JeffB said:
sferrin said:
Abraham Gubler said:
Why does an aircraft with anti-gravity need a wing? Because it looks cool?
Is that not reason enough? ;D
The Pentagon buying fighters for the Air Force that don't have wings? Pffft! Like that's going to happen. Where would they mount the twin gatling guns?
Well, for the sake of thoroughness...
As an atmospheric fighter it would still have a shape that would be atmospherically-optimized to some degree. Ideally you'd want something that starts with a Sears-Haack body or a flat-nosed hypersonic shape, as I hear waverider shapes are a little dated (and maybe that's why it also has that sort of XF-108 Rapier shape to its overcomplicated two-piece canopy). Doesn't answer why it might still need wings, but it still might need an aerodynamic shape and why they picked this overly generous wing.
A better reason might be a power source limitation. Say it has an antigravity system that allows it omnidirectional thrust-it can point forward, backward, fly sideways, straight up, wherever the pilot wants to go, it goes. If you diverted all its power into pushing you, say, forward, why would you want to put any more power in using the antigravity system, and just the antigravity system, to also keep you off the ground? It'd be more efficient to just design an airframe that can, say, hover and carry especially outsize loads to some respectable subsonic speed or use an aerodynamic lifting shape that can survive the drive putting all its power into forward thrust to achieve insane high Mach flight.
Of course, at that stage the question becomes why the drives are hanging off the wings and not integrated into them-not only would it cut down the frontal profile but you can't deny it'd also make a much more beautiful, more predatory, purposeful fighter design or at least offer these really cool model shots of a hero plane or setpiece craft with those green digital lines going all up and down the wings like the plane's alive, real predatory...
Judging by those stills, though, it looks like all that this would do is negate the fighter's mass, allowing a separate engine to actually push the craft forward. Which is weird if there's that transport-looking thing that flies by nothing BUT the antigravity thingies. So it's an omnidirectional thruster offering thrust in any direction...but also has this kind of unnecessary extra step when a much more robust power source pumping power into the green glowy antigravity drives would be a much more efficient solution. Like, they're not boosters, they're not hidden lift systems designed not to spoil the aerodynamics of an otherwise potent jet aircraft, they're like the radiators of a Corsair except they have their own wings.
I'll admit this is coming from sci-fi stuff I'm doing in my free time too and those are the rationalizations I use for why I want certain designs for similarly-antigrav-equipped aircraft that still look logically high-performance as I use wing shapes and wing placement to differentiate designs, so feel free to take it with a grain of salt or the whole shaker, go right ahead.