Ukraine

8044 readers

555 users here now

News and discussion related to Ukraine

*Sympathy for enemy combatants in any form is prohibited.

*No content depicting extreme violence or gore.

Donate to support Ukraine's Defense

Donate to support Humanitarian Aid

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

207

In Ukraine, a drone with a jet engine and a flight range of 400 kilometers has been developed (odessa-journal.com)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The design is already used for the beaver drones. Why? They're not idiots, so probably understand what you're saying.

I would expect a better fuel efficiency. Maybe manœuverability too, to avoid air defense once they reach the target.

Also, this is not a large plane. The power and weight have nothing related to a b777 or an a320.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

This is an ECM/reconnaissance drone, not a cruise missile. So no "target" in the normal sense (although I wouldn't be surprised if it was going to be used a cruise missile, too). And reduction of induced drag (raked wingtips or winglets for transonic; straight high aspect-ratio wings with elliptic lift distribution for subsonic) works the same at both scales. At a cruise speed of 600 km/h this is fast, but almost certainly fully subsonic, so sweep makes little sense aerodynamically, in either direction. If they were bothered about fuel efficiency, it would have long, straight, high-aspect-ratio wings, like the Global Hawk, or the Reaper, or the Predator, and a turbofan or turboprop engine.

I'm sure they're no idiots and have very good reasons for the design decision. I just doubt that the reason is aerodynamic efficiency.

The beaver cruise missile is completely different, it is a propeller-driven canard with straight wings. But that may actually be the reason: they re-used the fuselage design, and with the same wing attachment point, forward sweep was required to maintain a reasonable centre of lift in a conventional configuration. Again: a compromise for a short time to deployment. Not aerodynamic refinement.