X36 and BOP were two separate programs, the latter being an Internal boeing project while the former was a NASA-McD (Now boeing) project. What the results were, and what the requirments were hard hardly PUBLIC information and i do not think BA or NASA were too bothered about VERIFICATION for the general public, they probably needed to test, verify , certain designs to de-risk them somewhat for future applications…Clearly Boeing has some confidence in its ability to develop a tailless craft or else they would not have offered such a thing. Answers to basic questions such as , Would this design be recoverable from a spin etc should be KNOWN to the designers, they hardly need to inform the general public of it…If and when this program matures, boeing would be required to build a prototype and then they would be asked to verify/demonstrate such capabilities as spin recover, high AOA and what not..
Ok…I understand.
You also might like to study this too;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%A9lix_du_Temple_de_la_Croix
…and then this; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Lilienthal
Otto’s Vogelflug was practically a ” bible ” to Wright bros.
Otto build a hill for his experiments; http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/i/Lilienthal/photos/Lilienthal_Biplane6.jpeg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Lilienthal
So basically , every design made by by anyone that looks like a former NAZI sketch must be BASED on it 🙂 … Even the New Bell helo is based on a NAZI design…I know he is an avid designer…but i would love to see more from his collection of NAZI sketches…:-)
Okay see this bring_it_on !
http://www.luft46.com/heinkel/hep1078c.html
1025 km/h at sea level…and 770 km/h at 10 000 meters ( specs ).
2454 kg empty, 5.15 m long with 17.8 m2 wing ( 6.1 m span ) 220 kg/m2 wingloading. Hirth engine provided 2866 lbs ( 1300 kg ) thrust.
Compare it to 518 km/h top speed of BoP with 3190 lbs ( 1435 kg ) thrust.
BoP reached half the speed with more engine power…what I am saying is that you take nazi designs and you aren’t anywhere near their specs and figures. Artists usually steal other ideas, but generally they create ( if interested to become famous and well respected ) something that is better.
Heinkel P-1078 was far more advanced design in 1945 than BoP in 1991.
With all due respect !
—–
Edit: If BoP was to be just an experiment then it is ok..and specs accordingly !
The point was not that this is based on the BOP, but the Company that is submitting the design has some expereince from real life projects and tech demonstrators. They would not submit a design without having sollutions to BASIC design and aerodynamic challenges that even members of a public forum can pick up. There have been programs before to look into tail less flight, so its not like they are working in the dark.
First flown on May 17, 1997, it made 31 successful research flights. It handled very well, and the program is reported to have met or exceeded all project goals. McDonnell Douglas merged with Boeing in August 1997 while the test program was in progress; the aircraft is sometimes referred to as the Boeing X-36.
The X-36 possessed high maneuverability that would be ideal for use as a fighter. Despite its potential suitability, and highly successful test-program, there have been no reports regarding the X-36’s development as of 2010.
http://www.dreamlandresort.com/black_projects/bird_of_prey.html
This does not verify that result/verdiction.
During the first flight Haug also found the Bird of Prey had marginal stability in pitch and was unstable in roll and yaw. Directional stability was particularly poor at low angles of attack (AOA). These characteristics had a significant impact on the airplane’s basic flying qualities.
With only one flight under their belts Phantom Works engineers had little flight data to work with, but what they had didn’t match the predicted lateral-directional stability derivatives and simulator performance. A second flight yielded similar results.
During post-flight examination of the airplane a technician discovered a loose actuator on the right elevon and fixed it, hoping this would solve the problem. On the third flight, however, the lateral-directional flying qualities remained unacceptable.
The point was not that this is based on the BOP, but the Company that is submitting the design has some expereince from real life projects and tech demonstrators. They would not submit a design without having sollutions to BASIC design and aerodynamic challenges that even members of a public forum can pick up. There have been programs before to look into tail less flight, so its not like they are working in the dark.
First flown on May 17, 1997, it made 31 successful research flights. It handled very well, and the program is reported to have met or exceeded all project goals. McDonnell Douglas merged with Boeing in August 1997 while the test program was in progress; the aircraft is sometimes referred to as the Boeing X-36.
The X-36 possessed high maneuverability that would be ideal for use as a fighter. Despite its potential suitability, and highly successful test-program, there have been no reports regarding the X-36’s development as of 2010.
….and PoB was based on this…
More marketing fantasy. Fuel for the type of combat radius USAF desires requires a big vehicle. Think B-58 or TU-22 size.
To me that looks to be exatcly B-58 sized.
Those are the sort of things that are part of testing. No modern fighter goes into operation without testing it. Tail less design has to be de-risked, and once an prototype is concerned, it would be tested in all regimes and departures. This is IF this comes to that. There is plenty of time before that happens. And Boeing is not totally inexperienced when it comes to modern stealth VLO designs that do not have a tail
It does have two rudders…it had lateral issues. Another fin was added to it later underside.
Sign In
