Military Review

On the pros and cons of the "flying wing" aerodynamic scheme

78

Despite its fame even in the world of people far from aviation, the aerodynamic design "flying wing" has not yet received widespread use in the world aircraft industry. The flying wing principle was first embodied in a jet aircraft developed and tested in Nazi Germany during World War II.


Of course, the Horten Ho 229 could remain among the countless projects that abound in история world aviation. However, the Horten brothers' invention turned out to be so ahead of its time that now, almost 80 years later, both in the USA and in Russia, aircraft designers have returned to the "flying wing" scheme. At the same time, it has both numerous advantages and disadvantages, and in the expert communities they still discuss the topic of what still prevails - the positive or negative characteristics of the scheme.

In fact, the limited spread of the “flying wing” scheme has certain grounds. If the idea of ​​the Horten brothers would have been so easy to put into practice, all aircraft would have had just such an aerodynamic design for a long time.

But the problem is that the implementation of this concept in practice is very difficult. If there is no vertical keel to maintain the stability of the aircraft in the air, a flying wing aircraft is difficult to control.


Disadvantages of the "flying wing" scheme


The obvious problem with ensuring the stability of the aircraft is the first and most important disadvantage of the "flying wing" scheme, which experts say. From it follow such "subproblems" as jerking along the course, which impede the normal performance of a number of operations during flight, wing slip when flying with a roll (if there is no vertical tail of the aircraft).

The second significant drawback is the low maneuverability, which directly arises from the problems with the control of the aircraft. I. Konyukhov emphasizes that the problems with the controllability of the aircraft are caused by the small arms of the action of the control surfaces - elevators, directions, elevons. Flying wing aircraft require larger control surfaces than other aircraft.

Another disadvantage is associated with significant losses of lift due to the small shoulder of the rudders. In addition, as noted by I. Konyukhov, the large relative thickness of the wing profile for aircraft built according to the “flying wing” scheme entails increased wave drag at supersonic speeds.

Finally, one cannot fail to note the technical complexity of installing all components of the aircraft, placing the cockpit.

Experts on the Advantages of a Flying Wing over a Conventional Layout


The advantages of the flying wing design are also obvious. First of all, the "flying wing" scheme provides the ability to increase the flight speed, lower drag, greater invisibility for enemy radars.

It can be noted that the main advantage of airplanes and aircrafts created according to this aerodynamic scheme is the low value of non-inductive drag. J. Northrop, in turn, emphasized that the airplane of the “flying wing” type has a coefficient of minimum aerodynamic drag that is 2 times less than that of a conventional airplane. Consequently, a flying wing aircraft will need a less powerful (by 33%) engine to maintain the same speed, which means fuel and cost savings.

In addition, experts also highlight such advantages of aircraft of the LK type as increased weight efficiency due to a more uniform distribution of mass over the volume of the aircraft, a smaller number of butt joints, and the ability to increase the takeoff weight.

If we talk about the low visibility of LK aircraft for enemy radar equipment, then it is worth noting the fact of more serious possibilities for shielding the "shiny points" of the aircraft from the enemy's radar equipment. The invisibility of aircraft built according to this scheme is higher than that of conventional aircraft.

The numerous advantages of the "flying wing" scheme in the context of the further development of aviation technologies and materials are able to overcome the existing disadvantages. That is why the latest developments in the field of military aircraft construction are focused, among other things, on the use of this scheme.

It is worth noting that today there is information about the approval of the final appearance of the Russian promising long-range missile carrier. It's about the PAK DA project. So, this aircraft will be implemented precisely according to the flying wing scheme. Moreover, it was noted that it will be subsonic, which caused a lot of questions from experts discussing this topic.
Author:
Photos used:
Wikipedia / USGov Military-Air Force
78 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. rocket757
    rocket757 April 2 2021 12: 54
    +7
    Interesting design. New technologies make it promising and in demand.
    And the German genius was really ahead of everyone at once. One thing is annoying, he showed himself very strongly in the field of weapons, alas, alas!
    1. V.I.P.
      V.I.P. April 2 2021 14: 18
      +4
      The Americans have B-2 flying since 1989. As far as I remember, all and sundry in the Russian Federation found fault with him. And lo and behold, 32 years have passed !! And they approved the PAK DA project, similar to the B-2 ... The situation with the F-22/35 -Su-57 is the same laughing ..I'm sure, in years ... we will have a semblance of Javelin or Spike, when they can make a homing head, but for now, everyone and everyone is not too lazy))))
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 April 2 2021 14: 25
        +8
        Quote: V.I.P.
        As far as I remember, all and sundry in the Russian Federation found fault with him.

        Chatterboxes were / are here and there, always. Experts gave a real assessment of the "object" ... but who listened to them.
        Quote: V.I.P.
        we will also have a semblance of Javelin or Spike, when they can make a homing head,

        will be when the electronics industry is restored and much more! Alas, alas, this does not happen by itself.
      2. lucul
        lucul April 2 2021 14: 37
        -11%
        The Americans have B-2 flying since 1989. As far as I remember, all and sundry in the Russian Federation found fault with him.

        Indeed - this is not an airplane - this is a flying iron. He is not even able to make an anti-missile maneuver.
        And lo and behold, 32 years have passed !! And they approved the PAK DA project, similar to the B-2 ..

        And lo and behold, ours really made sure that Western radars DO NOT SEE stealth aircraft)))) And if they don't, then why not make them invisible)))
        The situation with the F-22/35 -Su-57 is the same

        Su-57 is a full-fledged fighter, with low visibility, F22 / 35 pseudo fighters, perfectly visible on our radars. The stealth concept hasn't paid off.
        I am sure that in years ... we will have a semblance of a Javelin or Spike when they can make a homing head, but for now, everyone who is not too lazy to hayut as well))))

        Laughter - the same Hermes is already completely superior to that of Javelin, that of Spike)))
        But according to your propaganda, of course, they will not say this))))
        1. Alarmist79
          Alarmist79 April 2 2021 15: 10
          +9
          = And lo and behold, ours really made sure that Western radars DO NOT SEE stealth aircraft)))) And if they do not see, then why not make them invisible))) =

          Are special domestic radio waves somehow differently reflected from aircraft and absorbed by coatings? Special physics for advanced amateurs peremog across the entire school, did I get it right?
          1. lucul
            lucul April 2 2021 15: 21
            -3
            Are special domestic radio waves somehow differently reflected from aircraft and absorbed by coatings? Special physics for advanced amateurs peremog across the entire school, did I get it right?

            Radar wavelengths, no? )))))
            1. Alarmist79
              Alarmist79 April 2 2021 15: 38
              +6
              I mean, one in centimeters, the other in inches? Because NATO members also have a set of radars in various ranges.
              1. lucul
                lucul April 2 2021 16: 04
                -7
                I mean, one in centimeters, the other in inches? Because NATO members also have a set of radars in various ranges.

                Millimeter / centimeter)))))
                1. Alarmist79
                  Alarmist79 April 2 2021 16: 16
                  +6
                  The Patriots have a centimeter range. Do you think that the S-300 and Co. have a millimeter one? Or what do you mean?
                  1. lucul
                    lucul April 2 2021 16: 26
                    -5
                    Patriots have centimeter range

                    So what prevented them from shooting down the Houthi drones then? ))))
                    1. Alarmist79
                      Alarmist79 April 2 2021 16: 30
                      +2
                      For starters, the Saudis.
                      1. lucul
                        lucul April 2 2021 19: 52
                        -3
                        For starters, the Saudis.

                        Do the Saudis have 3 arms or 4 legs? Or is their physiology different from amers?
                        Or
                        Special physics for advanced amateurs peremog across the entire school, did I understand everything correctly?
                      2. Alarmist79
                        Alarmist79 April 2 2021 21: 36
                        +3
                        = And what, the Saudis have 3 arms or 4 legs =
                        Those. legendary crooked Arabs who kill all the possibilities of Soviet / Russian technology do not exist? How much did you sell to the State Department?
                        At the same time, the Riyadh region is all in the fight against the witchcraft of the Filipino maids and is really a place ... unusual.
                  2. Jacket in stock
                    Jacket in stock April 2 2021 19: 14
                    +5
                    Quote: lucul
                    and what prevented them from shooting down the Houthi drones then? )

                    The fact that their missiles are an order of magnitude heavier than those drones.
                    They just didn't have small missiles in their assortment, now they are fixing it.
                    1. lucul
                      lucul April 2 2021 19: 58
                      -2
                      They just didn't have small missiles in their assortment, now they are fixing it.

                      The rocket, on the other hand, explodes next to the target, and it doesn't matter if the explosion is a large target or a small one.
                      Or is it different for you? )))
      3. Jacket in stock
        Jacket in stock April 2 2021 19: 11
        +5
        Quote: lucul
        this is a flying iron. He is not even able to make an anti-missile maneuver.

        And what kind of bomber can you do?
        Tu-160? Tu-95? Tu-22m?
    2. jekasimf
      jekasimf April 2 2021 15: 09
      -5
      Dear "Witness of the All American Sect" For your information, B-2 Spirit aircraft, the USA has produced as many as 21 bomber jackets !!! Discontinued release. F-22, the best in the world, planned to replace all F-15s / But they released only ....... as many as 195 units !!!! And the FSE! "witness to the sect of everything American." Actually, the same thing is happening now with the coronavirus vaccine.
      1. Alarmist79
        Alarmist79 April 2 2021 15: 46
        +5
        = For your information, B-2 Spirit aircraft, the USA produced as many as 21 bomber jackets !!! Discontinued release. =
        Is it because the USSR collapsed and the budget was cut? Or decay, too, a cunning plan and redemption?

        = Unparalleled best F-22 in the world - planned to replace all F-15s / =

        Really? "In 2006, it was planned to purchase 382 aircraft to equip seven squadrons on alert" (c)

        = But only released ....... as many as 195 pieces !!!! And FSE! =
        And why should they have more, given that the opponents have exactly zero full-fledged fives?
        1. lucul
          lucul April 2 2021 16: 10
          -6
          Really? "In 2006, it was planned to purchase 382 aircraft to equip seven squadrons on alert" (c)

          What? What year did the F-22 fly? What 2006? ))))
          Is it because the USSR collapsed and the budget was cut? Or ra

          Well, Russia and China are now opponents - where are the thousands of B-2s released? )))
          And why should they have more, given that the opponents have exactly zero full-fledged fives?

          Opponents will soon have a five with ROFAR, which will immediately roll back the F-22 / F-35 to the category of obsolete ones)))
          1. Alarmist79
            Alarmist79 April 2 2021 16: 26
            +6
            = What? What year did the F-22 fly? What is 2006? )))) =
            What difference does it make when the prototype flew if the serial production is from 2001. And the program was cut to 300+ back in 1997 - for very transparent "low-budget" reasons.

            = Well, Russia and China are now opponents - where are the thousands of B-2s released? ))) =
            Those. they have to release the airplane arr. 1988?

            = Opponents will soon have a five with ROFAR, which will immediately roll back the F-22 / F-35 to the category of obsolete))) =

            How? Does the USA have no developments of their own, or is stealth not needed against ROFAR?

            It is logical, yes. "The enemy has brought a new machine gun, to hell with camouflage, long live red pants and an orange uniform with medals."
            1. lucul
              lucul April 2 2021 16: 38
              -10%
              What difference does it make when the prototype flew if the serial production is from 2001.

              So where is the series? By WWII standards, 200 aircraft is a couple of days of fighting.
              Those. they have to release the airplane arr. 1988?

              So where is the replacement? What, no shekels?
              How so?

              The detection range of ROFAR is 500 km. To continue further, what follows from this?
              1. Alarmist79
                Alarmist79 April 2 2021 17: 26
                +6
                = So where is the series? By the standards of World War II, 200 aircraft is a couple of days of fighting. =

                What does the massacre of I-16, Il-2 and Co. have to do with the Raptor? You confused the front. Raptor owners are the Luftwaffe.

                = So where is the replacement? What, no shekels? =

                And what is B-21, in your opinion?

                = The detection range of ROFAR is 500 km. Continue further, what follows from this? =

                That almost all unstable airplanes are finished. 500 km is really a lot.
                1. lucul
                  lucul April 2 2021 17: 52
                  -7
                  What does the massacre of I-16, Il-2 and Co. have to do with the Raptor? You confused the front. Raptor owners are the Luftwaffe.

                  Do you think there will be no massive battles? Are Russians going to kill themselves against the wall?
                  And what is B-21, in your opinion?

                  Have they already been riveted in thousands of pieces?
                  That almost all unstable airplanes are finished

                  ROFAR was created to nullify stealth technology.
                  1. Alarmist79
                    Alarmist79 April 2 2021 18: 06
                    +4
                    = Oh, do you think there will be no massive battles? =

                    What does the mass fighting have to do with the mass casualties of the technically superior side? Did the Germans chronically lose hundreds of fighters a day in 41?
                    The "donkey owners" will and have suffered massive losses, and these are clearly not Americans.

                    = They have already been riveted =
                    Riveted. Now there is a thief.

                    = thousands of pieces? =
                    With what joy? B-2 in the golden era of the USSR was planned to purchase 132 pieces.
                    1. lucul
                      lucul April 2 2021 18: 27
                      -4
                      What does the mass fighting have to do with the mass casualties of the technically superior side?

                      And how did the "technically superior side" lose so badly? ))))
                      B-2 in the golden era of the USSR was planned to purchase 132 pieces.

                      And what can 132 pieces do? They may not even have time to take off.
                    2. Alarmist79
                      Alarmist79 April 2 2021 18: 50
                      +2
                      = And how did the "technically superior side" lose so badly? )))) =
                      1. Did you lose in 41?
                      2. For 70% of the losses of German aircraft not on the Eastern Front.

                      = What can 132 things do? =
                      What can 3,5 thousand tons of bombs per flight, despite the fact that this is only the first line for striking difficult targets?

                      = They may not even have time to take off. =

                      How? Was the USSR going to strike first? To go to Central Africa next to the United States? There was nothing to deliver a disarming blow
                      Therefore, Moscow was the first to declare the non-use of nuclear weapons, and in this case it could be believed.
                    3. lucul
                      lucul April 2 2021 19: 44
                      -4
                      Over 70% of the losses of German aircraft are not on the Eastern Front.

                      Is this from alternate history? )))
                      despite the fact that this is only the first line to hit difficult targets?

                      What's the first line? Did you see the inter-flight service to begin with?
                      How? Was the USSR going to strike first?

                      In our new doctrine, Russia can strike first without any problems.
                    4. Alarmist79
                      Alarmist79 April 2 2021 19: 56
                      +3
                      = Is this from alternate history? ))) =
                      This is from ours. You obviously have something of your own. "The 86733 aircraft also includes 21213 aircraft irretrievably lost on the Eastern Front (in the period from June 22, 1941 and, as stated in the Aviation History magazine, as of" October 1944 ")."
                      Moreover, about 40% of German losses were non-combat.

                      = Which is the first line? Did you see the inter-flight service to begin with? =
                      "In September 1997, each flight hour of the B-2 required 119 hours of alternate maintenance. The comparable maintenance requirements for the B-52 and B-1B are 53 and 60 hours, respectively, for each flight hour."
                      In 97, he only entered service with this.

                      = In our new doctrine, Russia can strike first without any problems. =
                      In response to the threat of the destruction of the state. Are you sure that before this threat is created, they will not have time to raise / disperse the B-2? Is it okay that they will create it as well?
                    5. lucul
                      lucul April 2 2021 20: 13
                      +1
                      You obviously have something of your own. "The 86733 aircraft also includes 21213 aircraft irretrievably lost on the Eastern Front (in the period from June 22, 1941 and, as stated in the Aviation History magazine, as of" October 1944 ")"


                      In September 1997, every hour of flight, the B-2 required 119 hours of alternate maintenance.

                      Now translate these 119 hours, in the number of days))))
                      Are you sure that before this threat is created, they will not have time to raise / disperse the B-2?

                      B-2 can be continuously in the air? :)))
                    6. Alarmist79
                      Alarmist79 April 2 2021 20: 31
                      +3
                      And then we looked at the German documents, yes.

                      = Now translate these 119 hours into the number of days =
                      From what, excuse me, hangover? Do you seriously think that B-2 is serviced by ONE technician? Completely alone...

                      = B-2 can be continuously in the air? :))) =
                      1. Record 34 hours.
                      2. Why? His task is not to get directly under attack.
                    7. IL-18
                      IL-18 April 4 2021 22: 11
                      0
                      Quote: Alarmist79
                      And then we looked at the German documents, yes.

                      Well, they are unambiguously objective, they are not Soviet
                    8. Alarmist79
                      Alarmist79 April 4 2021 22: 24
                      0
                      Those. the Germans attributed the losses of the eastern front to the western? Somewhere near Zhmerinka, the downed Messerschmidt was recorded as the loss of Rommel near El-Alamein, and not? Can you prove it with something or just see it?
                      This is with regard to the distribution along the fronts.
                      As for the size of losses in general, then
                      when it comes to losses, those who have lost know better. Or do you propose to count also the losses of the Red Army Air Force under German orders? Ah, that's different.
    3. Alarmist79
      Alarmist79 April 2 2021 19: 10
      +1
      = ROFAR was created to nullify stealth technology. =
      ROFAR 1. Other things being equal, more powerful 2. Allows you to vary the frequency.
      Only here the first means the end of all nestles, which will be visible for the notorious 500 km, and the second against "stealth" is not a wunderwaffle from the word at all.
      For 1. Long-wave radars give target designation with an accuracy of plus or minus bast shoes on the map and are clogged with electronic warfare.
      2. The maximum that long waves give is that they ignore a not too thick coating and fall into the zone of resonant frequencies at a length comparable to the length of the object. How long should the wave be in case B-2? In this case, the EPR does not increase by orders of magnitude.
      Finally, it is not enough theoretically to be able to see subtle objects. It is necessary to distinguish them "against the background" of others. Meanwhile, clouds, rain, and especially all kinds of false targets also have RCS. Moreover, the smaller the EPR, the easier it is to depict it.
      1. lucul
        lucul April 2 2021 19: 47
        -6
        and the second against "stealth" is not a wunderwaffle from the word at all.

        Quite a wunderwaffe, the tests showed that, and they were completed last year.
      2. Alarmist79
        Alarmist79 April 2 2021 20: 23
        +5
        = Quite a wunderwaffe, tests have shown it =
        What, the testers were brought in a separate physics? No, they didn't. "According to Mikheev, the new technology will reduce the size of airborne radars of aircraft and ships, as well as increase the accuracy and detection range of stealth targets."
        At the same time, you have not forgotten that for Raptor and Co. we have an EPR of 0,3 m and more, which outside of 1/6 of the land no one believes in?
      3. lucul
        lucul April 2 2021 20: 25
        -6
        That, separate physics testers were brought

        It's just that with ROFAR, the optical range was also added.
      4. Alarmist79
        Alarmist79 April 2 2021 21: 00
        +6
        Added there terahertz range allowing to take "photos". These are elementary submillimeter waves. Those. slightly less godly millimeter waves, which are only ineffective against stealth, according to the pseudo-patriotic public. At the same time, the peremozhniki are somewhat right - the shorter the wavelength, the less the required coating thickness.
        Well, since small objects such as drops, etc. are visible in it ...
  • V.I.P.
    V.I.P. April 3 2021 21: 45
    0
    And the opponents, are they the ones that can't put AFAR on the SU-30/35, the MiG-35 for their Air Force? Only cartoons and fairy tales ...
  • bk0010
    bk0010 April 3 2021 18: 29
    +2
    Quote: V.I.P.
    And they approved the PAK DA project, similar to the B-2
    We are degrading: for Europe (our most important theater of operations), such an aircraft will not be invisible - there are too many radars.
    Quote: V.I.P.
    The situation with the F-22/35 -Su-57 is the same
    Not the same: the states have "everything for the sake of invisibility," we have - "with elements of stealth": no one wants to cut the rest of the performance characteristics for the sake of invisibility.
    Quote: V.I.P.
    I am sure that in years ... we will have a semblance of a Javelin or Spike when they can make a homing head, but for now, everyone who is not too lazy to hayut as well))))
    There is a head (see Verba MANPADS), it is expensive and the range is low (for Javelin).
  • prior
    prior April 2 2021 13: 02
    +2
    Finally, one cannot fail to note the technical complexity of installing all components of the aircraft, placing the cockpit.

    The submarine does not have a glass cabin like on a surface ship. And nothing is guided under water and even under ice.
    With the modern development of video technology, is the cockpit really necessary?
    Placed where it is convenient, provided all-round viewing screens, joystick in hand and forward ..... Why not?
    1. Jcvai
      Jcvai April 2 2021 13: 22
      +4
      Why a pilot? An autonomous solar-powered missile carrier loitering in the stratosphere for such an arrangement (a flying wing) is just that. Especially within the framework of the retaliation system.
    2. Intruder
      Intruder April 2 2021 14: 07
      +2
      With the modern development of video technology, is the cockpit really necessary?
      Placed where it is convenient, provided with all-round viewing screens, joystick in hand and forward ...
      And if one of the observation cameras fails, or the display on the landing glide path !? So at 20 meters and a mouth full of earth ...
      1. prior
        prior April 3 2021 08: 18
        +2
        There are things like reliability, duplication, majoring ...
        And even the means of rescue - ejection seats, for example, unfortunately - are capable of killing the pilots.
    3. Sergey Valov
      Sergey Valov April 2 2021 20: 16
      0
      "Why not?" - because computer games and real life are different worlds.
  • mmaxx
    mmaxx April 2 2021 13: 32
    +2
    The benefits have been known for a long time. Only normally no one implemented them. More or less, they only work for airplanes that fly straight. The French are the most stubborn of all, and even then they abandoned such planes. Only all sorts of bombers remained. And then stealth. To get out in time))).
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 April 2 2021 13: 42
      +2
      And now drones and bombers have gone along the same lines.
  • Sergey Valov
    Sergey Valov April 2 2021 13: 45
    +9
    "Vertical stabilizer" - the stabilizer is only a horizontal, vertical keel.
    "If the vertical tail of the aircraft is absent" - The flying wing scheme does not at all deny the presence of a keel. Remove the keel from an airplane with a normal outline and get the same problems.
    "Due to the small arms of the control surfaces" - the arms are, in principle, the same, but the wing area is much larger, hence the requirement for a larger area of ​​the control surfaces.
    "The technical difficulty of installing all the components of the aircraft, placing the pilot's cockpit" the British, having made Vulcan, would have been very surprised by this thesis. winked
    "Increase in flight speed, lower drag" - exactly the opposite. laughing
    "Development of aviation technologies" - the industry according to which scheme to produce aircraft.
    1. Intruder
      Intruder April 2 2021 14: 10
      +2
      "Vertical stabilizer" - the stabilizer is only a horizontal, vertical keel.
      "If there is no vertical tail of the aircraft"
      That's right, because it is one of the horizontal aerodynamic planes, which ensures the stability of the aircraft in flight, plus it carries the elevator, and not the direction, like the keel! But many authors simply do not know about it ... or whatever at the beginning of the article:
      even in the world of people far from aviation,
    2. Intruder
      Intruder April 2 2021 14: 13
      +3
      "The technical difficulty of installing all the components of the aircraft, placing the pilot's cockpit" the British, having made Vulcan, would have been very surprised by this thesis.
      How to say... winked after all, it is built according to the tailless scheme with the fuselage integrated into the wing, in the thick root influxes of which the engines are located (2 on each side). The layout is very close to a flying wing, differing from it in a dedicated fuselage with a large keel area. wink
      1. Sergey Valov
        Sergey Valov April 2 2021 18: 41
        +1
        That's right, it's just a very clear example of a real production aircraft close to the concept under discussion.
    3. Intruder
      Intruder April 2 2021 14: 14
      0
      "Increased flight speed, lower drag"
      depending on the flight speed, by the way it is different ... drinks And, so: the drag force is usually represented as the sum of two components: resistance at zero lift and inductive resistance. Each component is characterized by its own dimensionless coefficient of resistance and a certain dependence on the speed of movement.
      1. Sergey Valov
        Sergey Valov April 2 2021 18: 43
        +1
        I don’t dare to object, it’s just that the “flying wing” will have to increase the frontal resistance to increase the payload, which will negatively affect the speed characteristics.
    4. JD1979
      JD1979 April 2 2021 15: 01
      0
      Experts are now such experts ... they cannot even subtract their articles for logical correspondence ...
    5. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U April 2 2021 15: 57
      +2
      You can also have a V-shaped wing, "reverse gull" tips, the Americans in Northrop turned out in engine nacelles:
    6. NIKN
      NIKN April 2 2021 17: 34
      +2
      Quote: Sergey Valov
      "Increase in flight speed, lower drag" - exactly the opposite.

      You have noted everything correctly on all counts! Where did the author get the data for analysis? It seems that it was pulled out from anywhere, but ... but it's not in the subject. In the sense I hear a ringing, ... The main disadvantage is subsonic speed. When trying to implement supersonic in this scheme, the main disadvantages will emerge. The main advantage so far is the best design parameters to ensure invisibility. The rest of the nuances are just the nuances of this scheme.
  • Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 April 2 2021 13: 58
    +2
    The flying wing principle was first embodied in a jet aircraft developed and tested in Nazi Germany during the Second World War.
    How did you get it! The flying wing scheme was invented and implemented by Bartini before the War!
    1. Alarmist79
      Alarmist79 April 2 2021 14: 33
      +2
      Almost correct, but not before the Second World War, but before the first, and not Bartini, but Dunn, well, little things - the first such project of Bartini during the war was not "implemented". It's just a perfect hit.
    2. KCA
      KCA April 2 2021 14: 42
      +2
      And when did Bartini build the "flying wing"? I think, much better than Cheranovsky:

      This flight took place on February 3, 1926, and there were 18 flights in total, the longest - 8 minutes. In a report on tests that ended in August 1926, Kudrin writes: “When taxiing on the ground, the aircraft does not obey the rudder well ... At the beginning of the takeoff run, the aircraft tends to turn to the left. The takeoff run for the plane is insignificant. The plane is gaining altitude well. In the air, the aircraft showed an extraordinary sensitivity to the rudders and ailerons. The aircraft is well adjusted, but it "hangs on the handle". The flight mode is maintained, having a stable course. The aircraft has a high speed and a significant range of speeds, and good stability at high angles is noticeable. With a decrease in engine speed, the aircraft itself switches to gliding ”[41].

      The engine often malfunctioned, twice Kudrin had to go to an emergency landing. The complexity of takeoff and landing and poor engine performance prevented the entire test program from being carried out. Nevertheless, the fundamental possibility of using the new scheme in aviation has been proven. BICH-3 became the first tailless aircraft in our country and the world's first flying wing aircraft.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U April 2 2021 15: 54
        0
        Quote: KCA
        I think it's much better than Cheranovsky:

        Yes, exactly, in any case, gliders, or even motor-gliders were built.
    3. Ros 56
      Ros 56 April 2 2021 15: 26
      0
      Seriously? fellow What was it called, when it was built, when it flew?
  • K-50
    K-50 April 2 2021 14: 26
    0
    First of all, the "flying wing" scheme provides the ability to increase the flight speed

    Either the thought was formulated incorrectly, or something else was meant, since this scheme does not allow increasing the speed of the aircraft. Therefore, all created according to this scheme have a subsonic flight speed. hi
    1. Alarmist79
      Alarmist79 April 2 2021 15: 05
      0
      This is corny true for a certain speed range... Flying wings with equal power bypass the classics on subsonic.
  • Engineer
    Engineer April 2 2021 14: 42
    +2
    great stealth

    less visibility
  • Alarmist79
    Alarmist79 April 2 2021 14: 47
    +1
    = The principle of the "flying wing" was first embodied in a jet aircraft developed and tested in Nazi Germany during World War II. =

    No, in the bookcase arr. 1910. At the same time, a certain Northrop built flying wings when the Hortens walked under the table.
    And at the time of cutting the wunderwafe with a jigsaw, J Northrop was building a bomber with a maximum take-off weight of almost 95 tons, which took off in 1946.
    1. Reviews
      Reviews April 2 2021 15: 13
      0
      Quote: Alarmist79
      = The principle of the "flying wing" was first embodied in a jet aircraft developed and tested in Nazi Germany during World War II. =

      No, in the bookcase arr. 1910. At the same time, a certain Northrop built flying wings when the Hortens walked under the table.

      ... and there were other examples earlier than the Hortens. Even before Horten's gliders, Lippisch
      since 1931 a full-fledged plane - "Delta-I" has flown.
      1. Alarmist79
        Alarmist79 April 2 2021 15: 52
        0
        There are many citizens in general. Actually, for the British, the Ministry of Aviation financed such work back in the 20s.
  • Ros 56
    Ros 56 April 2 2021 15: 24
    0
    Oh, these storytellers. For information - the first "flying wing" aircraft took off in the USSR in 1926 under the control of test pilot Boris Kudrin. Called BICH-3, this experimental aircraft was created by a student of the Air Force Engineering Academy Boris Ivanovich Cheranovsky. It was an interesting scheme, the leading edge of the wing is a parabola, the trailing edge is straight, where the control surfaces were located. He created many machines of this type BICH-7, BICH-14, BICH-20. In the 40th year he created a sports racing BICH-21, etc.
    In addition to him, such aircraft were dealt with by the Bureau of Special Designs of Vladimir Chizhevsky. They created the BOK-1935 aircraft in 5, taking into account the experience of Cheranovsky during its construction. hi
    1. Alarmist79
      Alarmist79 April 2 2021 16: 02
      +3


      And this is 1917.
  • Vol Dimir
    Vol Dimir April 2 2021 16: 01
    -1
    First "flying wing": BEACH-3.
    On February 3, 1926, the world's first "flying wing" aircraft flew. BEACH-3 was created by Boris Cheranovsky. He became the founder of the creation of tailless aircraft in the USSR and was the first in the world to come up with an airplane of this type.
    K-12 (Firebird) - a prototype of a Soviet tailless bomber, made according to the "flying wing" scheme. Development of the Kalinin Design Bureau.
    In July 1936, Borisov performed the first flight on the K-12. A flight program of 46 flights was performed in Voronezh
  • mr.Man
    mr.Man April 2 2021 16: 10
    0
    The obvious problem with ensuring the stability of the aircraft is the first and most important disadvantage of the "flying wing" scheme, which experts say. From it follow such "subproblems" as jerking along the course, which impede the normal performance of a number of operations during flight, wing slip when flying with a roll (if there is no vertical tail of the aircraft).

    Not an obvious problem, for some reason it is implied that such a triangular flying "pancake" this "flying wing" should be and only, but ... what
    "Flying wing" is a tailless aircraft, where the pseudo-fuselage and the wing are one whole, and the presence (or not) of the keel (s) (vertical stabilizer (s)) only at the request of the aircraft designer.
  • Maks1995
    Maks1995 April 2 2021 18: 33
    -1
    ALL this has been discussed here, and many times.
    Why write another small review, without any specific information ???
    1. Couchexpert
      Couchexpert April 3 2021 10: 09
      0
      So the news feed was, as mentioned in the article:
      It is worth noting that today there is information about the approval of the final appearance of the Russian promising long-range missile carrier. It's about the PAK DA project. So, this aircraft will be implemented precisely according to the flying wing scheme. Moreover, it was noted that it will be subsonic, which caused a lot of questions from experts discussing this topic.

      Here's an article for you. Here it is a completely worked out scheme: first, three lines in the "News" section, then picking them up to five lines already in the "Armament", "Opinions" or "Analytics" section.
  • Basarev
    Basarev April 3 2021 00: 26
    0
    And what is known about the antipode of this scheme, namely the carrying fuselage? There is very little information about him.
    1. Sergey Valov
      Sergey Valov April 3 2021 15: 29
      +1
      The carrier fuselage is a rocket laughing .
  • Eug
    Eug April 3 2021 09: 06
    0
    For a long time, a hybrid of a "flying wing" and a conventional fuselage AD scheme has been used - the so-called integrated circuit, to a large extent retaining the advantages of both schemes and smoothing out their disadvantages. Well, as for me, in addition to "the possibility of shielding" shiny "points", the main factor of low radar visibility is still the absence of vertical surfaces.
  • Usher
    Usher April 3 2021 17: 15
    -1
    And what is difficult to attach a keel to a "flying wing"? Sucked out the problem of directional stability from the finger.
    1. abc_alex
      abc_alex April 4 2021 20: 22
      0
      Quote: Usher
      And what is difficult to attach a keel to a "flying wing"? Sucked out the problem of directional stability from the finger.

      I believe that with this ratio of fuselage length and wingspan, the vertical keel simply will not work. It will be too close to the geometric center. In addition, it will be in a "weakened" air flow enveloping the upper surface of the wing.
  • Santa Fe
    Santa Fe April 4 2021 06: 33
    0
    The flying wing principle was first embodied in a jet aircraft developed and tested in Nazi Germany during the Second World War.

    Author, what year are these photos?

    And what is the nationality of these aircraft





    Spoiler, USA, Northrop N-1M fighter - 1940
    Strategic YB-35 - 1946
    Jet 80-ton strategist YB-49 - 1947