Max Volume
Airman
- 20
- Feb 8, 2025
What's Wrong with Flying Wings?
- Thread starter Max Volume
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Holtzauge
Airman 1st Class
A lot of good points made although I think one of the most important ones is missing: Flying wings typically suffer from a low trimmed Clmax. This is because they have difficulties trimming out the pitching moment caused by trailing edge flaps.
And since you usually have a landing speed requirement, this translates directly into a Clmax x S (max lift coefficient times wing area) which in turn results in the need for a larger wing area.
And a larger wing area means more wetted drag area, so in the end even though they look nice, they can't really compete with the classic tractor designs.
And since you usually have a landing speed requirement, this translates directly into a Clmax x S (max lift coefficient times wing area) which in turn results in the need for a larger wing area.
And a larger wing area means more wetted drag area, so in the end even though they look nice, they can't really compete with the classic tractor designs.
GregP
Major
Tell that to the B-2 pilots ...
Snautzer01
Honourably banned
- 44,346
- Mar 26, 2007
And their giga bit of computers that deal with those problems.
If the b-2 was to mine bit coins in stead of useless flying most of the time it could earn its keeping costs. And drop a few to "massage" value.
Holtzauge
Airman 1st Class
I will next time I see them....
GregP
Major
Useless flying?
In case you forgot, this is an aviation forum. There's no such thing as useless flying.
If you're in the military and are a pilot,then, if you're not on a mission, you're practicing, learning new things or staying current, all of which are of use when the aircraft is actually needed for the mission for which it was intended. But, hey, you know that, even if you're not a fan of the B-2.
In case you forgot, this is an aviation forum. There's no such thing as useless flying.
If you're in the military and are a pilot,then, if you're not on a mission, you're practicing, learning new things or staying current, all of which are of use when the aircraft is actually needed for the mission for which it was intended. But, hey, you know that, even if you're not a fan of the B-2.
Slightly (un)related to flying wings, I stumbled upon an interesting NASA paper about spanload distributions, including a flying wing experiment to prove those ideas. Based on a for some reason largely forgotten paper by Prandtl in 1933. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20160003578/downloads/20160003578.pdf
The gist is that if you optimize the spanload distribution for minimum drag and weight instead of minimum drag for a given span, you end up with a somewhat Bell-shaped spanload distribution. And interestingly, this seems similar to how birds have evolved as well.
The gist is that if you optimize the spanload distribution for minimum drag and weight instead of minimum drag for a given span, you end up with a somewhat Bell-shaped spanload distribution. And interestingly, this seems similar to how birds have evolved as well.
GregP
Major
The Horten Brothers claimed theyt had a secret flying wing design procedure to ensure stability thath has been mentioned in several books on the subject. Not too sure if they were pulling our chains, but their flying wings worked great!
Last edited:
Greg Boeser
2nd Lieutenant
A commentator once said: The military as a whole is a huge waste of resources, until it isn't.
Holtzauge
Airman 1st Class
Very interesting paper. But with regards to birds I see two issues with their reasoning: The first being that their research vehicle has the classic swept wing used on man-made stable flying wings with the updraft at the tips for balance, while I would venture that birds like the Albatross fly pretty much neutrally stable and move their wings fore and aft slightly to retain balance. But this is just my understanding of how they fly so I could be wrong of course.
In addition, they do not mention birds of prey who do seem to load the tips given that they have multiple "winglets" (the primary feathers) to reduce vorticity at the tips. This I think implies that they (birds of prey) do not use the bell-shaped lift technique mentioned in the paper.
No one is saying that flying wings don't work, just that they are less aerodynamically efficient when all things are considered, which was the subject of the opening post.
In addition, choosing the flying wing for the B-2 makes perfect sense because this is the best shape to keep the radar cross section down and making some concessions in aerodynamic efficiency seems a small price to pay for that.
And sure, the Horten brothers made nice looking gliders that flew well. However, if flying wings are so aerodynamically efficient why aren't the skies filled with flying wings today? For example, there is an open class in gliding with no restriction, so why is that not filled with flying wings then?
Last edited:
Holtzauge
Airman 1st Class
So by saying flying wings are less efficient aerodynamically, I have said that there is useless flying going on? And this means that I'm against staying current and military training and the B-2? In addition, I have said that the military is a waste of resources?
Where did I say that? Reference please?
You know if nothing else, I give you guys top marks for strawman construction! Seldom have I seen a bigger, not better built specimen!
- Thread starter
- #12
Max Volume
Airman
- 20
- Feb 8, 2025
Of all my videos this one generates the most uproar!
Holtzauge
Airman 1st Class
Yes, and me largely agreeing with the points made in your video means I don't like the B-2 and that I'm against military spending apparently.......
GregP
Major
So by saying flying wings are less efficient aerodynamically, I have said that there is useless flying going on? And this means that I'm against staying current and military training and the B-2? In addition, I have said that the military is a waste of resources?
Where did I say that? Reference please?
You know if nothing else, I give you guys top marks for strawman construction! Seldom have I seen a bigger, not better built specimen!
Hi Holtzauge. I am a pilot and a lifelong fancier of aircraft.
I didn't mean to offend you. I took offense at "useless flying," since I enjoy ALL flying of any sort.
Cheers
Holtzauge
Airman 1st Class
Hi Holtzauge. I am a pilot and a lifelong fancier of aircraft.
I didn't mean to offend you. I took offense at "useless flying," since I enjoy ALL flying of any sort.
Cheers
Well, on that we can agree: If it has wings and can be flown without killing you then fine!
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
