Lifting Body?

[marcusdrake]

Has anyone ever successfully constructed a lifting body plane?

[Andy W]

Nasa..
..a

[feihu]

marcusdrake -

Are you asking full size manned , or models?
NASA has completed flight testing of manned lifting body shapes back in the mid 70s, specifically, the M2, M2F2, HL10, and finally the X24.
Back in the 80s, I recall seeing a magazine article of a successful project of a model lifting body dropped from a mother ship requiring a pilot for the mother ship and one for the lifting body which glided to a landing. Believe the article was in RCM.

feihu

[vintage1]

When is a lifting body an odd shaped wing?

[Purdue Aero Man]

when the adverb isn't given an "ly."

[vintage1]

Hmm. It was an adjective.

As in "odd, shaped, wing"

Or "odd-shaped wing"

PS: the question was in fact serious.

I am curious to know when a wing ceases to be a wing and becomes a 'lifting body'

[robert harik]

Vintage, I was wondering the same thing.

[robert harik]

I looked up lifting bodies. If it has lifting body but no wings, its called a lifting body. If it has a lifting body and wings, there is a distinction made and its called a lifting body with wings.

The Idea started out as a way to keep missile nose cones from over heating on reentry by making them blunter and asymetrical. They found this could also produced lift and make the missile or vehicle steerable.

The idea was adopted for prototypes of manned reentry vehicles also, because of those reasons.
Rob

[raptor22]

It is a fuselage that was designed to be flat and act like a wing without the grag of a wing at high speeds. Some of nasa's gliders could break 1000 mph in standard flight (not reentry or anything).

--Alex

[vintage1]

I looked up lifting bodies. If it has lifting body but no wings, its called a lifting body. If it has a lifting body and wings, there is a distinction made and its called a lifting body with wings.


Right. That doesn't actually help very much, but thanks for trying :D

The Idea started out as a way to keep missile nose cones from over heating on reentry by making them blunter and asymetrical. They found this could also produced lift and make the missile or vehicle steerable.


Ah. So any shape that makes concessions to aerodynamic shape, is a lifting body, unless its not, when its a wing.

getting the hang of this now :D :D

I guess in historical perspective, one can understand the distinction.

Wings started out as lifting devices , and grew bodies. Bodies started out as ballstic objects and changed shape, and instead of becoming wings, became 'lifting bodies'

[robert harik]

The space shuttle is a lifting body and delta wing combined, so its not just a lifting body or a airplane. Its a lifting body with wings.

I see what you are saying, at what point does one become the other.

I think part of it is the distintive shape of the first lifting bodies, which were half cones , rounded side on the bottom,( an upside down airfoil) different than a conventional wing. Part of the difference is like you said, from a historical perspective the wing not the body or fuselage of an aircraft provided most of the lift.

So there standing around trying to decide what to call this monstrosity, do they call it a flying wing, no, its a different shape and it has a different purpose. Do they call it a flying fuselage,that does not sound good at all! Lets call it a lifting body!, yeh!, thats it!

[marcusdrake]

OK, so aside from NASA, has anyone built an RC model Lifting body/flying fuse/flying-stubby-winged-thingie?

I'd like to build a plane with the smallest wing area possible (hence the lifting body question)

[robert harik]

I coverted the little foamy space shuttle . Cost about 3-5 dollars at craft stores. Its about 50 sq in if you count the body and the wing together. I used a GWS 50 motor and 2 HS-50's, GWS R-4P R/X and 2s 340 lipolys. Flew great, fast. I think the thread is under foamies :''Three dollar space shuttle".

[feihu]

Hi Fellows -

Here's a look at a couple of full size lifting bodies:
The M2F2 on landing
A diagram showing the rocket engine installation.
The HL-10 on landing (just prior to landing gear deployment)

The M2F2 has a flat top and rounded bottom whereas the
HL-10 has a round top and a flat bottom. Also note - no wings!

Model from the photos?

feihu

[robert harik]

Dont know if I would want to model those, can you say ugly! Ha Ha ,
Just kidding, cool photos. They would be hard to model as a regular flying airplane, but you could launch them up with a estes rocket engine and then R/C them down.

[robert harik]

Raptor22, I just noticed your post #! For gods sake man say some Hail Mary's!

[raptor22]

Raptor22, I just noticed your post #! For gods sake man say some Hail Mary's!


Why?


--Alex

[raptor22]

Oh. It was 666. LOL.

I noticed your post at 670. I'm like "huh"?

--Alex

[raptor22]

Dont know if I would want to model those, can you say ugly! Ha Ha ,
Just kidding, cool photos. They would be hard to model as a regular flying airplane, but you could launch them up with a estes rocket engine and then R/C them down.

Saw a model of a bounce-on-the-atmosphere mockup-concept-thing on TV. IT was like a X-35 with no wings.

It was powered by an enourmous liquid fuel LOX and LH homemade motor and was launched from a massive launch rail that was tilted at 45*. I was like "that's cool" until I saw that it flew like crap.

It was so heavy that it only went like 100 ft and had a very steep descent with a very nose-high attitude. Plus, consider the cost of launching it; hundreds at least.

--Alex

[marcusdrake]

Here's my rough sketch of what I'm thinking of

[Salto]

This is an interesting project. http://members.aol.com/slicklynne/facet.htm

Graham.

[marcusdrake]

Interesting indeed, Salto. I am confused as to why research has shown how much more efficient an all-lifting design (or lifting body if you will) is and yet so few are willing to build them.

The goal I am working towards, of course, is to build a VTOL, but the webpage you pointed to had some great info on it. Thanks!

[raptor22]

I would like to point out that the ligting body is just a low AR flying wing, and your sketch is very low AR. This means that the low speed flying will, well, absolutely suck. It will stall early (with no well defined stall), and will just mush along in tight turns.

That doesn't mean it won't be fun, as it is certainly interesting, but it will not be really high performance so that you will be warned. The NASA planes were built to be low drag in reentry, where the angle of attack is pretty much zero, with the sacifice of low speed or glide performance.

--Alex

--Alex

[Ollie]

Wing (x) ~~~~~~ Lifting Body(y)
Cl (x) ~~~~~~~~ Cl(y)
Cd (x) ~~~~~~~~ Cd(y)
Cm (x) ~~~~~~~~ Cm(y)
alpha(x) ~~~~~~ alpha(y)
AR (x) ~~~~~~~~ AR(y)

[Salto]

Ollie, good to see you're back with power back on.

Can you elaborate or explain a different way your answer above?

Graham.

[Ollie]

Just of specs. and no pictures:
Cl of range
Cd of range
Cm of range
alpha of range
AR

Can you pick the areodyne before a picture for any wing type or any lifting body type?

[metalbuggy]

I've been looking around and thought folks on this thread would be interested in this kit.
I may get this one. I like the 'odd, strange, and curious'. :)

http://eam.net/EAMRC/skunkworks/Facetmobile/incredible_facetmobile.htm

[Rodney]

I have built three sizes of Barny Wainfain's "Facetmobile" , the first a 1/4 scale (.91 power) flew very well as did the 1/5 (.40 power) size. I just recently build a 2/15 scale and powered it with a brushless motor. It has been a ball to fly, even does inverted flight and most everything else except knife edge. Wainfain has a web site with 3 veiws if anyone is interested. Google "facetmobile home page" for 3 view.

[avianaut]

marcusdrake, I thought of the Facetmobile, but someone beat me to it. So, I offer this instead. It's waaaay sexier than the Facet. :p It's called Smartfish, go google.

Cheers.

[feihu]

Back in my post # 14, I guess the photos never got posted.
Anyway, I'll try again.
The M2F1 is shown here being towed aloft by a C-27 where is was released and glided to a landing.
The M2F2 is a rocket powered version of the M2F1. Carried aloft on a B-52 and released, the rocket engine is ignited and the M2F2 climbs upward to 80,000 ft and glides down to a landing. It is shown here with wheels deployed just before touchdown. The nosewheel straightened out on landing.
Thought this might be interesting.
feihu

[dw1122]

This guy Tony http://www.godickson.com/T&A_Leader.htm has a lifting body model constructed with balsa and covered with paper in his shop Tony & Addie Hobby Lobby in Burbank, California. He said it was build many years ago (yes, it was covered with dust in 2003 when I saw it) under contract from some research agency . It looked like the one in the picture posted by Feihu above.

[Tom Harper]

Wainfan Facetmobile

4 sq ft

40 oz

Norvel .25

Paper and foam board construction. Need to add the fins and go fly it one of these days.

[Thomas B]

More lifting body thingies...

Years ago, Model Builder had plans for a large lightweight model that looked just like a classic Buck Rogers spaceship. No wings, no shape to the thing except for the rocket body and some tail fins...flew fine with a motor on the nose. It did have some little longitudinal strips along the body that helped the lift a little bit.

Also, those with a lot of interest in lifting bodies would enjoy reading John McPhee's book, The Deltoid Pumpkin Seed.

Link to Amazon.com and the book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0374516359/qid=1152420066/sr=1-23/ref=sr_1_23/104-6048372-1567115?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

[Viper Pilot]

Has anyone ever successfully constructed a lifting body plane?
Isn't the SR-71 Blackbird an example of a lifting body airplane??

[Rodney]

I believe Barny Wainfains Facetmobile would best be classed as a lifting body. I have built 4 of these, one 1/4 scale, 2 1/5 scale and now an electric at 2/15 scale and all have flown quite well. If interested Google "Facetmobile Home Page" for 3 views and discussion on the real one.

[Thomas B]

Isn't the SR-71 Blackbird an example of a lifting body airplane??

Nope, not at all. It is a delta wing, more or less, with an extended forebody. It has a lot of wing surface, far too much to be called a lifting body.

A much better descriptor: A blended wing/fuse design.

[Tom Harper]

Rodney,

This is my first try at a Wainfan Facetmobile. I built a lot of Wainfan Cyrano's. I need a light, cheap, rugged AP airplane. The Facetmobile looks like a good candidate. This one is paper and foam board. It's 4 sq ft with a .25 Norvel, auw 44 oz. I raised the TL to eliminate the landing gear. Used the same 4 degree upthrust that I use on Delltas.

I have a question - where's the CG. I built the paper scale glider from the web and it balances like a normal delta. But Wainfan has the landing gear forward of that CG position. Is there some magic here? Where do yours balance.

Thanks,

Tom

[Rodney]

Balance is at the high point of the upper surface. It can vary quite a bit and still be flyable. On the real one, Barney says it can be a foot and half either for or aft of the high point. do make sure that the elevons are parallel with the lower surface on your first flights. I powered my 1/4 scale with a 90 4 stroke, the 1/5 scale with .40's and the small one with an AXI brushless.

[Tom Harper]

Rodney,

The balance point is an inch or so behind the high point. I'll see if i can get it forward.

You answered my next question. The glider instructions say to make the surfaces even with the bottom of the wing. I did it that way but my intuition is to align them with the camber line. Thanks. I'll stick with the bottom wing surface.

Tom

[uriah]

X-43A and all subsequent designs are of lifting body type.

I think the X-43B would be a great project for someone experienced.

The X-43B does have short wings and canards. I don't know if that takes it out of lifting body class.

But it would definaly be more stable then other versions of the X-43 project.
And slightly more manouverable. I was thinking that if built as a model you might need to change the side profile to a more airfoil shape. The lift coefficiant becomes so low at model speeds I don't think it would stay in the air without a whole lot of power... and thus more speed.

[BMatthews]

The problem with stuff like the X43 is that the shape's lift is often based on shock wave riding for much of it's lift. That won't work at model sizes. At "our" sizes and speeds the air has far too much time to go sideways and spill off over the sides and form vortices that likely would not be formed if it was running at super sonic speeds.

And what ends up happening with models with aspect ratios of around 1 is that they need to rely on the power to hold them in the air and the lift is almost secondary.

[Thomas B]

X-43A and all subsequent designs are of lifting body type.

I think the X-43B would be a great project for someone experienced.

The X-43B does have short wings and canards. I don't know if that takes it out of lifting body class.

But it would definaly be more stable then other versions of the X-43 project.
And slightly more manouverable. I was thinking that if built as a model you might need to change the side profile to a more airfoil shape. The lift coefficiant becomes so low at model speeds I don't think it would stay in the air without a whole lot of power... and thus more speed.

I am thinking that you mean all subsequent versions of the X-43 and not ALL subsequent designs....;) Even X planes are still being done with wings...X-47, X-47B, etc.

I think the rule of thumb for a lifting body would be that if it gets the vast majority of its lift from the body, and not from wings and tails, it is a lifting body. I think the X-43B is not a true lifting body, but a design that gets SOME of the lift from the fuselage, like other designs such as the Space Shuttle. As BMattews says, it was designed as a wave rider, with a lower fuse that provides the perfect ramp for a scramjet, with lift being a secondary result.

The Facetmobile gets the nod as a true lifting body, IMO, as does the early Nasa lifting body projects.

[ZIPPER]

I did a lifting body of sorts, Thunderbird 2
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=382930&page=7&pp=15&highlight=tb2
http://www.rcgroups.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=24065&sort=1&cat=500&page=1


Glenn