|
|
|
|
|
by techdragon
1063 days ago
|
|
Its aerodynamically simpler to have reliable control of a symmetrical system like this. Your pitch and yaw control are the same and your roll control becomes not “unnecessary” but definitely not as critical for controlling the flying craft as it is with “traditional” asymmetric combinations of wings, canards, tails, and other aerodynamic surfaces. It’s actually pretty easy to experiment with if you have a copy of kerbal space program. Make a “wing tip sitter” with a single fuel tank, engine, and airplane cockpit, then use swept wings with landing legs to keep the engine off the ground and then fire it up and take it for a spin and see how it can “freely” manoeuvre in any pitch/yaw direction and you can remain stable in your flight regardless of roll, This allows a tube launched system to just pop out the wings and immediately begin manoeuvring based on internal sensors with zero visual ground/sky needed. It’s ok to “level off” immediately at the desired altitude and then immediately turn towards the desired heading and proceed to target. It’s not as aerodynamically efficient (extra wings add mass and in the optimal lift orientation don’t add more lift) but it is more manoeuvrable and that’s valuable in a missile. If it helps to understand the trade off… You see more traditional wing designs with longer ranged missiles (like Tomahawk cruise missiles), even tube launched ones, where the lift efficiency is desired they design two larger wings in the middle like a “normal airplane” to have the maximum possible lift for their desired speed/drag/weight/size and then have smaller fins at the back for stability with steering by some combination of manoeuvring surfaces and/or engine thrust. They trade the manoeuvring power of this “x” design for the more efficient long range performance of a more traditional wing design. |
|