Quote:
Originally Posted by Piotrsko
Wasn't wheel tufting so much as pitot tubes
I believe Aerohead is mostly correct, but I was under the impression that they were only looking to see if a rudderless craft could be stable. What I understood, is their experiment said rudders are unnecessary on a flying wing planform without drag augmentation, and current elliptical theory of spanwise distribution might be wrong.
In other words, the B2 would be better with washout instead of split ailerons on the tips.
Being I worked there, the NOTAR was primarily a noise reducing stealth enhancement with the added function of fewer annoying high maintenance spinning parts. I don't know what it devolved into.
|
In a power-off emergency auto-rotation,the loss of vectored turbine thrust would be an analogue to the absence of a mechanically-linked tail rotor with the main rotor;effectively giving zero counter-torque,directional stability and a very nice crash.
On the B2,the computer will not allow the plane to stall,so technically,any consideration of washout would be moot.And if the wing has zero-twist,the entire section will stall simultaneously,as, if you've lost the tip,you've also lost the root.
The canard on the race car is so porous,I wouldn't even want to know its drag coefficient.From what Abbott and Von Doenhoff have published on slotted wings,you wouldn't be able to print a chart tall enough to encompass its drag-to-lift ratio.
And as to the pitot array,no tube can reliably register accurate flow beyond 12-degrees incidence,and some of them might experience a local angle of attack beyond that limit.It's hard to visualize.