|
Also the horten HX-2 https://www.flyingmag.com/horten-flying-wing-prototype-debut
|
#
?
May 1, 2019 22:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 08:23 |
|
|
Why aren't deltas flying wings? As far as I can tell, they are the exact same hill of beans, but a delta has a lower aspect ratio. If you want to play "there can't be any vertical surfaces" well the YB49j is out. And even, maybe the B2. There's a cockpit, and then engine nacelles there. Where does a cockpit and nacelles become a "vertical surface". Or suddenly disqualify a plane that has no elevator or canard, into being a "not flying wing, but instead a delta". Phanatic posted:Pretty sure the YB-35 didn’t have computer assistance. You need to come up with something else for yaw stability, but it doesn’t need to be a tail or a vertical stabilizer. The wing sweep becomes critical. Almost every stable flying wing, has some significant degree of wing sweep. (including deltas.... hah) Nerobro fucked around with this message at 22:58 on May 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2019 22:50
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:Why aren't deltas flying wings? Because a delta wing isn’t a flying wing. You don’t know what you’re talking about and you don’t get to reclassify planes to fit your argument.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2019 23:02
|
|
|
MRC48B posted:It wasn't digital flybywire, but apparently it had the analog equivalents. Planes going back to the 1910s had autopilots. That is in no way the equivalent of a digital FBW system. It is by no means the same thing as a dynamically unstable aircraft needing constant control adjustments to avoid falling out of the sky. The very fact that they were flying it, and hoped a new autopilot would mitigate what they were seeing, pretty clearly disproves your notion that "without computer assistance it would have been impossible to fly." It was flying. They were flying it. It hunted around a bit in yaw. That's workload on the pilot to keep it pointed in the right direction, which isn't the same thing at all as "impossible to fly." Phanatic fucked around with this message at 23:31 on May 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2019 23:28
|
|
|
I thought it was not so much a flying wing couldn't fly, (because clearly there's lots of those) it's that you could get into situations when flying that would most definitely kill you, and the only way to prevent those situations was having lots of flight computers keeping you away from those 'unrecoverable death' situations? PS> I sort of want an alternate history where Hugo Junkers and Jack Northrop become BFFs over their love of flying wings
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 00:12
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:PS> I sort of want an alternate history where Hugo Junkers and Jack Northrop become BFFs over their love of flying wings How could you of all people not include one or both of the children of Ferdinand von Zeppelin, all of whom would go on to found a notorious sky-pirate gang operating flying wings from airships? This is covered in depth in the noted documentary Crimson Skies.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 00:25
|
|
|
To think of all of the games that have been remade, that Crimson Skies has been left out.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 00:47
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I thought it was not so much a flying wing couldn't fly, (because clearly there's lots of those) it's that you could get into situations when flying that would most definitely kill you, and the only way to prevent those situations was having lots of flight computers keeping you away from those 'unrecoverable death' situations? FWIW, this is what I was trying to say, without all the hyperbole. the OP that started this slapfight was in response to that N9M crashing and killing the pilot. I guess I read too many accounts of the B-2 not being possible without fly-by-wire, but that may be because of the stealth requirements making it even worse to fly.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 00:48
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:To think of all of the games that have been remade, that Crimson Skies has been left out. Just gotta wait for the next wave of pulp hero nostalgia to hit! Any day now. 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 00:52
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:To think of all of the games that have been remade, that Crimson Skies has been left out. It's been talked about ITT before, and somebody mentioned somebody had the IP but was just sitting on it forever out of spite? That's just gossip though, games are weird e: Junkers J.1000  
Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 01:15 on May 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 01:07
|
|
|
drgitlin posted:Because a delta wing isn’t a flying wing. You don’t know what you’re talking about and you don’t get to reclassify planes to fit your argument. You just said nothing to make your point. Why can't a delta be a flying wing? I have plans here, in my drawers for delta planform flying wings with just a vertical stabilizer on them. They fly great. Heck, there's a whole sub-genre of FPV that exclusively flys wings. Let me contribute: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_wing Wikipedia posted:A flying wing is a tailless fixed-wing aircraft that has no definite fuselage. The crew, payload, fuel, and equipment are typically housed inside the main wing structure, although a flying wing may have various small protuberances such as pods, nacelles, blisters, booms, or vertical stabilizers.[1] I don't think I'm going to back down from calling deltas flying wings. They're an edge case, like wings without any protuberances are edge cases. Nebakenezzer posted:I thought it was not so much a flying wing couldn't fly, (because clearly there's lots of those) it's that you could get into situations when flying that would most definitely kill you, and the only way to prevent those situations was having lots of flight computers keeping you away from those 'unrecoverable death' situations? It turns out, LOTS of airplanes have corner cases you can fly into, and not get out of. Most commercial planes have a "do not spin" placard as if you DO spin one, it's not coming out. I'd love to see what a few months of Junkers and Northrop would draw up too. MRC48B posted:FWIW, this is what I was trying to say, without all the hyperbole. the OP that started this slapfight was in response to that N9M crashing and killing the pilot. The point I was making, was flying wings are totally controllable, and flyable, without computers. The fact ~any~ examples exist, really makes the point. The B2 has all sorts of things working against it being a reasonable plane to fly. It's CoP is in front of the CG, which means if it starts sliding, it's not going to recover. I'd put money on it's Cg being behind the CoL. If you have fly by wire, you might as well, because you get efficiency benefits. The B2 being dynamically unstable, is "a thing".
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 01:30
|
|
|
Your own definition says a flying wing has to be tailless and have no distinct fuselage. Delta winged aircraft like the F-102 or the Mirage III have both, and most of those experimental aircraft you mentioned have at least a rear-mounted vertical stabilizer, commonly considered "a tail." I don't know where Wikipedia is getting that idea that a vertical stabilizer isn't a tail. Almost like it's not the ultimate authority on all topics. It sounds like you're trying to be clever about not calling vertical surfaces a tail if they're not on a stick behind the trailing edge of the wing, but I don't think very many aeronautical engineers would agree with you.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 07:38
|
|
|
Speaking of flying wings, those Japanese guys who made the glider from Nausicaa but jet powered haven't killed themselves yet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUeV2Z72HfQ
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 08:01
|
|
|
That helmet seems optimistic
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 08:30
|
|
|
Covers from old French magazines. 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 08:51
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Pretty sure the YB-35 didn’t have computer assistance. You need to come up with something else for yaw stability, but it doesn’t need to be a tail or a vertical stabilizer. MRC48B posted:I guess I read too many accounts of the B-2 not being possible without fly-by-wire, but that may be because of the stealth requirements making it even worse to fly. evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 10:02 on May 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 09:46
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:Speaking of flying wings, those Japanese guys who made the glider from Nausicaa but jet powered haven't killed themselves yet. Holy gently caress, that's awesome. You need some big balls to fly that.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 14:29
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Your own definition says a flying wing has to be tailless and have no distinct fuselage. Delta winged aircraft like the F-102 or the Mirage III have both, and most of those experimental aircraft you mentioned have at least a rear-mounted vertical stabilizer, commonly considered "a tail." I don't know where Wikipedia is getting that idea that a vertical stabilizer isn't a tail. Almost like it's not the ultimate authority on all topics. I did a lot of digging before I posted the wikipedia definition. As far as I can tell, the definition is unclear, or at best one of appearance versus anything definitive. The rules that govern a "flying wing" and say.. the F102, are all the same. So why draw the line? Is a line, useful? Does it matter? The subject, in my mind, is really "single flying surface" or "tailless" airplanes. So, if your flying wing can't have "a place for persons, engines, etc.." you end up essentially defining flying wings as giant things. Is "being a big damned plane" a critical part of "flying wing", well.. I think that's a bad definition. The vast majority of flying wings out there, have some vertical surfaces. I think "flying wing" is just a ~very difficult~ version of what we generally think of as a Delta. Small tails are a thing, and sometimes even big planes will fly fine without them, or nearly so. (Concorde flights, and at least one B52 flight, and lots of B17 flights make that clear.) Much like the quickie is a canard just.. an edge case. Model airplanes also go the other way, with very large tailplanes.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 16:15
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:I did a lot of digging before I posted the wikipedia definition. As far as I can tell, the definition is unclear, or at best one of appearance versus anything definitive. The rules that govern a "flying wing" and say.. the F102, are all the same. Not at all though, theres a distinct fuselage in the F-102 and the wing structure is quite thin. Is the space shuttle a flying wing?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 16:25
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Is the space shuttle a flying wing? No, it’s a brick with stability-enhancing surfaces.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 16:34
|
|
|
Isn't anything that flies, and has a wing a flying wing? E.g.: an bumblebee
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 16:42
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:
It sounds like your definition of a flying wing is "doesn't have a horizontal stabilizer," which is novel but again, I don't think it's really all that accurate. Here are a few different planes to think about     
Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 16:48 on May 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 16:43
|
|
|
Good lord what a sexy machine!
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 16:53
|
|
|
Goddamn I love the Draken. From the side: normal-rear end Cold War 2nd-gen fighter. From the top: SPACESHIP
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 16:55
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/CBSLA/status/1123649593835761664
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 17:07
|
|
|
A: They did nazi that coming B: Why do nazi reproduction planes keep falling out of the sky?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 17:12
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Is the space shuttle a flying wing? Maybe it is? Though is anything with a 4.5:1 l/d ratio really flying? Sagebrush posted:It sounds like your definition of a flying wing is "doesn't have a horizontal stabilizer," which is novel but again, I don't think it's really all that accurate. quote:quote:quote:quote:quote:So, for a flying wing to be stable, you need the nose down moment, usually coming from a CG slightly forward of the CoL. Then you need the pitch up moment, that needs to be airspeed dependent, this usually comes from reflex at the back of the airfoil, this can be built in, or via elevons. For a delta to be stable, you need a forward CG, to provide the nose down moment, that's countered by reflex (usually provided by elevons..) at the back of the airfoil. When you're doing the math on designing a flying wing, where do you start treating it differently from a delta? Where's the difference? Why does it matter? The difference between a canard and a conventional plane is pretty distinct. The difference between a single flying surface craft, and a conventional craft is pretty distinct. In the case of "no vertical surfaces" what makes a flying wing any different from the X-36?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 17:20
|
|
|
I want a Jane's reference guide from this guy where every aircraft is organized according to how much of a flying wing it is. B-2: Flying Wing F-102: Pretty Much Still a Flying Wing F-14: Definite Flying Wing (with wings swept back) AH-64: Close Enough to a Flying Wing that it Don't Matter
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
Y'all can keep  about flying wings as long as you keep posting pictures of aeronautical insanity in the process.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 17:54
|
|
|
Copper Vein posted:F-14: Definite Flying Wing (with wings swept back) F-15, a plane that can land missing a wing. Does that make it a lifting body? Oh no.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 18:08
|
|
|
There is a continuum from flying wing through blended or big wing to conventional, but a big ol' fuselage will have completely different characteristics under slip than a flying wing. Also, weight distribution, which may be more of a structural consideration than strictly aerodynamics, but would have a big effect on the design process. VVV I forgot area ruling! The F-102 to F-106 redesign would have been much more demanding if they were flying wings. Unreal_One fucked around with this message at 18:33 on May 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 18:09
|
|
|
The fuselage - and more specifically its fineness ratio - is very important for reducing supersonic (wave) drag, so saying that e.g. the Draken is "mostly wing" is missing the forest for the trees. If it had less fuselage and more wing it would have significantly different performance, even if it kept mostly the same planform. If you want to argue about where the line goes between a tailless delta and a flying wing, I believe the Saab 210 is an excellent example. Also, tailless deltas usually have elevons rather than separate ailerons and elevators, so in order to control them with a conventional flight stick there needs to be some kind of differential gearing that "mixes" the roll and pitch input, so to speak. e: now that I think about it I suspect the pitch and the roll sensitivity (as in, ratio of control surface deflection to pitching/rolling moment) may change at different rates with varying airspeeds. I know at least on the Viggen the pitch and the roll channels have separate gearing mechanisms that attempt to maintain a mostly constant relationship between stick deflection and load factor, regardless of airspeed. e2: I believe one reason for going with elevons rather than separate aileron and elevator is that the control surfaces need to be relatively large because their moment arm (= distance to the center of lift) is usually shorter than on a conventional design, and a tailless delta usually has a pretty low aspect ratio because the only reason to make a tailless delta is to go supersonic, so you don't have a whole lot of wing trailing edge to work with. The Draken had some issues with this - at high speeds the aerodynamic forces on the elevons were so big that the hydraulics simply couldn't put enough force on them to deflect them very far to get the load factor you wanted, which in turn could make it very hard to pull out of high speed dives, for example. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 18:33 on May 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 18:17
|
|
|
LA Times Facebook reported this as an "ME-163," which is incorrect in two ways beyond just being the wrong aircraft type altogether. Edit: it's just a successor company to Slepcev.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 18:30
|
|
|
A true flying wing is more or less a lifting body and comes with some advantages having to do with payload because of the way weight is distributed. Instead of having all the weight essentially on the center of a beam (the fuselage on the wing spar) it’s more distributed along the beam. As well as aerodynamic improvements because there’s no superfluous bits of aircraft to cause parasitic drag, everything is part of the airfoil. But continue arguing over semantics like proper goons.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 18:38
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:I did a lot of digging before I posted the wikipedia definition. As far as I can tell, the definition is unclear, or at best one of appearance versus anything definitive. The rules that govern a "flying wing" and say.. the F102, are all the same. So why draw the line? Is a line, useful? Does it matter? The subject, in my mind, is really "single flying surface" or "tailless" airplanes. Do you even know what an F-102 looks like? Because I'm really starting to doubt it.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 19:00
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:Speaking of flying wings, those Japanese guys who made the glider from Nausicaa but jet powered haven't killed themselves yet. Oh my god.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 19:22
|
|
|
beep-beep car is go posted:B: Why do nazi reproduction planes keep falling out of the sky? Because actual Nazi planes kept falling out of the sky (though usually with some help)
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 19:46
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:The fuselage - and more specifically its fineness ratio - is very important for reducing supersonic (wave) drag, so saying that e.g. the Draken is "mostly wing" is missing the forest for the trees. If it had less fuselage and more wing it would have significantly different performance, even if it kept mostly the same planform. If you want to argue about where the line goes between a tailless delta and a flying wing, I believe the Saab 210 is an excellent example. Mach makes the world a whole lot more complex. Fuselages are nice for aerodynamics, and not so nice for skin drag. And you're getting into the places where armchair aeronautical nuts like me start to run into problems. e.pilot posted:A true flying wing is more or less a lifting body and comes with some advantages having to do with payload because of the way weight is distributed. Instead of having all the weight essentially on the center of a beam (the fuselage on the wing spar) it’s more distributed along the beam. As well as aerodynamic improvements because there’s no superfluous bits of aircraft to cause parasitic drag, everything is part of the airfoil. Spreading the load along the spar is something that can be done with, or without a fuselage. If you want an extreme example the Rutan Voyager did it to an extreme where the wing tips dragged the ground on takeoff with full tanks. Flying wings, due to their close coupling, can lose a lot of their potential advantages due to tight CG requirements, and needed control forces. If "pure wings" were so efficient, we'd see more competition sailplanes with "just a wing". There's been a couple, but they're not in the current flock. This has definitely gotten beyond the "you can't fly a wing without computers". I think it's taken an interesting turn. :-) Godholio posted:Do you even know what an F-102 looks like? Because I'm really starting to doubt it. It doesn't look like a yb49. But mathematically, it's the same. Swept wing, without a tail. Did you ever play with Microsoft FS4? There was this "custom plane" builder, and you could define aspect ratio, control surface size, and various other components. Adding up to completely different planes, all from the same "original" plane. when you're calculating the moments, and such on a delta, versus a flying wing, I don't see a whole lot of difference. EDIT: Since I wanted to try this on another audience, I brought this up in an aviation forum. They're more focused on "is it a Delta" than is it a flying wing versus something else. To them, it's all flying wings. But Deltas are deltas. Nerobro fucked around with this message at 20:26 on May 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 20:17
|
|
|
Maybe it belongs best in a different thread, but flying military history goes well here and I think you will enjoy this animated map video of the battle of Midway from the japanese perspective. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd8_vO5zrjo
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 20:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 08:23 |
|
|
Plastic_Gargoyle posted:LA Times Facebook reported this as an "ME-163," which is incorrect in two ways beyond just being the wrong aircraft type altogether. Crashing was part of the ME-163 lifecycle. "Ja, ja, just belly it in on de skid dere, no worries about that pilot-meltin' fuel behind ya..."
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 21:33
|
|
