The British flying wing

[pampa14]

I share with you some photos, including a rare photo with markings of the Royal Air Force, of the experimental airplane Armstrong Whitworth AW-52. If the plane had entered service during World War II would have helped to anticipate the end of the conflict? Visit the link below, see the photos and answer on this question.


Aviação em Floripa: Armstrong Whitworth A.W.52


Best Regards.

 

[GrauGeist]

While the AW.52 seems impressive, all the specifications are for an unarmed airframe. Once armament (if any) and a bombload were applied, it's top speed would suffer a performance penalty.

Even if used in an unarmed recon role, it would be well within reach of the Me262 and He162.

If it were put into service, it's highly likely that it's impact on the war would have been minimal.

 

[fastmongrel]

If it were put into service, it's highly likely that it's impact on the war would have been minimal.

And like all flying wings before the invention of the micro processor it didnt take off, fly anything but in a straight line or land very well.

 

[GregP]

I don't know about that one fastmongrel ... our Northrop N9MB flies very well on only manual control and has only a few interesting characteristics. The only strange flight characteristic it has is that when you roll out of a steep turn you get about 6 - 8 horizontal yaw oscillations due to the lack of vertical surfaces to dampen them. If the pilot dances on the outboard rudder dragboards at the proper times, he can cut that to 3 - 4, but our flying wing pilots mostly just expect the short oscillations and let them happen.

Other than that it flies quite conventionally except we don't full stall it when airborne since we don't know if it would tumble. The full size wing tumbled when it was deep-stalled. Bob Cardenas managed to recover it using power after a long drop.

The N9MB has no trouble being quite maneuverable at airshows.

I agree that any flying wings would have had miniml impact not because they couldn't have had an impact, but because to have one, they'd have to have been seen in significant numbers in time to be able to have that impact. For that to have happend, we would have to have seen them in squadron service starting sometime in fall/winter 1944.

 

[GrauGeist]

And like all flying wings before the invention of the micro processor it didnt take off, fly anything but in a straight line or land very well.

You've pretty much described Northrup's N-1M, which was a pioneer but on the otherhand, the N-9M wing handled very well, the Horton brothers' wings had good flight characteristics (except the parabola) and these were the result of pioneering in an age of "old school" technology.

Alot was learned in the early years from projects like the BICh-3 and of course, the Horton's gliders.

One of the worst flying wings of the war years was Northrup's XP-79, which did have terrible flight qualities and did in fact, end up crashing killing the test pilot.

 

[pbehn]

And like all flying wings before the invention of the micro processor it didnt take off, fly anything but in a straight line or land very well.

If the bird world is anything to go by anything like a flying wing doesn't survive where there are predators. I would say an albatross is a match for any flying wing even with microprocessors for flying efficiency it just cant take off,land, change direction or maneuver as well as things that want to eat it.

 

[Milosh]

XP-79
Northrop XP-79B Jet Fighter

 

[GregP]

That's funny pbehn,

The Albatross would be a U-2.

In the control line combat world where maneuverability is the only key to survival, flying wings with short-boom elevators dominate to the point of excluding almost everything else.

Here is a smple.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egozo2f2UWQ

Yes, these two have very short booms to displace the elevators small bit, but I have seen flying wings with trailing edge elevators also fly with all-winning maneuverability. Just watch tye follow=on video and you'll see.

 

[mhuxt]

That's funny pbehn,

The Albatross would be a U-2.

In the control line combat world where maneuverability is the only key to survival, flying wings with short-boom elevators dominate to the point of excluding almost everything else.

Here is a smple.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egozo2f2UWQ

Yes, these two have very short booms to displace the elevators small bit, but I have seen flying wings with trailing edge elevators also fly with all-winning maneuverability. Just watch tye follow=on video and you'll see.

I'm just staggered at how those guys don't foul their lines, or plow into one another or the ground. I guess that's why they're at the Nationals.

 

[GregP]

They DO cross lines. But they also have to uncross lines by going the other way. When lines are wrapped it is VERY obvious to the guys flying. They must eventually reverse until lines are NOT wrapped.

It is hard to desribe but relaively easy when you are flying. You can SEE when you wrap it in one direction and must eventually unwrap it in the other direction before you are free to maneuver away from your opponent. Until then you are trapped in a looping fight ... where most fights are won.

The event is NOT for rookies. It is something younpractice before proceeding. They also twist the lines when flyign aerobatics. Here is the cumpulsory sequence in Europe.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eiWf4roA9I

You want the engine to be almost 4-stroking in level flight, then leaning out when you go vertical, and going rich again on a downline.

It's fun but a challenge. The engine setting will affect your score (due to results) as will the flying skill. particularly in wind, especially the overhead eights. Needs lots of rudder.

 

[bobbysocks]

wow...I haven't flown control line planes in 40some years. was a lot of fun...the little 049 engines. might have to mess with them again.

 

[Gnomey]

Good stuff guys!

 

[bada]

"The British flying wing "

Not Really, rather a "tailless plane", a flying wing has no vertical stabilizers. horten's stuff, n9m,b2,yb35 are flying wings, xp79,yb 49 are tailless aircrafts

 

[GrauGeist]

a flying wing has no vertical stabilizers.

A flying wing has no horizontal stabilizer, but can have a vertical stabilizer.

What qualifies an aircraft to be a true flying wing, is no distinct fuselage.

 

[GregP]

In the case of the XB-35, the propellers acted as the vertical srufaces. They lost the props when they installed jets and had to add the vertical tail surfaces to restore lost stability.

 

[pbehn]

A flying wing has no horizontal stabilizer, but can have a vertical stabilizer.

What qualifies an aircraft to be a true flying wing, is no distinct fuselage.

That is the problem, you need fuselage shaped people and cargo.

I am not an aeroplane designer but I suspect the problem is simple physics, the heavier a flying wing is the more it tends to be unstable in conditions pilots find every day around the world. A short aircraft can change direction very quickly when you want it to the problem I think is stopping it doing the same thing when you dont want it to.

 

[GregP]

Stability can be designed into a flying wing, but the CG range is going to be more narrow than for a convention aircraft almost by definition. Since the elevator has a shorter moment arm, it will create less moment for the same size elevator and elevator travel.

But if the flying wing is big enough, then the internal volume would be huge and the moment arn could be acceptable.

I think a flying wing the size of an A380 could fly just fine with a large payload ... but the market would have to BE there to justify it, and airlines are notoriously conservative. If you DID make a LARGE flying wing freighter or passenger hauler, how would you decide that you could make enough sales to justify the cost?