Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site amdahl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!decwrl!sun!amdahl!ems
From: ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems)
Newsgroups: net.aviation
Subject: Re: \"Was It Something I Said\", et al. (Flying Wing)
Message-ID: <1699@amdahl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 20-Jun-85 13:28:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: amdahl.1699
Posted: Thu Jun 20 13:28:41 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 23-Jun-85 15:20:35 EDT
References: <2737@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: Circle C Shellfish Ranch, Shores-of-the-Pacific, Ca
Lines: 20

> On the subject of "most beautiful aircraft," I can think of only
> one *family* of aircraft that this applies to from an aesthetic
> standpoint: the Northrop Flying Wings.  There were several technical
> reasons these aircraft didn't "take hold," but looking at them in 
> flight, they were beautiful [...]
> for sheer beauty (and a sort of timelessness: the basic configuration is as
> ancient/modern as an eagle), you can't touch a Flying Wing, in my opinion.
> 
> Steve Kallis, Jr.

I have seen some footage of the Flying Wing and read that the
demise was more a political (DoD politics) one than a technical one.
What were the technical reasons you mention?  Are these reasons also
why we don't see experimental kit flying wings?
-- 

E. Michael Smith  ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems

This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but
not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)