kallis@pen.DEC (06/24/85)
>Subject: Re: \"Was It Something I Said\", et al. (Flying Wing) >Posted: Thu Jun 20 10:28:41 1985 >> 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 According to Theodor von Karaman, probably the greatest aerodynamicist going, the Northrop Flying Wings were excellent for low-speed flight. However, at the time, the Air Force was looking for aircraft with a thin wing section fo transonic/supersonic flight, and the Flying Wing *had* to have a thick cross-section. Please note that the N1M was under- going tests in the late 30s; it's not surprising nobody was concerned about transonic flight. From what I've read, there also was a political (DoD) decision on discontinuing development on it. A few people made Flying Wing homebuilts, but they're .. interesting aircraft to fly. The stall characteristics are gentle, but if you put one into a spin, watch out! But one great advantage of a Flying Wing was that the lift was distributed across the entire surface of the aircraft (*all* of it was a lifting body, after all), so the internal (structural) stress per maneuver was less than with an aircraft with a conventional fuselage. Steve Kallis, Jr.