User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/27/2010 6:12:22 PM EDT
[#1]
huh?
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2010 6:13:55 PM EDT
[#2]
Ahead of their time, for the most part. When 100% of the aircraft provides lift, you can do a lot. Back in the day, after WWII, there were several designs, but they were very difficult to keep stable. The B2 resolves this through massive computer control. The pilot doesn't control the surfaces of the aircraft - the aircraft interprets pilot input and controls the plane.
Will the design idea catch on across the aircraft industry? Probably not, or at least not any time soon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2010 6:15:02 PM EDT
[#3]
You do know they had significant roles int he past 20 years right?
The 117 retired soon as it wasnt very efficient but the B2 is still pounding enemies with impunity |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2010 6:15:14 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: huh? I've got my fingers crossed for a bit more insight than this... fuck.. i forgot i was in GD
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2010 6:17:18 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: You do know they had significant roles int he past 20 years right? The 117 retired soon as it wasnt very efficient but the B2 is still pounding enemies with impunity Knew the B2 was still active and virtually untouchable. But if you have an untouchable plane, why not keep making and developing it?! (it's my understanding they're not still in production, just still in use) |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2010 6:23:11 PM EDT
[#6]
The F-117 is not a flying wing airplane, it's conventional with a V empennage.
The B-2 is a flying wing for not necessarily aerodynamic performance reasons. Unfortunately, an airplane needs at minimum three edges in order to fly. The B-2 has a couple of extra ones for structural reasons. Flying wing airplanes are the darling of dreamers, but like every other airplane they require compromise and optimization. The flying wing holds the promise of getting the entire airframe working to produce lift, but it's traded against drag due to the huge wetted surface area. The stability & control problem can be put aside for modern airplanes, but the trade there is cost; cost for programming, cost for reliable electronics, and cost for redundancy because we don't trust the electronics and programs. There are also structural challenges in pure flying wings that are non-trivial and require weight to solve. Generally the configuration has to earn its way into the mission and the competition is tough from conventional looking airplanes. The B-2 will never go into production again. It has too much political baggage due to the per airplane cost, and it's obsolete anyway. It's not untouchable, either; that's a foolish and dangerous notion. We have 21 airplanes and they will be flying a while longer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2010 6:23:13 PM EDT
[#7]
The subsonic F-117 is now vulnerable since one was shot down in Serbia in 1998. The Russians and Chinese can now easily find the target profiles of these aircraft and thus they are no longer effective.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2010 6:31:10 PM EDT
[#8]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2010 6:31:58 PM EDT
[#9]
Jack Northrop hit the nail on the head 50+ yrs ago, The original flying wings weren't just ahead of their time they weren't even in the same timezone. The aerodynamics were spot on, it just took 50+ yrs for the computers to catch up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2010 6:34:06 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: Fixed...The F-117 is not a flying wing airplane, it's conventional with a V empennage. The B-2 is a flying wing for not necessarily aerodynamic performance reasons. Unfortunately, an airplane needs at minimum three edges in order to fly. The B-2 has a couple of extra ones for structural reasons. Flying wing airplanes are the darling of dreamers, but like every other airplane they require compromise and optimization. The flying wing holds the promise of getting the entire airframe working to produce lift, but it's traded against drag due to the huge wetted surface area. The stability & control problem can be put aside for modern airplanes, but the trade there is cost; cost for programming, cost for reliable electronics, and cost for redundancy because we don't trust the electronics and programs. There are also structural challenges in pure flying wings that are non-trivial and require weight to solve. Generally the configuration has to earn its way into the mission and the competition is tough from conventional looking airplanes. The B-2 will never go into production again. It has too much political baggage due to the per airplane cost, and it's obsolete anyway. It's not untouchable, either; that's a foolish and dangerous notion. We have 21 20 airplanes and they will be flying a while longer.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2010 6:53:10 PM EDT
[#11]
In theory, the perfect flying wing (assuming it's statically stable) is vastly more aerodynamically efficient than a conventional aircraft because of reduced drag. The less stuff sticking out and the fewer protrusions there are into the airstream, the more efficient the aerodynamics (super simplified version).
In practice, it's a hell of a challenge to make a flying wing statically stable. The Ho-229 was, barely. It had oscillation issues at speed (known as a "dutch walk"). The Northrop designs eventually required small vertical stabilizers which pissed off Old Man Jack to no end, but he was right that it could be done... just not with a human directly in control. The B2, by my understanding, isn't statically stable - without the computers it would be truly unflyable. If you look at pictures of it in flight, there's always at least some control surface activity going on due to the computer keeping the plane straight, which technically means it's losing the hallowed flying wing aerodynamic efficiency. The primary reason it was built as a flying wing was more stealth than aerodynamic efficiency - that flat batwing shape, plus RAM, plus some of the hush-hush gear in the plane itself - is a SAM radar jockey's worst nightmare. The Navy would be blasting around in a whole fleet of true flying wings right about now if the A-12 project hadn't been canceled due to costs. The plane was well on the way to honest-to-god prototype testing - it was way beyond "pipe dream". |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2010 6:57:27 PM EDT
[#12]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2010 6:58:35 PM EDT
[#13]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2010 7:01:35 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: the 117 is not a flying wing for one. two, the flying wing design is being used for the navy's uav program. the batwing is relegated to being a strictly bomber type design. it could probably be used for transports but do you want a billion dollar per transport?Quoted: huh? I've got my fingers crossed for a bit more insight than this... fuck.. i forgot i was in GD |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2010 7:04:28 PM EDT
[#15]
Static stability is a piece of cake, even on flying wings flown in the 1930's. Trouble is, that's just a good start and some degree of dynamic stability is required, especially on flying wings which have very low pitch damping.
Long span swept flying wings such as the Horten brothers gliders or the gliders and airplanes designed and built by Alexander Lippisch also present control problems with adverse yaw and the "overturning" effect common to gliders. The controls can't be used in the same way as on conventional airplanes due to adverse yaw, so we'll find other dodges such as spoilers for dragging a wing around. Generally spoilers and ailerons are used in combination. Aileron operation also causes pitching when none may be desired, so we'll also find coupling between the ailerons and elevators to offset the pitching. By the way, take a good look at a B-2 flying some day, or in photos. You'll almost never see them flying with the spoilerons fully closed; that's efficient! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2010 7:05:23 PM EDT
[#16]
What is the stealth potential of a blended wing design?
What does it give up to the flying wing or conventional designs? What advantages would it have over them? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2010 7:05:52 PM EDT
[#17]
impossible to consistently control without computers
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2010 7:08:17 PM EDT
[#18]
I actually thought that the Boeing F32 JSF submission had potential if they would have gone with the Pelican tail and been able to pull off the one piece carbon/resin wings.
Boeing had some really talented outside the box guys that weren't given what they needed to pull it off. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2010 7:11:52 PM EDT
[#19]
They have excellent capabilities regarding payload, efficiency, stealth, and range. Don't expect to see them as airliners though. The people sitting the furthest outboard would be in for a bumpy ride and it would require massive and revolutionary airport infrastructure changes not available to all major cities, and costly for the rest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2010 7:19:08 PM EDT
[#20]
This thread needs more N-1M.
  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2010 7:30:13 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
This thread needs more N-1M.
http://www.kbvp.com/sites/default/files/images/Northrop%20N9MB%20Flying%20Wing%20flys%20at%20Chino%202010.preview.JPG Plus some XB-49 Jet Goodness too!!  
B.T.W. - Edwards Air Force Base is named for a Pilot of the XB-49 program (Glen Edwards) |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2010 7:48:30 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
What is the stealth potential of a blended wing design? What does it give up to the flying wing or conventional designs? What advantages would it have over them? Radar reflections happen because of angles. You get the highest reflection from a surface perpendicular to the radar source. The B2 has almost none of these surfaces. Between the shape of the blended wing and the ram/ras, it's very stealthy, but as alluded to before, not "invisible". |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2010 7:50:59 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
You do know they had significant roles int he past 20 years right? The 117 retired soon as it wasnt very efficient but the B2 is still pounding enemies with impunity A lot of people don't know that the B2 can carry more than a B52. It is VERY MUCH still an aircraft with in demand capability-and fast enough/has sufficient duration to fly on station in Afghanistan and wait for a JDAM strike missions on call, anywhere in theater. The B52 isn't real good at that. The F117 was a great capability at the time but we learned a lot in the time since it was first accepted into service. Now it's just a datsun pickup truck at a time when we need a semi truck delivering bombs. It only carried two bombs,..... and was hastily made from parts of other aircraft that we no longer keep in inventory/don't have spare parts for. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2010 7:53:42 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
The F-117 is not a flying wing airplane, it's conventional with a V empennage. The B-2 is a flying wing for not necessarily aerodynamic performance reasons. Unfortunately, an airplane needs at minimum three edges in order to fly. The B-2 has a couple of extra ones for structural reasons. Flying wing airplanes are the darling of dreamers, but like every other airplane they require compromise and optimization. The flying wing holds the promise of getting the entire airframe working to produce lift, but it's traded against drag due to the huge wetted surface area. The stability & control problem can be put aside for modern airplanes, but the trade there is cost; cost for programming, cost for reliable electronics, and cost for redundancy because we don't trust the electronics and programs. There are also structural challenges in pure flying wings that are non-trivial and require weight to solve. Generally the configuration has to earn its way into the mission and the competition is tough from conventional looking airplanes. The B-2 will never go into production again. It has too much political baggage due to the per airplane cost, and it's obsolete anyway. It's not untouchable, either; that's a foolish and dangerous notion. We have 21 airplanes and they will be flying a while longer. I'm still trying to figure out why a flying wing makes sense at all unless radar signature is the only thing that matters... Any benefit in parachute and parasite drag reduction by not having a tail ends up mostly trumped with induced drag from having to run a reflexed airfoil, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2010 7:54:05 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
impossible to consistently control without computers Not true. Quoted:
I actually thought that the Boeing F32 JSF submission had potential if they would have gone with the Pelican tail and been able to pull off the one piece carbon/resin wings. Boeing had some really talented outside the box guys that weren't given what they needed to pull it off. The production airplane would have had conventional empennage. It looked similar to the demonstrator in the shear view and completely conventional in the plan view. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2010 7:56:31 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
This thread needs more N-1M.
http://www.kbvp.com/sites/default/files/images/Northrop%20N9MB%20Flying%20Wing%20flys%20at%20Chino%202010.preview.JPG I take your N1-M and raise it an N9-M I took this at Edwards AFB a few years back. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2010 8:00:06 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
You do know they had significant roles int he past 20 years right? The 117 retired soon as it wasnt very efficient but the B2 is still pounding enemies with impunity To add a little more... The F-117 was retired in part because it wasn't efficient, but the leading factor in the decision was to move funding over to the F-22 project. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2010 8:11:51 PM EDT
[#28]
That is one fucking sexy plane!! I also love the me-262, something about em gets ya right down there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2010 8:51:59 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
The subsonic F-117 is now vulnerable since one was shot down in Serbia in 1998. The Russians and Chinese can now easily find the target profiles of these aircraft and thus they are no longer effective. No it's not. It was Air Force stupidity routing the aircraft over the exact same routes night after night after night. The Serbs figured this out and simply concentrated all their AA fire in one patch of sky when they expected the F-117's to show up. That said, it's an obsolete, maintenance intensive platform that was designed to take out Soviet air defenses in Eastern Europe. Not much of a concern these days... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2010 8:53:10 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: Quoted: You do know they had significant roles int he past 20 years right? The 117 retired soon as it wasnt very efficient but the B2 is still pounding enemies with impunity To add a little more... The F-117 was retired in part because it wasn't efficient, but the leading factor in the decision was to move funding over to the F-22 project. That too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2010 8:58:16 PM EDT
[#31]
Lets not forget the RQ-170 sentinel, in service now:
  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2010 9:16:08 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: Quoted: You do know they had significant roles int he past 20 years right? The 117 retired soon as it wasnt very efficient but the B2 is still pounding enemies with impunity A lot of people don't know that the B2 can carry more than a B52. It is VERY MUCH still an aircraft with in demand capability-and fast enough/has sufficient duration to fly on station in Afghanistan and wait for a JDAM strike missions on call, anywhere in theater. The B52 isn't real good at that. The B-52 carries more ordinance. It's also better at being available for bombing missions. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2010 9:18:50 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You do know they had significant roles int he past 20 years right? The 117 retired soon as it wasnt very efficient but the B2 is still pounding enemies with impunity A lot of people don't know that the B2 can carry more than a B52. It is VERY MUCH still an aircraft with in demand capability-and fast enough/has sufficient duration to fly on station in Afghanistan and wait for a JDAM strike missions on call, anywhere in theater. The B52 isn't real good at that. The B-52 carries more ordinance. It's also better at being available for bombing missions. Not internally. The B-1 carries more than either, also all internal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2010 4:27:57 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
That is one fucking sexy plane!! I also love the me-262, something about em gets ya right down there. There's one in storage over at the National Air & Space Museum. I haven't heard of any plans for restoration yet though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Horton-GO229-front.jpg |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
