Homebuilt Question

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 he
https://www1.online.thalesgroup.com/...ems/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

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.

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 he
https://www1.online.thalesgroup.com/...ems/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)