Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dataio.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!uw-june!entropy!dataio!dbp From: dbp@dataio.UUCP (Dave Pellerin) Newsgroups: net.aviation Subject: Re: \"Was It Something I Said\", et al. (Flying Wing) Message-ID: <687@dataio.UUCP> Date: Wed, 26-Jun-85 11:31:53 EDT Article-I.D.: dataio.687 Posted: Wed Jun 26 11:31:53 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 28-Jun-85 02:02:21 EDT Reply-To: dbp@dataio.UUCP (Dave Pellerin) Organization: The Boneless Chicken Farm Lines: 28 Summary: The Flying Wing Lives! > >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