By: Arabella-Cox - 27th April 2023 at 20:46
Another was the X-20 Dyna-Soar.
Bernoulli is ‘generally accepted’ but it’s old good for fluid flow in tubes. NASA’s educational website explains the reason why many of the long established theories are wrong. It’s worth a read.
By: dhfan - 27th April 2023 at 20:08
The M2-F3 probably, as that looks nearest to what I remember.
IIRC, I had an 1970(ish) Aircraft Annual by Ian Allan so I wouldn’t be surprised if that was where I saw it. The timescale’s about right and it’s the sort of article they would have printed. I’ve probably still got it somewhere…
I’m no aerodynamicist so I’m not even going to try to understand any theories of lift other than the generally accepted one.
By: Fargo Boyle - 27th April 2023 at 18:24
Documentary about the NASA lifting body research mentioned by Oracal. If you’re old enough to remember The Six Million Dollar Man TV series, Steve Austin was supposed to have had his terrible crash in one. Hmmm – if he was rebuilt, is he a replica or original? :-p
By: Arabella-Cox - 27th April 2023 at 15:47
Perhaps, dhfan, you are thinking of the X-24A, M2-F3 and HL-10 lifting bodies?
Consider that a barn door will produce lift when so inclined. Then ditch Bernoulli theory and instead adopt Newtonian lift theory as the mechanics of how objects produce lift.
By: dhfan - 27th April 2023 at 15:26
I have a picture in my mind of what could have been a space shuttle concept or similar lifting body. I’ve no idea all these years later whether it was an artist’s impression, a model or something that was actually built and tested.
It had a cockpit right at the front, a pretty well dead flat upper surface with a fin/rudder each side at the back and a continuously curved lower surface.
I haven’t a clue how it was supposed to generate lift, if anything I would have thought the opposite.
By: powerandpassion - 27th April 2023 at 11:08
dhfan & Rob, thanks for the elucidation and education. The Space Shuttle is an interesting connection, trying to maximise flying cargo space. Miles Aircraft seems to be a great example of that incredible, shining British inventiveness, contrasted with the best of suffocating British bureaucracy, a place where little children who enjoyed plucking the wings from flies could mature and practice their instincts on a larger stage.
By: farnboroughrob - 26th April 2023 at 19:09
Yes it flew, but not very well. It was an expermental design looking at the blended wing layout that Miles had proposed for large airliners. However the lack of any really small engines kind of made it pretty pointless as an aerodynamic test bed.
Rob
By: dhfan - 26th April 2023 at 15:08
Fred, George and Blossom Miles were very under-rated as aircraft designers – vis M.52.
The Yanks did a lot of research into blended wings, lifting bodies etc. 50-60 years ago including what, as I recall , was an early concept for a space shuttle.
No idea now whether they lost interest or I did…
By: powerandpassion - 26th April 2023 at 12:08
Not much info on the net. AI would not have much to go on. An extraordinary cross section. I wonder how much lift was generated out of this ‘blended fuselage- wing’ concept. Where you need a fat body to store hydrogen I wonder how much this concept lends itself to electric propulsion powered by hydrogen electrolysers.
By: powerandpassion - 26th April 2023 at 11:57
Sorry, was typsy when I spelt gipsy. Now I typsey because you gripsey. However, thanks for the ID!
By: dhfan - 26th April 2023 at 11:31
Miles M.30
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_X_Minor
Not being clever, I just guessed that P & P might be Phillips and Powis and it was.
Gipsy Major, not Gypsy.Major.
No idea why but that’s how DH spelt it.
Sign In
April 26, 2023 at 11:08 am