Flying wing design is pretty well documented both on the internet and by publication. It's been around since before WW2 as you mentioned. The fact that they haven't successfully designed one says more about their priorities than it does their sophistication.ladajo wrote:Sure, but I haven't seen any flying wing designs from Iran yet. Takes a certain level of sophistication in flight control for that. This may well help them. And the German's proved in WWII that flying wings are inherantly less observable.ScottL wrote:If I were them, I'd be thinking "how can I replicate this effectively?" It's not as though they're cavemen given a cellphone, but it should open their eyes a bit. They won't learn anything new about flying or manuevering, but they might learn the composition of the paint and/or the sophistication of some control mechanisms. It's definitely an early xmas for them, I agree.
http://www.century-of-flight.net/new%20 ... 0frame.htm
Excitement In The Straits Of Hormuz
One of the reasons the flying wing design has been of limited value until recent years. Even the Horton Brothers had some issues in flyability. It is one thing to make a test article and drive it around. It is another to make an operational item that can fly reliably day in and day out.Takes a certain level of sophistication in flight control for that
Now take the man out of the airplane and fly it with a computer. That is what the Iranians and many others have been lacking. The US has written the book on inherently unstable aircraft flight management. Others have followed our lead.
NASA did a lot of work, the bulk in fact, in this arena. It was their mandate by the first A in NASA.
If you refer to the yellow bats built back in the 40's as prototype flying wings, the remains of one of those was found and a reproduction built back around 2000. I watched it fly at an airshow at Brown Field in San Diego, and it flew great, back and forth at low level right over the crowd. The pilot had no problem with it, and they would not have been flying over us if they thought there was any stability issue. That may be the one on display in the Udvar-Hazy Center now.
Remember that the Me-163 Komet started from a glider design. As I understand it, the glider was stable and the Komet was not bad unless it pushed the speed of sound. The reason why was lost art to most US designers, though, until recently. Presumably, a third world country wanting to build one would be better off going back to the German designs and thus avoid needing one of our sophisticated wobblin'-goblin-tamers.
Remember that the Me-163 Komet started from a glider design. As I understand it, the glider was stable and the Komet was not bad unless it pushed the speed of sound. The reason why was lost art to most US designers, though, until recently. Presumably, a third world country wanting to build one would be better off going back to the German designs and thus avoid needing one of our sophisticated wobblin'-goblin-tamers.
When I was a very little kid back in the 40s (born Oct 44) it was in one of my coloring books. I never forgot it.Tom Ligon wrote:If you refer to the yellow bats built back in the 40's as prototype flying wings, the remains of one of those was found and a reproduction built back around 2000. I watched it fly at an airshow at Brown Field in San Diego, and it flew great, back and forth at low level right over the crowd. The pilot had no problem with it, and they would not have been flying over us if they thought there was any stability issue. That may be the one on display in the Udvar-Hazy Center now.
Remember that the Me-163 Komet started from a glider design. As I understand it, the glider was stable and the Komet was not bad unless it pushed the speed of sound. The reason why was lost art to most US designers, though, until recently. Presumably, a third world country wanting to build one would be better off going back to the German designs and thus avoid needing one of our sophisticated wobblin'-goblin-tamers.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
The mechanicals are one thing. The secret sauce - software - is quite another.Further, why would one think the controls are not intact, which would leave them available to be copied?
And even the mechanicals are not easy. First you have to measure everything. Then you have to figure out tolerances (not easy for a one of). And you also must do metallurgy - surface and bulk.
A US lab could probably do it if you have the $$$$$$$$$$. An Iranian lab? I wouldn't bet on it.
Oh. Yeah. A LOT of the testing would be destructive - you can't measure bulk hardness without access to the bulk. That means cutting. And OH BTW what is the hardness tolerance?
Just having the device is the barest of first steps. And if the device sent to the Iranians was specially modified to throw them off track? The US and the Russians played that game on each other a LOT.
It gets very complicated.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I did some military drone work back in the late 90s (unclassified). Let me just say that even American engineers are prone to bouts of total stupidity.
The short version (all you are going to get): the American engineer (college trained) was a total dufus when it came to control theory. I was supposed to be hired as his replacement and in a week on the job fixed as much of the problem as I could (probably good enough) without a total software redesign. Unfortunately I didn't get through the probationary period because I don't pee in a bottle on command - avoidant paruresis is the term and I have had it for as long as I remember - when I was 5 the doctor used to send the sample cup home with my mother because I couldn't give a sample in the office. The Drug War really helped that company.
Ah. Well. Stupidity abounds in America these days. It is to laugh.
And for you newbies (to this blog) why did I mention that the engineer was college trained? Because I am not. Degrees are highly over rated.
The short version (all you are going to get): the American engineer (college trained) was a total dufus when it came to control theory. I was supposed to be hired as his replacement and in a week on the job fixed as much of the problem as I could (probably good enough) without a total software redesign. Unfortunately I didn't get through the probationary period because I don't pee in a bottle on command - avoidant paruresis is the term and I have had it for as long as I remember - when I was 5 the doctor used to send the sample cup home with my mother because I couldn't give a sample in the office. The Drug War really helped that company.
Ah. Well. Stupidity abounds in America these days. It is to laugh.
And for you newbies (to this blog) why did I mention that the engineer was college trained? Because I am not. Degrees are highly over rated.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
After 5 years of college m first work was in Egypt as a field Engineer for the construction of a chemical plant.MSimon wrote:Ah. Well. Stupidity abounds in America these days. It is to laugh.
And for you newbies (to this blog) why did I mention that the engineer was college trained? Because I am not. Degrees are highly over rated.
On the second day a last minute change required a redesign of the rebar for a reinforced concrete structural beam that was about 10 mt long.
I took my Engineer manual, the calculator and started to crunch numbers.
After one and half hours I got out with the steel bending drawings ready just to find out that the contractor's steel carpenter (a 70 something illiterate guy) had already completed the steel bending work. Of course I started to complain like hell, and proceeded to check his work, just to find out (at my complete amazement) that it was within 5 cm error of my calculations.
It was quite a good bath of humility and teach me a lot.
Iran has been adding refinery capacity and is expected to have enough refinery capacity for domestic fuel use by 2012 or 2013. Export by 2015.
RC Flying wings have been sold for at least 10-12 years, and video in an RC aircraft is at least 15 years old.
If teenaged boys can fly these RC models, I just cant seem to be impressed by the RQ-170 or any other effort in this direction.
ladajo, We know that the Northrop 1/3rd scale wings were noted as having low radar cross sections. I have not seen anything suggesting the Germans had a similar realization. Maybe their Lichtenstein radar wasnt plentyfull enough in production?
And a note ladajo, the link you dropped to the Horton wings, they got the laminar flow wing from a P-51.. Irv Ashkenas as a college student and then as a employee of North American..
http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/latime ... =150218330
Turned the P-51 into the great plane it was known as,, he lengthened the fuselage between the tail and cockpit, perfected the ventral air intake, and invented the laminar flow wing. Then quit and went to Northrop, where he was in charge of lift and control surfaces, including the vertical rakes installed on the full size wings. Full size Northrop wings had the laminar flow wings.
TO me this suggests that between Ashkenas and Northrop, they were significantly ahead of the Hortens, whats your take?
RC Flying wings have been sold for at least 10-12 years, and video in an RC aircraft is at least 15 years old.
If teenaged boys can fly these RC models, I just cant seem to be impressed by the RQ-170 or any other effort in this direction.
100% agreed.ladajo wrote: It would also be regime suicide for Iran.
The RQ-170 is painted off white. There are no stealth coatings involved, its a low observability craft, basically cause of the color its painted and the flying wing shape.mvanwink5 wrote:How significant is the drone capture? Is it captured state of the art stealth technology?
ladajo, We know that the Northrop 1/3rd scale wings were noted as having low radar cross sections. I have not seen anything suggesting the Germans had a similar realization. Maybe their Lichtenstein radar wasnt plentyfull enough in production?
And a note ladajo, the link you dropped to the Horton wings, they got the laminar flow wing from a P-51.. Irv Ashkenas as a college student and then as a employee of North American..
http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/latime ... =150218330
Turned the P-51 into the great plane it was known as,, he lengthened the fuselage between the tail and cockpit, perfected the ventral air intake, and invented the laminar flow wing. Then quit and went to Northrop, where he was in charge of lift and control surfaces, including the vertical rakes installed on the full size wings. Full size Northrop wings had the laminar flow wings.
TO me this suggests that between Ashkenas and Northrop, they were significantly ahead of the Hortens, whats your take?
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.
I think they had the beginnings of the ideas of shape and materials equals radar visibility based on what he said. It is also known the the Germans did have their own air defense radar, as well as knew the brits did.By far the most advanced Horten design, and the first one intended for combat use, was the Ho IX jet fighter. Patterned after the conventionally powered Ho V, the radical Ho IX first flew as an unpowered glider in the summer of 1944. The aircraft consisted of a welded steel tube centre section and wood for the outer panels with plywood covering, a method of construction that was basic to all Horten craft. Reimar Horten described the construction:
The inexperienced workers available in 1944-45 could more easily be trained to work with wood, as long as the design was kept simple and primitive. Control rods and wires were inside the spar, fuel was kept in the space in front and behind. Fuel resistant glue and varnish were used, and fuel was pumped right into the wood structure without any kind of liners or bladders. Glue could be mixed with sawdust and applied over varnished surfaces to fill imperfections.
The wing skin was up to 17 mm thick; with a more refined construction, 6 mm would have been sufficient. The wood construction had some additional benefits; for instance the aircraft was almost invisible on radar. The wood panels even diffused the returns from the top mounted engines sufficiently to make radar gun sights useless. A second advantage was the minimal damage a 20 mm shell would do when it exploded inside the wing. A hole would be made, and a few ribs damaged, but the aircraft could still fly. A similar explosion inside the metal wing of a Me 109 would deform the wing so that the aircraft could not fly.'
As for wing flows and performance, I do agree that we (allies, not just US) were ahead on advanced wing designs. The was some mimicing going on for sure. It is like the RQ-170, what looks like "chrome" in reality could be something that really matters for reasons that are not apparent to the un-educated observor. I am also a firm believer in design succes by accident. I think there are many examples where what looked cool or was expediant to construction later turned out to be a innovative move for something unconsidered during the research and design phase.
How many times has an engineer said, "that worked out well" after the fact for something not initially considered? It is like the development of VT fuzes for shells. The idea was to get an anti-air proximty fuze for aircraft. Made a huge difference in the pacific campaign, and was also a BIG SECRET, along the lines of the Manhattan Project. The other big leap it provided was when it was tested out for ground targets, and discovered that it was really good for airbursting shells above the ground and taking out soft targets like light and un-armored vehicles and personnel. Even ones dug in. That was also a big secret that was used to great effect in Europe. It was even settable for burst height so you could vary use against target types. A really big game changer.
Laminar flow and symmetrical airfoils were big leaps in performance for sure. And yes I agree that the US was ahead of the game in that.
Last edited by ladajo on Tue Dec 20, 2011 6:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I forgot, I have yet to see an RC flying wing without a vertical stablizer of some sort. Show me the vertical on the RQ-170. Also please note that RC are man controlled, not software. Experienced flyers are extremely difficult to re-produce with software.
I do not think that the Iranians can not build a software controlled wing design. I do think that it is not going to be easy for them.
I do not think that the Iranians can not build a software controlled wing design. I do think that it is not going to be easy for them.
Faint memory from days of learning WWII warbird factoids like a giant ball of glue rolling thru spare parts depot.. The Ho IX aka Go 229 was assessed by modern professionals as being stealthy... "to some degree". There was a show (and I could go on to the actual WWII era factoids but this is the bottom line) on Discovery Chan. that documented some major aerospace company professionals rebuilding a full size article to test its stealth performance.
There is thru the show this same technical bit that's entertained ("Hitler's stealth fighter"
) and never confirmed as fact. The show plays on the appearance of carbon content in the aircraft skin being an intentional stealth ingredient. It's a pretty vulgar show science-wise, so they just dangle that fish the whole time and you never really learn anything other than the aerospace crew closing the show with something like "we could use this plane today for stealth drone ops".
There is thru the show this same technical bit that's entertained ("Hitler's stealth fighter"
) and never confirmed as fact. The show plays on the appearance of carbon content in the aircraft skin being an intentional stealth ingredient. It's a pretty vulgar show science-wise, so they just dangle that fish the whole time and you never really learn anything other than the aerospace crew closing the show with something like "we could use this plane today for stealth drone ops".I take Reimer Horton's own quote to indicate that they did think about the radar aspect. Maybe not a primary desing consideration, but certainly they were aware that less visible, both visual and radar, is better.
In any event, I think it was a cool design ahead of its time. Thanks for posting the peel-aways. Nice. I think I will print them out and hang them by my desk.
In any event, I think it was a cool design ahead of its time. Thanks for posting the peel-aways. Nice. I think I will print them out and hang them by my desk.