MAGMA -- flying without flaps

loke · by **loke** » 03 May 2019, 22:53

https://www.baesystems.com/en/article/m ... of-flight#

So what do people think?

I assume the US also work on similar stuff?

loke · by **loke** » 05 May 2019, 15:13

I find this a bit strange -- if I post something in the F-35 vs Gripen thread I get almost immediate response and lots of discussions....

It seems the Gripen is more fascinating than the MAGMA to the people on this board

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 05 May 2019, 16:46

I read this, and I would like to know more, but I see this being a reliability issue. You are also draining engine power (i.e. fuel) to drive these compressors. I don't know in US is working this this tech in particular but they did use blown flaps on the C-17 and used suction based boundary layer control for the F-16XL.

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 05 May 2019, 16:51

And on a personal level, I love the look of single engine planes and I love canarded deltas. I love the Gripen. I love seeing the ultimate version of fighters. Just like I subjectively love the Su-35S, the Blk III SHornet, the F-16V, and the F-15X.

loke · by **loke** » 05 May 2019, 17:42

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:I read this, and I would like to know more, but I see this being a reliability issue. You are also draining engine power (i.e. fuel) to drive these compressors. I don't know in US is working this this tech in particular but they did use blown flaps on the C-17 and used suction based boundary layer control for the F-16XL.

Thanks, good comments (as always).

My (non-expert) thinking is that perhaps this could be very interesting in the setting of further improving stealth characteristics of future platforms? It seems the US is very concerned that Russia could learn about the F-35 profile from S-400 bases in e.g., Turkey ... I get the impression that the current stealth technology has an expiry date, just like the stealth technology of e.g. the F-117 stealth seems to have expired... Perhaps technologies like this is needed to push stealth to the next level in the future?

loke · by **loke** » 05 May 2019, 18:01

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:And on a personal level, I love the look of single engine planes and I love canarded deltas. I love the Gripen. I love seeing the ultimate version of fighters. Just like I subjectively love the Su-35S, the Blk III SHornet, the F-16V, and the F-15X.

Of the "modern" A/C I think both the F-22 and PAK FA look awesome. Also, all 3 eurocanards look pretty good IMHO. But nothing beats the YF-23...

marsavian · by **marsavian** » 05 May 2019, 20:25

I get the impression that the current stealth technology has an expiry date, just like the stealth technology of e.g. the F-117 stealth seems to have expired... Perhaps technologies like this is needed to push stealth to the next level in the future?

The stealth on F-117 has not expired, the rest of the aircraft has. If there was no F-35 being made, a modernized avionics F-117 would still find buyers today as the stealth is still better than say what the Russians are delivering in Su-57 or even the Chinese in J-20. The only thing that will make radar stealth redundant is if quantum or photonic radar ever get produced as useful military systems with significant range beyond lab experiments. Even then it may not be game over as there could then be a coating or electronic countermeasure to combat these new forms of detection. This is the nature of military technology, advance and countermeasure, rinse and repeat. As it stands though, the mass conversion of the military air power of the West and its allies into stealth aircraft will make opponents traditional large scale investment in radar technology severely suboptimal and it will then cost a whole load of money to implement new anti-stealth technologies even if they are successfully developed into deliverable warfighter systems.

As for Magma, looks promising but how effective will it be in say a combat aircraft designed to dogfight ? ... TBD.

marauder2048 · by **marauder2048** » 05 May 2019, 23:59

The attainable bandwidth of non-mechanical control effectors makes them unsuitable
for fighters for anything other than steady-state trim or very gentle maneuvers.

Now lift augmentation to enhance take-off/landing via a three stream engine is a different matter.

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 06 May 2019, 00:26

and the added weight of the plumbing

linkomart · by **linkomart** » 21 May 2019, 09:45

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:and the added weight of the plumbing

And... maybe they are trying to solve a problem that does not exist?
...That the rcs from a control surface is not a problem?
....Because now you need slots to let air out (cavities are a big nono for low RCS)
Or its just me who is behind in the learning curve... no, don't answer that.

best regards.

agrippa · by **agrippa** » 21 May 2019, 19:02

Rumoured breakthrough ELO technique used by RQ-180 (& B21) ?

loke · by **loke** » 21 May 2019, 19:37

agrippa wrote:Rumoured breakthrough ELO technique used by RQ-180 (& B21) ?

Hello and welcome to the forum!

New members are encouraged to post here I believe: viewforum.php?f=25

By the way; do you have any links to the above mentioned rumor? Sounds interesting...

marauder2048 · by **marauder2048** » 22 May 2019, 01:08

agrippa wrote:Rumoured breakthrough ELO technique used by RQ-180 (& B21) ?

Despite the overwhelming evidence against the existence of RQ-180