Can China's hypersonic drone carrier bring Nasa's ‘scissor wing' dream to life?
Drawing inspiration from
Nasa's quirky AD-1 experimental aircraft of the 1970s – a small jet-driven plane with a 'scissor wing' that pivoted diagonally across the fuselage – researchers in China have reimagined the oblique wing as the key to solving one of aerospace engineering's most daunting challenges: efficient, stable flight across the entire speed spectrum, from take-off to hypersonic cruise to landing.
Unlike conventional aircraft, which must compromise between low-speed lift and high-speed drag, or swing-wing fighters that adjust sweep symmetry on both sides, the proposed Chinese design features a single, centrally mounted wing that rotates up to 90 degrees.
At low speeds, the wing sits perpendicular to the fuselage, maximising lift with a high lift-to-drag ratio of 9.1 – ideal for efficient take-off and subsonic cruise. As speed increases, the wing begins to pivot. At transonic speeds near Mach 1, it swings to 45 degrees, one side forward, the other aft, redistributing airflow and mitigating shock wave formation.
This configuration suppresses wave drag while maintaining lift, achieving a lift-to-drag ratio of 5.6 – a remarkable balance in the treacherous transonic regime.
Then, at Mach 5, the wing completes its rotation, aligning parallel to the fuselage and effectively merging with the top of the aircraft. In this configuration, the entire vehicle becomes a 'waverider', with shocks attached along the leading edges and compressed air generating high pressure underneath.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South China Morning Post
an hour ago
- South China Morning Post
Washington has already lost dirty chip war but does not know it yet
The United States is fighting two chip wars against China. One involves playing dirty, which it has already lost, though it doesn't know it yet. The other, more legitimate, remains to be seen. It depends on whether America can maintain its longstanding tech innovation and leadership. But with Donald Trump at the helm with his weird and often incomprehensible 'strategies' – from cuts and firings in government-funded basic research to direct interference in the tech sector – things don't look good. The dirty chip war essentially tries to trip China over with export restrictions, bullying of allies from selling advanced tech, and sanctioning of Chinese tech firms, which often includes targeting their non-Chinese suppliers as well. It was started by Donald Trump 1.0, intensified under Joe Biden, but now somewhat moderated under Trump 2.0. You can say China also has its own tit-for-tat dirty war, which involves smuggling and copying of export-restricted advanced chips and related tech such as automated software designs. But historically, rising tech superpowers, including Britain and the US, have always taken from others as a kind of state industrial policy. China's development is the rule, not the exception. Tech diffusion can be slowed but never stopped. At the moment, there is something of a truce, though Washington clearly sees it as a continuation of the tech war by other means. There seems to be a consensus within the Trump White House that putting the squeeze on China has actually made it move faster to refashion its entire chipmaking industry by creating an increasingly self-sufficient domestic sector with its own secure supply chains. That's why Trump and Co have switched to a different track, by allowing Nvidia and AMD to sell to China respectively their lower-performance chips H20 and MI308 for artificial intelligence.
South China Morning Post
2 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
Hard to switch: why US farmers are embracing Chinese drones despite concerns
When David Bruntz, vice-president of the US Meat Export Federation, recently began looking for drones to monitor the cattle on his Nebraska ranch, he found that only one brand offered a 'reasonably priced' solution: the Chinese tech giant DJI. The Shenzhen-based company already dominates the US drone market, and its products are now rapidly being adopted across the agricultural sector as the firm rolls out specialised solutions for sowing fields, spraying crops and tracking livestock. 'It's moving rather fast,' Bruntz said. Like many farmers in the state, Bruntz is not thrilled to be relying on Chinese technology. He worries about the potential for supply chain disruptions of the kind that occurred during the Covid-19 pandemic, when 'we couldn't get enough chips to put in our vehicles and things like that'. But for now, he feels he has little other choice. The Chinese systems are not only far cheaper than American-made alternatives on the market; they often also have more advanced capabilities. 'They definitely have the advantage in a lot of technical areas,' he said. 'The remedy would be to develop our own products in the US.'
South China Morning Post
6 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
Trump's ‘pay-to-play' trade policy sets a dangerous precedent
Any lingering doubts about the extent to which US President Donald Trump has rewritten the rules of global trade should have been laid to rest with reports that chip giants Nvidia and AMD have agreed to pay the US government 15 per cent of the revenue from chip sales in China. The payments are a quid pro quo for approval of the export licences needed to sell semiconductors critical to China's artificial intelligence (AI) ambitions. The previously stalled licences were approved by the Commerce Department on August 8. As the US-China geostrategic rivalry has intensified in recent years, both Democratic and Republican administrations in Washington have tightened restrictions on the sale of sophisticated technologies to China. The export controls on Nvidia's H20 and AMD's MI308 chips were put in place earlier this year in response to US concerns that the chips would find their way into Chinese military applications and give Beijing a leg up in the race for AI superiority. This unprecedented arrangement with Nvidia and AMD does something which until now would have been considered incomprehensible. It monetises US trade policy. Companies are essentially paying the US government for approval to export their products.
