|
|
|
#21
09-29-2009, 12:14 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
One of the problems I heard about this, and the YB-49, was the big problem of getting into a stall and not being able to recover from it. That's what caused a crash of a YB-49. That crash happens to be how Edwards AFB, got it's name.
|
|
#22
09-29-2009, 04:34 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
There are a number of design projects active currently for the eventual replacement of the current airliner fleet with flying wings. The lower fuel consumption and noise footprint of the flying wings make this configuration very attractive. Regards, Charlie
|
|
#24
09-29-2009, 05:24 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
One of the other reasons given for it's cancellation was the lack of one large bomb bay suitable for the atomic bombs of the day. The XB35 and 49 both had a number of small bomb bays spread across the wing.
Ironic given that the B-52 which did have a big bomb bay ended up carrying massive conventional loads on wing racks anyway. When the AMT kit came out there was a long running thread on rec.models.scale with a 'what-if' operational history up though Desert Storm. I sold an AMT kit on eBay about a year and a half ago - went for over $150 so it wasn't that complete a flop as a kit in the long run.
__________________
I'm not making it up as I go along, I'm establishing precedent
|
|
#25
09-29-2009, 06:40 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
^^ Funnily enough, wasn't that about the time Italeri reissued that kit for about half that? Which also, IMO, indicates it wasn't a flop really. I saw one at a model show a few months ago for about $30. Wish I had picked it up...
|
| Google Adsense |
|
#26
09-29-2009, 07:25 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I was curious enough to do some digging.....
The Horten flying wings had some lateral instability but this was not enough to cause control issues. There is a story around of a simulated combat between a Me262 and one of the Ho229 prototypes - the Horten was more manouverable than the Me. The Lippisch designs were part way to a flying wing - the Me163 flew so well it wouldn't stall. Perhaps the German flying wing designs were aerodynamically superior to Northrup's mostly because the German designers had access to more resources. I get the impression that the Northrup company was a fairly small organisation - it's probably amazing they managed to get the XB-35/YB-49 into the air given their resources. Regards, Charlie
|
|
#27
09-29-2009, 07:59 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Ryan
__________________
Certified Flight Instructor in Dallas, TX Websites: www.doolittleraid.com & www.lbirds.com Papermodels at: www.scribd.com/TexasTailwheel.com
|
|
#28
09-29-2009, 10:04 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think we may be talking about two different things - I agree all airfoils will "stall" (flow separation) at a high enough angle of attack and low enough forward speed. The comment on the Me163 was from Rudy Opitz who noted that the classic stall behaviour - shaking followed by wing drop and spin entry was absent in the Me 163. All that happened in the 163 was that the aircraft would mush, the nose drop and normal flight would resume. Opitz noted that the Me 163 still had control authority even into the mush zone - I'd guess that was an effect of the leading edge slots. I've also read somewhere (can't remember where) that the good behaviour of the Me163 was only maintained with the CG fairly far forward - if the the CG was too far aft the stall behaviour was quite vicious
Regards, Charlie
|
|
#29
09-30-2009, 07:55 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Love this sort of historical discussion, one of my favorite things about this forum!
Work has been slow, for the reasons mentioned in the KB-50 thread. I think I know what to do with the engines now, so I'll try and have an update by the end of the week.
|
|
#30
10-07-2009, 10:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
xb-35
Hello,
Any chance to "add" a xb-49? :-) Goncalo Mendes
|
| Google Adsense |
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
