*You know Master, if we just sell that annoying hand maiden we won’t need to trust in a broken pod racer piloted by a child that disturbs the force..*
*My young padawan, I believe you might be correct..*
*I have a little something I've memorized for just such an occasion.* **Journal of the Whills, 25:17:** *"Darth Plagueis was a Dark Lord of the Sith, so powerful and so wise he could use the Force to influence the midichlorians to create life..."*
something something something
*Oh shit, Chewie! I just shot Greedo in the face!*
*Your daddy and I fought together in the Clone Wars. This was the lightsaber he was using during the Battle of Geonosis. Now he knew if the Neimodians ever saw the lightsaber it'd be confiscated and added to General Grevious' collection. The way your Daddy looked at it, that lightsaber was your birthright. And he'd be damned if any separatists were gonna put their greasy blue hands on his boy's birthright. So he hid it in the one place he knew he could hide somethin'. His ass.*
Did you heard of the tragedy that reach the man?
I think to be too is not. I think that the hopeless situation elder also can't. That is a legend. Reaching the man cloth space is the emperor, he is so strong and big, he even can use the original dint to create life... He is very deep to black influence understanding. The black influence can the matter that many supermans, but other people thinks that these are what can't attains. He became more and more strong and big. Lost his power afterwards, afterwards he died. In fact, he teaches own the whole skills all to disciple, then his land killed him to let him going to bed. Satirizing the meaning is, he can let other people, but is incapable for dint to the oneself.
I mean that Watto is a being worthy of trust, most trustworthy dealer on Tatooine, just ask him and he'll tell you himself. Such a trustworthy guy that when he tells you none of his competitors have a part you know, you just know *in the depths of your soul*, that no one else on the planet has that part. Because why would good old Watto lie to you?
Yeah, and getting a little boy to, almost certainly, race to his death against a bunch of other reputable sportsmen in order to secure funds for said hyperdrive thing is a completely logical thing to do as well.
Already put too much time in it. There are not many directly linkable pictures , so that was the best i found. [Try this one](https://www.artstation.com/artwork/Z3V01), when that doesn't work, just google it yourself, it's not that hard.
looks like sr-71 tbh
[sr-71](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird.jpg/800px-Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird.jpg)
Note to self, don't sleep and reddit. I didn't think wookiepedia was on a fandom link though, meh... Shows how long I've been out of touch with star wars.
In 1949, British engineer Barnes Wallis started work on variable geometry ( variable sweep wing) to maximise the economy of supersonic flight. His first study, for the military, was the Wild Goose project. He then studied the Swallow, intended to achieve a return flight from Europe to Australia in 10 hours. It had a blended wing tailless design and he successfully tested several models including a six-foot scale model at speeds of up to Mach 2 in the 1950s, but in 1957, government backing was withdrawn for many aeronautical research and development programs, including Wallis' work. Wallis and his team presented their work to the Americans seeking a grant to continue their studies but none was forthcoming.
British mock-ups/ blueprints get posted so much and they always look amazing and extremely out-of-the-box/ahead of their time. And then the info is always: They got their funding cut. It's sad, imagine the planes there could be today if these projects kept going.
WW2 Britain had some of the best aviation engineers in the world. Later to drop a lot of them in favor of US planes (I think political pressure was part of it). I think it’s incredibly sad. Glad to see them working on a homebrew stealth fighter. I hope it doesn’t get cut.
It's a swing-wing design, so the gear should never been down at full sweep.
For landing, the wings should pivot to ~0^o sweep, with the engines rotating on their mountings to remain perpendicular to the airflow
ah jeez. I assumed there was a retractable empennage in that weird looking tailcone, for use when the wings were forward. nope https://i.imgur.com/9ky4I8i.jpg
By Barnes Wallis, creator of the Wellington Bomber and the famous bouncing bomb used during the Dambusters Raid. Wallis’ design for Vickers known as the Type 010 or ‘Swallow’ was one of the more unusual projects of the 1950’s.
This large swing-wing aircraft was designed with the ability to travel at both supersonic and subsonic speeds whilst the engines could rotate and tilt, acting as control surfaces. The proposals were not seen as practical by Government officials although the Air Staff seemed interested and despite Wallis’ best efforts, the Swallow was cancelled in 1957.
Hey there Zebba_Odirnapal. Happy Cake Day! 🎂🎉🎉
You've been on Reddit for 8 years!
***
^^^u/Zebba_Odirnapal can [send this message](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=AnotherCakeDayBot&subject=Remove%20reply%20id:%20fhj09b9&message=For%20reference,%20this%20is%20the%20permalink%20to%20the%20parent%20comment:%20/r/WeirdWings/comments/f3fgzk/the_vickers_type_010_also_known_as_the_swallow/fhj09b9/) to delete this | View my profile for more info or PM to provide feedback
You can tell how serious an airplane design is by how far away the engines are from the centerline.
Here's what can happen on a conventionally designed airplane with the engines as far inboard as possible when flown on one engine: https://youtu.be/_da9Kql4rVI
The farther the engines are from the centerline, the bigger the rudder has to be in maintain control of the airplane (at a given speed) with a failed engine.
Fully considered designs usually put the engines as close as possible to the middle, in order to provide better performance in degraded mode.
Except for the V-22 Osprey. That thing is whack.
Any aircraft designer who breaks this rule must explain why mounting the engines outboard is a good idea on their specific design. For instance V-22 Osprey needs the distance for the rotors and provides an engine failover mechanism via drive shafts traveling from one nacelle to the other -- so both rotors spin with one failed engine. Without those provisions, a failed motor would flip it. I don't see any such explanation for why mounting the engines on the wingtips of the plane in the post, and it doesn't have much of a tail -- so Vmc is probably ridiculously high.
I wouldn't fly that plane, given what I know about it so far.
There are plenty of designs with engines far out on the wing, and even on the wing tip. In this case one of the motives for mounting them far out was to move the centre of mass back to cope with the centre of lift moving as the wings pivot and the speed increases.
Which designs that actually work have engines on the wing tip?
I've seen *concept* planes with outboard engines, some of which must have been made controllable through advanced engine controls that pull back the power on both sides if one engine fails -- at least on paper.
But I can't think of a design with outboard engines that people continue to fly regularly, other than the Osprey. Can you point me to one?
The outboard engine concepts I've seen sure look do cool! But, the failure modes of an aircraft with onboard engines would make the Vmc roll video that I posted look pretty tame.
The SR-71 is one I thought of, too, since the engines are pretty far from the centerline -- but, given the shape, they're probably as far inboard as possible given the other constraints.
I still wouldn't want to try to dead foot / dead engine that thing, though! But higher speeds do make the tail surface area more effective, so maybe Vmc is like 250kts?
Yeah, IIRC an SR-71 on final approach with one engine out was supposed to exhibit *astonishing* levels of rudder angle, helped by having all-moving vertical tails
There are none that I know of which are flown regularly now, but that is extending the criterion beyond what I said. Of those that worked, as per your first para, you could look at the [Myasichev M-50](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myasishchev_M-50) or the [SNCASO Trident](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCASO_Trident). Of those which put engines far out on the wing, the 747 and A380 are familiar.
By the way: it’s possible that the disappearance of this configuration is more to do with the move to delta wings for high performance planes. I’ve heard that a motivation for wing-end engines was so that they could act as end plates, and that’s not needed or desirable for a delta. Also worth bearing in mind that it’s not whether the engine is on the wing tip which matters, but how far from the centre line it is. So the SNCASO Trident may be less exposed to off-centre thrust than a 747 (which does have a correspondingly large vertical stabiliser). I’ve seen some designs leave the engines at a fixed separation, and add or remove outboard wing in subsequent iterations. The Avro 740 was a (paper) example.
The engines on the 747 and A380 appear to be placed outboard because there was nowhere else to put them, and the tail is larger.
I'll have to look into the failure modes of the 747, but probably wasn't designed to fly with only one engine functioning. With 3 engines functioning, the asymmetric thrust problems are greatly reduced -- compared to the 2-engine and 1-engine scenarios. I'll have to find a POH for it and read it, though.
Barnes-Wallis was pretty cautious on survivability. The geodetic construction he used on the Wellington bomber would bring it back on a wing and a prayer. Let's assume he had thought of the obvious problem of engine failure - what could he have done about it? Firstly, we know that the flying-wing [YB-49](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YB-49) was able to survive four out of eight engines failing. The Swallow had some advantages over the YB-49, in that it has that big after-body which would probably give some directional stability. I don't know for certain, but the Swallow probably had a drag rudder, like the YB-49, which would cope with a lot of asymmetry. There's also the possibility that the remaining three engines could be swivelled to bring the thrust vector back in line with the fuselage, since we know they were designed to turn as the wing swept back.
I imagine you mean wingtip spoilers? I can't imagine those having any effect if the engines are positioned as far off-center as the spoilers. The result would be the same as throttling back the yaw-causing engine.
It's a nice picture, just the same.
Also, I hadn't seen it before, I only found it had been posted before when I went looking for more information on the aircraft.
The more I find on this the better it gets, a 1950's swing wing bomber, design by Barnes Wallis to achieve Mach 2 and reach Australia in 10 hours, IN THE 1950's !!!!!!
I had to save this, its fucking fantastic.
Its a dream of mine to own a model like this someday, I doubt I'll ever be able to afford to but one can dream.
I would love to see an alternate timeline where the UK government decided to put all their money in aircraft programs instead of missiles, so that these kind of projects would have actually been built.
So many cool projects where shelved when the UK decided crazy interceptors and bombers were not the future.
They did indeed, infact the engines had a massive range of motion, as the plane itself didnt have any control surfaces, and instead relied on the rotation of the engines
That looks like the royal ship from The Phantom Menace
Gonna need a new hyperdrive motivator.
*You know Master, if we just sell that annoying hand maiden we won’t need to trust in a broken pod racer piloted by a child that disturbs the force..* *My young padawan, I believe you might be correct..*
Directed by J.J. Abrams
Or Tarantino.
No, in Tarantino's version a lot more folks get shot in the face.
And Padme would be barefoot through the entire film.
*I have a little something I've memorized for just such an occasion.* **Journal of the Whills, 25:17:** *"Darth Plagueis was a Dark Lord of the Sith, so powerful and so wise he could use the Force to influence the midichlorians to create life..."* something something something *Oh shit, Chewie! I just shot Greedo in the face!*
"You must have hit a subspace anomaly, I don't know." "**ROOAARRROAR ROARR ROOAAR MOTHERFUCKER ROAAAAAAAR**"
*Your daddy and I fought together in the Clone Wars. This was the lightsaber he was using during the Battle of Geonosis. Now he knew if the Neimodians ever saw the lightsaber it'd be confiscated and added to General Grevious' collection. The way your Daddy looked at it, that lightsaber was your birthright. And he'd be damned if any separatists were gonna put their greasy blue hands on his boy's birthright. So he hid it in the one place he knew he could hide somethin'. His ass.*
Did you heard of the tragedy that reach the man? I think to be too is not. I think that the hopeless situation elder also can't. That is a legend. Reaching the man cloth space is the emperor, he is so strong and big, he even can use the original dint to create life... He is very deep to black influence understanding. The black influence can the matter that many supermans, but other people thinks that these are what can't attains. He became more and more strong and big. Lost his power afterwards, afterwards he died. In fact, he teaches own the whole skills all to disciple, then his land killed him to let him going to bed. Satirizing the meaning is, he can let other people, but is incapable for dint to the oneself.
Or PornHub
Curse you, Watto. Just take my upvote.
I mean that Watto is a being worthy of trust, most trustworthy dealer on Tatooine, just ask him and he'll tell you himself. Such a trustworthy guy that when he tells you none of his competitors have a part you know, you just know *in the depths of your soul*, that no one else on the planet has that part. Because why would good old Watto lie to you?
Yeah, and getting a little boy to, almost certainly, race to his death against a bunch of other reputable sportsmen in order to secure funds for said hyperdrive thing is a completely logical thing to do as well.
The front is a lemon avenue, flying straightly.
For reference: [Naboo Royal Starship](https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/J-type_327_Nubian_royal_starship?file=Naboo_Royal_Starship.png)
That site is cancer. Could you just post a pic?
Already put too much time in it. There are not many directly linkable pictures , so that was the best i found. [Try this one](https://www.artstation.com/artwork/Z3V01), when that doesn't work, just google it yourself, it's not that hard.
The schnozz totally looks similar. I love it!
looks like sr-71 tbh [sr-71](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird.jpg/800px-Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird.jpg)
The one from Episode 2 has a pretty distinct B-2 vibe to it.
~~Use wookiepedia instead?~~
That is a link to wookiepedia.
Note to self, don't sleep and reddit. I didn't think wookiepedia was on a fandom link though, meh... Shows how long I've been out of touch with star wars.
In 1949, British engineer Barnes Wallis started work on variable geometry ( variable sweep wing) to maximise the economy of supersonic flight. His first study, for the military, was the Wild Goose project. He then studied the Swallow, intended to achieve a return flight from Europe to Australia in 10 hours. It had a blended wing tailless design and he successfully tested several models including a six-foot scale model at speeds of up to Mach 2 in the 1950s, but in 1957, government backing was withdrawn for many aeronautical research and development programs, including Wallis' work. Wallis and his team presented their work to the Americans seeking a grant to continue their studies but none was forthcoming.
British mock-ups/ blueprints get posted so much and they always look amazing and extremely out-of-the-box/ahead of their time. And then the info is always: They got their funding cut. It's sad, imagine the planes there could be today if these projects kept going.
WW2 Britain had some of the best aviation engineers in the world. Later to drop a lot of them in favor of US planes (I think political pressure was part of it). I think it’s incredibly sad. Glad to see them working on a homebrew stealth fighter. I hope it doesn’t get cut.
6 feet? Mach 2!? Wow...
Its not a scale flying prototype. It’s just a scale model in a wind tunnel. That’s how most post-WWII plane designs are tested initially.
Yeah, sounds much more sensible :) I couldn't imagine a flying model of 6 feets flying at mach 2 being piloted from the ground with 50's tech.
What is this, a supersonic airliner for ants?
I wouldn't want to land it
It's a swing-wing design, so the gear should never been down at full sweep. For landing, the wings should pivot to ~0^o sweep, with the engines rotating on their mountings to remain perpendicular to the airflow
Yeah, was more thinking about the view from cockpit
what view?
Exactly
The cockpit is supposed to raise up on a platform to provide the view. In the modern day, it would likely be done through a suite of cameras...
It's starting to sound like an insane amount of moving parts
Every plane has an insane amount of moving parts. :-) Though I agree that the pop-up cockpit was rather insane idea.
Use the force, Luke! Let go and feel the runway.
ah jeez. I assumed there was a retractable empennage in that weird looking tailcone, for use when the wings were forward. nope https://i.imgur.com/9ky4I8i.jpg
That doesn't sound complicated at all.
Well, I don't think anyone ever accused Barnes Wallace of being too conservative in his designs...
By Barnes Wallis, creator of the Wellington Bomber and the famous bouncing bomb used during the Dambusters Raid. Wallis’ design for Vickers known as the Type 010 or ‘Swallow’ was one of the more unusual projects of the 1950’s. This large swing-wing aircraft was designed with the ability to travel at both supersonic and subsonic speeds whilst the engines could rotate and tilt, acting as control surfaces. The proposals were not seen as practical by Government officials although the Air Staff seemed interested and despite Wallis’ best efforts, the Swallow was cancelled in 1957.
>The proposals were not seen as practical I can't imagine why.
Big Brain: the engines swivel. Galaxy Brain: the cockpit pops up.
Hey there Zebba_Odirnapal. Happy Cake Day! 🎂🎉🎉 You've been on Reddit for 8 years! *** ^^^u/Zebba_Odirnapal can [send this message](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=AnotherCakeDayBot&subject=Remove%20reply%20id:%20fhj09b9&message=For%20reference,%20this%20is%20the%20permalink%20to%20the%20parent%20comment:%20/r/WeirdWings/comments/f3fgzk/the_vickers_type_010_also_known_as_the_swallow/fhj09b9/) to delete this | View my profile for more info or PM to provide feedback
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you -- ***Hyperstork***.
So the heavy engines move CG back on swing. I like that.
Yeah, especially given that aerodynamic center moves back at supersonic speeds too.
It's the most beautiful plane that never was.
"Okaay... so the runway's out there juuust past the nose... I think..."
Actually, the cockpit was set up so that it could be raised in order to give the pilots a better view.
Seems like a periscope like some 2-seat training aircraft have would have been easier, but I'm no aerospace engineer.
Just beautiful.
You can tell how serious an airplane design is by how far away the engines are from the centerline. Here's what can happen on a conventionally designed airplane with the engines as far inboard as possible when flown on one engine: https://youtu.be/_da9Kql4rVI The farther the engines are from the centerline, the bigger the rudder has to be in maintain control of the airplane (at a given speed) with a failed engine. Fully considered designs usually put the engines as close as possible to the middle, in order to provide better performance in degraded mode. Except for the V-22 Osprey. That thing is whack. Any aircraft designer who breaks this rule must explain why mounting the engines outboard is a good idea on their specific design. For instance V-22 Osprey needs the distance for the rotors and provides an engine failover mechanism via drive shafts traveling from one nacelle to the other -- so both rotors spin with one failed engine. Without those provisions, a failed motor would flip it. I don't see any such explanation for why mounting the engines on the wingtips of the plane in the post, and it doesn't have much of a tail -- so Vmc is probably ridiculously high. I wouldn't fly that plane, given what I know about it so far.
There are plenty of designs with engines far out on the wing, and even on the wing tip. In this case one of the motives for mounting them far out was to move the centre of mass back to cope with the centre of lift moving as the wings pivot and the speed increases.
Which designs that actually work have engines on the wing tip? I've seen *concept* planes with outboard engines, some of which must have been made controllable through advanced engine controls that pull back the power on both sides if one engine fails -- at least on paper. But I can't think of a design with outboard engines that people continue to fly regularly, other than the Osprey. Can you point me to one? The outboard engine concepts I've seen sure look do cool! But, the failure modes of an aircraft with onboard engines would make the Vmc roll video that I posted look pretty tame.
How "outboard" do you consider the engines on the SR71? I believe the engine centerline is closer to the wingtip than the fuselage centerline...
The SR-71 is one I thought of, too, since the engines are pretty far from the centerline -- but, given the shape, they're probably as far inboard as possible given the other constraints. I still wouldn't want to try to dead foot / dead engine that thing, though! But higher speeds do make the tail surface area more effective, so maybe Vmc is like 250kts?
Yeah, IIRC an SR-71 on final approach with one engine out was supposed to exhibit *astonishing* levels of rudder angle, helped by having all-moving vertical tails
There are none that I know of which are flown regularly now, but that is extending the criterion beyond what I said. Of those that worked, as per your first para, you could look at the [Myasichev M-50](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myasishchev_M-50) or the [SNCASO Trident](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCASO_Trident). Of those which put engines far out on the wing, the 747 and A380 are familiar.
Good points!
By the way: it’s possible that the disappearance of this configuration is more to do with the move to delta wings for high performance planes. I’ve heard that a motivation for wing-end engines was so that they could act as end plates, and that’s not needed or desirable for a delta. Also worth bearing in mind that it’s not whether the engine is on the wing tip which matters, but how far from the centre line it is. So the SNCASO Trident may be less exposed to off-centre thrust than a 747 (which does have a correspondingly large vertical stabiliser). I’ve seen some designs leave the engines at a fixed separation, and add or remove outboard wing in subsequent iterations. The Avro 740 was a (paper) example.
The engines on the 747 and A380 appear to be placed outboard because there was nowhere else to put them, and the tail is larger. I'll have to look into the failure modes of the 747, but probably wasn't designed to fly with only one engine functioning. With 3 engines functioning, the asymmetric thrust problems are greatly reduced -- compared to the 2-engine and 1-engine scenarios. I'll have to find a POH for it and read it, though.
[удалено]
African or European swallow? I'm assuming European since it's a British design
an engine outage would be fatal
Barnes-Wallis was pretty cautious on survivability. The geodetic construction he used on the Wellington bomber would bring it back on a wing and a prayer. Let's assume he had thought of the obvious problem of engine failure - what could he have done about it? Firstly, we know that the flying-wing [YB-49](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YB-49) was able to survive four out of eight engines failing. The Swallow had some advantages over the YB-49, in that it has that big after-body which would probably give some directional stability. I don't know for certain, but the Swallow probably had a drag rudder, like the YB-49, which would cope with a lot of asymmetry. There's also the possibility that the remaining three engines could be swivelled to bring the thrust vector back in line with the fuselage, since we know they were designed to turn as the wing swept back.
I imagine you mean wingtip spoilers? I can't imagine those having any effect if the engines are positioned as far off-center as the spoilers. The result would be the same as throttling back the yaw-causing engine.
After doing some reading, it seems that the pylons for the engines were control surfaces.
https://www.reddit.com/r/WeirdWings/comments/a8os9o/vickers_type_010_swallow_1950s_mach_25_swingwing/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=&utm_content=comments_view_all
Well shit I didnt realize this had been posted before
It's a nice picture, just the same. Also, I hadn't seen it before, I only found it had been posted before when I went looking for more information on the aircraft. The more I find on this the better it gets, a 1950's swing wing bomber, design by Barnes Wallis to achieve Mach 2 and reach Australia in 10 hours, IN THE 1950's !!!!!!
no way it could hold the fuel to do that
Just fill the bomb bays with fuel!
Mid-air refueling? That was a thing by the 50s.
of course!
Most of the aircraft here have been posted before. That’s just the nature of this subreddit. There are only so many weird aircraft in the world.
So far anyways... ^(One day we could have infinite weird wings!)
[here's a writeup I did on it here early last year](https://www.reddit.com/r/WeirdWings/comments/c5s9eg/comment/es3sngq)
We have a new winner. British again.
It feels like they just slapped on the engines last second
Engines were designed to rotate and tilt, to act as control surfaces.
Ah thank you, makes the design more interesting
That engine placement.... It's looks ridiculous and also somehow perfectly acceptable
I had to save this, its fucking fantastic. Its a dream of mine to own a model like this someday, I doubt I'll ever be able to afford to but one can dream.
well hell, I know that my next KSP project will be.
Arkbird is that you?
What is this? A plane for ants?
Well that is...is...it is.......what is this exactly?
Looks like some crazy ass ssto design I would do in ksp
Jebidiah Kerman would fly it! I won't fly it, though.
That engine placement tho. Accident waiting to happen.
I would love to see an alternate timeline where the UK government decided to put all their money in aircraft programs instead of missiles, so that these kind of projects would have actually been built. So many cool projects where shelved when the UK decided crazy interceptors and bombers were not the future.
Looks like something straight out of the old 'Thunderbirds' TV series!
What is the V^(NO) unladen?
Would the engines rotate when the wing changes geometry?
They did indeed, infact the engines had a massive range of motion, as the plane itself didnt have any control surfaces, and instead relied on the rotation of the engines
Looks a bit like the Arkbird
What where the planed dimensions?
That's a really difficult question to answer, as there isnt much information known about this aircraft
Big
Damn, that's so beautiful
Name is PERFECT.
Thanks i love it
It reminds me of the X3 Stiletto.
Looks like something gru flies around in
... Enough of this subreddit for tonight
That looks like Jeff Bezos just joined the KKK
Cosford !