Dassault claimed the weight penalty for the Mirage G was only 3% (ie. approx 300kg).
4% of aircraft max weight? Or empty weight?
Daniel Raymer, see e.g. http://www.aircraftdesign.com/raymer.html and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Raymer.
From the paper you posted (thanks!), and assuming a delta´s weight per unit area is around 30 kg/m^2 (from GD publications on the F106), it would appear that the swept wing design (with rather elaborate high lift devices) has a unit weight of some 50 kg/m^2, compared to about 70 kg/m^2 for the swing wing.
How about something like F-14 wing? How heavy is the swing wing mechanism
This. They did a huge amount of fine-tuning in wind tunnels before building and flying the Mirage G - and it showed (1963-1967). They made approaches at 125 kt and touchdowns at 108 kt (from memory).
Empty weight.
"As shown in Table 3.1, variable sweep increases total empty weight roughly 4%. The detailed statistical weight equations of Chapter 15 show a 19% increase in the weight of the wing itself if it has variable sweep."
Wing box is 2065 lb per https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1974-371
Note that you're only talking about probably 1 big double-ended hydraulic cylinder (or a screw drive motor) per wing. While those aren't exactly light, they're also not stupid-heavy, because the wing position system only needs to hold against the drag on the wing itself. 3000psi hydraulics versus a 3in^2 piston equals 9000lbs force holding the wing in whatever position it's in. And a 3in^2 piston is tiny, only ~2" in diameter!
I couldn't access that link but fortunately found source with similar information.
I thought the NATF topic refuted much of this already? Aerofoils with VG are essentially "dynamic" whereas a fixed with with LERX (SupaBug) can be optimized for a much less broad flight regime.
We so got the movable pylon in the wing which takes Volume and is mutch heavier than normal ones
Negative on the piston(s)... F-14 wing sweep was capability was provided by hydraulically driven rotary jackscrews (can't speak for other implementations) with electrical motor backup. Jackscrews by their nature are pretty immune from backdriving from instantaneous loads but are slow. Flap systems on every major large airliner (large military air transports too, actually) that I can think of are driven by jackscrews.
It really can’t. LERX can provide some added lift at higher AoA since it prevent the airflow from being detached from the wing. But it can’t generate massive lift at slow speed and reduce drag massively at high speed like a swing wing can
Same point I was planning on making. Lots of interesting new failure modes....
Wing pivots? I don't recall any direct issues. The steel WCS box on the the F-111 rather famously had both fatigue and quality issues (undetected inclusions/flaws) that required 100% [cold] proof load requalification testing of all aircraft several years after delivery. (Not unheard of; take a look at GE CF-6 engine uncontained fan disk failures due to [then] undectectable flaws in the billets prior to machining.)
I was assuming you'd just lock the pressure at the cylinder, though it'd be simpler to have lines rated to, say, 5kpsi and block the hydraulics at the control solenoid. Simple hydraulic lock, the cylinder can't move because the hyd fluid can't compress or move past the seals.
Hi,
Two actually (one for each outer wing panel), with an interlink to shut down the system if the wing sweep angle did not compare.
