10/28: Next generation fighter

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by TheDollyLlama
it seems to my lay mind that the differential approach you're talking about would result in greater drag, as well as being more complicated with greater chance of failure, than a vertical stabilizer/rudder approach. Maybe not appreciably, especially if you can do without a large projection such as vert stabilizer(s).

It's more complex, but the complexity, being electronic, tends to be more reliable than it's mechanical equivalant. Especially since you can have five of the damn things and let them vote, just like on the Shuttle.

One huge advantage is in reduced radar cross-section. I would also think the amount of drag of this approach is about the same, or perhaps a bit less.

There's several different kinds of drag, broadly divided into induced drag (a by-product of generating lift) and parasitic drag, which comes in skin friction, form, and interference flavors. Induced drag decreases with airspeed, but parasitic drag increases. Not having a big-ass vertical stabilizer recduces not only form drag and skin-friction drag, but also vastly reduces radar cross-section, contributing to low-observability or "stealthiness". Good thing for a combat aircraft.

And given how much thrust is available, the drag that's generated when the control surfaces are used isn't all that big a deal. When they're *not* sticking out much (most of the time) it doesn't matter at all. And sometimes you *want* drag...look at that huge spoiler doojies on the F-14 and -15, ferinstance. Remeber Maverick's trick manuever in "Top Gun"?

so are you an aero eng, or is this ground school stuff?

Well, I'm a software engineer (unemployed,<a href="http://voicenet.com/~maggie/mslresume.html"> see resume </a>) and a <a href="http://voicenet.com/~maggie/mslavia.htm">private pilot </a>, so my inherent geekiness complicates the dangerously meager amount of stuff I learned in ground school that many other pilots mercifullly forget about once their written exam is passed. :-) .