Soviet flying wings

[nevidimka]

Saw this amazing soviet designed bomber back in the late 50's. Although it never got off the drawing board, its clear to see the advanced concept of Soviet designers way back in the 50's. But it was killed of by the Soviet ICBM development.

Plus except the engines, it does look stealthy too. It must have produced a smaller RCS for its size had it flown.

As for new gen stealthy bomber with hypersonic speeds, it is possible to look into modifying this concept as it does look like a hypersonic design.


http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/flying%20wings/soviet_wings.htm

[zeven]

the first design aint very impressive

not from an aerodynamic point of view.. not wounder it only reached drawing board

[nevidimka]

the first design aint very impressive

not from an aerodynamic point of view.. not wounder it only reached drawing board

Why is it not impressive? Its a flying wing. It will probably give long range, speed and altitude.

[zeven]

Why is it not impressive? Its a flying wing. It will probably give long range, speed and altitude.

i really dont agree with speed. according to "Whitcomb area rule" this is not a design for speed.

range is always a question about priorities,. about altitude ok here maybe. but anyway. not a design i would have chosen. but thats just me..

[nevidimka]

i really dont agree with speed. according to "Whitcomb area rule" this is not a design for speed.

range is always a question about priorities,. about altitude ok here maybe. but anyway. not a design i would have chosen. but thats just me..


Can you elaborate on the Whitcomb area rule?

being a flying wing design, it will certainly give more space for fuel and being an intercontinental bomber which is was designed for, it certainly fits the priority.

And having 6 engines, I thought should give it considerable speed for the 50's or 60's.

[zeven]

Can you elaborate on the Whitcomb area rule?

being a flying wing design, it will certainly give more space for fuel and being an intercontinental bomber which is was designed for, it certainly fits the priority.

And having 6 engines, I thought should give it considerable speed for the 50's or 60's.

its not a pure wing design. its something inbetween and the fuselage. goes against all known aerodynamic rules.

i might be wrong, but in my world thats not a superior design probably because it was designed in the 50s

im not an aviation designer, but i just dont like and i wouldnt design it that way.

in regards of beautiy. amazing

[zeven]

you can read about it and look at the pics.

http://www.google.com/search?q=area+rule&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:sv-SE:official&client=firefox-a

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_rule

[nevidimka]

its not a pure wing design. its something inbetween and the fuselage. goes against all known aerodynamic rules.

i might be wrong, but in my world thats not a superior design probably because it was designed in the 50s

im not an aviation designer, but i just dont like and i wouldnt design it that way.

in regards of beautiy. amazing


hi, zeven, do you not believe those soviet aerodynamic designers know what they were doing? Soviets are very good at airframe design as can be seen from their successes.

I know its not a pure wing design, but its lifting body nonetheless. Do you realise that while Mig 29 and Su 27 is not flying wing design, their design looks almost like a flying wing, that even the spaces between the engine nacelles provide lift due to this?
Also the bomber design above is similar to the SR 71 blackbird. We know the blackbird dont have that much of a wing area, but its body itself is designed to lifting body design?

Which is why I believe this plane would have flown and flown great.

[zeven]

hi, zeven, do you not believe those soviet aerodynamic designers know what they were doing? Soviets are very good at airframe design as can be seen from their successes.

I know its not a pure wing design, but its lifting body nonetheless. Do you realise that while Mig 29 and Su 27 is not flying wing design, their design looks almost like a flying wing, that even the spaces between the engine nacelles provide lift due to this?
Also the bomber design above is similar to the SR 71 blackbird. We know the blackbird dont have that much of a wing area, but its body itself is designed to lifting body design?

Which is why I believe this plane would have flown and flown great.

After 50s standards it was proabaly quite good, but we have come far since then..

i would not have gone with the specific design. however the "fying" wing concept works nicely..

compare old delta canards designs with the new delta canards deisgns from Europe, and you understand what i mean. same configuration. but huge differences in aerodynaics.

[nevidimka]

I think I get what you're saying. I'm not saying its good as it is, and should be good to go as it is today. What I said was the concept was good, and for today's standard, I think the configuration is good, but with a bit redesigning to make it more of a body blended wing design.
And for this design and its purpose, it just is a pure speed and range design, no need for maneuverability.