=do You mean BEKAS or composites?wow ..what a fabulous wing ..:shock:
Bibliografia - Brochocki Kasprzyk BodkeHi, Henry--
So properly balanced tapered 'wings are less likely to get into a tumble in the first place
To see the first flight of the Klingberg Wing go to YouTube - Klingberg Wing First Flight.wmv
I'll be posting more video of it soon.
Boy, the folks talking about the stability of flying wings must not be engineers and they really don't know much about my Wing. I don't suffer fools gladly which is why I moved out of the public eye, but I'm bored tonight, so I'll have some "fun". Here are the facts - the Klingberg Wing employed a bell-shaped lift distribution based on the work of the Horten brothers. The bell shaped lift distribution provides reasonable static stability for pitch, roll, and yaw. What a lot of people don't understand and hence “forget” to talk about is dynamic stability. This is a very complex subject compared to static stability as it is controlled by damping rates which required some high powered calculus to calculate. Dynamic stability of flying wings is very challenging and requires the balancing of many design factors. The Klingberg Wing gained most of its dynamic stability via airfoil selection, wing twist, and by keeping the vast majority of the gross weight as close to the centerline as possible. Now, remember that any flying wing that uses a bell-shaped lift distribution will have significantly lower performance than a conventional configuration (with tail) due to the fact that the effective span is much less (lift distribution is non-optimal). This is because the last 20 to 30 percent of each wing is performing the function of a horizontal tail. The often stated fact that a flying wing will have superior performance due to lower drag is generally false. Only if it is very carefully designed to have minimum drag, will it have the same or superior performance to a "normal" configuration. There are some exceptions to this fact that are only recently afforded by computer control systems because the designer can go with a statically unstable configuration and let the computers keep everything lined up in flight. Going down this path allows a lift distribution much closer to the optimal elliptical form. I designed the Klingberg Wing as a pure wing mostly for factors other than performance. It made transportation much easier, the weight lower, and most importantly, much easier to launch. Try running down a hill with a 100 lb hang glider (my Wing was 85 lbs) with a tail dragging on the ground and you’ll understand my point. Now, to the meat of the matter about adverse yaw during a turn on a pure (no winglets or other vertical surfaces) flying wing. Now, read closely. What everyone seems to not understand is that adverse yaw means NOTHING to a pure wing. This is true for yaw angles up to 20 degrees or so (quite extreme). For a pure wing, there is no performance change no matter where the "nose" is pointed. What matters is flight path. The problem is one of pilot perception. When I taught people how to fly my models, once they learned to ignore where the nose was pointed, there were no more problems. The same was true for the full size wing. It is just a “problem” of pilots being conditioned to expect to have the nose pointed in the flight path direction. This is very important for conventional configurations (due to drag), but is virtually meaningless for pure wings. So, this whole argument about adverse yaw with pure wings is entirely pointless. It simply doesn’t matter to the aircraft. For some flying wings, adding winglets can allow a slight increase in performance and for those designs, adverse yaw IS an issue because of the related drag. Moving on; due to so many “armchair engineers” worried about this yaw “problem” I added the Autoyaw system I invented to the various models of the Klingberg Wing (afterall, I wanted to sell more of them). For those who used the Autoyaw system, the “problem” was solved. Plus, it was much easier to tow the glider and it made the launch of the Klingberg Rocket Wing much more pleasing. Bottom line, if you have a pure flying wing, stop worrying about the adverse yaw “problem” and leave the design work to the engineers. Just go flying, pay attention to the flight path, ignore where the nose is pointed, and have a fun flight!
I guess that depends on the mission. Horten also mentioned that small side slip angles weren't a problem and I've had MitchellWing pilots tell me that their had seen the plane stay straight and level without a power increase while skidding 20 degrees (estimated from a yaw string). The problems I foresee are with regard to things you may want to do other than fly. The prospect of landing sideways doesn't sound appealing to me. At the least you're going to have to replace tires more often and in a hang glider it seems like just one more way to get injured. The only common use for flying wings right now, other than toys, is unmanned video reconnaissance. Low directional stability would show up in the video as a wobbly picture. And of course there's the problem that killed Northrop's bomber. Unsteady bombing platforms couldn't put bombs on target until JDAM.So, what's wrong with adverse yaw in pure flying wings?