kallis@pen.DEC (06/17/85)
On the subject of "most beautiful aircraft," I can think of only one *family* of aircraft that this applies to from an aesthetic standpoint: the Northrop Flying Wings. There were several technical reasons these aircraft didn't "take hold," but looking at them in flight, they were beautiful (perhaps the only readily available footage worth seeing's buried in the 1950s-timeframe science fiction movie, _War of the Worlds_, where a YB49 was used to drop a nuclear weapon (unsuccess- fully) on the invading Martians). there are aircraft I have a greater emotional attachment to, such as the DC-3, or my beloved PA28-151, but for sheer beauty (and a sort of timelessness: the basic configuration is as ancient/modern as an eagle), you can't touch a Flying Wing, in my opinion. Steve Kallis, Jr.
ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems) (06/20/85)
> On the subject of "most beautiful aircraft," I can think of only > one *family* of aircraft that this applies to from an aesthetic > standpoint: the Northrop Flying Wings. There were several technical > reasons these aircraft didn't "take hold," but looking at them in > flight, they were beautiful [...] > for sheer beauty (and a sort of timelessness: the basic configuration is as > ancient/modern as an eagle), you can't touch a Flying Wing, in my opinion. > > Steve Kallis, Jr. I have seen some footage of the Flying Wing and read that the demise was more a political (DoD politics) one than a technical one. What were the technical reasons you mention? Are these reasons also why we don't see experimental kit flying wings? -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)
dbp@dataio.UUCP (Dave Pellerin) (06/26/85)
> >I have seen some footage of the Flying Wing and read that the >demise was more a political (DoD politics) one than a technical one. >What were the technical reasons you mention? Are these reasons also >why we don't see experimental kit flying wings? > >E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems Whatever the reason for the it's demise, there are flying wings available in kit form for homebuilders. The one that comes to mind is the Mitchell U-2. This was designed by Don Mitchell, who claims he was an engineer on the real Flying Wing. The wing planform of the U-2 is similar to it's much larger relative; swept back leading edge, trailing edge 'elevons', rear engine mounted on a central cockpit pod. 'Tuck' (the tendancy for a flying wing to pitch forward) is prevented by keeping the swept back wingtips artificially 'washed-out' via the elevons. Yaw control is via drag rudders on the tips. Flying wing designs are not that technically challenging, they just don't offer enough advantages over conventional or canard designs, and are less forgiving of changes in CG, trim, diff- erential thrust, etc. Dave Pellerin ...uw-beaver!entropy!dataio!dbp
warner@orca.UUCP (Ken Warner) (07/01/85)
[FLYS] And Northrop is resurecting the flying wing as the stealth bomber. Won't that be a pretty ship!?!?
dsmith@hplabsc.UUCP (David Smith) (07/09/85)
> >I have seen some footage of the Flying Wing and read that the >demise was more a political (DoD politics) one than a technical one. >What were the technical reasons you mention? Are these reasons also >why we don't see experimental kit flying wings? > I don't have the references, but what I have read about the demise of the B-49 is: Political: Some powerful congressmen were trying to consolidate the defense industry, and pushed Northrop to merge with Convair. Northrop refused, and the congressmen made sure that the B-49 was not bought. Technical: The B-49 was beaten by the B-47, which was a more stable bombing platform. It had long, flexible wings to absorb gusts, letting the fuselage ride more smoothly, and it had a longer tail moment arm. It seems that the relative importance of these factors is still a topic of disagreement. Northrop believes it was an entirely political decision. David Smith ucbvax!hplabs!dsmith
dsmith@hplabsc.UUCP (David Smith) (07/10/85)
Taken from "Bomber 47" by Walt Boyne (Executive Officer of the National Air and Space Museum), in the August 1981 Wings magazine: The Northrop YB-49 was a later competitor to the B-47, an outgrowth of the piston engine XB-35 flying wing. Top speed was close to 500 mph. Aircraft was not produced due to politics or stability problems, depending upon which argument you prefer. But although the "Flying Wing" exhibited great range, handled well, and carried a large bombload, it was nearly 100 mph slower than the B-47 and required a crew of eight. The B-47 carried a crew of three, and had six engines to the YB-49's eight. I don't know how the ranges and bombloads compared. But if the B-49 was meant to be a long-range, heavy bombload aircraft, it may have been boxed in by the B-52. By the way, the Northrop Stealth Bomber now in development is a flying wing. David Smith ucbvax!hplabs!dsmith