Tony, Jack Northrop wasn’t, that is what I’m trying to make very clear in my last para of my previous post.

Inkworm, I refer you to my #12, the fact that the cockpit area kind of looks similar to a Vulcan is misleading from a fundamental design point of view (ie the important bit regarding the basic question here), at the end of the day the two overall concepts are very different from each other.
Even the cockpit areas themselves are different from a technical point of view, Northrops’ is a more open WWII type employing a more scattered crew displacement, ‘blown’ clear fighter style canopy, and glazing in the leading edges of the wing.
The Vulcan employed tight crew displacement due to being in a small pressurized compartment with only small windows (within canopy and bombaimers positions).

The probe bit I fear is not helping here, personally I find it puzzling to see on the Northrop drawing and leads me to wonder about the age of the drawing?
I can’t think of other designs of the era where refuelling probes (if that is what it is?) where thought of, let alone designed in like that, and Northrop designs in general did not feature them, indeed one thing going for the wing was their long-range capabilities.
Also don’t forget that the 698 or early Vulcan designs didn’t feature in flight refuelling.

Sorry what large body of posters, how come you make the issue a nationalistic one?
My responce would be exactly the same if Avro were based in Manchester and Nortrop in Milton Keynes, indeed the basic question could be asked no matter where the companies were from.

It has to be said though that when it comes to flying-wings Jack Northrop was there very early on and it was a very deep seated vision of his to see tailess wings in military and airline service, I doubt he needed much outside influence for the fundementals of his work. He also employed his own
unique wing structure design in many of his types – he was of that era when visionary designer, stressmen, and engineer were sometimes the same person.
He got to see the B-2 design when it was till very much secret shortly before he passed away, what a heart warming moment that must have been for him.

It started out as the T.2 prototype WN365, later went back to Faireys’ as G-APYO and became T.5 prototype before rejoining the service as XT752.
Gannets of this shape were usually in the WN, XA, & XG serial ranges.

Perhaps this might help!

It does, and convinces me even more that flying wings and deltas are very different beasts.

possibly this is just a case of two designers finding a similar general layout that best solved the similar design problems they were facing.

I’m not sure but does the Northrop design have forward-view panels in the delta leading-edge? :confused:

CD, technically they are two quite different designs as I have outlined above.

The Northrop is not a delta, but yes it had glazing in the leading edge of the centre section.

Did Roy Chadwick copy the Vulcan design from Jack Northrop?
No, Northrop flying wings were pure wings with no vertical surfaces (which always counted against it), Avro 698 was a pure delta with fin and rudder, very different in terms or aerodynamics and structures. Both evolved to have vetsiges of fuselages, B-35/49 in the tail, 698/Vulcan forward cockpit area.

Only a couple of problems I can see; you can’t make a Rolls-Royce Merlin (or a Peregrine) like this, and if you could, it would not be certified to fly (in the UK anyway).

Surely if it was satisfactorily built, tested, and demonstrated within regulations, and production examples built to the same guidelines then the engines could be certifiable by the CAA as new engines?