Langley sketches for possible aircraft configurations of 1947

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
28,367
Reaction score
6,023
Hi,

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930082130_1993082130.pdf
 

Attachments

  • Langley 1.JPG
    Langley 1.JPG
    33.3 KB · Views: 87
  • Langley 2.JPG
    Langley 2.JPG
    26.2 KB · Views: 78
  • Langley 3.JPG
    Langley 3.JPG
    18.1 KB · Views: 74

Tophe

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
1,149
Reaction score
49
Website
cmeunier.chez-alice.fr
The conclusion, page 7-8, says (or « proves ») that
tail-less > tail-boom > conventional
and when I remember that control is a problem for tail-less, the main conclusion is “twin-boom is better than conventional” ! Wonderful! Thanks Hesham to provide calculations making this (almost) solid!
 

smurf

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
549
Reaction score
50
Really, Tophe! :eek:
I know you are an enthusiast, but what it does say is
CONCLUSIONS
A comparison of the calculated performance characteristics of
conventional, tail-boom, and all-wing tailless airplanes having
21,000 and 42,000horsepower indicated the following conclusion:
1. Large all-wing tailless airplanes may have better performanc
characteristics than their equivalent conventional or tail-boom
airplanes, when designed as bombers or long-range transports
2. Conventional airplanes may have the best performance of the
three types of airplanes when designed as short-range transports
with high wingloadings
3,Tail-boom airplanes having only a wing boom and tails do
not appear to have as good performance as either of the other
types for any type of mission considered.
 

Tophe

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
1,149
Reaction score
49
Website
cmeunier.chez-alice.fr
Yes, you are right. In twin-boom (layout) I trust, but I accept other religions. I just select the words going in my direction, considering the rest as little mistakes to forgive... [I take psychiatric pills, don't be afraid.]
 
Top