Rockhound I am glad to see your mind looking for new good stuff. Let me give you a few quick comments and thoughts.

When we ran the windtunnels on the test I was involved in we made an effort to get the operating temperatures at a steady state value for the reasons you mentioned. When ever you have heat variations from the wing to the airflow you also effect the pressures and velocities. It is a question then of where is the most error.

Remember that fine smoke particles are effected by Brownian motions in air. As such when injected in an airstream they almost instantly achieve the same velocity as the air stream. The high drag and low mass of the particles assures this. And the smoke can be injected with no change in the aero characteristics of the air.

About the EMP process. You have to be certain of one thing, that a stray bullet doesn't hit the electronics making the EMP or it's all over. Several ejectors dropping flares or decoys have a redundancy in their operation so one stay bullet won't but the system at risk. Also each time you release the weight of the decoy your airplane performance increases (lower weight - granted not much but take all you can get in a battle environment).

The problem of using a missle to shoot down the oncoming missile is the tech needed to make it work. The speed of the computations and precision of guidance to hit an 8 inch diameter AIM-7 is tremendous compared to what is needed to hit an airplane of any size. The anti-missile missile will be bigger than the missile you are trying to hit - a funny thought at first but as you think about what is needed it starts to creep up on you. You don't see too many anti-missile missiles being designed for that reason. Decoys are much more broad spectrum and it is easy to make something that radiates all over the place compared to any thing else :-)

The variable camber wing has been attempted before. At Boeing we called it an Adaptive Wing Technology. The promise of being able to adjust the camber and thickness to suit the desired flight profile is a pretty neat thing to consider. What we run into in practice is that the structure in a modern fighter or freighter is really minimized. To quote Dick H. - see what breaks and make the rest of the structure lighter. There isn't a lot of extra meat anywhere on a modern airplane. With that light structure they are able to perform pretty well within their design missions.

When you go to a structure that uses hydraulics or whatever to push and pull on the wing outer surfaces things happen. The weight of the systems to push and pull on the structures is large. You need hydraulic fluid, tubing, cylinders and the like all through the wing. They go in and replace a very light system of fixed internal bracing that was there. It is replacing a .10 inch web on a rib with a half inch diameter piston. There will have to be hundreds of them with the tubing needed to provide the pressure and drain the fluid the other way. You have to have electronics and actuators to control the flluid. Sensors to determine wing configuration and so on.

The net result is the wing and associated support equipment in the airplane causes a really big weight increase. That weight so far has been so determental to the flight of experimental designs that it is not worth the effort. Also consider the possible headaches due to maintainence problems with miles of tubing and hundreds of actuators.

Again it is every aero engineer's dream, the variable camber wing is like the Holy Grail in the Indiania Jones and the Last Crusade movie. Everyone wants it. It is just darn nearly impossible to do with our best techology at present, whether or not it will ever be practical to use in an operational airplane is yet to be determined.

Don't want to sound like a downer, but this gives you an idea of what has been done and where the technology is going.

Ben