Talk:List of flying wings

DarkStar

IMHO, DarkStar does not count as it has a distinct fuselage, which is scarcely blended. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 01:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

True flying wings

Somebody found this in the Dictionary of Aeronautical Terms, and we have accepted it for the main flying wing article:

“ Flying wing. A type of heavier-than-air aircraft that has no fuselage or separate tail surfaces. The engines and useful load are carried inside the wing, and movable control surfaces on the trailing edge provide both pitch and roll control. (Crane, Dale: Dictionary of Aeronautical Terms, third edition, page 224. Aviation Supplies & Academics, 1997. ISBN 1-56027-287-2) ”

Clearly, several of the types currently listed as such are not true flying wings, mostly because they carry stuff outside a thin wing. These entries should be moved to a list of tailless aircraft, or deleted. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi SP - "Somebody" would be me ;) I agree with what you have said here - if they don't fit the definition they shoul be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm never very bright when I'm on the tablets. :( -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No sweat at all, that is why I put the smiley face!! - Ahunt (talk) 11:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Some comments on Steelpillows recent removals of my changes...

1. The Facetmobile is a lifting body and not a flying wing by any definition and so needs be removed. It isn't "Borderline" at all.

   The article on the facetmobile currently treats it as a marginal case and compares it to other low-aspect-ratio delta wing homebuilds. If it can be verifiably sourced that it is past the lifting-body side of the borderline zone, then let's see the article updated first. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hard to claim status as flying wing when there isn't even a wing. The statement that made that ridiculous claim is referenced to the designer's web page - which makes no such claim, instead saying it is a lifting body. It is not Wikipedia policy to require pages to be correct before correct information can be added elsewhere, however I have fixed it (for now - I have no doubt the lack of knowledge of the subject that was behind the mangled claim there will result in a fight)

1. The Switchblade isn't a flying wing either, it is a wing with a fuselage/engine pod hung underneath it that carries stuff. It relies on much of the mass being external to the wing to even fly, and payloads are intended to go in the pod, not the wing.

   The Switchblade concept is of a flying wing, see for example Flight[1], and I'd say that earns it a place in this list. The prototype was perhaps a marginal case (What is the difference between a large central engine nacelle and a fuselage?), but in any case we have to put verifiability above truth and roll with the sources. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Your link isn't for the switchblade itself, but for the planned operational variant, which doesn't show any external pod (good luck getting it to fly). If it stays, then all the others should stay as well. The tech demonstrator has more of a fuselage than most of the ones that were just removed.

1. The DINFIA IA 38 on the other hand is a flying wing, as the center section has an airfoil section that generates a significant amount of lift and thus is more wing than fuselage (albeit of greater thickness and chord). It is also referred to widely as a flying wing.

   It is a myth that an aerofoil section makes the centre a "wing". The Westland Dreadnought and McDonnell XP-67 "Bat" both had aerofoil profiles throughout but neither has ever been classed as a flying wing. The IA 38 is in principle no different from these. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC) [Update 18:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)]: This is one reason we require our sources to be reliable'. Finding a WP:RS on this aircraft might prove a challenge - Google Search is barfing on me. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Bad examples, both - both the Dreadnaught and XP-67 were blended wing aircraft, with conventional full sized fuselages complete with tails extending past the wings. I've never seen any source suggest either was a flying wing. The IA 38 does not have an attached tail, and it is very close to having a normal airfoil section, and its breadth gives it substantial lifting power. From Nurflugel, by Hans Peter Dabrowski (Waffen Arsenal Publication), ASIN: B002JI8V66 p.42 (sorry it is in German but it is still WP:RS) the caption for said aircraft says: "Sechsmotoriges Nurfluegel-Transportflugzeuge Horten I.Ae.38, Argentinien 1958." which google translates as: Six-engined flying wing transport aircraft Horten I.Ae.38, Argentina in 1958. (bold mine) Nearly every hit on google for this aircraft calls it a flying wing.

1. The Baynes Bat lacks any sort of identifiable fuselage so not sure why you removed it.

   There is a large nacelle protruding above, below and in front of the wing. and in this photo you can see it extending behind the upper surface, too. That makes it a fuselage. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

2. The single seat version of the I.Ae. 34 Clen Antú lacks a true fuselage, the canopy being blended into the rudder (the two seat, illustrated on the wiki page has a fuselage though), furthermore, it was also known as the Horten XV, which is still listed, despite that being the unofficial name used by the designer. In fact the Armstrong Whitworth has more of a fuselage than even the two seat but it is still there.
3. I missed the I.Ae. 41 Urubú, another Argentine flying wing with a similar blended canopy/fin/rudder, sometimes known as the Horten XVc.
4. Also found the "BAHR flying wing" online - looks like a German 1950s homebuilt.

NiD.29 (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

1. I'll check these last three out in slower time, however to me they all have identifiable fuselages: I don't believe it needs to extend both forward and behind the wing in order to be a fuselage. We'll have to track down a photo or scale drawing of the single-seat I.Ae. 34 — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Dale Crane who? The Cambridge Aerospace Dictionary by Bill Gunston defines a flying wing as "Aeroplane consisting almost solely of wing, reflecting idealised concept of pure aerodynamic body providing lift but virtually devoid of drag-producing excrescences."

Not that its completely lacks a nacelle, engines pods etc, only that they are much reduced.NiD.29 (talk) 07:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, the joys of automatic list numbering. Facetmobile: The designer's own puff is not always reliable, but I know of no other source. Your flat assertion that it is not a wing appears to be based on the flat assertion that it is not a wing. I don't care enough about this toy plane to argue such logic.

Switchblade: OK, the concept is just the oblique wing and "switchblade" a monicker used for different geometries. I still think the demonstrator is a marginal case, but I'll accept your view if it helps.

DINFIA IA 38: Blended wing-body and tail planes are irrelevant. The lockheed SR-71 was a BWB but it did not have an airfoil profile throughout, or a tail plane. Google hits do not make a source reliable: every tailless type with a small fuselage gets called a flying wing by somebody. My comment stands.

Sorry, is that Dale Crane reference sarcastic? It does not contain enough detail for me to know what you are getting at. As for Gunston's definition, it's good enough for me. I'd say that the IA 38 very visibly falls on the fuselage side of it, no doubt you disagree.

Will be too busy for a while to follow up the others, but will try to find time. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not going by designers puff - aerodynamically the Facetmobile is a lifting body in that most of the lift is derived from the flat undersurface rather than the faceted top, whose corners are actually pretty good at destroying any chance they would generate lift in the same manner a normal airfoil sectioned wing would.

Again, no-one has ever suggested the SR-71 was a flying wing - the fuselage is again full sized, not sure why you feel the need to keep using straw man arguments.

It isn't that the Switchblade is a marginal case (I don't think it is), it is that you'll accept the switchblade, and the Armstrong Whitworth, but not others that are similar.

Anyone can write a dictionary, and I have had experience before with someone using a reference that it was almost impossible to find to support an unusual stance (ie claiming pusher configuration meant the engine was behind the c of g, regardless of the direction it pointed - after a lot of back and forth, and tracking down a scan of a hand-typed manuscript, was reduced to "some definitions no longer apply" because they persisted in misunderstanding what they read, and the original quote was taken out of context, completely changing its meaning. It is almost impossible to check that that quote is complete and accurate. Gunston's book, in contrast is available online, and he is a very well known aviation author with many hundreds of books to his credit (and a knighthood for his aviation writings). Mr Crane in comparison writes textbooks, which like the pusher reference, may not be a full definition, but one suitable for the courses requirements. Normal usage for "Flying wing" is an aircraft lacking a horizontal tail, and whose fuselage is truncated, being mostly wing, not one without a fuselage at all, thus aircraft like the GAL.56 and Baynes Bat are listed as flying wings in most references.NiD.29 (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

On the switchblade I write, "I'll accept your view if it helps". You then lay into me. Is this a discussion or a bitch fight? I'm out of here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, misunderstood what you were saying.NiD.29 (talk) 05:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)