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