Northrop XB-35 Flying Wing

[MLynn]

The Flying Wing has always been my favorite aircraft - a beautiful thing to look at (B-2 bomber isn't nearly as "pretty"). I don't know why the Flying Wing wasn't put into wide use by our government or commercial industry, but I think its flown at airshows.

northrop.host.sk/ northrop_xb35.htm

edited to add: I didn't copy the link correctly - it didn't work

[MLynn]

This is another try to copy the link:

http://www.northrop.host.sk/northrop_xb35.htm

[IllegalArgument]

My personal favorite is the A-10 Warthhog

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/a-10.htm

[DangerousBeliefs]

Have you seen the next-gen of unmanned bombers? They kickit!

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/x-45-ucav/x-45-ucav5.html

http://www.boeing.com/phantom/ucav.html

I suspect within the next 10-15 years, bomber pilots will begin to be phased out in the United States. The Navy should be particularly interested given the small size of the X-45. Imagine a fleet with TWICE as many aircraft made up of stealth unmanned aircraft, all using percision or guidable weapons.

[IllegalArgument]

Found a site with a quick fight movie of a flying wing for you:

http://www.airspacemag.com/asm/Web/Site/QT/flyingwing.html

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by MLynn
This is another try to copy the link:

http://www.northrop.host.sk/northrop_xb35.htm

OK it flew and it looked cool. What was it supposed to be good for? Fighter, bomber, transport, what?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs
Have you seen the next-gen of unmanned bombers? They kickit!

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/x-45-ucav/x-45-ucav5.html

http://www.boeing.com/phantom/ucav.html

I suspect within the next 10-15 years, bomber pilots will begin to be phased out in the United States. The Navy should be particularly interested given the small size of the X-45. Imagine a fleet with TWICE as many aircraft made up of stealth unmanned aircraft, all using percision or guidable weapons.


They may do the job just fine, but they don't look cool. Feh! :p


http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/x-45-ucav/images/X45UCAV_5.jpg

[IllegalArgument]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


OK it flew and it looked cool. What was it supposed to be good for? Fighter, bomber, transport, what?

Bomber

[Reginald]

Would now be a good time to mention the designs of the Horten Brothers in Germany in WW2?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Reginald
Would now be a good time to mention the designs of the Horten Brothers in Germany in WW2?

There's never a bad time to talk about any aircraft.

Pictures or links to pictures, please!

[Reginald]

Well this is like my favourite place to look at all things half built or never made but thought of....fascinating place....


http://www.luft46.com/

I am currently 3D modeling an Ar E-555 (Variant 10).

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Reginald
Well this is like my favourite place to look at all things half built or never made but thought of....fascinating place....


http://www.luft46.com/

I am currently 3D modeling an Ar E-555 (Variant 10).

Thank you.

[LucyR]

Originally posted by MLynn
The Flying Wing has always been my favorite aircraft - a beautiful thing to look at (B-2 bomber isn't nearly as "pretty"). I don't know why the Flying Wing wasn't put into wide use by our government or commercial industry, but I think its flown at airshows.

northrop.host.sk/ northrop_xb35.htm

edited to add: I didn't copy the link correctly - it didn't work

There were technical issues that just couldn't be resolved. I think it was probably just too ambitious for its time.

[LucyR]

Originally posted by IllegalArgument
My personal favorite is the A-10 Warthhog

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/a-10.htm

Yes.

[mummymonkey]

One of the old heaps of junk I worked on in a previous life:

http://www.arnhem.freeserve.co.uk/raf43/43iat87.jpg

Filthy, horrible, noisy things. I can't see a picture of one of these without thinking of extended night shifts and Swarfega.

[TillEulenspiegel]

What most people don't realize is that the f-22 stealth fighter and the B-2 stealth bomber are both based on the "flying wing". The problem at the time was that the thing had weird ( as one would guess ) control problems that had to be addressed by faster feedback then a Human is capable. Enter the computer.

Punch line being that the flying wing design was based on the Luftwaffe's experimental wing type air craft ( forgot the designation ). See Steven Spielberg's rendition in Raiders of the lost Ark . : )

[IllegalArgument]

Originally posted by LucyR


Yes.

Haha, I knew you would like that :D It's true though, I love the ugly things.

[IllegalArgument]

Originally posted by mummymonkey
One of the old heaps of junk I worked on in a previous life:

http://www.arnhem.freeserve.co.uk/raf43/43iat87.jpg

Filthy, horrible, noisy things. I can't see a picture of one of these without thinking of extended night shifts and Swarfega.

Anyone interesting about recent military aircraft should read up on John Boyd. He's was the father of the F-15 and F-16, though it pains the Air Force to admit it. He had unkind things to say about the F-4.

[LucyR]

Originally posted by mummymonkey


Filthy, horrible, noisy things. I can't see a picture of one of these without thinking of extended night shifts and Swarfega.

I think the f-4 is a cool looking plane.

[Hutch]

I guess I'm fond of "the uglies" too, the Thunderbolt (to cite the USAF name for the record) always appealed to me since I work for the Army and this bad boy was designed to be the ground-pounders' best buddy. The USAF never cared for it, they have never been fond of Close Air Support (CAS) in their history, but would never let the US Army get their hands on a jet aircraft.

Still remember watching the F-4's take off in St. Louis from the National Guard base at Lambert Field. Just something about them gets into me.

And since I've worked with them for the last 15 years, the AH-64 APACHE is a cool (and ugly) piece of work that beats the air into submission (and takes out enemy tanks) better than any other rotary-wing bird ever.

[MLynn]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


OK it flew and it looked cool. What was it supposed to be good for? Fighter, bomber, transport, what?
I don't remember the original military application, but it was considered for commercial/civilian travel. See below

edited to add:
http://www.danford.net/paxwing.jpg

[MLynn]

Originally posted by mummymonkey
One of the old heaps of junk I worked on in a previous life:

http://www.arnhem.freeserve.co.uk/raf43/43iat87.jpg

Filthy, horrible, noisy things. I can't see a picture of one of these without thinking of extended night shifts and Swarfega.
Before he retired, my cousin worked on space shuttles in Florida and told me about the thunder storms in the VABs. They had to monitor weather conditions so they wouldn't run the risk of getting caught in a storm (heheheheh)
edited to correct idiocy

[Lavie Enrose]

Originally posted by MLynn
The Flying Wing has always been my favorite aircraft - a beautiful thing to look at (B-2 bomber isn't nearly as "pretty"). I don't know why the Flying Wing wasn't put into wide use by our government or commercial industry, but I think its flown at airshows.

How Flying Wings Will Work (http://travel.howstuffworks.com/flying-wing.htm)

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
..Punch line being that the flying wing design was based on the Luftwaffe's experimental wing type air craft ( forgot the designation ). See Steven Spielberg's rendition in Raiders of the lost Ark . : )

I'm not certain that is quite true. I do not have a reference handy... but I do remember an AIAA Lunch Time lecture when I worked at Boeing that was about Northrop and his flying wings. From the cobwebs of my mind, I believe he was working on those back in the 1930's. There was some discussion on the politics that buried the XB-49 (in addition to its tendency to go into a Dutch roll).

The presentation also noted that the Northrop engineering school used the "Left-hand rule" instead of the "right-hand rule" for 3-dimensional force designations.

Ooh... I found a reference:
http://www.yourzagi.com/history.htm (it helps when you spell the man's name right!! it is an "o" not a "u"!).

Editted to add this even more explanatory reference:
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Aerospace/Northrop/Aero40.htm

(flying wings are cool... but warthogs are so ugly they are cute)

[MLynn]

Originally posted by Lavie Enrose


How Flying Wings Will Work (http://travel.howstuffworks.com/flying-wing.htm)
Thank you, Lavie - great site.

[Lavie Enrose]

Originally posted by Reginald
Would now be a good time to mention the designs of the Horten Brothers in Germany in WW2?

The Horten Flying Wings (http://www.danford.net/horten.htm)

[neutrino_cannon]

Lesse, doesn't the xb-35, or it's close relative the xb-49 have exactly the same wingspan as the b-2 spirit?

Funny how that goes.

I remember reading that the shape of the wind itself is actually less generally reflective than a conventional plan. Less tail feathers and such sticking out, that and everything is burried in the wing in the northrop bombers. Appearantly the xb-49 and xb-35 were naturally low-radar profile.

I believe that the monstrosity of the B-36 was chosen over the elegant wing because the wing could be a little finicky as far as control went, and the bomb bay was actually not wide enough to accomodate a "fat man" style plutonium bomb, still standard even after the retirement of the B-29.

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by Reginald
Would now be a good time to mention the designs of the Horten Brothers in Germany in WW2?

Very OT, I know, but have you people ever noticed how the Horten flying wing looks a lot like Kenneth Arnold's original flying saucers?

Follow the link-> http://www.debunker.com/images/ArnoldUFO.jpg

[espritch]

In George Pal's "War of the Worlds", he had a Northrop Flying Wing drop an atomic bomb on the Martian saucers (it didn't do any good due to the alien's force fields).

[Ove]

I don't know why the Flying Wing wasn't put into wide use by our government or commercial industry,

Edwards Air Base was named after a testpilot, killed flying the "wing", and the Brithis testpilot Geoffrey de Havilland was killed flying a similar allthough smaller plane. These flying wings was/is a good idea but they can be dangerously unstable and they need a good computer to solve that problem.

Anyone interesting about recent military aircraft should read up on John Boyd. He's was the father of the F-15 and F-16, though it pains the Air Force to admit it. He had unkind things to say about the F-4.

The most idiotic thing about the F4 is that it was put into action as a dogfighter. It is an exellent ground attack plane and can take a lot of punishment but it is not a fighter. To ad to the stupidity they sent them out against MIG's WITHOUT a cannon and with only two Sidewinders-:rolleyes:

Back when we looked at a replacement for the Draken i saw a feature about the F16 (which was the one we choose). It was parked next to a F4 on a runway and at the word "go" they both took off. When the F4 eventually was airborne the F16 had completed a full circle and had him in his gunsight.:p

In the movie "Iron Eagle 2" (i think) there is a scene where a girl flying a F4 defeats the Hero in a F16 during training. I nearly died laughing seing that scene.:D

[LucyR]

Originally posted by Ove


Back when we looked at a replacement for the Draken i saw a feature about the F16 (which was the one we choose).

Interesting. I'd thought the Viggen was the Draken's successor.

Edit: Whoops! Mistook you for a Swede. My mistake.

[Ove]

Interesting. I'd thought the Viggen was the Draken's successor.

Edit: Whoops! Mistook you for a Swede. My mistake.
Yes a mistake but then again choosing F16 was a mistake too, The Viggen would have been much better suited.;)

[Oleron]

The RAF F-4's were very different from the USAF ones. They had Rolls-Royce Spey engines in place of the J-79's.

They also often carried 30mm Aden cannons on the centre station.

Anybody know why they changed the engines? Were they any better than the American versions?

(My vote for favorite jet of all time -American- F-106 Delta Dart - sheer poetry. British- BAC Lightning- paper airplane come to life.)

[exarch]

As far as looks go, I always liked the MIG 29.
Although nothing has more character IMO than WWII oldies, like the Spitfire.

[mummymonkey]

Originally posted by Oleron
Anybody know why they changed the engines? Were they any better than the American versions?The aircraft were fitted with British engines and other parts (almost half British by value) in a political compromise after the cancellation of TSR2. Although the RR engine was superior, the problems of fitting it to the F4 were never really overcome. The result was the slowest most expensive F4 produced.

[Oleron]

Thanks MM.

Just as well we were never invaded when these things were our best defence.

[IllegalArgument]

Originally posted by Ove



The most idiotic thing about the F4 is that it was put into action as a dogfighter. It is an exellent ground attack plane and can take a lot of punishment but it is not a fighter. To ad to the stupidity they sent them out against MIG's WITHOUT a cannon and with only two Sidewinders-:rolleyes:



Especially dumb considering how bad Sidewinders were at the time. F-4 were durable, but maybe a bit light in the bomb load department.



Back when we looked at a replacement for the Draken i saw a feature about the F16 (which was the one we choose). It was parked next to a F4 on a runway and at the word "go" they both took off. When the F4 eventually was airborne the F16 had completed a full circle and had him in his gunsight.:p


Very funny, I hadn't heard the story before. Now, for a really bad US aircraft, the F-111 takes the cake for models that made it into combat. :)

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Oleron
The RAF F-4's were very different from the USAF ones. They had Rolls-Royce Spey engines in place of the J-79's.

They also often carried 30mm Aden cannons on the centre station.

Anybody know why they changed the engines? Were they any better than the American versions?

(My vote for favorite jet of all time -American- F-106 Delta Dart - sheer poetry. British- BAC Lightning- paper airplane come to life.)

Yes, I do happen to know why they changed the engines.

The j79 was a straight turbojet, not teribly effecient. Furthermore, it only puts out 17,000 or therabout pounds of thrust at full reheat (as the brits would call it). The spey puts out 20,000 as well as being more fuel efficient.

It seemed only logical to replace the engines, but the problem is that turbofans, at least the spey, are wider than straight turbojets. Thus, the additional drag from the wider engines neatly canceled out to efficiency and thrust gains.

[richardm]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon


Yes, I do happen to know why they changed the engines.

The j79 was a straight turbojet, not teribly effecient. Furthermore, it only puts out 17,000 or therabout pounds of thrust at full reheat (as the brits would call it). The spey puts out 20,000 as well as being more fuel efficient.

It seemed only logical to replace the engines, but the problem is that turbofans, at least the spey, are wider than straight turbojets. Thus, the additional drag from the wider engines neatly canceled out to efficiency and thrust gains.

That was the "official" reason - extra power was required to shift them off the smaller British carriers. There were small efficiency gains (10-15% increase in range), but they were surprisingly troublesome to get working right, and even when they were setup properly they gave them a slower max speed, with a lower ceiling. Plus, it made them needlessly expensive - "The most powerful, most expensive and slowest phantoms in the world", as one RAF type said.

As MM says, the main reason for the engine change was political, to deflect some of the heat the government was generating as it effectively shut down the UK military aircraft industry.

The RAF were forced to buy F4s at the same time as the RN, even though they didn't want them, so that the government could get a discount for bulk buying. They weren't too happy about it, although in the end, they turned out to be not too bad, despite the trouble caused by the Spey. They had better low-level performance than their US-engined counterparts, and better sprint ability.

In the end, they were generally well liked - the ultimate opinion of all air forces who operated it, I think.


My sister lives near RAF Leeming, and they had four of the old Phantoms parked there, due to be scrapped. Aircraft museums across the country (including one local one) were clamouring to get their mitts on them, but apparently there was some US Government clause in the contract to supply them that stated that the UK Government could not pass them on - or even parts of them - to third parties.

As far as I know, they all ended up being scrapped in the end. Shame.

[ceptimus]

This model of mine flies ok, but looks weird.

http://www.mround.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/models/photos/bug.jpg

[exarch]

I wonder what that pilot is saying :confused:

[MLynn]

I would love to have this xb-35 remote control model - absolutely gorgeous!

http://jnaudin.free.fr/images/xb351.jpg

[losman]

The XB-35 was a major program pushed forth by Jack Northop to provide to the US an ultra long range strategic bomber to attack targets in Germany and Japan from bases stateside. Northrop espoused the aerodynamic advantages of a wing design that offered little drag from a fuselage. The problems he encountered were normal for an advanced design that made compromises. There was no vertical stabalizer and rear tail so he had to devise a combination flap/elevator called "elevons". These also had to provide the role of a tail mounted rudder. I believe the engine mounts provided some vertical stabilty but the problem got worse when jet engines were added.

The XB-49 was a great design yet suffered from technology issues that would be no problem today. The B-2 uses computers to aid in flight and would have easily helped the XB-49 as well. The XB-49 also had a smaller weapon bay and could not accomodate the large nuclear weapons of the day. The jet engines of the day were notoriously innefficient so the long range the XB-35 had was reduced greatly.

I recall watching a documentory about Jack Northop and how he was shattered by the cancellation of the Flying Wing. His company would go on and make the outstanding T-38/F-5 but Mr Northrop was not as enthusiactic about these designs. He was fortunate enough to live long enough to see the mockup of the B-2 bomber and it was said he smiled and knew he had the right idea all along. The B-2 Bomber is his legacy and without his enthusiam and dedication the flying wing would be forgotten.

[MLynn]

Thanks, Iosman, for the wonderful bit of history. I appreciate it. Welcome to the Forum! There are lots of interesting people who post here - they're darn feisty, too.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Flight from light Helios (http://trc.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/FactSheets/FS-068-DFRC.html)

[Lavie Enrose]

Originally posted by Ove
The most idiotic thing about the F4 is that it was put into action as a dogfighter. It is an exellent ground attack plane and can take a lot of punishment but it is not a fighter. To ad to the stupidity they sent them out against MIG's WITHOUT a cannon and with only two Sidewinders-:rolleyes:

The F-4 (Navy) could carry up to four radar-guided Sparrow missiles, and up to four heat seeking Sidewinders.

The F-4 has the distinction of being credited with more MiG kills than any other aircraft, and accounted for the majority of the MiG-21 kills over Vietnam.

[Lavie Enrose]

Originally posted by IllegalArgument


Especially dumb considering how bad Sidewinders were at the time. F-4 were durable, but maybe a bit light in the bomb load department.



The Sidewinder brought down more enemy aircraft than any other weapon used in Vietnam. The Sparrow missile was not highly trusted because it did not always perform well.

A typical maximum bomb-load for an F-4 (Navy) mission was about 16,000 lb during Vietnam.

[Ove]

The F-4 (Navy) could carry up to four radar-guided Sparrow missiles, and up to four heat seeking Sidewinders.
And still the pilots begged for a cannon, eventually they got one on a pod.
The F-4 has the distinction of being credited with more MiG kills than any other aircraft, and accounted for the majority of the MiG-21 kills over Vietnam.
Not surprising, considering it was the major American fighter in Vietnam.;) (There wasn't that many other fighter types to share the credit) :p The Sidewinder brought down more enemy aircraft than any other weapon used in Vietnam. The Sparrow missile was not highly trusted because it did not always perform well.

See above.
I have (on VCR) an interwiew with one of the leading American aces where he states that he could have at least doubled his score, had his F4 been fitted with a Cannon.

I AM NOT saying the F4 is a bad plane by all means, merely that it was used in a role it was not designed for.

[neutrino_cannon]

Not just a pod, look at a later f-4. That thing under the nose is an m61 20mm vulcan.

Same gun on the f-15 and f-22. Guns are good.

I remember reading that the humidity of vietnam affected the missile's guidence, that and the aim-7 works best as a BVR weapon, but the stupid rules of engagement precluded BVR engagements at all.

Later aim-7's are better, but aim-120's are better still. That whole SARH thing never sounded great to me.

[Oleron]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
Not just a pod, look at a later f-4. That thing under the nose is an m61 20mm vulcan.

Same gun on the f-15 and f-22. Guns are good.

I remember reading that the humidity of vietnam affected the missile's guidence, that and the aim-7 works best as a BVR weapon, but the stupid rules of engagement precluded BVR engagements at all.

Later aim-7's are better, but aim-120's are better still. That whole SARH thing never sounded great to me.

"Guns are good."
But neutrino_cannons are better!

The problem with the AIM-120 is that it costs more than most MIG's!

[Ove]

Not just a pod, look at a later f-4. That thing under the nose is an m61 20mm vulcan.

I know but the "field adaption crash installation" during Vietnam was a Vulcan pod.;)

[Lavie Enrose]

Originally posted by Ove

And still the pilots begged for a cannon, eventually they got one on a pod.

This has more to do with the despised and mind-boggling rules of engagement of the war in Vietnam. F-4 pilots were required to make visual ID of an air target before engaging it. This negated the F-4s ability to destroy a target 'beyond visual range' (28 miles with the Sparrow missile). Even so, most of the MiG kills in Vietnam were made with the Sidewinder, and not with cannons.

Not surprising, considering it was the major American fighter in Vietnam.;) (There wasn't that many other fighter types to share the credit) :p

The F-4 was the best fighter aircraft of its time. It was superior to anything flying then.

I AM NOT saying the F4 is a bad plane by all means, merely that it was used in a role it was not designed for.

The F-4 was designed as a fleet defence interceptor. By 1965, the F-4 was also being used as a fighter-escort, and was carrying air-to-ground ordinance. The F-4 was an exceedingly versatile warplane that excelled in all its roles.

It was not until the F-14 and F-15 came into being that the F-4 started to loose its dominance.

[EdipisReks]

weren't kill ratios in vietnam much lower than in the korean war, despite the quaility of pilots being similar?

[neutrino_cannon]

I wouldn't be suprised. That war was fought in a most idiotic fashion.

One thing hot-shot F-14 pilots learn fast in Top Gun training is to never estimate a-4/mig-17 class aircraft. Small, subsonic fighter-bombers from twenty or more years ago may look bad on paper, but once they get to turning inside minimum missile range, you'll be in for a nasty shock.

Hmmm... digging out my old Bill Gunston books.

He mentions strapping three m61 pods onto f-4s, that way the recoild cancells (one left, one right, one center). Sounds freaking brutal.

Anyway, one should not underestimate the value of cannon in modern air to air combat. i doubt the USAF will ever make that mistake again, and the late USSR took it very much into account.

The tu-160 is their only bomber to lack the trademark twin 23mm cannon, and only a handful of their interceptors (and no multipurpose aircraft) have ever lacked cannon.

Sad the the UK eurofighters are going to be lacking cannon. I'll both laugh and cry the day one gets taken out by a fishbed or the like.

Shoot, even the yb-49 and yb-35 had four fifties in the back!


Edited to add, yes, indeed guns are good. I wouldn't trust a neutrino_cannon of any calibur in combat, however!