Hubbry Logo
Flying wingFlying wingMain
Open search
Flying wing
Community hub
Flying wing
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Flying wing
Flying wing
Flying wing
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The Northrop B-2 Spirit stealth bomber

A flying wing is a tailless fixed-wing aircraft that has no definite fuselage, with its crew, payload, fuel, and equipment housed inside the main wing structure. A flying wing may have various small protuberances such as pods, nacelles, blisters, booms, or vertical stabilizers.

Similar aircraft designs, that are not technically flying wings, are sometimes casually referred to as such. These types include blended wing body aircraft and lifting body aircraft, which have a fuselage and no definite wings.

Whilst a pure flying wing is theoretically the lowest-drag design configuration for a fixed wing aircraft, a lack of conventional stabilizing surfaces and the associated control surfaces make them unstable and difficult to control.

The basic flying wing configuration became an object of significant study during the 1920s, often in conjunction with other tailless designs. In the Second World War, both Nazi Germany and the Allies made advances in developing flying wings. Military interest in the flying wing waned during the 1950s with the development of supersonic aircraft, but was renewed in the 1980s due to their potential for stealth technology. This approach eventually led to the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit stealth bomber. There has been continual interest in using it in the large transport roles for cargo or passengers. Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, and Armstrong Whitworth have undertaken design studies on flying wing airliners; however, no such airliners have yet been built.

The flying wing concept is mostly suited to subsonic aircraft. No flying wing has ever been observed faster than the speed of sound.

Design

[edit]
The Northrop N-1M on display at the National Air and Space Museum's Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center

A flying wing is an aeroplane that has no definite fuselage or tailplane, with its crew, payload, fuel, and equipment housed inside the main wing structure. A flying wing may have various small protuberances such as pods, nacelles, blisters, booms, or vertical stabilizers. [1]

A clean flying wing is sometimes presented as theoretically the most aerodynamically efficient (lowest drag) design configuration for a fixed wing aircraft. It also would offer high structural efficiency for a given wing depth, leading to light weight and high fuel efficiency.[2]

Because it lacks conventional stabilizing surfaces and the associated control surfaces, in its purest form the flying wing suffers from the inherent disadvantages of being unstable and difficult to control. These compromises are difficult to reconcile, and efforts to do so can reduce or even negate the expected advantages of the flying wing design, such as reductions in weight and drag. Moreover, solutions may produce a final design that is still too unsafe for certain uses, such as commercial aviation.

Further difficulties arise from the problem of fitting the pilot, engines, flight equipment, and payload all within the depth of the wing section. Other known problems with the flying wing design relate to pitch and yaw. Pitch issues are discussed in the article on tailless aircraft. The problems of yaw are discussed below.

Engineering design

[edit]

A wing that is made deep enough to contain the pilot, engines, fuel, undercarriage and other necessary equipment will have an increased frontal area, when compared with a conventional wing and long-thin fuselage. This can actually result in higher drag and thus lower efficiency than a conventional design. Typically the solution adopted in this case is to keep the wing reasonably thin, and the aircraft is then fitted with an assortment of blisters, pods, nacelles, fins, and so forth to accommodate all the needs of a practical aircraft.

The problem becomes more acute at supersonic speeds, where the drag of a thick wing rises sharply and it is essential for the wing to be made thin. No supersonic flying wing has ever been built.

Directional stability

[edit]

For any aircraft to fly without constant correction it must have directional stability in yaw.

Flying wings lack anywhere to attach an efficient vertical stabilizer or fin. Any fin must attach directly on to the rear part of the wing, giving a small moment arm from the aerodynamic centre, which in turn means that the fin is inefficient and to be effective the fin area must be large. Such a large fin has weight and drag penalties, and can negate the advantages of the flying wing. The problem can be minimized by increasing the wing sweepback and placing twin fins outboard near the tips, as for example in a low-aspect-ratio delta wing, but given the corresponding reduction in efficiency many flying wings have gentler sweepback and consequently have, at best, marginal stability.

The aspect ratio of a swept wing as seen in the direction of the airflow depends on the yaw angle relative to the airflow. Yaw increases the aspect ratio of the leading wing and reduces that of the trailing one. With sufficient sweep-back, differential induced drag resulting from the tip vortices and crossflow is sufficient to naturally re-align the aircraft.

A complementary approach uses twist or wash-out, reducing the angle of attack towards the wing tips, together with a swept-back wing planform. The Dunne D.5 incorporated this principle and its designer J. W. Dunne published it in 1913.[3] The wash-out reduces lift at the tips to create a bell-shaped distribution curve across the span, described by Ludwig Prandtl in 1933, and this can be used to optimise weight and drag for a given amount of lift.

Another solution is to angle or crank the wing tip sections downward with significant anhedral, increasing the area at the rear of the aircraft when viewed from the side. When combined with sweepback and washout, it can resolve another problem. With a conventional elliptical lift distribution the downgoing elevon causes increased induced drag that causes the aircraft to yaw out of the turn ("adverse yaw"). Washout angles the net aerodynamic vector (lift plus drag) forwards as the angle of attack reduces and, in the extreme, this can create a net forward thrust. The restoration of outer lift by the elevon creates a slight induced thrust for the rear (outer) section of the wing during the turn. This vector essentially pulls the trailing wing forward to cause "proverse yaw", creating a naturally coordinated turn. The existence of proverse yaw was not proved until NASA flew its Prandtl-D tailless demonstrator.[4]

Yaw control

[edit]

In some flying wing designs, any stabilizing fins and associated control rudders would be too far forward to have much effect, thus alternative means for yaw control are sometimes provided.

One solution to the control problem is differential drag: the drag near one wing tip is artificially increased, causing the aircraft to yaw in the direction of that wing. Typical methods include:

  • Split ailerons. The top surface moves up while the lower surface moves down. Splitting the aileron on one side induces yaw by creating a differential air brake effect.
  • Spoilers. A spoiler surface in the upper wing skin is raised, to disrupt the airflow and increase drag. This effect is generally accompanied by a loss of lift, which must be compensated for either by the pilot or by design features that automatically compensate.
  • Spoilerons. An upper surface spoiler that also acts to reduce lift (equivalent to deflecting an aileron upwards), so causing the aircraft to bank in the direction of the turn—the angle of roll causes the wing lift to act in the direction of turn, reducing the amount of drag required to turn the aircraft's longitudinal axis.

A consequence of the differential drag method is that if the aircraft maneuvers frequently then it will frequently create drag. So flying wings are at their best when cruising in still air: in turbulent air or when changing course, the aircraft may be less efficient than a conventional design.

[edit]

Some related aircraft that are not strictly flying wings have been described as such.

Some types, such as the Northrop Flying Wing (NX-216H), still have a tail stabilizer mounted on tail booms, although they lack a fuselage.

Many hang gliders and microlight aircraft are tailless. Although sometimes referred to as flying wings, these types carry the pilot (and engine where fitted) below the wing structure rather than inside it, and so are not true flying wings.

An aircraft of sharply swept delta planform and deep centre section represents a borderline case between flying wing, blended wing body, and/or lifting body configurations.

History

[edit]
The Westland-Hill Pterodactyl was an early flying wing design.

Early research

[edit]
The Northrop YB-35 bomber prototype began its development during World War II.

The concept of the flying wing was born on 16 February 1876 when French engineers Alphonse Pénaud and Paul Gauchot filed a patent for an aero-plane or flying aircraft [5] powered by two propellers and with all the characteristics of a flying wing as we know it today.[6]

Tailless aircraft have been experimented with since the earliest attempts to fly. Britain's J. W. Dunne was an early pioneer, his swept-wing biplane and monoplane designs displayed inherent stability as early as 1910. His work directly influenced several other designers, including G. T. R. Hill, who developed a series of experimental tailless aircraft designs, collectively known as the Westland-Hill Pterodactyls, during the 1920s and early 1930s.[7] Despite attempts to pursue orders from the Aviation Ministry, the Pterodactyl programme was ultimately cancelled during the mid 1930s before any order for the Mk. VI was issued.[8]

Germany's Hugo Junkers patented his own wing-only air transport concept in 1910, seeing it as a natural solution to the problem of building an airliner large enough to carry a reasonable passenger load and enough fuel to cross the Atlantic in regular service. He believed that the flying wing's potentially large internal volume and low drag made it an obvious design for this role. His deep-chord monoplane wing was incorporated in the otherwise conventional Junkers J 1 in December 1915. In 1919 he started work on his "Giant" JG1 design, intended to seat passengers within a thick wing, but two years later the Allied Aeronautical Commission of Control ordered the incomplete JG1 destroyed for exceeding postwar size limits on German aircraft. Junkers conceived futuristic flying wings for up to 1,000 passengers; the nearest this came to realization was in the 1931 Junkers G.38 34-seater Grossflugzeug airliner, which featured a large thick-chord wing providing space for fuel, engines, and two passenger cabins. However, it still required a short fuselage to house the crew and additional passengers.

The Soviet Boris Ivanovich Cheranovsky began testing tailless flying wing gliders in 1924. After the 1920s, Soviet designers such as Cheranovsky worked independently and in secret under Stalin.[9] With significant breakthrough in materials and construction methods, aircraft such as the BICh-3,[10] BICh-14, BICh-7A became possible. Men like Chizhevskij and Antonov also came into the spotlight of the Communist Party by designing aircraft like the tailless BOK-5[11] (Chizhevskij) and OKA-33[12] (the first ever built by Antonov) which were designated as "motorized gliders" due to their similarity to popular gliders of the time. The BICh-11, developed by Cheranovsky in 1932,[13] competed with the Horten brothers H1 and Adolf Galland at the Ninth Glider Competitions in 1933, but was not demonstrated in the 1936 summer Olympics in Berlin.

In Germany, Alexander Lippisch worked first on tailless types before progressively moving to flying wings, while the Horten brothers developed a series of flying wing gliders through the 1930s. The H1 glider was flown with partial success in 1933, and the subsequent H2 flown successfully in both glider and powered variants.[14]

The Northrop YB-49 was the YB-35 bomber converted to jet power.

In the United States, from the 1930s Jack Northrop independently worked on his own designs. The Northrop N-1M, a scale prototype for a long-range bomber, first flew in 1940. In 1941 Northrop was awarded a development contract to build 2 examples of the YB-35 flying wing, a very large 4 engined flying wing with a span of 172'. Development and construction of this aircraft continued throughout World War II.[15][16]

Other 1930s examples of true flying wings include Frenchman Charles Fauvel's AV3 glider of 1933 and the American Freel Flying Wing glider flown in 1937.[17] featuring a self-stabilizing airfoil on a straight wing.[citation needed]

Second World War

[edit]
The German Horten Ho 229 flew during the last days of World War II and was the first flying wing to use a jet engine.

During the Second World War, aerodynamic issues became sufficiently understood for work on a range of production-representative prototypes to commence. In Nazi Germany, the Horten brothers were keen proponents of the flying wing configuration, developing their own designs around it - uniquely for the time using Prandtl's birdlike "bell-shaped lift distribution".[18] One such aircraft they produced was the Horten H.IV glider, which was produced in low numbers between 1941 and 1943.[19] Several other late-war German military designs were based on the flying wing concept, or variations of it, as a proposed solution to extend the range of otherwise very short-range of aircraft powered by early jet engines.

Part of a Horten Ho 229 V3, unrestored as of 2007, at the Smithsonian's Paul Garber Facility

The Horten Ho 229 jet fighter prototype first flew in 1944.[20] It combined a flying wing, or Nurflügel, design with a pair of Junkers Jumo 004 jet engines in its second, or "V2" (V for Versuch) prototype airframe; as such, it was the world's first pure flying wing to be powered by twin jet engines, being first reportedly flown in March 1944. V2 was piloted by Erwin Ziller, who was killed when a flameout in one of its engines led to a crash. Plans were made to produce the type as the Gotha Go 229 during the closing stages of the conflict. Despite intentions to develop the Go 229 and an improved Go P.60 for several roles, including as a night fighter, no Gotha-built Go 229s or P.60s were ever completed. The unflown, nearly completed surviving "V3," or third prototype was captured by American forces and sent back for study; it has ended up in storage at the Smithsonian Institution.[21][22]

The Allies also made several relevant advances in the field using a conventional elliptical lift distribution with vertical tail surfaces. During December 1942, Northrop flew the N-9M, a one-third scale development aircraft for a proposed long-range bomber;[23] several were produced, all but one were scrapped following the bomber programme's termination.[24] In Britain, the Baynes Bat glider was flown during wartime; it was a one-third scale experimental aircraft intended to test out the configuration for potential conversion of tanks into temporary gliders.[25]

The British Armstrong Whitworth A.W.52G of 1944 was a glider test bed for a proposed large flying wing airliner capable of serving transatlantic routes.[26][27] The A.W.52G was later followed up by the Armstrong Whitworth A.W.52, an all-metal jet-powered model capable of high speeds for the era; great attention was paid to laminar flow.[27][28] First flown on 13 November 1947, the A.W.52 yielded disappointing results; the first prototype crashed without loss of life on 30 May 1949, the occasion being the first emergency use of an ejection seat by a British pilot. The second A.W.52 remained flying with the Royal Aircraft Establishment until 1954.[27]

Postwar

[edit]

Projects continued to examine the flying wing during the postwar era. The work on the YB-35 long-range bomber begun in 1941, had continued throughout the war with pre-production machines flying in 1946. This was superseded the next year by conversion of the type to jet power as the YB-49 of 1947.[29]

Initially, the design did not offer a great advantage in range compared to slower piston bomber designs, primarily due to the high fuel consumption of the early turbojets, however, it broke new ground in speed for a large aircraft.

On February 9, 1949, it was flown from Edwards Air Force Base in California, to Andrews Air Force Base, near Washington, D.C., for President Harry Truman's air power demonstration. The flight was made in four hours and 20 minutes, setting a transcontinental speed record.[30] The YB-49 presented some minor lateral stability problems that were being rectified by a new autopilot system, when the bomber version was cancelled in favour of the much larger but slower B-36. A reconnaissance version continued in development for some time but the aircraft did not enter production.

In the Soviet Union, the BICh-26, became one of the first attempts to produce a supersonic jet flying wing aircraft in 1948;[31] aviation author Bill Gunston referred to the BICh-26 as being ahead of its time.[32] However, the aeroplane was not accepted by the Soviet military and the design died with Cheranovsky.

Several other nations also opted to undertake flying wing projects. Turkey was one such country, the Turk Hava Kurumu Ucak Fabrikasi producing the THK-13 tailless glider during 1948.[33][34] Multiple British manufacturers also explored the concept at this time. Early proposals for the Avro Vulcan, a nuclear-armed strategic bomber designed by Roy Chadwick, also explored several flying wing arrangements, although the final design had a fuselage.[35]

There has been continual interest in the flying wing for large transport roles for cargo or passengers. Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, and Armstrong Whitworth have undertaken design studies on flying wing airliners; however, no such airliners have yet been built.[27]

Following the arrival of supersonic aircraft during the 1950s, military interest in the flying wing was quickly curtailed, as the concept of adopting a thick wing that accommodated the crew and equipment directly conflicted with the optimal thin wing for supersonic flight.

Interest in flying wings was renewed in the 1980s due to their potentially low radar reflection cross-sections. Stealth technology relies on shapes that reflect radar waves only in certain directions, thus making the aircraft hard to detect unless the radar receiver is at a specific position relative to the aircraft—a position that changes continuously as the aircraft moves.[36] This approach eventually led to the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit, a flying wing stealth bomber.[37][38] In this case, the aerodynamic advantages of the flying wing are not the primary reasons for the design's adoption. However, modern computer-controlled fly-by-wire systems allow for many of the aerodynamic drawbacks of the flying wing to be minimized, making for an efficient and effectively stable long-range bomber.[39][40]

Due to the practical need for a deep wing, the flying wing concept is mostly adopted for subsonic aircraft. There has been continual interest in using it in the large transport role where the wing is deep enough to hold cargo or passengers. A number of companies, including Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, and Armstrong Whitworth, have undertaken design studies on flying wing airliners to date; however,[27] no such airliners have yet been built as of 2025.[citation needed]

Bi-directional flying wing, top-down view

The bi-directional flying wing is a variable-geometry concept comprising a long-span subsonic wing and a short-span supersonic wing, joined in the form of an unequal cross. Proposed in 2011, the low-speed wing would have a thick, rounded airfoil able to contain the payload and a long span for high efficiency, while the high-speed wing would have a thin, sharp-edged airfoil and a shorter span for low drag at supersonic speed. The craft would take off and land with the low-speed wing across the airflow, then rotate a quarter-turn so that the high-speed wing faces the airflow for supersonic travel.[41] NASA has funded a study of the proposal.[42] The design is claimed to offer low wave drag, high subsonic efficiency and reduced sonic boom.

Since the end of the Cold War, numerous unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) featuring the flying wing have been produced. Nations have typically used such platforms for aerial reconnaissance; such UAVs include the Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel[43][44] and the Northrop Grumman Tern.[45][46] Civilian companies have also experimented with UAVs, such as the Facebook Aquila, as atmospheric satellites.[47][48] Various prototype unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs) have been produced, including the Dassault nEUROn,[49] the Sukhoi S-70 Okhotnik-B,[50] the DRDO Ghatak, DRDO SWIFT and the BAE Systems Taranis.[51]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Flying wing

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A flying wing is a type of in which the fuselage and tail are eliminated, with the crew, engines, , fuel, and all other components integrated directly into a single, broad wing structure that provides both lift and volume. This tailless configuration inherently reduces aerodynamic drag by minimizing non-lift-generating surfaces, enabling greater , longer range, and a smaller cross-section compared to conventional designs. The flying wing concept emerged in the early but gained prominence through pioneering work by American aviation designer , who developed the first full-scale prototypes in the 1940s, including the N-1M research glider (first flight in 1940) and the N-9M scaled bomber demonstrator (first flight in 1942). Concurrently, during , German engineers Reimar and Walter Horten created the Ho 229, a jet-powered prototype that represented one of the earliest jet-powered flying wing designs, emphasizing speed and stealth-like properties. Postwar, Northrop advanced the design with piston-engined heavy bombers like the XB-35 (first flight in 1946) and its jet-powered successor, the YB-49 (first flight in 1947), both featuring a 172-foot and intended for long-range strategic missions, though they were ultimately canceled in 1949 due to persistent stability, control, and propulsion challenges. Despite early setbacks, the flying wing's advantages in drag reduction and low observability—stemming from its smooth, blended shape that deflects radar waves—led to its revival in the late for stealth applications. The most notable modern example is the B-2 Spirit, a introduced in 1989 with a 172-foot , advanced controls to address stability issues, and radar-absorbent materials that make it one of the most stealthy aircraft ever built. Ongoing developments, such as the B-21 Raider, which made its first flight on November 10, 2023, continue to build on this legacy, focusing on enhanced efficiency and survivability in contested airspace.

Principles and Design

Core Concept

A flying wing is defined as a configuration in which the main integrates all essential components, including lift generation, propulsion, , and crew accommodations, without a distinct or . This design contrasts with conventional , where lift is primarily produced by separate wings through the airfoil's shape creating a differential—lower above the wing and higher below—due to airflow deflection and , while the houses non-lifting elements like passengers and cargo. In a flying wing, the entire contributes to lift, enabling potentially higher efficiency by eliminating drag-inducing junctions between components. The term "flying wing" emerged in the early 20th century to describe these blended-wing-body concepts, which fuse the wing and body into a seamless structure inspired by natural forms like seeds and bird wings. Early adoption of the terminology is evident in aviation literature by the 1920s, coinciding with pioneering experiments that sought to maximize aerodynamic integration. Visually, flying wings typically feature smooth, continuous surfaces in or shapes to optimize and minimize drag through reduced wetted area and interference. Functionally, this integration allows for all lift, , and to be housed within the wing, promoting structural efficiency and lower overall weight compared to traditional designs with protruding elements.

Aerodynamic Principles

Flying wings achieve lift primarily through their high-aspect-ratio structures, which distribute the lifting surface over a larger span to enhance overall aerodynamic and reduce induced drag compared to conventional designs with separate fuselages. In tailless configurations, reflexed trailing edges—characterized by an upward camber near the trailing edge—play a crucial role in generating the necessary for stability, effectively replacing the stabilizing function of a traditional while maintaining trim at forward centers of gravity. This reflex curvature shifts the rearward, allowing the to produce positive lift without excessive nose-down moments, though it imposes limits on maximum lift coefficients due to increased parasite drag. A primary aerodynamic advantage of flying wings is the significant reduction in drag through the elimination of fuselage-induced form drag and interference drag at wing- junctions. By integrating the volume directly into the wing planform, as in all-lifting-vehicle concepts, separate drag-generating components are avoided, with potential improvements in lift-to-drag ratios via optimized planform, thickness distributions, and features like reflexed trailing edges. This seamless blending minimizes wetted surface area—potentially reducing it by about 13% relative to tube-and-wing —and curtails disruptions that would otherwise amplify profile and interference drag. In , the lift coefficient CLC_L is fundamentally related to the angle of attack α\alpha by the equation CL=CLα⋅αC_L = C_{L\alpha} \cdot \alpha where CLαC_{L\alpha} represents the lift curve slope, typically around 5.7 per for unswept wings but reduced in swept configurations due to the effective decrease in and spanwise flow effects. Wing sweep further modifies CLαC_{L\alpha} by altering the component of normal to the , lowering the slope and delaying but requiring careful design to maintain adequate lift at cruise angles, such as CL≈0.07C_L \approx 0.07 for supersonic oblique flying wings. Swept-wing flying wings leverage to augment total lift, particularly at high angles of attack, where leading-edge vortices form stable structures along the swept planform, contributing up to 30% of the overall lift through low-pressure regions on the upper surface. Spanwise flow management is critical in these designs, as outward flow on the upper surface can generate secondary vortices that displace primary leading-edge vortices inward and upward, stabilizing the flow and mitigating premature breakdown while enhancing lift distribution across the span. This vortical mechanism allows swept flying wings to operate efficiently beyond the stall angle of unswept wings, though vortex breakdown at angles exceeding 20–30° can abruptly reduce lift and induce pitch instability.

Structural Considerations

In flying wing designs, the wing itself functions as the primary load-bearing , responsible for distributing and resisting all major aerodynamic forces—including torsion, , and shear—without the support of a separate to transfer loads or provide rigidity. This integrated configuration places unique demands on the wing's internal framework, where and skins must efficiently channel forces from the outer extremities to the center of gravity, often utilizing multi-spar arrangements to minimize stress concentrations. For instance, in variants akin to pure flying wings, payload placement between front and rear contributes to relief, reducing overall structural weight by up to 30% compared to conventional designs. Material selection for flying wings has evolved from early composites of wood and metal to advanced carbon fiber reinforcements, prioritizing high strength-to-weight ratios for enhanced rigidity and reduced empty weight. Pioneering prototypes like the employed wooden frames covered in multi-ply plywood skins, forming a lightweight yet torsion-resistant shell that integrated structural and aerodynamic functions. Modern examples, such as the B-2 Spirit, incorporate approximately 50% carbon fiber composites in the , offering superior stiffness and fatigue resistance while enabling significant weight savings over aluminum alloys used in traditional aircraft. To counter the pronounced twisting moments inherent in tailless configurations, flying wings often adopt box-beam or construction methods, where closed-cell spars and stressed skins form a that efficiently handles shear and . Early implementations, such as the plywood in the designs, relied on layered veneers and adhesives to create a seamless, envelope capable of withstanding flight loads. These approaches yield structural efficiency ratios—measured as strength-to-weight—that surpass conventional by 20-30%, with carbon fiber enabling even greater margins through optimized load paths and reduced material volume.

Stability and Control

Directional Stability

Flying wings exhibit inherent yaw instability primarily due to the absence of a vertical surface, which normally provides a restoring yawing moment during sideslip. This configuration leads to neutral or unstable across a wide range of angles of attack, making the aircraft susceptible to tendencies exacerbated by dihedral effects, where sideslip induces rolling moments that couple with yaw oscillations. To counteract this passively, designers incorporate , known as washout, and sweep angles to generate restoring yawing moments. Sweep creates differential aerodynamic forces during sideslip: the leeward experiences increased effective sweep and reduced lift, while the windward sees the opposite, producing a nose-into-wind yaw moment. Washout, by reducing the angle of incidence at the tips, helps distribute lift spanwise and enhances the coupling between roll and yaw responses, contributing to overall lateral-directional balance without active intervention. The yaw stability is quantitatively assessed through the stability derivative Nv=∂N∂βN_v = \frac{\partial N}{\partial \beta}, where NN is the yawing moment and β\beta is the sideslip angle; a negative value of NvN_v signifies static directional stability, as it yields a restoring moment proportional to the disturbance. Wind tunnel testing from early 20th-century research, such as NACA investigations, revealed that dihedral angles significantly influence directional stability by generating rolling moments in sideslip that are 3 to 6 times greater than those from equivalent sweep angles, providing key insights into balancing yaw tendencies in tailless designs.

Yaw and Roll Control

Flying wings, lacking a and , require integrated control surfaces on the to manage yaw and roll, often coupling these axes with pitch control to achieve coordinated maneuvers. Elevons, which combine the functions of elevators and ailerons, are typically located on the trailing edge of the and provide primary roll authority through differential deflection—up on one and down on the other—while symmetric deflection controls pitch. In tailless configurations, elevon deflections inherently produce some yaw due to asymmetric induced drag, particularly at higher angles of attack, where the downward-deflected elevon on one side generates greater drag than lift loss on the opposite side. For dedicated yaw authority, split rudders or drag rudders at the wingtips are employed, consisting of clamshell-like surfaces that deploy asymmetrically to create differential drag without significant lift alteration. These devices split open on the desired side to increase local drag, inducing a yawing moment while minimizing roll interference through symmetric design. The effectiveness of such rudders relies on precise aerodynamic shaping to optimize drag coefficients, as detailed in foundational studies on fluid-dynamic drag, which quantify the drag rise from split flaps and spoilers in low-speed regimes relevant to flying wings. Control allocation strategies distribute commands across these surfaces to achieve desired yaw and roll moments while maintaining trim, balancing trade-offs between differential drag methods and . Differential drag, using elevons or rudders to asymmetrically increase drag, is straightforward for unpowered designs like gliders but incurs a trim drag penalty—up to 30% higher than optimized lift-based allocation in some wing configurations—due to nonlinear aerodynamic interactions at low speeds. In powered flying wings, offers an alternative by directing engine exhaust for yaw control, reducing reliance on drag-inducing surfaces and improving , though it introduces mechanical and is less viable for low-thrust or multi-engine layouts without supplemental drag devices. Historically, yaw and roll control in flying wings evolved from rudimentary drag-based techniques in early 20th-century experiments, where wingtip pivoting or simple spoilers generated asymmetric drag, to more refined hinged surfaces by the mid-20th century. This progression incorporated elevons for coupled control and split drag rudders optimized via empirical drag data, enabling greater precision and reduced adverse compared to initial drag-only approaches.

Modern Control Technologies

Modern control technologies have been essential in overcoming the inherent instability of flying wing designs, particularly in lateral-directional modes, by enabling precise electronic intervention without traditional mechanical linkages. Fly-by-wire (FBW) systems transmit pilot inputs electronically to actuators that adjust control surfaces, incorporating feedback loops to impose artificial stability on inherently unstable configurations. In the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber, a sophisticated FBW flight (FCS) processes data to maintain stability, allowing the tailless design to fly with a two-person crew while minimizing radar cross-section. This electronic stabilization replaces conventional hydraulic or mechanical systems, reducing weight and enabling real-time adjustments to aerodynamic perturbations. Central to FBW in flying wings are control laws that synthesize inputs for , addressing challenges like —a coupled yaw-roll exacerbated by the absence of a . Proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controllers are commonly integrated into these laws to dampen such modes by proportionally correcting errors, integrating past deviations for steady-state accuracy, and differentiating rates to anticipate changes. For instance, dynamic inversion combined with PID in the slow loop of a flying wing's attitude control compensates for model uncertainties and external disturbances, achieving robust tracking with minimal overshoot. These laws ensure that elevons—combined and surfaces—provide effective pitch, roll, and yaw authority while maintaining stability margins. In multi-engine flying wings, yaw control is augmented by and differential engine , which redirect or asymmetrically vary propulsion to generate yaw moments without compromising stealth. Fluidic (FTV), using synthetic jets or fluid injection to deflect exhaust, provides yaw stabilization and maneuvering for tailless designs, improving low-speed handling and reducing drag penalties from drag rudders. The B-2 employs differential from its four engines during stealth operations, throttling one side higher to induce yaw while split rudders handle non-hostile flight. nozzles, as explored in studies, enhance lateral-directional stability by integrating with aerodynamic surfaces, allowing post-stall recovery and precise turns in unstable regimes. Sensor integration is critical for FBW efficacy, with inertial measurement units (IMUs) providing high-frequency and angular rate data to estimate attitude, and GPS supplying position and for aiding. In fixed-wing UAVs, low-cost IMU/GPS fusion via nonlinear complementary filtering yields accurate attitude and heading reference systems (AHRS), enabling real-time state estimation with errors below 1 degree in roll and pitch under dynamic conditions. This integration allows the FCS to perform continuous adjustments, such as GPS-aided corrections for wind drift, ensuring stable flight paths in GPS-denied environments through IMU . Overall, these technologies have made practical flying wing operations viable in both military and experimental platforms.

Historical Development

Early Experiments

Early experiments with flying wing designs began in the pre-1910s era, driven by pioneers seeking to eliminate traditional s and tail surfaces for improved aerodynamic efficiency. In 1910, British engineer successfully flew his D.5 tailless swept-wing , which featured inherent stability through its delta-shaped planform and lack of control surfaces, marking one of the first manned powered flights of such a configuration. This design demonstrated the potential for stable flight without a tail, though it suffered from limited maneuverability due to its fixed geometry. Concurrently, German aviation innovator filed a in 1910 for an all-wing aircraft concept, envisioning a thick wing that integrated the , crew, and propulsion within the structure to minimize drag and weight. Junkers' design emphasized a "hollow body" approach, laying theoretical groundwork for future blended-wing-body configurations, although practical implementation was delayed by material limitations. Theoretical advancements in the late further supported flying wing feasibility. Ludwig Prandtl's 1918 provided a mathematical framework for analyzing lift distribution on finite wings, including swept configurations common to tailless designs, by modeling the wing as a bound vortex with trailing vortices inducing . This theory quantified induced drag and effects, revealing that swept wings could achieve favorable lift gradients while mitigating tip losses, which was crucial for early flying wing stability assessments. By applying these principles, researchers could predict how might balance lift and drag without contributions. In the 1920s, the (NACA) conducted pivotal tests on tailless models to evaluate aerodynamic viability. These experiments, including assessments of inherently stable wing designs like the English "" with a of 21, highlighted promising efficiency but exposed controllability issues in dynamic maneuvers. Other tests on radial-wing monoplanes, such as the "" racer, confirmed inherent stability challenges, deeming them unsafe for piloted flight without modifications. These findings underscored early hurdles, particularly pitch instability in gliders, where center-of-pressure shifts caused uncontrollable nose-up tendencies during speed changes. To address pitch instability, experimenters adopted reflex , which feature an upturned trailing edge to generate a positive and restore . Documented failures in early tailless gliders, such as sudden stalls from forward-migrating centers of pressure, prompted this shift, with reflexed sections ensuring the remained aft of the center of gravity. This innovation, rooted in airfoil tailoring, allowed small-scale models to achieve controlled glides, paving the way for larger prototypes while referencing core aerodynamic principles like vortex-induced for overall trim.

World War II Innovations

During , the flying wing concept advanced significantly through military-driven projects on both sides of the conflict, prioritizing aerodynamic efficiency and reduced detectability for long-range operations. In the United States, Northrop Corporation's N-1M served as a pivotal proof-of-concept , first flying on July 3, 1940, to validate the all-wing design's potential for eliminating drag-inducing fuselage and tail structures, thereby enhancing fuel efficiency for . This experimental , powered by two 120-horsepower Franklin engines, featured a plywood-covered steel frame with a 38-foot wingspan and demonstrated inherent stability through its blended wing-body configuration. The N-1M's development laid the groundwork for larger wartime efforts, including the piston-engined XB-35 , which evolved into the jet-powered YB-49 prototype whose conversions were approved by the U.S. Army Air Forces in June 1945 to meet demands for high-altitude, long-endurance . Key design drivers for these Allied innovations included minimizing cross-section via the smooth, tailless profile and optimizing fuel economy for extended missions, addressing the need for aircraft capable of evading detection while carrying heavy payloads over vast distances. On the Axis side, German engineers Reimar and Walter Horten pursued similar goals with the Ho 229, a jet-powered flying wing initiated in 1943 under funding from , aiming for speeds exceeding 600 mph through its delta-shaped, all-wing layout powered by twin turbojets. The Ho 229's wooden construction over a further reduced weight and drag, supporting its role as a with enhanced range and low observability due to the absence of protruding vertical surfaces that could reflect waves. Testing milestones underscored these advancements, particularly with the N-1M's 1943 flights at (now ), where it achieved speeds over 200 mph (322 km/h) and validated elevon controls—combined elevator and surfaces—for pitch, roll, and yaw without traditional tailplanes. The Ho 229 prototype, meanwhile, conducted initial powered taxi tests and brief flights in early 1945 before a crash during engine trials halted further evaluation, though its design confirmed the feasibility of in a pure flying wing. Outcomes of these efforts highlighted divergent paths: Allied programs like Northrop's progressed toward production-scale bombers, while Axis initiatives faltered amid resource shortages; however, the capture of the Ho 229 V3 by U.S. forces in 1945 enabled postwar analysis that informed American flying wing research, including refinements in stability and stealth characteristics.

Postwar Advancements

Following the conclusion of , the flying wing program faced significant setbacks, culminating in its cancellation by the U.S. in 1949 primarily due to persistent reliability issues, including oil drainage problems that caused in-flight fires, as well as structural instabilities and fatal accidents during testing. This decision halted further production of the jet-powered prototype, which had transitioned from the piston-engined YB-35, but it redirected resources toward alternative configurations amid evolving priorities for nuclear deterrence and high-altitude bombing. The cancellation underscored the challenges of adapting early flying wing designs to reliable without advanced computational tools, yet it laid groundwork for later refinements by highlighting the need for improved stability and materials. Internationally, postwar efforts explored flying wing concepts through approximations and experimental designs. In Britain, the , entering service in 1956, represented a that approximated flying wing principles with its tailless configuration and integrated within the wing structure, enabling high-altitude performance for nuclear missions while incorporating small wingtip fins for control. Soviet designer pursued innovative flying wing experiments, such as the T-200 heavy transport project in the , which featured a blended -wing outline for enhanced lift and efficiency in applications, though many remained conceptual due to technological constraints. These international initiatives during the emphasized tailless delta forms as practical evolutions of pure flying wings, adapting to jet engines for supersonic potential and strategic reach. Technological advancements in the 1960s and 1970s revitalized flying wing development through jet propulsion refinements and emerging computer-aided design (CAD) tools. Jet adaptations, building on the YB-49's Allison J35 engines, incorporated buried turbojets and variable-geometry inlets to mitigate drag and instability in tailless designs, enabling sustained high-speed flight in Cold War bombers. By the 1970s and 1980s, CAD systems allowed precise aerodynamic modeling of complex wing shapes, reducing reliance on wind tunnel testing and facilitating stealth integrations, as seen in NASA's early blended-wing-body (BWB) studies that explored seamless fuselage-wing merging for 20-30% fuel efficiency gains over conventional aircraft. These shifts addressed postwar limitations, paving the way for operational successes. In the United States, the 1970s BWB research directly influenced 1980s programs, evolving the YB-49's legacy into the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber, which first flew in and entered service in 1997 as a low-observable platform for penetrating defended . The B-2 retained the flying wing's aerodynamic efficiency but incorporated advanced carbon-graphite composite materials—comprising much of its —for absorption and structural lightness, combined with -absorbent coatings to achieve a radar cross-section smaller than a bird's. This integration of stealth technologies with the inherent low-observability of the flying wing design marked a pinnacle of Cold War-era advancements, fulfilling the strategic roles once envisioned for earlier prototypes.

Applications and Examples

Military Aircraft

The , developed by German engineers Reimar and Walter Horten during , was designed as a jet-powered interceptor and bomber to challenge Allied air superiority. Its all-wing configuration aimed to provide high speed and agility, with the ordering prototypes in 1943 for potential deployment against enemy bombers. The aircraft's construction featured a wood-composite structure; postwar analysis revealed that the wooden structure had some unintentional radar-absorbing properties due to the glue used in the skin, though stealth was not an intentional design feature. Only three prototypes were built by before the war's end, with the V3 model now preserved at the , none entering operational service. In contrast, the B-2 Spirit represents a modern pinnacle of flying wing design in , serving as a strategic stealth for long-range precision strikes and . Operational since achieving initial capability in January 1997, the B-2 can carry a exceeding 40,000 pounds of conventional or nuclear munitions, enabling it to penetrate defended airspace undetected. Its unrefueled range surpasses 6,000 nautical miles, supporting global missions without intermediate basing, while a maximum speed of Mach 0.95 ensures efficient subsonic flight. The flying wing shape contributes significantly to its low observability by minimizing radar cross-section through blended surfaces and reduced edges. The B-2's endurance and stealth have proven vital in combat operations, as demonstrated during Operation Allied Force in 1999 over , where it destroyed 33 percent of Serbian targets in the first eight weeks despite flying from distant U.S. bases. This highlighted the aircraft's ability to conduct round-trip missions exceeding 30 hours, delivering over 650 munitions with high accuracy. In Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, the B-2 executed its first forward-deployed combat sorties, completing 22 missions from and 27 from , dropping more than 1.5 million pounds of ordnance to neutralize key command centers and air defenses. These deployments underscored the flying wing's strategic advantages in and , allowing sustained presence over hostile territory with minimal risk of detection. The , unveiled in December 2022, is a next-generation strategic stealth that builds on the flying wing legacy of the B-2. With a classified estimated around 132 feet, it is designed for missions in contested environments, incorporating advanced stealth, sensors, and for rapid upgrades. The first flight occurred in December 2023, followed by a second test flight in September 2025 from . As of November 2025, production of additional aircraft is underway at Air Force 42, with initial operational capability targeted for the late 2020s.

Civilian and Experimental Designs

The X-48 program, conducted from 2007 to 2012 in collaboration with , developed and flight-tested subscale blended-wing-body (BWB) demonstrators to evaluate their potential for fuel-efficient commercial airliners. These remotely piloted aircraft, scaled at 8.5% of a full-sized , underwent over 100 flights to assess low-speed stability, control, and aerodynamic performance, validating data and demonstrating handling qualities comparable to conventional designs. The BWB configuration integrates the into the wing to reduce drag and structural weight, offering up to 30% greater compared to tube-and-wing aircraft through improved lift-to-drag ratios. Boeing advanced BWB concepts for commercial viability in the 2010s through extensive wind tunnel testing and subscale demonstrations, focusing on integration with advanced like open-rotor engines to further enhance efficiency. Low-speed wind tunnel tests at Langley, using 5.75%-scale models, optimized wing high-lift configurations and aeroelastic stability, confirming potential reductions in takeoff by 15% and fuel burn by 27% relative to baseline conventional transports. These efforts built on the X-48B/C flights, which completed in 2013 after gathering data on distributed and , informing designs for quieter, more spacious passenger cabins. Experimental testing often employs radio-controlled (RC) subscale models to explore tailless , such as reflexed airfoils like the MH 81 for stable slow-flight characteristics in flying wings. These RC platforms enable low-cost validation of control systems and stability in wind tunnels or free flight, supporting broader subscale efforts for commercial concepts. Certification of passenger-carrying flying wings faces significant challenges due to evacuation safety requirements, as the wide, theater-style cabin layout in BWB designs complicates rapid egress compared to linear fuselages in conventional aircraft. Passengers may encounter longer travel distances to exits—up to twice as far for those in central sections—and reduced visibility across isolated compartments, leading to hesitation and congestion that can exceed the 90-second regulatory limit for full evacuation with half the exits available. Simulations indicate that single-channel slides limit flow rates to about 1.07 persons per second, necessitating innovations like dual-channel slides and enhanced crew guidance to reduce times by up to 22% and meet FAA and EASA standards.

Future Prospects

The blended-wing-body (BWB) configuration represents a promising for sustainable , with NASA's initiatives targeting up to 50% savings in future airliners through integration with electrified systems. NASA's Sustainable Flight Demonstrator , in with partners like JetZero, evaluates BWB designs fueled by cryogenic to enable larger tank capacities and support the U.S. sector's net-zero goal by 2050. These efforts build on aerodynamic advantages of BWB, such as reduced drag and optimized lift distribution, combined with hybrid-electric architectures to enhance overall efficiency in commercial transport. In hypersonic applications, concepts for Mach 5+ waveriders incorporate flying wing-like forebody inlets to harness shockwave compression for efficient propulsion and lift generation. The , developed under and U.S. collaboration, successfully demonstrated scramjet-powered flight at speeds exceeding Mach 5 for over 200 seconds, validating the use of integrated body-inlet designs for sustained hypersonic performance. Future iterations, such as 's Next Generation Responsive Strike platform, aim to extend these principles to operational strike-reconnaissance capable of global reach within hours. Advancements in AI and are poised to mitigate legacy control challenges in flying wing unmanned systems, particularly for drone swarms requiring precise formation and stability management. AI-driven algorithms enable real-time and adaptive coordination, addressing issues like communication latency and environmental disturbances in multi-agent operations. Integration with modern control technologies, such as for yaw and roll stability, supports scalable swarm behaviors in contested environments. Despite these innovations, regulatory hurdles pose significant challenges for applications of flying wing designs, including complex certification processes and airspace integration requirements. Key obstacles encompass divergent international standards for vehicle approval, operational licensing, and development, compounded by sustainability concerns over battery life cycles. Projections indicate initial prototypes entering testing in the early , with commercial viability targeted by mid-decade amid ongoing efforts to establish U-space frameworks in and equivalent systems elsewhere.

References

  1. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/just-what-is-a-flying-wing-exactly
  2. https://letstalkscience.ca/educational-resources/backgrounders/strange-shapes-in-sky-stealth-and-flying-wings
  3. https://www.airvectors.net/avflwing.html
  4. https://archive.aoe.vt.edu/mason/Mason/ACiFlyWngs.html
  5. https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-air-forces-new-b-21-raider-flying-wing-bomber-takes-first-flight-reuters-2023-11-10/
  6. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20010013825/downloads/20010013825.pdf
  7. https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1212&context=jaaer
  8. https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/jack-northrop-and-the-flying-wing/
  9. https://www.afmc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2737915/a-look-back-atnorthrop-flying-wings-part-1/
  10. https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/beginners-guide-to-aeronautics/wing-geometry/
  11. https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/beyond_tube-and-wing_tagged.pdf
  12. https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/VirtualAero/BottleRocket/airplane/liftco.html
  13. https://eaglepubs.erau.edu/compsimforaero/chapter/d-2-aerodynamics-of-3-d-wings-1/
  14. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19900019224/downloads/19900019224.pdf
  15. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19910014796/downloads/19910014796.pdf
  16. https://www.icas.org/icas_archive/ICAS2000/PAPERS/ICA0113.PDF
  17. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19950006282/downloads/19950006282.pdf
  18. https://airandspace.si.edu/explore/researchers/projects/horten-ho-229-v3-preservation/construction
  19. https://repository.si.edu/bitstreams/fb94f16f-3907-4347-a6c9-2d7227d1e3b2/download
  20. https://www.addcomposites.com/post/the-b-2-spirit-how-advanced-composite-manufacturing-created-the-worlds-most-expensive-aircraft---and-how-modern-technology-could-democratize-stealth
  21. https://theaviationist.com/2017/12/29/the-incredible-b-2-wing-flutter-video-and-what-it-means/
  22. https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2016/august/flight-training/how-it-works
  23. https://aerotoolbox.com/wing-structural-design/
  24. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844021025135
  25. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19960003382/downloads/19960003382.pdf
  26. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S100093611400123X
  27. https://www.apogeerockets.com/education/downloads/Newsletter15.pdf
  28. https://stengel.mycpanel.princeton.edu/MAE331Lecture15.pdf
  29. https://www.abbottaerospace.com/downloads/naca-tn-177-note-on-the-relative-effect-of-the-dihedral-and-the-sweep-back-of-airplane-wings/
  30. https://www.nasa.gov/stem-content/delta-wing-glider/
  31. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace7100150
  32. https://doi.org/10.58940/2329-258X.1212
  33. https://ia800606.us.archive.org/17/items/FluidDynamicDragHoerner1965/Fluid-dynamic_drag__Hoerner__1965_text.pdf
  34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2015.07.001
  35. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19840020732/downloads/19840020732.pdf
  36. https://sma.nasa.gov/docs/default-source/safety-messages/safetymessage-2009-01-01-usafb2mishap.pdf?sfvrsn=d3a91ef8_4
  37. https://www.nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-its-surprisingly-easy-fly-b-2-spirit-bomber-hk-110825
  38. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19920012114/downloads/19920012114.pdf
  39. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8866455
  40. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336633381_Dynamic_Inversion_PID_Based_Control_Law_Design_for_A_Flying_Wing_Aircraft
  41. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1000936125001888
  42. https://www.airvectors.net/avb2.html
  43. https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2012-4461
  44. https://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:291207fc-5ada-435c-be39-8e1436fd96c9
  45. https://www.aflcmc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2041005/flashback-back-to-the-future-the-resurgence-of-the-flying-wing-in-the-21st-cent/
  46. https://www.centennialofflight.net/essay/Aerospace/Junkers/Aero55.htm
  47. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/lifting-line-theory
  48. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19930094750/downloads/19930094750.pdf
  49. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19810015490/downloads/19810015490.pdf
  50. https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/northrop-n-1m/nasm_A19600302000
  51. https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/858861/northrop-yb-49/
  52. https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/horten-ho-229-v3/nasm_A19600324000
  53. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160201-the-wwii-flying-wing-decades-ahead-of-its-time
  54. https://archive.aoe.vt.edu/mason/Mason_f/NorthropYB-49.pdf
  55. https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/66082
  56. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19850020600/downloads/19850020600.pdf
  57. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19820025472/downloads/19820025472.pdf
  58. https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104482/b-2-spirit/
  59. https://www.sandboxx.us/news/no-the-nazis-did-not-invent-stealth-aircraft-heres-the-real-story-2/
  60. https://www.afnwc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/4229922/aflcmc-continues-modernization-of-b-2-bomber/
  61. https://www.northropgrumman.com/what-we-do/aircraft/b-2-stealth-bomber/technical-details
  62. https://www.afgsc.af.mil/About/Fact-Sheets/Article/630717/b-2-spirit/
  63. https://www.afnwc.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Article/2074643/b-2-spirit/
  64. https://www.whiteman.af.mil/News/Article/324024/whiteman-marks-three-combat-anniversaries-for-b-2/
  65. https://www.northropgrumman.com/what-we-do/aircraft/b-21-raider/news
  66. https://theaviationist.com/2025/09/11/second-b-21-raider-stealth-bomber-takes-flight/
  67. https://www.nasa.gov/aeronautics/x-48b/
  68. https://www.asme.org/topics-resources/content/air-force-see-promise-in-blended-wing-body-aircraft
  69. https://www.icas.org/icas_archive/ICAS2018/data/papers/ICAS2018_0298_paper.pdf
  70. https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdfplus/10.2514/1.9084
  71. https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2012-08-07-Boeing-Flies-X-48C-Blended-Wing-Body-Research-Aircraft
  72. https://www.mh-aerotools.de/airfoils/flywing1.htm
  73. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42452-024-06325-y
  74. https://sustainablebrands.com/read/delta-jetzero-50-fuel-efficient-aircraft
  75. https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/armd/nasa-funds-new-studies-looking-at-future-of-sustainable-aircraft/
  76. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20120001452/downloads/20120001452.pdf
  77. https://www.popsci.com/technology/darpas-hypersonic-missile-test-explained/
  78. https://www.19fortyfive.com/2025/02/the-mad-scientists-at-darpa-want-to-build-a-mach-5-hypersonic-bomber/
  79. https://www.mdpi.com/2504-446X/8/7/320
  80. https://jeas.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s44147-025-00582-3
  81. https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/binaries/content/assets/rechtsgeleerdheid/instituut-voor-publiekrecht/lucht--en-ruimterecht/working-papers/ralp2025-03.pdf
  82. https://www.eiturbanmobility.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/EIT-UrbanAirMobility.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.