Langley sketches for possible aircraft configurations of 1947

[hesham]

Hi,

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

 

[Tophe]

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]

Really, Tophe!
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]

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.]