Homebuilt Question

[[email protected]]

I'm wonder how this would play
out:

a. Person designs a unique plane,
one of a kind, no other ones to
compare it to.

b. It is a single-seater.

c. It has unique control surfaces,
and only someone "trained" can
fly it.

d. Gear is retractable.

e. Propulsion is "rather mysterious".

Now, how would this plane be certified?
No one else can fly it. Much of the
technology is sealed beneath carbon
fiber. No one knows how fast it goes.
It is homebuilt. Builder is willing to
concede that it isn't lightsport.

Thanks.

--
Mark

[Mark IV[_6_]]

On Jan 1, 9:49*am, wrote:
> I'm wonder how this would play
> out:
>
> a. Person designs a unique plane,
> * *one of a kind, no other ones to
> * *compare it to.
>
> b. It is a single-seater.
>
> c. It has unique control surfaces,
> * *and only someone "trained" can
> * *fly it.
>
> d. Gear is retractable.
>
> e. Propulsion is "rather mysterious".
>
> Now, how would this plane be certified?
> No one else can fly it. *Much of the
> technology is sealed beneath carbon
> fiber. *No one knows how fast it goes.
> It is homebuilt. *Builder is willing to
> concede that it isn't lightsport.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Mark

It looks kinda like this, except no pusher prop,
or winglets. It has 11 control surfaces.

http://www.electravia.fr/Eclub/ECnoirA.jpg

How do I certify it?

---
Mark

[Vaughn]

On 1/1/2013 11:37 AM, Mark IV wrote:
> How do I certify it?

Assuming you are in the USA, you certify it the same way you certify any
homebuilt airplane.

As always, Google is your friend in any search for knowledge. In this
particular case however, you might want to start with the EAA.

http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/registering/index.html

or at least: eaa.org/

Vaughn

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
wrote:

> I'm wonder how this would play
> out:
>
> a. Person designs a unique plane,
> one of a kind, no other ones to
> compare it to.
>
> b. It is a single-seater.
>
> c. It has unique control surfaces,
> and only someone "trained" can
> fly it.
>
> d. Gear is retractable.
>
> e. Propulsion is "rather mysterious".
>
> Now, how would this plane be certified?
> No one else can fly it. Much of the
> technology is sealed beneath carbon
> fiber. No one knows how fast it goes.
> It is homebuilt. Builder is willing to
> concede that it isn't lightsport.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Mark

"Experimental - Amateur Built."

[Ron Wanttaja[_2_]]

The answer is simple: It is an Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft. It
does not have to meet any certification standards. It only has to have
the required markings and the record-keeping to show that it was built
for "education or recreation". The unusual control system is moot, as
is the fact that it takes special training to learn to fly it. The FAA
doesn't care, for an Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft.

What MIGHT happen, though, is the FAA might assign a more-limited test
area, and require longer than the traditional 40 hour test period before
the plane can be flown outside the area.

Ron Wanttaja

On 1/1/2013 6:49 AM, wrote:
> I'm wonder how this would play
> out:
>
> a. Person designs a unique plane,
> one of a kind, no other ones to
> compare it to.
>
> b. It is a single-seater.
>
> c. It has unique control surfaces,
> and only someone "trained" can
> fly it.
>
> d. Gear is retractable.
>
> e. Propulsion is "rather mysterious".
>
> Now, how would this plane be certified?
> No one else can fly it. Much of the
> technology is sealed beneath carbon
> fiber. No one knows how fast it goes.
> It is homebuilt. Builder is willing to
> concede that it isn't lightsport.

[Mark IV[_6_]]

On Jan 1, 5:20*pm, Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
> The answer is simple: *It is an Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft. *It
> does not have to meet any certification standards. *It only has to have
> the required markings and the record-keeping to show that it was built
> for "education or recreation". *The unusual control system is moot, as
> is the fact that it takes special training to learn to fly it. *The FAA
> doesn't care, for an Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft.
>
> What MIGHT happen, though, is the FAA might assign a more-limited test
> area, and require longer than the traditional 40 hour test period before
> the plane can be flown outside the area.
>
> Ron Wanttaja
>
> On 1/1/2013 6:49 AM, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I'm wonder how this would play
> > out:
>
> > a. Person designs a unique plane,
> > * * one of a kind, no other ones to
> > * * compare it to.
>
> > b. It is a single-seater.
>
> > c. It has unique control surfaces,
> > * * and only someone "trained" can
> > * * fly it.
>
> > d. Gear is retractable.
>
> > e. Propulsion is "rather mysterious".
>
> > Now, how would this plane be certified?
> > No one else can fly it. *Much of the
> > technology is sealed beneath carbon
> > fiber. *No one knows how fast it goes.
> > It is homebuilt. *Builder is willing to
> > concede that it isn't lightsport.

Thank you all for your input, as amateur-built
is new to me. Interesting note: Shortly after
posting my question I ran into a very nice fellow
(Joe) who was wearing a "Reno Air Races" ball
cap and we struck up a conversation. It wasn't
long before he was pulling photos out of his
wallet of the planes he built over the years, including
entries for Reno. His specialty now is Zenair STOL's.

Anyway, Joe's dad (who is in his 90's) has
served in some capacity with Flight Certification
over the years and much information was shared
with me. Seems the main thing is, they will need
entry ports of observation to check for safety wires,
and other such basic requirements. The time will
have to be flown off the plane, and technically,
being experimental, it isn't supposed to be flown
over population centers.

So... you all are right.

Thanks.

---
Mark

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article
>,
Mark IV > wrote:

> On Jan 1, 5:20*pm, Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
> > The answer is simple: *It is an Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft. *It
> > does not have to meet any certification standards. *It only has to have
> > the required markings and the record-keeping to show that it was built
> > for "education or recreation". *The unusual control system is moot, as
> > is the fact that it takes special training to learn to fly it. *The FAA
> > doesn't care, for an Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft.
> >
> > What MIGHT happen, though, is the FAA might assign a more-limited test
> > area, and require longer than the traditional 40 hour test period before
> > the plane can be flown outside the area.
> >
> > Ron Wanttaja
> >
> > On 1/1/2013 6:49 AM, wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > I'm wonder how this would play
> > > out:
> >
> > > a. Person designs a unique plane,
> > > * * one of a kind, no other ones to
> > > * * compare it to.
> >
> > > b. It is a single-seater.
> >
> > > c. It has unique control surfaces,
> > > * * and only someone "trained" can
> > > * * fly it.
> >
> > > d. Gear is retractable.
> >
> > > e. Propulsion is "rather mysterious".
> >
> > > Now, how would this plane be certified?
> > > No one else can fly it. *Much of the
> > > technology is sealed beneath carbon
> > > fiber. *No one knows how fast it goes.
> > > It is homebuilt. *Builder is willing to
> > > concede that it isn't lightsport.
>
> Thank you all for your input, as amateur-built
> is new to me. Interesting note: Shortly after
> posting my question I ran into a very nice fellow
> (Joe) who was wearing a "Reno Air Races" ball
> cap and we struck up a conversation. It wasn't
> long before he was pulling photos out of his
> wallet of the planes he built over the years, including
> entries for Reno. His specialty now is Zenair STOL's.
>
> Anyway, Joe's dad (who is in his 90's) has
> served in some capacity with Flight Certification
> over the years and much information was shared
> with me. Seems the main thing is, they will need
> entry ports of observation to check for safety wires,
> and other such basic requirements. The time will
> have to be flown off the plane, and technically,
> being experimental, it isn't supposed to be flown
> over population centers.
>
> So... you all are right.
>
> Thanks.
>
> ---
> Mark

My question:

Why does it have to have a unique, nonstandard control system that
nobody else can fly without special training?

It seem to me that it violates a very important principle that has cost
dearly -- namely the KISS Principle, or: Keep It Simple, Stupid!

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, January 1, 2013 10:34:24 PM UTC-5, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article
>
> >,
>
> Mark IV > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 1, 5:20*pm, Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
>
> > > The answer is simple: *It is an Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft.. *It
>
> > > does not have to meet any certification standards. *It only has to have
>
> > > the required markings and the record-keeping to show that it was built
>
> > > for "education or recreation". *The unusual control system is moot, as
>
> > > is the fact that it takes special training to learn to fly it. *The FAA
>
> > > doesn't care, for an Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft.
>
> > >
>
> > > What MIGHT happen, though, is the FAA might assign a more-limited test
>
> > > area, and require longer than the traditional 40 hour test period before
>
> > > the plane can be flown outside the area.
>
> > >
>
> > > Ron Wanttaja
>
> > >
>
> > > On 1/1/2013 6:49 AM, wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > I'm wonder how this would play
>
> > > > out:
>
> > >
>
> > > > a. Person designs a unique plane,
>
> > > > * * one of a kind, no other ones to
>
> > > > * * compare it to.
>
> > >
>
> > > > b. It is a single-seater.
>
> > >
>
> > > > c. It has unique control surfaces,
>
> > > > * * and only someone "trained" can
>
> > > > * * fly it.
>
> > >
>
> > > > d. Gear is retractable.
>
> > >
>
> > > > e. Propulsion is "rather mysterious".
>
> > >
>
> > > > Now, how would this plane be certified?
>
> > > > No one else can fly it. *Much of the
>
> > > > technology is sealed beneath carbon
>
> > > > fiber. *No one knows how fast it goes.
>
> > > > It is homebuilt. *Builder is willing to
>
> > > > concede that it isn't lightsport.
>
> >
>
> > Thank you all for your input, as amateur-built
>
> > is new to me. Interesting note: Shortly after
>
> > posting my question I ran into a very nice fellow
>
> > (Joe) who was wearing a "Reno Air Races" ball
>
> > cap and we struck up a conversation. It wasn't
>
> > long before he was pulling photos out of his
>
> > wallet of the planes he built over the years, including
>
> > entries for Reno. His specialty now is Zenair STOL's.
>
> >
>
> > Anyway, Joe's dad (who is in his 90's) has
>
> > served in some capacity with Flight Certification
>
> > over the years and much information was shared
>
> > with me. Seems the main thing is, they will need
>
> > entry ports of observation to check for safety wires,
>
> > and other such basic requirements. The time will
>
> > have to be flown off the plane, and technically,
>
> > being experimental, it isn't supposed to be flown
>
> > over population centers.
>
> >
>
> > So... you all are right.
>
> >
>
> > Thanks.
>
> >
>
> > ---
>
> > Mark
>
>
>
> My question:
>
>
>
> Why does it have to have a unique, nonstandard control system that
>
> nobody else can fly without special training?
>
>
>
> It seem to me that it violates a very important principle that has cost
>
> dearly -- namely the KISS Principle, or: Keep It Simple, Stupid!

It's a little complicated, and goes all
the way back to the Horton Brothers, and
Mr. Northrop. Coming forward in time, look
at why Andrews Air Force base is named after
Mr. Andrews, and finally... we see why the
greatest airplane flying today, the B-2 Spirit,
as well as the X47B and others like it depend
on a "fly-by-wire" system directed with
software from the Moog corporation.

To maintain yaw and pitch authority within
limited moments at high g's.

---
Mark

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
wrote:

> On Tuesday, January 1, 2013 10:34:24 PM UTC-5, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> > In article
> >
> > >,
> >
> > Mark IV > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jan 1, 5:20*pm, Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
> >
> > > > The answer is simple: *It is an Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft. *It
> >
> > > > does not have to meet any certification standards. *It only has to have
> >
> > > > the required markings and the record-keeping to show that it was built
> >
> > > > for "education or recreation". *The unusual control system is moot, as
> >
> > > > is the fact that it takes special training to learn to fly it. *The FAA
> >
> > > > doesn't care, for an Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > What MIGHT happen, though, is the FAA might assign a more-limited test
> >
> > > > area, and require longer than the traditional 40 hour test period before
> >
> > > > the plane can be flown outside the area.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > Ron Wanttaja
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > On 1/1/2013 6:49 AM, wrote:
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > I'm wonder how this would play
> >
> > > > > out:
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > a. Person designs a unique plane,
> >
> > > > > * * one of a kind, no other ones to
> >
> > > > > * * compare it to.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > b. It is a single-seater.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > c. It has unique control surfaces,
> >
> > > > > * * and only someone "trained" can
> >
> > > > > * * fly it.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > d. Gear is retractable.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > e. Propulsion is "rather mysterious".
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > Now, how would this plane be certified?
> >
> > > > > No one else can fly it. *Much of the
> >
> > > > > technology is sealed beneath carbon
> >
> > > > > fiber. *No one knows how fast it goes.
> >
> > > > > It is homebuilt. *Builder is willing to
> >
> > > > > concede that it isn't lightsport.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Thank you all for your input, as amateur-built
> >
> > > is new to me. Interesting note: Shortly after
> >
> > > posting my question I ran into a very nice fellow
> >
> > > (Joe) who was wearing a "Reno Air Races" ball
> >
> > > cap and we struck up a conversation. It wasn't
> >
> > > long before he was pulling photos out of his
> >
> > > wallet of the planes he built over the years, including
> >
> > > entries for Reno. His specialty now is Zenair STOL's.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Anyway, Joe's dad (who is in his 90's) has
> >
> > > served in some capacity with Flight Certification
> >
> > > over the years and much information was shared
> >
> > > with me. Seems the main thing is, they will need
> >
> > > entry ports of observation to check for safety wires,
> >
> > > and other such basic requirements. The time will
> >
> > > have to be flown off the plane, and technically,
> >
> > > being experimental, it isn't supposed to be flown
> >
> > > over population centers.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > So... you all are right.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Thanks.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > ---
> >
> > > Mark
> >
> >
> >
> > My question:
> >
> >
> >
> > Why does it have to have a unique, nonstandard control system that
> >
> > nobody else can fly without special training?
> >
> >
> >
> > It seem to me that it violates a very important principle that has cost
> >
> > dearly -- namely the KISS Principle, or: Keep It Simple, Stupid!
>
> It's a little complicated, and goes all
> the way back to the Horton Brothers, and
> Mr. Northrop. Coming forward in time, look
> at why Andrews Air Force base is named after
> Mr. Andrews, and finally... we see why the
> greatest airplane flying today, the B-2 Spirit,
> as well as the X47B and others like it depend
> on a "fly-by-wire" system directed with
> software from the Moog corporation.
>
> To maintain yaw and pitch authority within
> limited moments at high g's.
>
> ---
> Mark

It is Edwards AFB, named after Maj. Glen Edwards, who was kille in a
crash of the YB-49, not Andrews AFB.

If you have a FBW system, it is best to set up the manual controls so
that they emulate standard control systems -- a-la F-16, rather than
introduce a lot of specialty controls that you have to learn, and which
can get you into trouble in high workload situations.

The above-cited aircraft have controls which resemble standard controls
and respond in a similar fashion.

[[email protected]]

wrote:

> It's a little complicated, and goes all
> the way back to the Horton Brothers, and
> Mr. Northrop. Coming forward in time, look
> at why Andrews Air Force base is named after
> Mr. Andrews, and finally... we see why the
> greatest airplane flying today, the B-2 Spirit,
> as well as the X47B and others like it depend
> on a "fly-by-wire" system directed with
> software from the Moog corporation.

Mostly because the airplanes are basically unstable as hell and absent
computer stabilizaton they would likely fall out of the air.

That is one of the big reasons why Mr. Northrop's original flying wings
were a failure; there were no computer stabilizaton systems back then.

> To maintain yaw and pitch authority within
> limited moments at high g's.

More to keep the top side up and the front end pointed ahead.

> ---
> Mark

[Mark IV[_6_]]

On Jan 2, 11:07*am, Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
> In article >,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 1, 2013 10:34:24 PM UTC-5, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> > > In article
>
> > > >,
>
> > > *Mark IV > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 1, 5:20 pm, Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
>
> > > > > The answer is simple: It is an Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft. It
>
> > > > > does not have to meet any certification standards. It only has to have
>
> > > > > the required markings and the record-keeping to show that it was built
>
> > > > > for "education or recreation". The unusual control system is moot, as
>
> > > > > is the fact that it takes special training to learn to fly it. The FAA
>
> > > > > doesn't care, for an Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft.
>
> > > > > What MIGHT happen, though, is the FAA might assign a more-limited test
>
> > > > > area, and require longer than the traditional 40 hour test period before
>
> > > > > the plane can be flown outside the area.
>
> > > > > Ron Wanttaja
>
> > > > > On 1/1/2013 6:49 AM, wrote:
>
> > > > > > I'm wonder how this would play
>
> > > > > > out:
>
> > > > > > a. Person designs a unique plane,
>
> > > > > > one of a kind, no other ones to
>
> > > > > > compare it to.
>
> > > > > > b. It is a single-seater.
>
> > > > > > c. It has unique control surfaces,
>
> > > > > > and only someone "trained" can
>
> > > > > > fly it.
>
> > > > > > d. Gear is retractable.
>
> > > > > > e. Propulsion is "rather mysterious".
>
> > > > > > Now, how would this plane be certified?
>
> > > > > > No one else can fly it. Much of the
>
> > > > > > technology is sealed beneath carbon
>
> > > > > > fiber. No one knows how fast it goes.
>
> > > > > > It is homebuilt. Builder is willing to
>
> > > > > > concede that it isn't lightsport.
>
> > > > Thank you all for your input, as amateur-built
>
> > > > is new to me. *Interesting note: *Shortly after
>
> > > > posting my question I ran into a very nice fellow
>
> > > > (Joe) who was wearing a "Reno Air Races" ball
>
> > > > cap and we struck up a conversation. *It wasn't
>
> > > > long before he was pulling photos out of his
>
> > > > wallet of the planes he built over the years, including
>
> > > > entries for Reno. *His specialty now is Zenair STOL's.
>
> > > > Anyway, Joe's dad (who is in his 90's) has
>
> > > > served in some capacity with Flight Certification
>
> > > > over the years and much information was shared
>
> > > > with me. *Seems the main thing is, they will need
>
> > > > entry ports of observation to check for safety wires,
>
> > > > and other such basic requirements. The time will
>
> > > > have to be flown off the plane, and technically,
>
> > > > being experimental, it isn't supposed to be flown
>
> > > > over population centers.
>
> > > > So... you all are right.
>
> > > > Thanks.
>
> > > > ---
>
> > > > Mark
>
> > > My question:
>
> > > Why does it have to have a unique, nonstandard control system that
>
> > > nobody else can fly without special training?
>
> > > It seem to me that it violates a very important principle that has cost
>
> > > dearly -- namely the KISS Principle, or: Keep It Simple, Stupid!
>
> > It's a little complicated, and goes all
> > the way back to the Horton Brothers, and
> > Mr. Northrop. *Coming forward in time, look
> > at why Andrews Air Force base is named after
> > Mr. Andrews, and finally... we see why the
> > greatest airplane flying today, the B-2 Spirit,
> > as well as the X47B and others like it depend
> > on a "fly-by-wire" system directed with
> > software from the Moog corporation.
>
> > To maintain yaw and pitch authority within
> > limited moments at high g's.
>
> > ---
> > Mark
>
> It is Edwards AFB, named after Maj. Glen Edwards, who was kille in a
> crash of the YB-49, not Andrews AFB.

Correct. (also I should have spelled it Horten)

> If you have a FBW system, it is best to set up the manual controls so
> that they emulate standard control systems -- a-la F-16, rather than
> introduce a lot of specialty controls that you have to learn, and which
> can get you into trouble in high workload situations.

It is semi-standard, but involves electromechanical
actuators and glass panel unique to this craft.

> The above-cited aircraft have controls which resemble standard controls
> and respond in a similar fashion.

[Mark IV[_6_]]

On Jan 2, 12:48*pm, wrote:
> wrote:
> > It's a little complicated, and goes all
> > the way back to the Horton Brothers, and
> > Mr. Northrop. *Coming forward in time, look
> > at why Andrews Air Force base is named after
> > Mr. Andrews, and finally... we see why the
> > greatest airplane flying today, the B-2 Spirit,
> > as well as the X47B and others like it depend
> > on a "fly-by-wire" system directed with
> > software from the Moog corporation.
>
> Mostly because the airplanes are basically unstable as hell and absent
> computer stabilizaton they would likely fall out of the air.

They're extremely stable 95% of the time, and superior
to a "flying tube with wings". The only drawback was in
that other 5% of the time, in which you die.

> That is one of the big reasons why Mr. Northrop's original flying wings
> were a failure; there were no computer stabilizaton systems back then.

Well, the Hortens, Northrop, the Davis Wing, and
many more never really had an adequate design for
their trailing edges and CG's. This has all been
worked out now.

> > To maintain yaw and pitch authority within
> > limited moments at high g's.
>
> More to keep the top side up and the front end pointed ahead.

Nah, Mostly yawing.


>
>
> > ---
> > Mark

[[email protected]]

Mark IV > wrote:
> On Jan 2, 12:48Â*pm, wrote:
>> wrote:
>> > It's a little complicated, and goes all
>> > the way back to the Horton Brothers, and
>> > Mr. Northrop. Â*Coming forward in time, look
>> > at why Andrews Air Force base is named after
>> > Mr. Andrews, and finally... we see why the
>> > greatest airplane flying today, the B-2 Spirit,
>> > as well as the X47B and others like it depend
>> > on a "fly-by-wire" system directed with
>> > software from the Moog corporation.
>>
>> Mostly because the airplanes are basically unstable as hell and absent
>> computer stabilizaton they would likely fall out of the air.
>
> They're extremely stable 95% of the time, and superior
> to a "flying tube with wings". The only drawback was in
> that other 5% of the time, in which you die.
>
>> That is one of the big reasons why Mr. Northrop's original flying wings
>> were a failure; there were no computer stabilizaton systems back then.
>
> Well, the Hortens, Northrop, the Davis Wing, and
> many more never really had an adequate design for
> their trailing edges and CG's. This has all been
> worked out now.
>
>> > To maintain yaw and pitch authority within
>> > limited moments at high g's.
>>
>> More to keep the top side up and the front end pointed ahead.
>
> Nah, Mostly yawing.


What planet do you live on?

[Mark IV[_6_]]

On Jan 2, 11:48*pm, wrote:
> Mark IV > wrote:
> > On Jan 2, 12:48*pm, wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >> > It's a little complicated, and goes all
> >> > the way back to the Horton Brothers, and
> >> > Mr. Northrop. *Coming forward in time, look
> >> > at why Andrews Air Force base is named after
> >> > Mr. Andrews, and finally... we see why the
> >> > greatest airplane flying today, the B-2 Spirit,
> >> > as well as the X47B and others like it depend
> >> > on a "fly-by-wire" system directed with
> >> > software from the Moog corporation.
>
> >> Mostly because the airplanes are basically unstable as hell and absent
> >> computer stabilizaton they would likely fall out of the air.
>
> > They're extremely stable 95% of the time, and superior
> > to a "flying tube with wings". *The only drawback was in
> > that other 5% of the time, in which you die.
>
> >> That is one of the big reasons why Mr. Northrop's original flying wings
> >> were a failure; there were no computer stabilizaton systems back then.
>
> > Well, the Hortens, Northrop, the Davis Wing, and
> > many more never really had an adequate design for
> > their trailing edges and CG's. *This has all been
> > worked out now.
>
> >> > To maintain yaw and pitch authority within
> >> > limited moments at high g's.
>
> >> More to keep the top side up and the front end pointed ahead.
>
> > Nah, Mostly yawing.
>
> What planet do you live on?

Er... well, have you researched the B2 spirit
in detail ever? Or the X47B? Do you know what
the designers at Boeing are leaning towards
these days?

Ok, here's another tip about future flight
besides electric:

Within 20 years ALL AIRPLANES will be some
derivative of the "blended body" or "lifting body"
or "flying wing". All of them. They're way more
efficient. The days of the flying tube are soon
coming to an end, except for historical novelty flights.

---
Mark

[[email protected]]

Mark IV > wrote:

> Er... well, have you researched the B2 spirit
> in detail ever? Or the X47B? Do you know what
> the designers at Boeing are leaning towards
> these days?

What is your point?

Flying wings are intrinsically unstable and are only flyable with computer
control no matter how much you babble about leading edges.

Both of those airplanes are high specialized as to purpose and immensely
expensive.

> Ok, here's another tip about future flight
> besides electric:
>
> Within 20 years ALL AIRPLANES will be some
> derivative of the "blended body" or "lifting body"
> or "flying wing". All of them. They're way more
> efficient. The days of the flying tube are soon
> coming to an end, except for historical novelty flights.

Nonsense.

Efficiency is but one criteria for an airplane and may matter a lot to
airliners but not so much for anything else.

Cost is also a criteria for many airplanes and an airplane that has to
have a computer control to fly at all is not cheap.

Other conciderations beyond efficiency; low speed characteristics,
short field characteristics, high speed characteristics, stability.

Yeah, there will likely be variations on the blended body concept for
airliners and aircraft that haul freight, and maybe another flying wing,
but not likely.

Note that neither the F-22 or F-35 are flying wings and are not that
much different in form than the F-102 designed in 1950.

[Dylan Smith[_2_]]

On 2013-01-04, > wrote:
> Flying wings are intrinsically unstable and are only flyable with computer
> control no matter how much you babble about leading edges.

The Facetmobile was reputedly not difficult to fly and "departure
resistant" (says the website). It doesn't classify itself as a
"flying wing" but it certainly falls into the category of lifting
body type aircraft.

http://www.facetmobile.com/

It was damaged in an off-airport landing after an engine failure
and subsequent collision with a barbed wire fence, so hasn't flown
in a while.

[george152]

On 10/01/13 03:08, Dylan Smith wrote:
> On 2013-01-04, > wrote:
>> Flying wings are intrinsically unstable and are only flyable with computer
>> control no matter how much you babble about leading edges.
>
> The Facetmobile was reputedly not difficult to fly and "departure
> resistant" (says the website). It doesn't classify itself as a
> "flying wing" but it certainly falls into the category of lifting
> body type aircraft.
>
> http://www.facetmobile.com/
>
> It was damaged in an off-airport landing after an engine failure
> and subsequent collision with a barbed wire fence, so hasn't flown
> in a while.
>

Is it flying nose high or is that some sort of perspective fault with
the camera ?

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 9:08:50 AM UTC-5, Dylan Smith wrote:
> On 2013-01-04, > wrote:
>
> > Flying wings are intrinsically unstable and are only flyable with computer
>
> > control no matter how much you babble about leading edges.
>
>
>
> The Facetmobile was reputedly not difficult to fly and "departure
>
> resistant" (says the website). It doesn't classify itself as a
>
> "flying wing" but it certainly falls into the category of lifting
>
> body type aircraft.
>
>
>
> http://www.facetmobile.com/
>
>
>
> It was damaged in an off-airport landing after an engine failure
>
> and subsequent collision with a barbed wire fence, so hasn't flown
>
> in a while.



http://rtfmaero.wordpress.com/library/7-other-cool-aircraft/7-3-flying-wings/
http://lightsportaircraftpilot.com/mitchell_wing_U2_ultralight/pictures.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTElJ3D6O4Q
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/cp.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerodynamic_center
http://www.wingco.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbmS0_UC6hc
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/XB-35.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcbbs1YlQvc
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=images+flying+wings&qpvt=images+flying+wings&FORM=IGRE
http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/Horten_Nurflugels/PUL-10/pul-10_nurflugel_brief/body_pul-10_nurflugel_brief.shtml
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/214381/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IvowBrTNOA
http://www.twitt.org/DavisWing.html
http://facetmobile.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_wing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flying_wing_aircraft
http://www.mh-aerotools.de/airfoils/flywing1.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weFQ2FfbMfc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjXr5w3M4mc
http://dynlab.mpe.nus.edu.sg/mpelsb/aeg/MAV2/ATSChandran.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Horten+Nurfl%C3%BCgel+%28Flyi ng+Wing%29+Panek+Ultralight+10+
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EutVF4OUw0k
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=image+lockheed+polecat&qpvt=image+lockheed+polecat&FORM=IGRE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzZKqiEOHxU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=0Zd-1lkSsbo
http://www.aviationtrivia.info/Northrop-Grumman-B-2-Spirit.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ADiOaZBKKI
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-170139.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmbCvS5gMF8
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/rq-170-sentinel/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_IMKbU1ndk
http://www.scribd.com/doc/107009906/Russell-Performance-and-Stability-of-Aircraft
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eZjIx_ViOA
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=photo+northrop+b2&qpvt=photo+northrop+b2&FORM=IGRE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuIFvNA1UgU
http://www.amazon.com/Popular-Mechanics-January-Flying-Yourself/dp/B0097SVQPY
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailless_aircraft

--
Mark

[Mark IV[_6_]]

On Jan 3, 7:11*pm, wrote:
> Mark IV > wrote:
> > Er... well, have you researched the B2 spirit
> > in detail ever? *Or the X47B? *Do you know what
> > the designers at Boeing are leaning towards
> > these days?
>
> What is your point?

It's self-evident.

> Flying wings are intrinsically unstable and are only flyable with computer
> control no matter how much you babble about leading edges.

That's not what the people who fly them say:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuIFvNA1UgU

If flying wings are "intrinsically unstable", then why
did millions of years of evolution not produce birds
with vertical stabilizers.

And that was "trailing edge", not leading.

--
Mark

[Bob Moore]

Mark IV wrote
> If flying wings are "intrinsically unstable", then why
> did millions of years of evolution not produce birds
> with vertical stabilizers.

Probably because nature has provided them with built-in
computer controled stability provided by the brain.

As humans, we also have brain controlled stability. If
not, we would not be able to stand nor walk.

Bob

[Dylan Smith[_2_]]

On 2013-01-10, Mark IV > wrote:
> If flying wings are "intrinsically unstable", then why
> did millions of years of evolution not produce birds
> with vertical stabilizers.

I'd wager that birds are intrinsically unstable. Don't forget
birds have a very good active stabilization system (a brain
directly connected by nerves to the wings) plus highly variable
geometry, angle of incidence and dihedral. Wheras our machines
have poxy little ailerons.

[[email protected]]

Mark IV > wrote:
> On Jan 3, 7:11Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark IV > wrote:
>> > Er... well, have you researched the B2 spirit
>> > in detail ever? Â*Or the X47B? Â*Do you know what
>> > the designers at Boeing are leaning towards
>> > these days?
>>
>> What is your point?
>
> It's self-evident.

Not quite.

>> Flying wings are intrinsically unstable and are only flyable with computer
>> control no matter how much you babble about leading edges.
>
> That's not what the people who fly them say:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuIFvNA1UgU

Nonsense.

The second YB-49 crashed during stall testing.

Jack Northrop said it was impossible for the YB-49 to do what it actually
did.

The last one crashed during high speed taxi testing from nose wheel
oscillations.

The bombing accuracy was horrible due to directional oscillations.

> If flying wings are "intrinsically unstable", then why
> did millions of years of evolution not produce birds
> with vertical stabilizers.

Who said anything about vertical stabilizers and last I looked there
aren't any real airplanes that look like birds.

> And that was "trailing edge", not leading.

So what, it is still just babble.

> --
> Mark

A flying wing may look neat, but what I said stands; flying wings are
intrinsically unstable and are only flyable with computer control.

That makes them a niche design.

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, January 10, 2013 12:11:44 PM UTC-5, Bob Moore wrote:
> Mark IV wrote
>
> > If flying wings are "intrinsically unstable", then why
>
> > did millions of years of evolution not produce birds
>
> > with vertical stabilizers.
>
>
>
> Probably because nature has provided them with built-in
>
> computer controled stability provided by the brain.

We have a winner. Yes, that is the
correct answer. The best design possible
is a flying wing, without a vertical
stabilizer, which is able to "morph"
it's trailing edge in response to subtle
and sensitive rapid changes in pressure.

There is now enough computing power in
the average cell-phone to think that fast.

--
Mark

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, January 10, 2013 12:33:42 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Mark IV > wrote:
>
> > On Jan 3, 7:11*pm, wrote:
>
> >> Mark IV > wrote:
>
> >> > Er... well, have you researched the B2 spirit
>
> >> > in detail ever? *Or the X47B? *Do you know what
>
> >> > the designers at Boeing are leaning towards
>
> >> > these days?
>
> >>
>
> >> What is your point?
>
> >
>
> > It's self-evident.
>
>
>
> Not quite.

LOL.

>
> >> Flying wings are intrinsically unstable and are only flyable with computer
>
> >> control no matter how much you babble about leading edges.
>
> >
>
> > That's not what the people who fly them say:
>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuIFvNA1UgU
>
>
>
> Nonsense.

LOL.


> The second YB-49 crashed during stall testing.

LOL.


> Jack Northrop said it was impossible for the YB-49 to do what it actually
>
> did.

LOLOL.

> The last one crashed during high speed taxi testing from nose wheel
>
> oscillations.

LOL.

>
> The bombing accuracy was horrible due to directional oscillations.
>
LOL.

>
> > If flying wings are "intrinsically unstable", then why
>
> > did millions of years of evolution not produce birds
>
> > with vertical stabilizers.
>
>
>
> Who said anything about vertical stabilizers and last I looked there
>
> aren't any real airplanes that look like birds.

LOLOL!


> > And that was "trailing edge", not leading.
>
>
>
> So what, it is still just babble.

LOL.


> > --
>
> > Mark
>
>
>
> A flying wing may look neat, but what I said stands; flying wings are
>
> intrinsically unstable and are only flyable with computer control.
>
>
>
> That makes them a niche design.

LOL.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> On Thursday, January 10, 2013 12:11:44 PM UTC-5, Bob Moore wrote:
>> Mark IV wrote
>>
>> > If flying wings are "intrinsically unstable", then why
>>
>> > did millions of years of evolution not produce birds
>>
>> > with vertical stabilizers.
>>
>>
>>
>> Probably because nature has provided them with built-in
>>
>> computer controled stability provided by the brain.
>
> We have a winner. Yes, that is the
> correct answer. The best design possible
> is a flying wing, without a vertical
> stabilizer, which is able to "morph"
> it's trailing edge in response to subtle
> and sensitive rapid changes in pressure.

Been there, done that; see F-111.

Airplanes that can "morph" are difficult and expensive to build and
expensive to maintain.

And what is the "best design possible" and is it the same for a GA aircraft,
crop duster, short haul freighter, bush plane, intercontinental airliner,
fighter, close air support (AKA tank killer), and a bomber?

> There is now enough computing power in
> the average cell-phone to think that fast.

Computing power isn't the problem and hasn't been for decades.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> On Thursday, January 10, 2013 12:33:42 PM UTC-5, wrote:

>> The second YB-49 crashed during stall testing.
>
> LOL.

Your are laughing at the death of five people, asshole.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
wrote:

> wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 10, 2013 12:33:42 PM UTC-5,
> > wrote:
>
> >> The second YB-49 crashed during stall testing.
> >
> > LOL.
>
> Your are laughing at the death of five people, asshole.

An old friend, who was a test pilot there at Muroc (now Edwards AFB)
told me that they were testing the YB-49 with all four engines on one
side pulled back and then doing stall testing. The asymmetric thrust,
coupled with slow spool-up time on those four engines, resulted in a
vicious, unrecoverable stall/spin.

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, January 20, 2013 9:20:39 PM UTC-5, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article >,
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Thursday, January 10, 2013 12:33:42 PM UTC-5,
>
> > > wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >> The second YB-49 crashed during stall testing.
>
> > >
>
> > > LOL.
>
> >
>
> > Your are laughing at the death of five people, asshole.
>
>
>
> An old friend, who was a test pilot there at Muroc (now Edwards AFB)
>
> told me that they were testing the YB-49 with all four engines on one
>
> side pulled back and then doing stall testing. The asymmetric thrust,
>
> coupled with slow spool-up time on those four engines, resulted in a
>
> vicious, unrecoverable stall/spin.

Unfortunate loss of life.

If you've ever watched the YouTube videos of
auto drag-races with an electric car or bike
against *anything* else, the ramifications of
instant massive torque should make a light bulb
go off in one's head. No spool-up.

About your idea that EV's have to carry their
own oxidizer. ---> Not with lithium air batteries.

About Boeing's "lithium battery problem". I
believe we will see the problem came from here:
https://www1.online.thalesgroup.com/aerospace/electrical_systems/news05.php

To surpass gasoline with electric, at this time
requires a combination of electric systems,
including PEM hydrogen fuel cells. There are
other electric systems which need to be tied
in as well, but I wouldn't reveal it in a
public forum at this time.

--
Mark

[[email protected]]

On Friday, January 11, 2013 1:04:40 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, January 10, 2013 12:33:42 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
>
>
> >> The second YB-49 crashed during stall testing.
>
> >
>
> > LOL.
>
>
>
> Your are laughing at the death of five people, asshole.

Vocabulary.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
wrote:

> On Sunday, January 20, 2013 9:20:39 PM UTC-5, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> > In article >,
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > On Thursday, January 10, 2013 12:33:42 PM UTC-5,
> > > >
> >
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > >> The second YB-49 crashed during stall testing.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > LOL.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Your are laughing at the death of five people, asshole.
> >
> >
> >
> > An old friend, who was a test pilot there at Muroc (now Edwards AFB)
> >
> > told me that they were testing the YB-49 with all four engines on one
> >
> > side pulled back and then doing stall testing. The asymmetric thrust,
> >
> > coupled with slow spool-up time on those four engines, resulted in a
> >
> > vicious, unrecoverable stall/spin.
>
> Unfortunate loss of life.
>
> If you've ever watched the YouTube videos of
> auto drag-races with an electric car or bike
> against *anything* else, the ramifications of
> instant massive torque should make a light bulb
> go off in one's head. No spool-up.
>
> About your idea that EV's have to carry their
> own oxidizer. ---> Not with lithium air batteries.
>
> About Boeing's "lithium battery problem". I
> believe we will see the problem came from here:
> https://www1.online.thalesgroup.com/aerospace/electrical_systems/news05.php
>
> To surpass gasoline with electric, at this time
> requires a combination of electric systems,
> including PEM hydrogen fuel cells. There are
> other electric systems which need to be tied
> in as well, but I wouldn't reveal it in a
> public forum at this time.
>
> --
> Mark

So -- what does it cost to do this? (including operational costs)