Profile image

Grumman X-29

45 Adamsr71  9.8 years ago
208 downloads
No Tags

The Grumman X-29 was a technologies demonstrator from the mid 1980s. A coalition team made of DARPA, NASA, the USAF, and Grumman designed and built this plane to demonstrate new aeronautical applied sciences such as forward swept wings, a canard horizontal stabilizer, composite materials for aeroelasticisty, and fly-by-wire computers.

This version most likely flies stabler than the real one did, but significantly slower. The original topped off at about Mach 1.8 where as this does around Mach 0.8, but that isn't much of a problem. Try to land between 210-130 mph and land as softly as you can because this thing does sink. Forward swept wings were not made for gliding. Otherwise enjoy yourself and feel free to edit it and reupload it because there is room for improvment. Any feedback is greatly appreciated.

Spotlights

General Characteristics

  • Predecessor X-10
  • Successors 2 airplane(s)
  • Created On iOS
  • Wingspan 27.6ft (8.4m)
  • Length 29.5ft (9.0m)
  • Height 10.5ft (3.2m)
  • Empty Weight 4,365lbs (1,980kg)
  • Loaded Weight 6,007lbs (2,724kg)

Performance

  • Power/Weight Ratio 1.87
  • Wing Loading 35.2lbs/ft2 (171.6kg/m2)
  • Wing Area 170.9ft2 (15.9m2)
  • Drag Points 1664

Parts

  • Number of Parts 52
  • Control Surfaces 7
  • Performance Cost 265
  • Log in to leave a comment
  • Profile image
    This rating has been grandfathered in from the old rating system.
    9.7 years ago
  • Profile image
    This rating has been grandfathered in from the old rating system.
    9.7 years ago
  • Profile image
    6,923 CaesarSeizer
    It makes total sense; I did a little bit more research into the plane and discovered that the design was to make it more maneuverable through aerodynamic instability, which, when regulated by on-board computers, making tiny adjustments hundreds of times every second just to keep it in a straight line, would provide a huge advantage in an aerial dogfight. However, in simple planes, with decently accurate physics engine and no equivalent for the on-board computers needed to regulate the flight, I felt that historical accuracy (which your upload keeps to wonderfully) could not maintain the stability needed to keep a plane flying when bereft of the computers necessary to accomplish the task, especially when it was designed to be unstable in the first place. As such, I was relieved that the only result that came of not having on-board computers was a bit of a sinking problem (instead of perhaps ripping itself apart through a series of 90° turns, rolls, and severe pitch changes as it came out of a 600 mph run), so overall, the problem I fixed was relatively benign. That being said, I had actually wanted to preserve as much historical accuracy as possible, but with the original Grumman X-29 being such an unstable design in the first place, in trying to fix the problem, I actually created several more problems (some of which modeled the aforementioned expectations of inherent instability quite well), so one thing led to another, and before I knew it, I had created a monstrosity (a stable monstrosity, but a monstrosity at that). Because it was so difficult to even get it there, I just kept it like that and posted it. (sorry for the essay it took to get to this point) Overall, great design, great plane (I have a model X-29 on my desk), and I appreciate your feedback on my adaptation as well!
    9.8 years ago
  • Profile image
    Caesar, I really appreciate the feedback and you're correct your adaptation does fly much nicer. As you can tell thought, I tried to make it as historically accurate of an aircraft as possible.
    9.8 years ago
  • Profile image
    6,923 CaesarSeizer
    I fixed the sinking bit... and in the process ruined the entire aesthetic appeal of this plane:) You'll find that the demographics of people who like the look of this version and my version are entirely different, so yeah... lots of small changes that led to one... er, big change. I can post a link in another comment (or you might see it under successors).
    9.8 years ago