yes better, even a bit deeper might be desirable .Better?
No depends how you're optimizing too - 18" thick is a lot of thickness to haul around. The sketch shows its pushing that Zimmerman end of the AR envelope. You do need to ask yourself how much lift you need at some point.Very little wrong with thick airfoils at low speeds from what I've understood.
Here we go. I left in the forward beams for structural bracing and to hold a small windscreen.yes better, even a bit deeper might be desirable .
so if you have a look at those Elevons of the Hatfield Bird, those are good sized panels, and for the rudder you have also a good size to follow, even if yours is below the wing.
And you add the fuselage you already had on one of your concepts, under the wing, and perfection for my opinion is close by for a LAR flying wing
.View attachment 98771
This is one Fritz’s First ideas for the Ranger, but the forward section of this fuselage, married with your tailcone and your wing, perfect.
I actually have no idea if it matters, I was genuinely curious about effectiveness - I don't recall too many that have done it that way. Even more so with the short coupled nature.True, I'll fix that.