From: rmt@pioneer.net.com (Richard Tweedie)
Subject: Re: Flying Wing Stability
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:13:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.235337.26618@ryn.mro4.dec.com> pierson@empror.enet.dec.com (dave pierson) writes:
>In article <1713@tdat.teradata.COM>, wbj@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com (William Jones)
>writes, in part:
>
>>A coworker recently visited the facility here in Southern Cal where one of the
>>prototypes of the Northrup Flying Wing Aircraft is being restored. His tour
>>guide remarked that the Flying Wing was a very easy aircraft to fly, and that
>>it was very stable.
>
>>This doesn't jive with what I've read about the Flying Wing. I've read that the
>>thing was highly unstable and difficult to fly.
>	I am a bit of a 'wing fancier & have most of the rerprinted stuff
>	available.  My reading is that it was roughly as stable as anything
>	else, with some lateral instability.
>
>>In fact it was this instability that lead to the death of the Colonel Edwards
>>who's the namesake of Edwards AFB,
>	Can't copmment (from memory).  It was, however different to fly.  That
>	has killed many pilots of developmental a/c.  It is worthwhile noting
>	that the YB49 (etc) were the end products of 20 years of development,
>	with a number of flying protos over that period.
>
>>and eventually contributed to the cancellation of the program.
>	This was one reason given, especially the lateral instability.  However,
>	Jack Northrup (and others) maintained that Northrup got caught in a
>	political power play, with "powerful influences" demanding that the a/c
>	be built in the home state of a particular senator.  Jack refused,
>	feeling he owed it to the people of his area to get them the jobs.  The
>	program was ended soon after that.
>
>>What's the real story on the Flying Wing's airworthyness?
>	Without restoring one to flight status, we will never have, i suspect, a
>	"real" answer.  In general, i do not believe in conspiracy theories.
>	This one, tho, seems to have some fact to it.
>
>	Many of the prop version and many of the jet version were built and
>	flown, many hours.  That relativley few crashed indicates that they were
>	flyable.
>
>thanks
>dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,

I have personally seen both YB-35's and YB-49's fly (usually accompanied
by P-80's).  WHile I was young at the time, planes were my all consuming
interest, and I avidly watched anything that flew over.  The large
flying wings were the most impressive--incredible maneuverability
(they could turn on the proverbial dime) and did not appear unstable
to me.  The YB-49 did have some lateral instability according to 
Ted Coleman's book on the subject (he was Vice president of Northrop).

I did have the chance to talk to Ted Coleman about this while getting
some information about his later company's (Coleman Engineering)
involvement in project SMART (for a book My wife wants to write).  He
indicated that there was simply no comparison between the B-36 and the
B-49--the 49's performance was amazing for the time and it initally
won the order.  THere was a conspiracy apparently in this case,
AND THE 49's WERE ORDERED immediately destroyed!!!  Every one of them
(about a dozen if memory serves).  The Air force came to the Northrop
factory and smashed and axed them in hours.  The prototype was hidden
in a vineyard--when word of that got back, it was ordered destroyd
as well.  Very wierd, but Colemans veracity was certainly proved in
all the other subjects we discussed, and backed up by others I talked
to that were involved.  Strongly suggest reading his book.

Rich Tweedie