There goes a cool $1.4 Billion

[Gewehr98]

Yes, they do require it.  The Northrop YB-49 was forced to be aerodynamically stable, and had to be because there weren't fast, lightweight, airworthy computers.  That's why it had a couple small rudders at the aft end.  Same goes for the B-52 I retired from a couple years ago, it was a big stable platform created before the advent of computer flight controls.  Contrast that to the B-2, which couldn't fly without computer assistance, as it makes adjustments several times a second to keep the thing upright and pointing forward. 

As Manedwolf mentioned, you want a certain amount of instability in high-performance aircraft.  They maneuver better, and faster, while enabling the airframe to take on characteristics that something like a Piper Cub could never hope to do.  Our nickname for the F-117 was the "Wobbly Goblin", and if the flight computers gave out, you got out, right now.  Same goes for the B-2, because you can't react fast enough without the computers doing their thing.

[Gewehr98]

I'm thinking somebody should stick to arguing about airguns, because that was at least entertaining. 

The XB/YB-35 and YB-49 flying wings were designed to be aerodynamically stable, and they were just that. 

The F-16, F-117, and B-2 aren't, for many reasons to include low observability, maneuverability, making a brick actually fly, and so forth.

Don't believe me?  Just ask my fellow aeronautical engineering grads, or I'll be more than happy to ask my friends at Northrop-Grumman, Lockheed, Boeing, and so forth.  It's no big secret to most that those platforms are inherently unstable by design.

I'll give you a hint - aft CG ain't the only game in town...

[De Selby]

As I said before, they help greatly, but they are NOT required for flying wings to be flown.  Heck, at my old R/C field, there were several members that had radio controlled flying wings and one was a scale B-35.  Flew just fine with nothing beyond servo/pushrod controls.  No gyros, no computer stability...nothing.

Yep-I used to fold paper airplanes all the time with no rudder, no computer, and no pilot-they flew totally fine for like a minimum of 10 feet across the classroom, proving that flying wings require no stabilization. 

But that was kidstuff-I'm going to do a scientific wind tunnel test using a paper towel cardboard tube and an origami swan, but without the neck (so as to not have stabilization.)  I'll report back my findings once I find my mom's battery powered fan to provide wind for the test.   

Just kidding.

[Gewehr98]

You're arguing for the sake of argument.

You need to re-evaluate how you interact with others here at APS, quite seriously.

Putting words in other people's mouths ain't the way to do it, lack of tact and diplomacy notwithstanding.

Red the thread again. I never said computerized stability systems are required for a flying wing to be viable.

I said that aerodynamic stability is no longer required for high-performance aircraft since the F-16 demonstrated the concept, and in the case of the B-2 bomber (the subject of this particular thread) it's not applicable.  I stand by my words, that particular airframe is aerodynamically unstable, and designed to be so for valid reasons.

The XB-35 and YB-39 were brought into the thread for reasons unknown. They were stable platforms, and shared a flying-wing configuration with the B-2.  The latter is about the only thing they share.

 

[zahc]

I've personally seen RC modelers build and fly wings. I wondered if they were hand-flown or if they used helicopter gyros and microcontrollers for stability.

I've also seen modelers put motors and fins on pizza boxes and fly them.

[K Frame]

A flying wing can be made perfectly stable.

Or it can be made perfectly unstable.

It all depends on the design parameters.

Designing an inherently unstable aircraft (traditional or otherwise) that requires computers to keep it in the air can have some amazing advantages.

[Gewehr98]

Dtemplar, as a favor to you and your two weeks' worth of time on this forum, let's recap, shall we?

Lest we forget, this thread is about the B-2 Spirit that crashed, with the two-man crew ejecting mere seconds before it made a big burning hole in the ground.

By design, the B-2 requires computerized flight control augmentation to keep the pointy end forward and the bomb bay doors on the bottom side.

It's not a Piper Cub, it's not an Ercoupe, it's not a B-52H, nor is it a YB-47 prototype - all of which are/were aerodynamically stable. The injection of the XB-35 and YB-37 into the thread served a purpose of which I'm not sure.

My on-topic response was to the subject of the thread (B-2, hint, hint), stating that the airframe in question required the extra help of computers.  When those onboard stability computers go bye-bye, you pull the ejection seat handles, because you will have left controlled flight at that very moment. It doesn't get any simpler than that, really.

If you want to create an argument where none exists, I suggest you try a different thread or forum, because you're reading too much into this one.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for a little while longer, but between this thread and the airgun thread, some eyebrows are indeed being raised.   

 

[Manedwolf]

I have heard that flying wing design requires computer controls to maintain stability. 

I was simply responding to the mis-information posted above.  Note that it says flying wing and NOT B2 specific.  You act like I said the B2 doesn't need computers to fly, but I never did.  I, in fact, agreed with you on that one.

Pst.

There's a point at which you can concede, bow, and step back with your honor intact...

[mtnbkr]

That's enough of that.

Chris

[Ex-MA Hole]

Dtemplar, as a favor to you and your two weeks' worth of time on this forum, let's recap, shall we?

I suggest you try a different thread or forum, because you're reading too much into this one.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for a little while longer, but between this thread and the airgun thread, some eyebrows are indeed being raised.   

 

Dtemplar, if you have any interest, ANY interest at all, in staying in this forum much longer, you REALLY, REALLY need to heed the warnings that myself, some of the other moderators, and a fair amount of our members have offered.


This is your last warning.