Flying wing vs tailless airplane

[BernadetteTS]

What is the difference between a flying wing and a tailless airplane? Is
there a difference? Just wondering after reading the post about the
monarch glider a few weeks ago. Where would an ME-163 be classified.
Does an F-106 or B-58 delta wing count as a tailless airplane?

Thanks
Bernadette

[Dude]

I don't know if there is an official answer, but I would say that a flying
wing has no discernible fuselage.

A fuselage that is shaped to provide lift might be a sticky call though.


"BernadetteTS" > wrote in message
...
> What is the difference between a flying wing and a tailless airplane? Is
> there a difference? Just wondering after reading the post about the
> monarch glider a few weeks ago. Where would an ME-163 be classified.
> Does an F-106 or B-58 delta wing count as a tailless airplane?
>
> Thanks
> Bernadette

[Bill Daniels]

The term 'flying wing' is newspaper bafflegab. All wings fly even if they
are attached to an aircraft that has a tail. I once read that Jack Northrop
was appalled by the term but accepted it when the newspapers wrote favorable
articles about his designs.

Aerodynamic texts seem to use the term 'tailless aircraft' to describe any
aircraft whose elevator function is integrated into the wing. This is
distinct from the fin and rudder which can be retained as in the ME-163. If
the aircraft is small and uses a high aspect ratio wing, it needs some sort
of fuselage or nacelle to contain the pilot as in the case of Jim Marske's
gliders.

Northrop and the Hortons dreamed of eliminating everything but the wing
itself. Their designs would probably have been better if they had made a
concession and used winglets.

Bill Daniels

"BernadetteTS" > wrote in message
...
> What is the difference between a flying wing and a tailless airplane? Is
> there a difference? Just wondering after reading the post about the
> monarch glider a few weeks ago. Where would an ME-163 be classified.
> Does an F-106 or B-58 delta wing count as a tailless airplane?
>
> Thanks
> Bernadette

[Wright1902Glider]

Actually, I think a lifting fuselage comes under its own category... lifting
body.
Historically, a flying wing aircraft is not only without a fuselage, it is just
a wing. Its engines, cockpit, bomb bays, landing gear, etc. are all contained
within the wing structure itself. That would include all of Northrop's designs
(YB-49, B-2), most/all of Horten's, and just about every hang-glider since
Francis Regallo. I would also clasify the ME-162 as a flying wing even though
it is a little fat in its center section.

I'd call the F-106, Mirage, space shuttle, Concorde, etc. delta-winged
aircraft. Definately a triangular-shaped wing attached to a fuselage.

Now here's another question: are canard aircraft tailless? I can think of
some that are: Rutan EZ, Wright 1900 & 1901 gliders. I can also think of some
that aren't: Rutan Voyager, Wright 1902-1908 Flyers.

Fun stuff,
Harry

[Blueskies]

The B2 fails the no fuselage definition I would think, blended fuselage maybe but not no fuselage.

--
Dan D.
http://www.ameritech.net/users/ddevillers/start.html


..
"Wright1902Glider" > wrote in message ...
> Actually, I think a lifting fuselage comes under its own category... lifting
> body.
> Historically, a flying wing aircraft is not only without a fuselage, it is just
> a wing. Its engines, cockpit, bomb bays, landing gear, etc. are all contained
> within the wing structure itself. That would include all of Northrop's designs
> (YB-49, B-2), most/all of Horten's, and just about every hang-glider since
> Francis Regallo. I would also clasify the ME-162 as a flying wing even though
> it is a little fat in its center section.
>
> I'd call the F-106, Mirage, space shuttle, Concorde, etc. delta-winged
> aircraft. Definately a triangular-shaped wing attached to a fuselage.
>
> Now here's another question: are canard aircraft tailless? I can think of
> some that are: Rutan EZ, Wright 1900 & 1901 gliders. I can also think of some
> that aren't: Rutan Voyager, Wright 1902-1908 Flyers.
>
> Fun stuff,
> Harry

[Blueskies]

I like that, never though of flying wing that way. Indeed, if it is a wing, it should by definition fly...

--
Dan D.
http://www.ameritech.net/users/ddevillers/start.html


..
"Bill Daniels" > wrote in message news:88dic.9249$YP5.748265@attbi_s02...
> The term 'flying wing' is newspaper bafflegab. All wings fly even if they
> are attached to an aircraft that has a tail. I once read that Jack Northrop
> was appalled by the term but accepted it when the newspapers wrote favorable
> articles about his designs.
>
> Aerodynamic texts seem to use the term 'tailless aircraft' to describe any
> aircraft whose elevator function is integrated into the wing. This is
> distinct from the fin and rudder which can be retained as in the ME-163. If
> the aircraft is small and uses a high aspect ratio wing, it needs some sort
> of fuselage or nacelle to contain the pilot as in the case of Jim Marske's
> gliders.
>
> Northrop and the Hortons dreamed of eliminating everything but the wing
> itself. Their designs would probably have been better if they had made a
> concession and used winglets.
>
> Bill Daniels
>
> "BernadetteTS" > wrote in message
> ...
> > What is the difference between a flying wing and a tailless airplane? Is
> > there a difference? Just wondering after reading the post about the
> > monarch glider a few weeks ago. Where would an ME-163 be classified.
> > Does an F-106 or B-58 delta wing count as a tailless airplane?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Bernadette
>

[Dude]

Thus my predicament. How "blended" does it have to be to count as a part of
the wing?




"Blueskies" > wrote in message
. com...
> The B2 fails the no fuselage definition I would think, blended fuselage
maybe but not no fuselage.
>
> --
> Dan D.
> http://www.ameritech.net/users/ddevillers/start.html
>
>
> .
> "Wright1902Glider" > wrote in message
...
> > Actually, I think a lifting fuselage comes under its own category...
lifting
> > body.
> > Historically, a flying wing aircraft is not only without a fuselage, it
is just
> > a wing. Its engines, cockpit, bomb bays, landing gear, etc. are all
contained
> > within the wing structure itself. That would include all of Northrop's
designs
> > (YB-49, B-2), most/all of Horten's, and just about every hang-glider
since
> > Francis Regallo. I would also clasify the ME-162 as a flying wing even
though
> > it is a little fat in its center section.
> >
> > I'd call the F-106, Mirage, space shuttle, Concorde, etc. delta-winged
> > aircraft. Definately a triangular-shaped wing attached to a fuselage.
> >
> > Now here's another question: are canard aircraft tailless? I can think
of
> > some that are: Rutan EZ, Wright 1900 & 1901 gliders. I can also think
of some
> > that aren't: Rutan Voyager, Wright 1902-1908 Flyers.
> >
> > Fun stuff,
> > Harry
>
>

[Wright1902Glider]

Dan,

Before I had a good idea of what I was doing, I built quite a few wings that
couldn't fly. And I'm not real sure about the one I have now.

How would you classify an aircraft like mine? Its got a canard, and its got a
rear mounted rudder. But I havn't met a single person yet that would call the
parts in between a "fuselage." A few sticks maybe... The whole rudder assy.
and tail end of my glider is behind my bedroom door right now.

Ah, the joys of pioneer aircraft. Nobody knows what they are, nobody knows how
to classify them, but everyone's pretty sure that I shouldn't be allowed to fly
them. Hmmm... gonna hafta get a radial engine... and some guns... people like
airplanes with radial engines and guns.

Harry Frey
Wright Brothers Enterprises

"PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!" ...Professor Marvel,
Wizard of Oz

[Blueskies]

Sounds like an ultralight to me ;-)

--
Dan D.
http://www.ameritech.net/users/ddevillers/start.html


..
"Wright1902Glider" > wrote in message ...
> Dan,
>
> Before I had a good idea of what I was doing, I built quite a few wings that
> couldn't fly. And I'm not real sure about the one I have now.
>
> How would you classify an aircraft like mine? Its got a canard, and its got a
> rear mounted rudder. But I havn't met a single person yet that would call the
> parts in between a "fuselage." A few sticks maybe... The whole rudder assy.
> and tail end of my glider is behind my bedroom door right now.
>
> Ah, the joys of pioneer aircraft. Nobody knows what they are, nobody knows how
> to classify them, but everyone's pretty sure that I shouldn't be allowed to fly
> them. Hmmm... gonna hafta get a radial engine... and some guns... people like
> airplanes with radial engines and guns.
>
> Harry Frey
> Wright Brothers Enterprises
>
> "PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!" ...Professor Marvel,
> Wizard of Oz
>
>

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Blueskies" > wrote in message >...
> Sounds like an ultralight to me ;-)
>
> .
> "Wright1902Glider" > wrote in message ...
>
> > How would you classify an aircraft like mine? Its got a canard, and its got a
> > rear mounted rudder. But I havn't met a single person yet that would call the
> > parts in between a "fuselage." A few sticks maybe... The whole rudder assy.
> > and tail end of my glider is behind my bedroom door right now.
> >

Wings on a stick.

Google for 'Breezy'.

--

FF

[Wright1902Glider]

MMMmmmmmmmmm..... wings on a stick!

Does that go well with dog steaks?

Google: Wright Brothers Enterprises

Harry