Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
WIederling wrote:Bell curve seems to be most appropriate for flying wing designs.
bell distribution makes the design steerable and _allows_ surface reductions ( no tail ).
As long as you have a conventional plane ( wings, fuselage, h/v tailplanes ) design ...
Taxi645 wrote:WIederling wrote:Bell curve seems to be most appropriate for flying wing designs.
bell distribution makes the design steerable and _allows_ surface reductions ( no tail ).
As long as you have a conventional plane ( wings, fuselage, h/v tailplanes ) design ...
Why is that so? It seems the Bell curve has two distinct advantages:
1 Proverse yaw
2 Lower induced drag for the same weight
WIederling wrote:Taxi645 wrote:WIederling wrote:Bell curve seems to be most appropriate for flying wing designs.
bell distribution makes the design steerable and _allows_ surface reductions ( no tail ).
As long as you have a conventional plane ( wings, fuselage, h/v tailplanes ) design ...
Why is that so? It seems the Bell curve has two distinct advantages:
1 Proverse yaw
2 Lower induced drag for the same weight
3 (Much?) Higher wing loading in the loaded section of the wing.
Taxi645 wrote:Not sure I understand what you're saying or what implications that would have? Do you mean that the part of the wing that does produce positive lift thus has to produce more lift per meter wing?