FEATHERING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Feathering complete. Status: No wings detected.

    1. Re:PREPARE FOR FEATHERING by magarity · · Score: 2

      You can't feather a jet.

    2. Re:PREPARE FOR FEATHERING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why not? Whats so special about a jet that says you cant feather it? obviously not normal feathers but im sure its no less possible than making a heavy metal object fly through the air.

  12. Pictures? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pictures? or it didn't happen

    1. Re:Pictures? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Search google images for "Compliant structures" and "flextures" to get a rough idea what the internal structure looks like.

      Here's an example of what you can expect http://www.topology-opt.com/wp...

  13. AFTI F-111 Already Did This. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This used to be called the mission adaptive wing and was flown in the 80's on the AFTI F-111 by .... NASA! Looks like their PR dept is not familiar with their own history.

    http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aircraft_Fighter_Jet_F-111_AFTI_NASA_0.jpg

  14. Material fatigue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do they intend on dealing with material fatigue?

    1. Re:Material fatigue by jbengt · · Score: 1

      Good question from AC

  15. Back to the Future... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Just as the current NASA effort is to re-create the Apollo capsule of 50 years ago, albeit without any mission this time.... the aeros guys are using thier tiny sliver of NASA's budget to re-create the Wright Brothers' original (and patented) control mechanism: warping the wing (Glenn Curtiss dodged that patent by using hinged control surfaces, which the entire industry then adopted both because of the Wright patents and for mechanical simplicity).

    Oh, and in case some Orion-hugger takes issue with my take on SLS and Orion: The original Apollo capsule built by North American seated 3 on a standard mission but was upgradable to 6 (I have scans of the blue prints) and we even outfitted for 5 for one mission (the Skylab rescue mission that rolled to the pad but did not fly). Orion was designed for the Bush-era Constellation program to seat 6 for missions to/from ISS and to/from a Mars transit vehicle with a crew of 4 for the moon. The Obama-era Orion is now only designed to seat 4 but the currently "planned" mission to an asteroid is slated to only use a crew of two. Wherease Constellation planned to use Orion on an Ares I for moon missions and a lunar lander for 4 launched on a separate unmanned Ares V (enabling a big capable lande with lots of cargo and 4-man lunar missions) any moon mission (which Obama's team instists will never happen anyway) would use one SLS for Orion and the lander meaning the lander would have to be small and light like the Apollo lander of 50 years ago. Orion was been in development for longer than the Apollo CM was and has now cost more (even though the capsule shape was selected specifically because it was claimed all the old data would apply and it could be built much quicker and cheaper) and while NASA is gearing-up to hype the early december test flight, this launch will loft an unmanned test capsule with no crew systems on only a two-orbit mission. The current Orion is currently too heavy so if you added life support and a crew it would shred the chutes after re-entry and slam into the ocean killing any crew. It can be fixed - but the big bloated contractor will need more years and billions more to do what was done for less and quicker in the sixties (same vendor that is giving us the over-budget under-performing F-35 JSF)

    I could go on, but the current NASA folly is more archaeology than innovation and it's not worth the time to type further.

  16. That's nice but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    solve the tiny problem of rockets being useless for reliable human space travel.

  17. Good ideas don't go away. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It reminds me of the F-111 testbed for the Mission Adaptive Wing (MAW).
    http://www.highgallery.com/USmilitaryAircraft/Boeing/Boeing_F-111-AFTI.html

  18. welcome to Arrakis by gadget+junkie · · Score: 1

    something like that is present in innumerable Sci-fi works. In dune, the Ornithopters have shapeshifting wings, and in "the mote in God's eye", there are similar aircrafts.
    It looks like a case of Submarines, mobile phones etc: engineering is finally catching up with the technical possibilities.

    --
    "If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)