by "Chariotoflove" (chariotoflove)
Published 09/12/2017 at 13:36
by "Chariotoflove" (chariotoflove)
Published 09/12/2017 at 13:36
Tags: pseudoplanelopnik
STARS: 4
Ttyymmnn’s post featuring the Northrop XP-79 reminded me of one of my all time favorite flying wings...one that never flew.
Like every other kid my age, Raiders of the Lost Ark was one of my favorite movies of all time. I always knew the German flying wing in the fight scene at Tanis wasn’t a real plane, but it’s interesting to note that it was probably inspired by real ones, most likely another Northrop concept, the N-1M.
Although the original movie prop decayed and was demolished, another, smaller version was built for a Disney display in Florida, but redesigned to hold people.
What’s interesting to me is the question of whether the film plane or its replica could ever have flown if it were built to do so. From an article on Flyingmag.com :
To the occasional bemused specialist, however, the question occurred: Could they have flown, and if so, which would have been the better design?
The two wings were broadly similar. Cribbed from real flying-wing designs, they were tapered and swept, as is usually done in the absence of an empennage, to allow not only roll but also pitch attitude to be controlled by what would be the ailerons of a conventional airplane.
The placement of the vertical fins atop the engine nacelles of the original version was structurally tricky but not impossible. However, it was aerodynamically senseless because, to the extent that the vertical surfaces were to have any stabilizing effect, they ought to have been as far aft as possible, and, therefore, to have been placed near the wingtips.
A more serious difficulty — and this is a challenge for any tailless design — was the position, rather far aft, of the engines themselves. Tailless airplanes have narrow CG ranges and require careful balance; placing the engines too far from the center of gravity makes balance impossible. The Northrop airplane solved the problem by burying its engines within the wings and driving the propellers through extension shafts.
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
09/12/2017 at 13:47, STARS: 2
Interesting analysis of the German wing. I guess I never even questioned whether or not it could fly. It was just cool-looking. Of course, there was this .
A more direct rip off of Northrop was the Hydra flying wing in Captain America. It’s brilliantly retro-futuristic.
"Chariotoflove" (chariotoflove)
09/12/2017 at 13:53, STARS: 1
That’s cool, too, although it’s jet powered and so has different things to deal with compared to a push-prop plane.
And why do the baddies seem to get the cool planes?
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
09/12/2017 at 14:01, STARS: 1
I don’t know. All the retro-future stuff in that movie was super cool.
No doubt inspired by this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Triebflügel
"Chariotoflove" (chariotoflove)
09/12/2017 at 14:03, STARS: 0
Yeah, I wanted one as soon as I saw it.
"user314" (user314)
09/12/2017 at 14:07, STARS: 2
Want !
Seriously, gib nao!
Also:
and:
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
09/12/2017 at 14:07, STARS: 3
Hey, check, this out. I dragged out one of my old WWII aviation books and there is a section at the very back dedicated to crazy aircraft that the Luftwaffe had in development at the end of the war.
One was the Blohm und Voss P.208. It never even got to mockup, but this is a model based on drawings. It’s got the cranked wing of the ROTLA airplane.
Then there’s this, the Focke-Wulf 1000 x 1000 x 1000 project. The hope was to create a bomber that could carry a 1,000-kilogram payload at 1,000 kmh (625 mph) for 1,000 km. Again, this is just a model, but it’s got some interesting similarities.
"Chariotoflove" (chariotoflove)
09/12/2017 at 14:11, STARS: 0
You just designed my formal wardrobe for all occasions.
"Chariotoflove" (chariotoflove)
09/12/2017 at 14:12, STARS: 1
Yes! The wing tips are the best replacement for a tail in this configuration because the offer more stability.
"user314" (user314)
09/12/2017 at 14:30, STARS: 1
I’m disappointed those aren’t actual Haynes books yet. I’d pay serious coin for the SDF-1/Macross book.
"Chariotoflove" (chariotoflove)
09/12/2017 at 14:31, STARS: 0
Yeah, you and a million others!
"TheRealBicycleBuck" (therealbicyclebuck)
09/12/2017 at 14:41, STARS: 1
A friend of mine built an r/c flying wing and I flew it exactly once. The lack of vertical surfaces made it very difficult to execute a smooth gentle turn. Once it was banked into the turn, it wanted to yaw and point its nose skyward. Split ailerons (spoilerons) like on the B-2 can replace the function of the rudder and can be used to solve this problem, but add a level of complexity to a model. Anyway, the solution was to utilize more “turn-and-burn” - roll the wing, then yank the elevator - to execute a turn. Less realistic, more exciting.
Anyway, there is a company making an r/c version of this plane. Apparently, it flies!
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
"Chariotoflove" (chariotoflove)
09/12/2017 at 14:53, STARS: 0
That is fantastic! Now we know!
"facw" (facw)
09/12/2017 at 15:35, STARS: 0
What do you think of this?
The captions I’ve found with it identify it as an Ho 229, but it looks considerably different from the designs I’ve seen (and possibly has pusher props?). Certainly lacks the grace of the final product and the Horton gliders.
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
09/12/2017 at 16:27, STARS: 0
I saw that earlier, and I’m not convinced it’s a real photo.
"facw" (facw)
09/12/2017 at 16:41, STARS: 0
There is something that seems not right about it. I found some other places that call it a Horten H. VII (Ho 254) which looks more right:
Not much info about it either though. Also found this pic which again seems to normally be listed as a 229 but is similar to the above:
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
09/12/2017 at 17:00, STARS: 0
My knowledge of this area is quite thin. I’d have to do some digging. But in the little bit of Googling I’ve done it seems that there is indeed some inconsistency in the nomenclature.
"Brian McKay" (brianmckay)
09/12/2017 at 21:02, STARS: 1
“pitch ... controlled by ... ailerons of a conventional airplane”
?!?!?!? I don’t think so, Flyingmag.com
(elevators and canards)