Anybody with basic aerodynamic understanding knows this. This was thought in my class in 2003 and I’m sure way before that as well.
Yes! Thanks for the history glimpse!
Not in this forum.
I haven’t made any calculations personally but even if we would to agree on the fact that a flying wing concepts are structurally more sound, they are in any case more expensive and/or complex to design and operate.
Not really.
In aviation, controls are in 3 axes -- x y z -- and there is no way to get around that.
In most aircraft designs, we have discrete flight controls structures for each axis. If we eliminate one axis of controls, the aircraft would depart from controlled flight. There is no way to get around that.
So for most designs, we have the main wings to provide lift and on the wings, we have discrete flight control structures to alter the wings' shapes. These structures are leading edge (LE) and trailing edge (TE) flaps, and ailerons. Each of these structures have its own mechanical actuator.
Next are the horizontal stabilizers. They provide most of the maneuverability and they come in pairs. Two mechanical actuators.
Next is/are the vertical stabilizer(s). Each have its own mechanical actuator.
For the flying wing using split ailerons method to maintain yaw axis stability and control, we physically relocate the vertical stabilizers' mechanical actuators to be logically parallel with the wing ailerons' mechanical actuators. Then via software, we move the ailerons when needed.
The concept is not new. With the F-18 Super Hornet, we eliminated the actual speedbrake structure and uses all flight control surfaces in precise coordination with each other so that all of them act as speebrake.
https://www.ausairpower.net/SuperBug.html
The Super Hornet has no such device, yet achieves the same effect through what can only be described as digital magic. The speedbrake function is produced by a balanced deployment of opposing flight control surfaces, generating drag without loss of flight control authority or change in aircraft pitch attitude.
With the F-18 SH, we literally eliminated the speedbrake structure and its hydraulic actuator. Two major physical components removed.
For the B-2 flying wing design, we did not eliminate the yaw axis but with software, we logically relocated the yaw axis vertical stabilizer to inside the ailerons'. It is a corollary to the F-18SH's flight controls system that eliminated the speedbrake phyiscal structure.
Hence if a flying wing concept is chosen, by the cia I might add, it raises questions to what attributes they were desiring. IMO low radar observability is the most likely reason.
The flying wing design have long range attribute before radar was invented. The RQ-170 was intended to exploit that attribute. Yes, the longer the RQ remains undetected, the longer it will be able to provide intelligence. But what good is an airborne intelligence asset if it cannot remain flying for distance and time?
