1

There are a number of flying wings which were certified airworthy and conducted test flights, but how many made it all the way to production certification (equivalent of a normal type certificate in the US)? I can think of only two examples, both in the military: the B-2 bomber and the F-117A.

Were there any others?

Kenn Sebesta
  • 5,102
  • 22
  • 49
  • I've been wracking my brain and all I can think of are amateur builts. It's really not that good a configuration, best suited, if at all, to gliders. Because the packaging is all wrong for anything but a glider, or bomber with a concentrated payload. You need a fuselage to put stuff. Once you have one, might as well put tail surfaces at the end and get better handling qualities. You can make the wing super thick, and put crap in that, but it's like making a fuselage fly sideways, massive unnecessary frontal area. And that's why you don't see them much. It just doesn't work in the real world. – John K Jul 15 '22 at 00:29
  • @JohnK that's exactly where I am on this question as well. There are a lot of cool prototypes out there, but of the thousands of planes which passed through certification, no matter how crazy the ideas behind it (looking at you, Aircoupe!), nor how low the bar is (or was), AFAICT not a one was a flying-wing. – Kenn Sebesta Jul 15 '22 at 01:23
  • Would the F-106 qualify? Or is this a tailless and not a flying wing airplane? – Peter Kämpf Jul 17 '22 at 19:36

2 Answers2

3

If flexible wings count: Hanggliders exist in thousands and have reached a great variety of certified types.

But there are also rigid-wing, foot-launched flying wings: The Mitchell Wing and the Swift (an acronym for 'Swept Wing with Inboard Flap for Trim') both started as a hangglider but were subsequently developed into a range of ultralight airplanes, all type-certified flying wings (Mitchell Wing B-10, Mitchell Wing A-10 and T-10, Swift Lite, Swift PAS, P-Swift, Tandem Swift).

Over to the oldest flying wings: The Etrich-Wels designs flew before anyone could certify them, but J. W. Dunne in Great Britain got one of his flying wing designs certified as the first stable aircraft; however, only the Burgess-Dunne was manufactured in any quantity.

In the Twenties and Thirties more flying wings followed, but few reached certification. Of the range of "Storch" and "Delta" designs of Alexander Lippisch and the Pterodactyls of G. T. R. Hill, only the Delta III achieved formal certification, but no commercial success. At least, the Waterman Arrowbile was built 5 times, but I cannot find proof for formal certification.

With the insights from German research and the increased impetus of the Cold War, designs like the Vought F7U Cutlass, the Douglas F4D, the Convair F-102, F-106 and B-58, the Saab 35 and the Dassault Mirage III went into large-scale production but can be better described as tailless than as flying wings. Manoeuverability and trim changes for supersonic flight made adding a tail an attractive choice, as the development history of the Boeing X-32 shows. However, deltas make excellent supersonic designs, so at least the Concorde should make the list.

On the civilian side, Charles Fauvel designed a range of flying wing gliders, of which the AV.22, the AV.36 and the AV.45 went into production. Honorable mention should also go to the Marske Monarch or the Haig Minibat.

Peter Kämpf
  • 231,832
  • 17
  • 588
  • 929
  • Really interesting, thanks. I wasn't aware that hanggliders were type-normal certified. I thought they were all either experimental or ultralight. Also, whoa, flying-wing biplane, cool! – Kenn Sebesta Jul 17 '22 at 23:55
  • Looking at some of the links, it looks like at least one might not have gone through certification, or the wiki link is wrong. The D.8 is listed as "Experimental", with only 4 prototypes having been manufactured. – Kenn Sebesta Jul 17 '22 at 23:56
  • Last comment: where would I look up the certifications for those planes? The wikipedia links don't give much, if any, insight into the certification. Several planes I had always thought were homebuilt only, such as all of Jim Markse's designs. – Kenn Sebesta Jul 18 '22 at 00:00
  • @KennSebesta Hanggliders are indeed not certified like commercial jets, but they are manufactured in series and sold which requires proper certification in their class. For the very early designs like the Dunne D.8 rsp. Burgess-Dunne there were no comparable regulations and pre-war production numbers were tiny (5 in the case of the Burgess-Dunne). The Marske Monarch and Haig Minibat are added as a honourable mention because all of them indeed were experimental, a way to circumvent the excessive product reliability risks at the time. I also didn't mention the Horten III, of which 19 were built – Peter Kämpf Jul 18 '22 at 01:46
1

How much fuselage may a "tailless" (no horizontal stabilizer) have and still be a flying wing? The Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet was an aerodynamic success, if a somewhat lackluster weapon. More than 300 were built.

A. I. Breveleri
  • 3,988
  • 1
  • 21
  • 23
  • From Wikipedia article on the Me163: " On takeoff, one had to attain the speed at which the aerodynamic controls become effective—about 129 km/h (80 mph)—and that was always a critical factor." Wow! – Kenn Sebesta Jul 17 '22 at 14:10
  • Please add the Fauvel gliders to that short list. The AV.36 was built more than 100 times (compared to fewer than 20 of the Horten III) and is more of a flying wing than the 163 (which really is a tailless aircraft). – Peter Kämpf Jul 17 '22 at 18:25