Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Glorious Arstotzka

17 (16%)

Glorious Moskurg

13 (12.3%)

Ingloriously Didn't Play

76 (71.7%)

Total Members Voted: 106

[Light forger]

Can a flying wing be used effectively at sea?

Possibly? Depends on it's wingspan although, it should have no problems taking off/landing due to high lift and, a turbofan for the needed acceleration.
Quick note in order to gain maneuverability you have to sacrifice stability. We can't cheat by using fly-by-wire.

Also this was made in 1940 was was stable enough to fly without ending up smashed into the side of a mountain(The issue with dutch rolling was corrected as part of the design).

[Happerry]

Missile/Rocket
(5) UF-ATGM-41 Saltseeker' Pattern A: evictedSaint, Sheb, Stabby, S34N1C, Happerry
(0) UF-A(A/T)R-41 'Saltstriker':
(0) UF-ATR41 A  "Firefly":

Aircraft
(1) UFAF-A41 "Turbohaast": Azzuro
(7) UFAF-F-41 Lightning Streak: Madman198237, Zanzetkuken, Jilladilla,  10ebbor10, Piratejoe, Andrea, Powder Miner
(1) UFAF-HF41-W 'Strife': Lightforger
(0) UFAF-JF-41 'Sobriety' Pattern A
(0) UFAF-SHB-41 "Hammer of Forenia"

Tank
(3) UF-MT-41 'Demolisher': Taricus, Kashyyk, NAV
UF-HT-41 "Apocalypse"
Pattern A: 0
Pattern B: 0
Pattern C: 0
Pattern D: 0
Pattern E: 0
Pattern F: 0

Radar
(3) RDN-41-3 "DEADLIEST RAY": RAM, SMMI, NUKE9.13
(0) UFS-41-W 'Virgil':

Other
(0) Ana-G.A.P.-1941-D.F.A. Kriegblitz antimateriel rifle: 0
(0) UF-ERA-41 "Blood Eagle":

[Madman198237]

Well, Light, the idea of a flying wing is cool, but after some more research I point out that most turning that you might do in a flying wing results in highly inefficient flight characteristics, meaning you're producing so much more drag than a conventional aircraft that you might as well not be using a flying wing at all.

[RAM]

Early war fighters were agile and operated with little in the way of formal tactics. The more agile fighter got on your tail and sat there until you fell. Interceptors were faster and more heavily armed for destroying bombers. A lone fighter will defeat a lone interceptor much as a long swordsman will defeat a lone spearman. Thwart the initial pass, get in close, stab them in the back as they try to get away. This changed late-war as interceptors started replacing fighters in the fighter role. Interceptors in formation could more effectively destroy an enemy in the initial pass and more effectively keep opponents off of their tails as they flew away from enemies that were more effectively dispersed and could be kept dispersed by staggered waves... There were recommendations to "never dogfight with a zero" from craft that achieved massive win ratios against zeroes... That is not to say that manoeuvrability is irrelevant. A mix of craft may be just the thing! And there is always a desire to have everything... But in general, against organised and coordinated forces, it is extremely dangerous to get into a situation where you have to predictably sit on someone else's tail while surrounded by people who want to shoot you.

Personally, I prefer dogfighters, there is a romance to them and they certainly are effective when they work. Nothing is quite so good at beating the numbers in a chaotic melee than turning inside your victim, dropping them, then flipping off before anyone can get a bead on you, but I fear that the fast, high altitude, fast climb craft is the one that will generally get the best ratios...

Now, onto winning the jungle...

[Light forger]

Both the Ho 229 and the YB-35 flew without fly-by-wire using the stability improvements I talked about and, neither one so made "more drag than a conventional aircraft that you might as well not be using a flying wing at all". Quite the opposite in fact.

[Madman198237]

Then why wasn't the YB-35 ever put into production as a fighter aircraft? Or as anything, really?

[Light forger]

The first model had issues with oscillation due to make mix of bad prop engines and being over 52 meters long. That shouldn't be a problem for us as we aren't using prop engines and it isn't 52 meters long. It should be note these issues where fixed in the YB-39 by reinforcing the wings and using jet engines but, at that point the air forces decided to go with the B-47. At which point Jack Northrop stopped pushing for the idea and it fell off the radar.

[Madman198237]

OK, well, as noted: They have bad stability issues. In multiple planes, sometimes. We don't want to mess with that, at least not to my way of thinking. It's too complex for too little gain, unless we end up going for a long-haul bomber that needs high speeds and good aerodynamics (Fuel efficiency) but not turning ability.

[Light forger]

Flying wing planes are more maneuverable then normal planes(Well vastly better in pitch, slightly better in roll, worse in yaw).

[Madman198237]

Yes, but as noted: They're unstable, and require sometimes-elaborate measures to correct them. Again: If it could be made more efficient that a regular plane, I'd take a flying-wing-like design for a long-range bomber, but likely not anything else.

[Light forger]

Here is the thing a flying wing is uniquely amazing at being a heavy fighter. The high lift generation means it can take a heavy armament/armoring up to extremely high altitudes. Then it's ultra-low drag means it gains the great possible amount of energy in a dive. Afterwards it's superior pitch control letting it pull out of that dive and, it's tougher wings not ripping off from that maneuver. Then thanks to it's weight it has excellent energy retention from that dive so it loses barely any speed returning to altitude.

[Madman198237]

Yes, but. We first need a pure dogfight-superiority fighter, a gunfighter, to waste their air forces. Then we consider if the heavy fighter actually has any sort of role in combat (Hint: It didn't in WWII)

[RAM]

We pretty much need a heavy fighter in order to get out of cheap. Unless you want an all-titanium body?

[Devastator]

Wouldn't a flying wing also be a huge target due to being huge?  And have no g-force advantage, but being really heavy?  I mean it isn't useless, but wouldn't it cost a good deal more than a regular fighter, and the new wing design would mean less advantage from existing aircraft experience?

There's also the issue with the lack of folding wings for carrier service.

[Light forger]

The spitfire was 11.23m by 9.12m, the Ho 229 was 16.76m by 7.47m. Also in regards to heavy fighters, you mean like how every major power made them through the war?