Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site hplabsc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabsc!dsmith From: dsmith@hplabsc.UUCP (David Smith) Newsgroups: net.aviation Subject: Re: \"Was It Something I Said\", et al. (Flying Wing) Message-ID: <2637@hplabsc.UUCP> Date: Tue, 9-Jul-85 13:40:37 EDT Article-I.D.: hplabsc.2637 Posted: Tue Jul 9 13:40:37 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 10:48:40 EDT References: <687@dataio.UUCP> Organization: Hewlett Packard Labs, Palo Alto CA Lines: 24 > >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