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