|
|
|
|
|
by umvi
2571 days ago
|
|
Instead of spending half your comment saying how wrong GP is, why not provide some compelling evidence? I was under the impression that flying wings are indeed more unstable than traditional airframes. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Andersen_Air_Force_Base_B... > After the wheels lifted from the runway, which caused the flight control system to switch to different control laws, the erroneously sensed negative angle of attack caused the computers to inject a sudden, 1.6‑g, uncommanded 30-degree pitch-up maneuver. The combination of slow lift-off speed and the extreme angle of attack (and attendant drag) resulted in an unrecoverable stall, yaw, and descent. This seems to support GP's assertion that "without very precise computer control they are uncontrollable" and "computer failure is a certain airframe and passenger loss" |
|
I think it requires a little more careful design then traditional plane bodies, so there is some sense in which flying wings are less stable naturally. But the claim that flying wings are necessarily unstable without computer control seems to be false.