Talk:Flying wing

message: This article at present misses another factor in the design of a stable flying wing. With a normal aerofoil, as the angle of attack increases, the centre of pressure moves forward, which further rotates the wing to a higher angle of attack, and so on - a runaway effect that causes the wing to rotate backwards unless counteracted with the tail surfaces. On a flying wing, this effect must be reversed for stability, and this is achieved by using a "reflex" aerofoil section where the CP moves backwards with increasing angle of attack (This is table because this movement drops the wing reducing the angle of attack - so it will fly stably in equilibrium). A reflex section starts off like a normal aerofoil at the front, but is curved upwards towards the rear, so that the trailing part off the upper surface is concave rather than the conventional convex. This can be seen in the photograph of the B-35 at the wingtip. I think this needs to be worked into the article, which presently suggests that stability is achieved solely using sweepback, which isn't the whole story. Graham 00:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion really belongs in the tailless aircraft article, with just a brief summary and pointer here. Also, FWIW sweepback combined with tip washout is an alternative way to achieve stability. -- Steelpillow (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stability and centre of pressure 

message: Modern digital flight control systems enable flying wing designers to move the the GC aft of the AC. While statically unstable, the digital flight control system constantly produces correction movements in all control surfaces to keep the flying wing in level flight.
This is significant because both the B-2 and future flying wings (as well as blended wing bodies) are or are going to be digitally controlled. B-2 is statically unstable.
Please also note that stabilization of a flying wing does more than just providing trim in pitch. The lack of conventional tails makes flying wings exceedingly complicated to deal with things like adverse yaw. In fact, to properly roll a flying wing all pitch, yaw and roll controls are deployed. This will be hard especially without digital flight controls. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benhongh (talk • contribs) 09:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About use of digital flight control system on flying wings. 

message: The Dunne aircraft mentioned and illustrated on this page is surely not a flying wing, but a tailless aircraft type. It has a very evident fuselage containing the aeronaut/s and engine. -- Steelpillow 18:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise the Waldo Whatsit. I wonder how many more examples like this are to be found on this page. They need moving to the tailless aircraft page, and better examples here to replace them. Either that, or somebody needs to drum up some respectable references to establish the usage of "flying wing" to mean any tailless design (like I had to do for "tailless"). -- Steelpillow 13:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -- Steelpillow 18:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tailless types are not necessarily Flying Wings 

message: - BillCJ (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. I guess the nominator forgot to check back, but I missed the nomination myself, so Oh well! I will close and merge as no contest/redundant article. - BillCJ (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging [[Flying Wing]] article 

message: Does anyone know if there was testing done with flying wings at the Salina, KS airport? A few years ago I could have sworn I saw a flying wing flying over by the airport. It was in the middle of a turn. When it flattened out, I couldn't see it any longer.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.253.212 (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salina, KS testing 

message: I find it curious that Dr. C.L. Snyder, a podiatrist from South Bend, Indiana, is not mentioned anywhere in the history given here (nor anywhere else on Wikipedia, for that matter). He was an early pioneer of flying wing aircraft with several successful prototypes throughout the mid 1930s. His most notable models were named Arup S2 and Arup S4, colloquially known as "the flying heel lifts."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.136.80 (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is entirely based upon reliable sources. Do you have any for him? - Ahunt (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Flying Wing Aircraft 

message: I thought it worth keeping the paragraph recently posted and deleted on this article, as a basis for something worth saying.
Here it is with a bit of copyediting:
:The flying wing concept is popular for flying models such as radio-controlled airplanes.  In many cases, the planes are made of EPP foam which results in a plane that is fun to fly and almost indestructible (especially if any motor is mounted at the rear in pusher configuration, where it is protected from most impacts).
I'd suggest it needs a bit more about the aerodynamics - are these flat-plate section with large upturned elevators, or proper airfoils with some other feature (e.g. negative camber or sweepback+washout) for stability?
And a reference or two to some good model flying hobby books or similar are needed to.
— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The concept of adding information about model aircraft use of flying wings is good. In this case though it was just unsourced opinion ("fun to fly"). It needs to be written properly and referenced. - Ahunt (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Model aircraft 

message: The following IP edit to the section on Yaw control got quickly reverted (not by me) because it is unreferenced:
:"The other solution is differential twist, coupled with swept back wing planforms and the correct airfoil selection which provides "proverse" yaw control. Prandtl, Pankonin and others discoverd this and it was a fundimental design concept in the Horten Bros. flying wings in the 30's and 40's. The Hortens described it as a "Bell Shaped Lift Distribution" which accurately describes how lift is produced across the span of the wing, more lift in the centersection, less at the wing tips from the twist (wash out) built into the wing structure. The aircraft becomes stable in yaw with out the use of drag producing devices at the wing tips because of the slightly forward lift vector of the trailing wing when displaced, this vector esentally "pulls" the trailing wing forward by the lift vector going more forward which centers the aircraft along it's flight path. This concept is not well understood even today but radio controlled tailless sailplane models in recient years have used this to good effect with out the use of yaw gyro's or drag rudders."
I would not be surprised if it were essentially correct, but it obviously needs some tidying as well as referencing. So I am copying it here in case anybody can provide the missing knowledge. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that at least some of it is likely correct, but much of it reads like someone's opinion, which is why I removed it. It needs a ref to be added back into the article and then some severe fixing, too. - Ahunt (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Found a reasonable ref, so restored with heavy copyedit - to the section on stability. Hope it's good enough now. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yaw control 

message: The caption of the first XB-35 photo calls it a "heavy bomber."  This is not true.  The bomb load it was able to carry classified it as a medium bomber.  I'll let someone else do the heavy lifting to find  a citation, if they care--I certainly don't--but the fact that it was only a medium bomber was one of the main reasons the XB-35/YB-49 lost out to the B-36, which was a true heavy bomber.173.62.11.254 (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I just removed the unnecessary detail. I edited out a few other wobbles from the captions while I was fixing it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medium bomber, not heavy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Flying wing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040803121919/http://members.cox.net/rebid/bldwing.htm to http://members.cox.net/rebid/bldwing.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: . 188.57.95.29 (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I have given it a trim. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avro vulcan is not flying wing!! 

message: I don't know if this is appropriate for the  article, but in the novel Blue Gold by Clive Cussler, the flying wing plays a critical role. Kdammers (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Popular culture items go at Aircraft in fiction, but it needs to a be a specific aircraft type, not just a general concept like "a flying wing". - Ahunt (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Depending on the status of the particular design and work of fiction, the list of fictional aircraft might be more appropriate. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: In popular culture