Talk:Flying wing/Archive 1

Archive 1

Stability and centre of pressure

This article at present misses another factor in the design of a stable flying wing. With a normal aerofoil, as the angle of attack increases, the centre of pressure moves forward, which further rotates the wing to a higher angle of attack, and so on - a runaway effect that causes the wing to rotate backwards unless counteracted with the tail surfaces. On a flying wing, this effect must be reversed for stability, and this is achieved by using a "reflex" aerofoil section where the CP moves backwards with increasing angle of attack (This is table because this movement drops the wing reducing the angle of attack - so it will fly stably in equilibrium). A reflex section starts off like a normal aerofoil at the front, but is curved upwards towards the rear, so that the trailing part off the upper surface is concave rather than the conventional convex. This can be seen in the photograph of the B-35 at the wingtip. I think this needs to be worked into the article, which presently suggests that stability is achieved solely using sweepback, which isn't the whole story. Graham 00:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

This discussion really belongs in the tailless aircraft article, with just a brief summary and pointer here. Also, FWIW sweepback combined with tip washout is an alternative way to achieve stability. -- Steelpillow (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

About use of digital flight control system on flying wings.

Modern digital flight control systems enable flying wing designers to move the the GC aft of the AC. While statically unstable, the digital flight control system constantly produces correction movements in all control surfaces to keep the flying wing in level flight.

This is significant because both the B-2 and future flying wings (as well as blended wing bodies) are or are going to be digitally controlled. B-2 is statically unstable.

Please also note that stabilization of a flying wing does more than just providing trim in pitch. The lack of conventional tails makes flying wings exceedingly complicated to deal with things like adverse yaw. In fact, to properly roll a flying wing all pitch, yaw and roll controls are deployed. This will be hard especially without digital flight controls. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benhongh (talk • contribs) 09:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Tailless types are not necessarily Flying Wings

The Dunne aircraft mentioned and illustrated on this page is surely not a flying wing, but a tailless aircraft type. It has a very evident fuselage containing the aeronaut/s and engine. -- Steelpillow 18:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Likewise the Waldo Whatsit. I wonder how many more examples like this are to be found on this page. They need moving to the tailless aircraft page, and better examples here to replace them. Either that, or somebody needs to drum up some respectable references to establish the usage of "flying wing" to mean any tailless design (like I had to do for "tailless"). -- Steelpillow 13:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Steelpillow 18:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Merging Flying Wing article

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No contest/redundant article. Poll unnecessary, but nominator should have watched page, and closed after one week. - BillCJ (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is a no-brainer: bring in any non-duplicated content worth having, and make Flying Wing (capital 'W') a redirect to here. -- Steelpillow (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Yes.Full agreement on this subject, currently headings use all names in capital case —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgrosay (talk • contribs) 09:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Concur. I guess the nominator forgot to check back, but I missed the nomination myself, so Oh well! I will close and merge as no contest/redundant article. - BillCJ (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Salina, KS testing

Does anyone know if there was testing done with flying wings at the Salina, KS airport? A few years ago I could have sworn I saw a flying wing flying over by the airport. It was in the middle of a turn. When it flattened out, I couldn't see it any longer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.253.212 (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitions

The head appears badly written and wrong in places. It starts off, "A Flying wing is the generic designation given for a fixed-wing aircraft configuration which is capable of stable, controllable flight without the aid of lifting surfaces other than the main wing itself..." which is the definition of a tailless aircraft. The second para says that it "usually" has no fuselage, yet by definition it always lacks one. All this is the wrong way round. What about a design which has no fuselage, but does have a tail stabiliser mounted on thin tailbooms running back from the wing - is this a flying wing? -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

In case you are wondering what an airplane with a tail but no fuselage looks like, here's an image of the Northrop X-216H. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed edit of lead:

A Flying wing is a fixed-wing aircraft which has no definite fuselage, with most of the crew, payload and equipment being housed inside the main wing structure. A flying wing may have various small protuberances such as pods, nacelles, blisters, booms, vertical stabilisers (tail fins), or undercarriage; it may even have a separate horizontal stabiliser surface mounted on one or more booms. Theoretically the flying wing is the most efficient aircraft configuration from the point of view of aerodynamics and structural weight. It is argued that the absence of any aircraft components other than the wing should naturally provide these benefits. However in practice an aircraft's wing must provide for flight stability and control; this imposes additional constraints on the aircraft design problem. Therefore, the expected gains in weight and drag reduction may be partially or wholly negated due to design compromises needed to provide stability and control. Alternatively, and more commonly, a flying wing type may suffer from stability and control problems.

-- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Looks like you could combine the first 2 paragraphs into 1 paragraph. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

In looking for a ref I checked the Dictionary of Aeronautical Terms and it says:

“ Flying wing. A type of heavier-than-air aircraft that has no fuselage or separate tail surfaces. The engines and useful load are carried inside the wing, and movable control surfaces on the trailing edge provide both pitch and roll control. (Crane, Dale: Dictionary of Aeronautical Terms, third edition, page 224. Aviation Supplies & Academics, 1997. ISBN 1-56027-287-2) ”

I think what you have written is fairly consistent with this reference, except the part about "it may even have a separate horizontal stabiliser surface mounted on one or more booms." Do you have a reference that backs up that statement? Otherwise I would recommend cutting it. - Ahunt (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I put the statement in because I do not know how else to describe types such as the Northrop X-216H (see above). Pushing the envelope - the American aircraft industry by Donald M. Pattillo confirms the dictionary view that it "is not a true flying wing". Yet it is commonly described as such; I have no printed refs to hand, but try googling it - see the aerofiles for example. Isn't this just typical of technologists, to define a thing one way and then to promptly ignore that definition! Going with the dictionary raises the important question - if the X-216H is not a flying wing then how should it be classified? I do not believe that we can fully accept the dictionary's scenario unless it can show consistency by answering this question. And I do not believe that it can do this. Collecting this and the other suggestion gives us something like this for the first paragraph:

A Flying wing is a fixed-wing aircraft which has no definite fuselage, with most of the crew, payload and equipment being housed inside the main wing structure. It may have various small protuberances such as pods, nacelles, blisters, booms, vertical stabilisers (tail fins), or undercarriage. Some aircraft have no fuselage but do have a separate horizontal stabiliser surface mounted on one or more booms; these are also commonly referred to as flying wings, although this is not strictly correct.

This could/should be backed up by a brief discussion of the X-216H in the body of the article.

-- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it creates a conundrum! I would say that any definition given in the article needs a reference to support it and by the one I found that the Northrop X-216H is not a flying wing, although it does have some attributes of one.

There are a number of cases like this. The Pterodactyl Pfledge is a true flying wing, but later the designer added a canard to create the Ptraveler and the Pterodactyl Ascender and so that version was not a flying wing, although it still had attributes of one.

Slightly OT: I do not see the Pfledge as a flying wing - the wing is rigidly fixed to a frame, aka fuselage, supporting the rest of the gubbins - but as a parasol monoplane of moderately swept tailless configuration. A fuselage doesn't have to be faired over. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It all depends on how you define "flying wing"! - Ahunt (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Well then it's not so OT. If such planes are routinely called "flying wings" then that needs to be said, too. Further search reveals that the Pfledge is a weight-shifter, so which bit is fixed to what is now entirely unclear to me. :-( I am inclined to just ignore the issue for now, and settle for my second edit. In fact I just have. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that ignoring the Pfledge would be best. It avoids the whole "is a cage a fuselage" issue and other stuff. I think fundamentally the flying wing as a concept suffers from the fact that many people call things flying wings that don't meet the definition. My solution is what you have done here - come up with a well-sourced and defensible definition and then stick to it. The article looks much better now that you did all this work on it! - Ahunt (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I like your revised para, that really works well. If you use that you could cite the Dictionary of Aeronautical Terms ref that I gave to support it. I agree that a discussion of aircraft like the X-216 and Ascender would be very helpful further into the article. - Ahunt (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Ahunt. However, the last para. from the first example should be captured in the article as it contains important points; a summary of these advantages and disadvantages might be a good second intro para. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

OK I have had a go at the basics of Design issues. Sheesh! This page needs some work! If anybody wants to say more here, I think a new discussion heading would be good. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

History of Flying Wing Aircraft

I find it curious that Dr. C.L. Snyder, a podiatrist from South Bend, Indiana, is not mentioned anywhere in the history given here (nor anywhere else on Wikipedia, for that matter). He was an early pioneer of flying wing aircraft with several successful prototypes throughout the mid 1930s. His most notable models were named Arup S2 and Arup S4, colloquially known as "the flying heel lifts." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.136.80 (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is entirely based upon reliable sources. Do you have any for him? - Ahunt (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Model aircraft

I thought it worth keeping the paragraph recently posted and deleted on this article, as a basis for something worth saying.

Here it is with a bit of copyediting:

The flying wing concept is popular for flying models such as radio-controlled airplanes. In many cases, the planes are made of EPP foam which results in a plane that is fun to fly and almost indestructible (especially if any motor is mounted at the rear in pusher configuration, where it is protected from most impacts).

I'd suggest it needs a bit more about the aerodynamics - are these flat-plate section with large upturned elevators, or proper airfoils with some other feature (e.g. negative camber or sweepback+washout) for stability?

And a reference or two to some good model flying hobby books or similar are needed to.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The concept of adding information about model aircraft use of flying wings is good. In this case though it was just unsourced opinion ("fun to fly"). It needs to be written properly and referenced. - Ahunt (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Yaw control

The following IP edit to the section on Yaw control got quickly reverted (not by me) because it is unreferenced:

"The other solution is differential twist, coupled with swept back wing planforms and the correct airfoil selection which provides "proverse" yaw control. Prandtl, Pankonin and others discoverd this and it was a fundimental design concept in the Horten Bros. flying wings in the 30's and 40's. The Hortens described it as a "Bell Shaped Lift Distribution" which accurately describes how lift is produced across the span of the wing, more lift in the centersection, less at the wing tips from the twist (wash out) built into the wing structure. The aircraft becomes stable in yaw with out the use of drag producing devices at the wing tips because of the slightly forward lift vector of the trailing wing when displaced, this vector esentally "pulls" the trailing wing forward by the lift vector going more forward which centers the aircraft along it's flight path. This concept is not well understood even today but radio controlled tailless sailplane models in recient years have used this to good effect with out the use of yaw gyro's or drag rudders."

I would not be surprised if it were essentially correct, but it obviously needs some tidying as well as referencing. So I am copying it here in case anybody can provide the missing knowledge. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that at least some of it is likely correct, but much of it reads like someone's opinion, which is why I removed it. It needs a ref to be added back into the article and then some severe fixing, too. - Ahunt (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Found a reasonable ref, so restored with heavy copyedit - to the section on stability. Hope it's good enough now. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect information?

Darx9url (talk · contribs) has made this edit, claiming that it corrects false information. My view is that it introduces false information, for example I understand the Northrop B-2 Spirit to be a true flying wing. I reverted the original edits, hoping for a gentlemanly WP:BRD but no such luck. Can we have some independent opinions? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything in that edit you made that was incorrect. I think User:Darx9url needs to explain his or her objections to your changes here. - Ahunt (talk)

A blended wing body is a newer version of flying wing or something like that. But the difference seems minor to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Structurally and visually a BWB has visibly distinct wings and fuselage and maybe even a tail plane, but with no clear dividing line. A flying wing is monolithic, generally "looks like" a wing and is (strictly) tailless, although it may have pronounced bulges. A lifting body is also monolithic but looks more like a flattened carrot than a wing, and it may also have tail surfaces. Fundamentally, the distinctions are governed by the structure and the aerodynamics. Somewhere in the middle they all merge into a sleek organic double-delta hypersonic type form and when somebody makes one of those we'll all have a little brainstorm. HTH — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Medium bomber, not heavy

The caption of the first XB-35 photo calls it a "heavy bomber." This is not true. The bomb load it was able to carry classified it as a medium bomber. I'll let someone else do the heavy lifting to find a citation, if they care--I certainly don't--but the fact that it was only a medium bomber was one of the main reasons the XB-35/YB-49 lost out to the B-36, which was a true heavy bomber.173.62.11.254 (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I just removed the unnecessary detail. I edited out a few other wobbles from the captions while I was fixing it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Flying wing gliders

The article in general and the history section in particular has a strong focus on military airplanes. However, a lot of the research on flying wings has been performed on civil airplanes, in particular on gliders. The most notable examples are probably the glider prototypes from the Horten brothers. Therefore I suggest to complete the paragraph mentioning the Horten Ho 229 with the following sentence:

Although most of the effords were directed to military planes, the Horten brothers also built several prototypes of sailplanes as flying wings in the forties and fifties, among others the Horten H.IV.

Unfortunately, the User Steelpillow keeps reverting my edits without giving a reason, probably because he/she considers Wikipedia a bit as his private property or whatever other reason. I hope to start here a more constructive discussion on this topic. -Eio (talk) 13:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I will give my reasons to anybody who is prepared to be civil and to assume my good faith. I will not join in slanging matches. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

You had to give a reason when you deleted my edit, Steelpillow. It is obvious that I am quite upset if you destroy my work without explaining why. How can I assume good faith? And take a look at your discussion page: I am not the only one. You are responsible for demotivating dozens of other users.

Back to the topic: why is it not ok to mention the studies on gliders on this page? Or do you just think it was not the appropriate paragraph? Maybe different sections? -Eio (talk) 13:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Assuming good faith (WP:AGF) is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. If you cannot do so and get upset by WP:BRD then that is your problem, not mine. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain why you deleted my paragraph on the Horten glider prototypes instead of pretending me to be happy that you keep destroying my work? If you give a good reason, you might convince me. -Eio (talk) 14:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Please, let us discuss here the flying wing topic only and on the private discussion page any other private issue. -Eio (talk) 14:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Prandtl Wing

I suggest this new section. It is not strictly particular of flying wings, but still probably more appropriate here than on wing configuration. Any other suggestions? For a dedicated article seems to me not relevant enough.-Eio (talk) 13:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

===Prandtl wing===

The Armstrong Flight Research Center works on a flying wing with bell-shaped lift distribution called Prandtl wing in honour to the engineer Ludwig Prandtl. This wing was inspired by birds and has a strong wing twist generating a slightly negative lift at the wing tips.

For a given wing span, the minimum induced drag is achieved by a constant downwash and consequently by an elliptical lift distribution. The bell-shaped lift distribution of the Prandtl wing gives, instead, the minimum induced drag for a given amount of structure or mass of the wing, regardless of the wing span. The high sweep combined with the negative lift is responsible for the longitudinal static stability. Conventional wings produce adverse yaw as a consequence of an aileron movement, which has to be compensated by the rudder. A Prandtl wing, due to the negative lift at the wing tips, produces a proverse yaw, i.e. a positive roll-yaw coupling, which makes the use of an additional vertical rudder for a coordinated turn superfluous.

At the actual stage of development, a few model airplanes with Prandtl wing were flown.

The so-called PRANDTL wing, with its use of negative lift substituting for a rudder, is essentially the pioneering Dunne "arrowhead" design. Only the ability to provide numerical models has improved. Any discussion of it should first discuss Dunne and then present the NASA project as a revisiting and updating of it. Also, PRANDTL is an acronym/initialism/whatever and the lower-case description "prandtl" should not be used as Prandtl himself had nothing to do with it. Tailed types such as the Lohner Pfeilflieger infringed Dunne's patents, but the wing is essentially applicable to tailless aircraft so I think it is OK to give negative lift and yaw stability a section in there. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Good point, tailless aircraft might be a more suited place for this section. I'll edit Prandtl/PRANDTL. However, the acronym is not casual and was chosen since the project was inspired by Prandtl's work on birds aerodynamics. -Eio (talk) 14:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, the section should haver a general title such as Yaw stability or something, it should not be titled after the PRANDTL wing as that is a NASA-specific project. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes so I did, reverting the order of the text (I began with the adverse yaw and need for a rudder). Maybe you can take a look if a few words on Dunne shall be added. -Eio (talk) 15:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, when I have sobered up. I just ate a lot of roast goose washed down with good Italian red wine. Season's greetings! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Avro vulcan is not flying wing!!

. 188.57.95.29 (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I have given it a trim. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Ambition

From the article: " the company holding ambitions to develop a large flying wing airliner capable of serving transatlantic routes." What is an ambition? Is this a mistake for "exhibitions"? No meaning of "ambition" at Cambridge dictionary fits the sentence. The first reference link comes up as an error. The second one it to a book I don't have to check if the word had or has a special, technical meaning. Kdammers (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not the simplest English sentence to parse, but it is English and understandable. The OED online gives a definition as " Followed by of (also for, formerly †after). A strong desire for something advantageous, highly valued, or indicative of success or achievement. In plural in later use."

And gives an example "1926 Motor Boating Nov. 112/2 A. R. Gross..has for the past three years worked hard that his ambitions of a national regatta might be realized".

As to the source, the first page was archived at archive.org but not the ones before or after.

The sentence could be re-cast as "the company holding ambitions of developing a large flying wing..." GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Now edited out of the article (The text was in fact perfectly clear, just unnecessarily wordy). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

In popular culture

I don't know if this is appropriate for the article, but in the novel Blue Gold by Clive Cussler, the flying wing plays a critical role. Kdammers (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Popular culture items go at Aircraft in fiction, but it needs to a be a specific aircraft type, not just a general concept like "a flying wing". - Ahunt (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Depending on the status of the particular design and work of fiction, the list of fictional aircraft might be more appropriate. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)