Time to define 'flying wing and other tailless aircraft'

TheAeronut · Jul 08, 2004, 04:48 PM

ARRGGHHHHH!

I had hoped that it would not come to this, then I forgot the subject all together. If I remember correctly the full title for this forum in the proposal was 'Flying Wings and other Tailless aircraft'.

There now seems to be a difference of opinion as to what constitutes a Flying Wing. It would appear now that the proper title of this forum should be 'Zagi type flying wings'. By the moderators recent (re)definition of flying wing, we could not discuss most full scale flying wings, like fighter aircraft and other (tailless) deltas like the Concorde, as well as possibly the majority of model 'flying wing' designs. It would appear that the presence of a fuselage will disqualify any aircraft from this forum. This did not appear to be an issue until recently. By the current definition a number of the threads in this forum must be moved to other forums.

It was my understanding that this forum was to be fairly inclusive and encompass pretty much any aircraft that did not have a seperate horizontal stabilizer. Many aircraft do not have enough wing volume and thus require a fuselage to house flight equipment and in the case of full scale, a pilot and/or passengers. Heck! The e-power Zagis (tm) have a _fuselage_ to mount their batteries and motor!!! It may be encompassed within the chord of the wing, but that thing sticking up from the wing root is not any part of a 'wing'.

A short discussion on aircraft components:

Wing: Sort of a requirement for an aircraft.

Fuselage: A structure used to house pilot, passengers, cargo and flight equipment. Sometimes also used to connect other components to the wing (like engine(s) and stabilizers. Often ignored in the model world for its aerodynamic effects, but it is part of the total aeordynamics of the aircraft.

Powerplant(s): Internal combustion engines (piston, turbine and rocket) and electric motors are the the main alternatives here. Propulsion is not a requirement for aircraft, as there are many gliders out in the world. Indeed, fixed wing aviation started out unpowered and remained so until the Wright Brothers succeeded in combining airframe and power plant for sustained self-powered flight.

Vertical stabiliser: Perhaps the most difficult of ancilliary equipment to remove from aircraft and retain aerodynamic stability... Considered to be a 'tail' part, but ignored as such for the purposes of almost all flying wings. Tiplets on conventionally swept flying wings are primarily for yaw stabilisation. Tiplets are often used for the same purpose on plank style flying wing (which often have a fuselage for battery & receiver mounting and balance purposes).

Horzontal stabiliser: The bane of the flying wing enthusiast! Flying wings do have horzontal stabilisers in aerodynamic terms, they are just integrated into the wing itself. A seperate horzontal stab may be aft as in a conventional craft, or forward in the form of a canard.

I will freely agree that a conventional aft horizontal stab has no place in this 'flying wings' forum. A would also agree that a canard does not really belong here. I do feel that disqualifying aircraft from the 'Flying Wings and _Other Tailless Aircraft_' forum because they have a fuselage is purist, exclusive and inappropriate. If you are to disallow a fuselage, then it would seem that you MUST disallow any other surface or object that is not wing, including any vertical fins, tiplets and whatever (ignoring motors and propellors). Again, this narrow definition eliminates most model and full scale flying wings including many of the Horten wings, almost all (if not all) of the Lippisch wings, and most of the Northrop flying wings. Even the Northrop B-2 Stealth Bomber would be eliminated, as it has a fuselage. That bump on top of the center section in certainly not there to enhance the lift or stability of the aircraft.

Oh Well, enough for now. Any further comments or discussion?

J.P.

MikeC · Jul 08, 2004, 05:20 PM

A flying wing is an aircraft with NO HORIZONTAL STAB. It can either be a plank or a swept wing. That is the standard definition.

Jim Marske has been building flying wing planks for about 30 years and knows the difference. Martin.Hepperle the well known airfoil designer clearly states that planks are flying wings. If anyone wants to look at the german Nurflügel (flying wing) sites they will see that both planks and swept wings are treated equally as flying wings.

Planks use reflexed airfoils to do away with a horiz. stab.

Swept wings use wing washout to do away with the need for a horizontal stab.

Some sailplanes flying wings use a combo of both washout and reflexed sections to to achieve good flying characteristic.

MikeC · Jul 08, 2004, 05:24 PM

One other point. My first flying wing was built from plans of a plank hand lauch sailplane designed by Keith Shaw. It had a fuse and a vertical fin on the end of a small fuse. He described it as a flying wing.

MikeC · Jul 08, 2004, 05:41 PM

and from the man that designs flying wing airfoils ---

http://www.mh-aerotools.de/airfoils/index.htm

and select flying wings from the choices on the left.

DaveGherardini · Jul 08, 2004, 05:53 PM

well, for starters it was discussed and decided before the forum was made permanent buy the administers of this bussiness. They decide what goes where and i think they do a great job. Never will everyone agree what a a tailess ac will look like, But to say a N9M dont quailfy? See there now, To me, this is an excellent representation of a flying wing. Also, no ofense, but a Zagi type label for the forum? Why would you say this. It is a fact that there are more foamy wings on the market than any other type, but Zagi is just one brand. And it wasnt the first foam flying wing manufactured for the market just the most sucsessful. Foam has only been around since the late 60's and early 70's.
I would not want the responsibility of deciding what goes where but it defintly woundnt be a stressful job. Its all in sharing our stuff with each other. Theres always a spot for any type of aircraft. And most aircraft will fit in multiple forums.

Buzz_Man · Jul 08, 2004, 06:39 PM

Quote:

A short discussion on aircraft components:

Wing: Sort of a requirement for an aircraft.

By this definition a hot air balloon or blimp isn't an aircraft, right?

I know the military categorizes fixed wing vs. rotory wing aircraft to designate airplanes vs. helicopters, but I always thought there were various categories of aircraft, some which are completely wingless. I thought a wing was simply defined as a portion of a winged aircraft which provided lift when air passed over it - right?

Quote:

A flying wing is an aircraft with NO HORIZONTAL STAB.

By this definition would a Hyperfly would be a flying wing, or are the stabilizer paddles considered to be a horizontal stab even though they're rotory? I guess if they are, then the Hyperfly isn't a flying wing.

Speaking of wings, I was very happy to learn my Japanese neighbor just bought his girlfriend a wing. He's been living in the US for about three months and his English isn't very good so it was hard for me to understand his enthusiasm, but turns out, he's also getting married soon.

Rotozuk · Jul 08, 2004, 07:04 PM

On a slightly different track... I tend to think the real use of this thread is to share designs and questions related to tailess (horizontal that is) aircraft as these types tend to have their own common little issues that a tailed plane doe not have to deal with.

For the most part that involves our flight surfaces, CG, sweeps, and air foils. And can get into the different radio mixings, etc.

Lets face it, there are a lot of catagories we can file our planes into here at RCGroups. I could probably post my current project in any one of 6 different areas, but I thought this one made the most sense. It is most related to the design constraints of a flying wing.

I consider Delta, Plank and "normal" flying wings all the same. All you are doing is fitting a different plan form or moving the vertical stab around.

I will go oout on a limb and say that I feel that is someone that had a question about a pitcheron setup felt like posting in the wing forum, I think he could be on topic, or be off topic. Just depends on the what he is sharing. Radio setup would be identical to a typical wing setup.

-Wayne

raptor22 · Jul 08, 2004, 10:11 PM

The whole point of alot of people supporting the creation of this forum is to collaborate on solving the problems of tailless aircraft. Doesn't the description say other tailless aircraft? If you look into the controversial foum about the creation of this forum people specifically agreed to the allowance of planks and aircraft such as the Bird of Prey (which definitely has a fuse and vertical stab).

If anyone is disputing the vertical stab of a plank, I would like to mention that most flying wings have a stab or other vertical surface; even if its int he form of winglets.

--Alex

gouch · Jul 09, 2004, 06:16 AM

I asked the same question over in slope in the flying wing bird sloper thread that used to be here , about what is the definition of a flying wing. After reading aeronuts excellent post and the info on Martin Hepperles' extremely informative site, I have my answer.
Thanks guys for the info, and my sanity lives a bit longer

My opinions of what makes a flying wing seem to be confirmed by aeronut and Martin Hepperle, and that's good enough for me!

Maybe the mods could update their thoughts on the matter? Not meaning to poke sticks at them, but if they can agree on what the experts are saying, then the rest of us "hams" will have a standard to work from.

I have read posts where people are saying it's not all open and shut about what makes a flying wing, but after reading the info, I beg to differ.

Cheers
Paul

leccyflyer · Jul 09, 2004, 07:09 AM

It's a bit of a moot point really, given that the forum definition includes tailless aircraft as well as flying wings sensu stricto.

Concorde is a flying wing? That's a real stretch

Concorde is (was) a tailless* ogival delta winged aeroplane. That means you could make a case for it to be discussed here- though a better place, IMHO, would be whichever of the scale or jets forums would be most appropriate for the particular model. If one wanted to discuss the aerodynamics of the wing then we have always had a perfectly serviceable modelling science forum.

Threads like this one merely demonstrates that the entire concept of a separate flying wings forum was flawed in the first place- there is as much cross forum posting about flying wings as ever there was, and there always will be, except now you have to check in seven forums instead of six.

Brian

* assuming tailless refers to the lack of a separate horizontal stabiliser and thereby discounts Concorde's vast vertical fin

ScYcS · Jul 09, 2004, 07:57 AM

Brian,

I know you are opposed to a flying wings forum and you were from the very beginning. However, the last couple weeks we saw excellent posts in this forum and the knowledge is not spread wildly over whatever how many forums. You can visit this forum and finally have info on flying wing style aircraft without going through literally thousands of other posts about Foamfly frogs and whatnot (nothing against the frog, it's a great flyer i heard).

According to your logic, we should have no "jets" forum, no "waterplanes", no "vintage design" or "parkflyers" or any specific forum at all and it all should be one big giant mess (maybe called "aircraft"??). I completely disagree with your assumption about the way this board is structured. Of course there are cross postings and of course there always will be. However, judging the forum after not even 8 weeks and saying it is basically useless, no, you actually see it as a burden, is completely wrong and even more so coming from a moderator.

Just my 2 cents.

gouch · Jul 09, 2004, 09:01 AM

I gotta agree with ScYcS here.

Here's the problem I have. The mods that mod this forum seem to hate being here from what I gather, esp Brian, after reading your comments. Why mod it then? pass it on to someone who WANTS to do it. If you have a problem with this forum take it up with Mr Bourke, rather than us.

I didn't really care for the flying wing forum as such either way, but I was hoping I would be able to find wing info without searching through a ton of pages in foamies and parkflyers, as those forums are VERY busy and it was easy to miss posts as only a couple of hours later it's on the second page. In this context it has worked for me so far. This is why I gave it the thumbs up.

I do however believe that there ARE too many different forums, but with the huge following on RCgroups, what else can you do?

As for me having to go to the seperate forums, it isn't hard. As i've said before, stick the individual forums into your favourites. Simply click the forum you want to go to and wala! it's done. I haven't been to the main home page for ages. I have 20 different forums in my own little forums sub menu in my favourites. Very simple system for a simple guy!

Back on topic:

I'm not getting into another discussion with you brian as to whether the concorde or even your beloved vulcan

is a flying wing or not, just because it uses a delta planform with a fin, does not remove it from the base meaning of a flying wing.

If the vertical fin is what's cheesing you off, how many planes (real or rc) would be classified as a flying wing? one, two? three max? there goes every plane posted on this forum so far.

Just one more whinge.

I posted a specific battery question, regarding a specific wing, regarding the balancing issues I might have with using said specific batts. It was moved to power or batts or somewhere. I got one reply from the owner of the same plane and he answered it nicely, so no worries there,(he found it before it dropped off the wings page) but if another user wants to look for the answer, he won't find it here

This was a specific wing question and it was moved.

Don Sims · Jul 09, 2004, 01:35 PM

Moderators for this forum listed for all to see at the bottom of the page:
Mark Wood, Don Sims

Bri is a supermod and like everyone else is free to express his opinion as long as it's within the site guidelines. Bri has been up front about this from the beginning and I also noticed that he was instrumental in getting the forum moved to this location and out of the dreaded trial forums so he has been more than fair about the new forum.

If MW or I decide to move a thread because we feel it will get more attention to help out a member don't sweat it. If folks decide to post threads about wings in other forums don't sweat it. We have this forum and speaking for myself, I'm happy to be here.

As I've said before, the mods are volunteers and don't have the time to move every wing thread here from every other forum. I have foamies also and I definately have zero plans to move the thousands of wing related threads here nor spend my valuable surfing time moving new threads here.

Mark and I volunteered to moderate this forum and were not pushed into it. Both of us fly wings and enjoy the things. You guys need to please chill down before I close this thread.

Don

ScYcS · Jul 09, 2004, 01:43 PM

Don, i don't think anything got out of hand in this thread yet. Like Brian is allowed to express his opinion, so are we to agree or disagree with it.

So far this has been a very healthy and moderate discussion imho....

TheAeronut · Jul 09, 2004, 02:33 PM

Perhaps the forum title needs to be changed to 'Tailless Aircraft including Flying Wings'?

This has been a civil discussion, including my previous reply post that for some reason did not make it into the thread. This thread was inspired by the actions of moderator Mark Wood when he moved the thread about the bird-like flying wing to slopers because

quote
------------------------------------
Moving to Slope! (not a flying wing)

mw
------------------------------------
unquote

Apparently Mark had forgotten the 'other Tailless Aircraft' part of the forum description that did not make it into the forum title. Easy enough to do I guess, as almost all recent discussion has centered around the typical swept tapered flying with tiplets.

I most sincerely mean no offense to Mark Wood. I appreciate the volunteer job that he and Don Sims are doing for us on this forum. Thanks to Mark, Don, Brian and indeed Jim Bourke for providing us with this excellent place to share information and experience about R/C aircraft.

J.P.

Jul 08, 2004, 04:48 PM	#1
TheAeronut 12th Pursuit Squadron Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Garland, Tx. Posts: 448	Time to define 'flying wing and other tailless aircraft' ARRGGHHHHH! I had hoped that it would not come to this, then I forgot the subject all together. If I remember correctly the full title for this forum in the proposal was 'Flying Wings and other Tailless aircraft'. There now seems to be a difference of opinion as to what constitutes a Flying Wing. It would appear now that the proper title of this forum should be 'Zagi type flying wings'. By the moderators recent (re)definition of flying wing, we could not discuss most full scale flying wings, like fighter aircraft and other (tailless) deltas like the Concorde, as well as possibly the majority of model 'flying wing' designs. It would appear that the presence of a fuselage will disqualify any aircraft from this forum. This did not appear to be an issue until recently. By the current definition a number of the threads in this forum must be moved to other forums. It was my understanding that this forum was to be fairly inclusive and encompass pretty much any aircraft that did not have a seperate horizontal stabilizer. Many aircraft do not have enough wing volume and thus require a fuselage to house flight equipment and in the case of full scale, a pilot and/or passengers. Heck! The e-power Zagis (tm) have a _fuselage_ to mount their batteries and motor!!! It may be encompassed within the chord of the wing, but that thing sticking up from the wing root is not any part of a 'wing'. A short discussion on aircraft components: Wing: Sort of a requirement for an aircraft. Fuselage: A structure used to house pilot, passengers, cargo and flight equipment. Sometimes also used to connect other components to the wing (like engine(s) and stabilizers. Often ignored in the model world for its aerodynamic effects, but it is part of the total aeordynamics of the aircraft. Powerplant(s): Internal combustion engines (piston, turbine and rocket) and electric motors are the the main alternatives here. Propulsion is not a requirement for aircraft, as there are many gliders out in the world. Indeed, fixed wing aviation started out unpowered and remained so until the Wright Brothers succeeded in combining airframe and power plant for sustained self-powered flight. Vertical stabiliser: Perhaps the most difficult of ancilliary equipment to remove from aircraft and retain aerodynamic stability... Considered to be a 'tail' part, but ignored as such for the purposes of almost all flying wings. Tiplets on conventionally swept flying wings are primarily for yaw stabilisation. Tiplets are often used for the same purpose on plank style flying wing (which often have a fuselage for battery & receiver mounting and balance purposes). Horzontal stabiliser: The bane of the flying wing enthusiast! Flying wings do have horzontal stabilisers in aerodynamic terms, they are just integrated into the wing itself. A seperate horzontal stab may be aft as in a conventional craft, or forward in the form of a canard. I will freely agree that a conventional aft horizontal stab has no place in this 'flying wings' forum. A would also agree that a canard does not really belong here. I do feel that disqualifying aircraft from the 'Flying Wings and _Other Tailless Aircraft_' forum because they have a fuselage is purist, exclusive and inappropriate. If you are to disallow a fuselage, then it would seem that you MUST disallow any other surface or object that is not wing, including any vertical fins, tiplets and whatever (ignoring motors and propellors). Again, this narrow definition eliminates most model and full scale flying wings including many of the Horten wings, almost all (if not all) of the Lippisch wings, and most of the Northrop flying wings. Even the Northrop B-2 Stealth Bomber would be eliminated, as it has a fuselage. That bump on top of the center section in certainly not there to enhance the lift or stability of the aircraft. Oh Well, enough for now. Any further comments or discussion? J.P. Last edited by TheAeronut; Jul 08, 2004 at 04:51 PM.

Jul 09, 2004, 07:57 AM	#11
ScYcS Just fly the darn wing!!! Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Westfield, NY Posts: 2,209	Brian, I know you are opposed to a flying wings forum and you were from the very beginning. However, the last couple weeks we saw excellent posts in this forum and the knowledge is not spread wildly over whatever how many forums. You can visit this forum and finally have info on flying wing style aircraft without going through literally thousands of other posts about Foamfly frogs and whatnot (nothing against the frog, it's a great flyer i heard). According to your logic, we should have no "jets" forum, no "waterplanes", no "vintage design" or "parkflyers" or any specific forum at all and it all should be one big giant mess (maybe called "aircraft"??). I completely disagree with your assumption about the way this board is structured. Of course there are cross postings and of course there always will be. However, judging the forum after not even 8 weeks and saying it is basically useless, no, you actually see it as a burden, is completely wrong and even more so coming from a moderator. Just my 2 cents. Last edited by ScYcS; Jul 09, 2004 at 08:01 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
any good modeling books on flying wings and other tailless aircraft?	larrymiracle@earthlink.net	rec.models.rc.air	1	Jul 30, 2004 03:11 AM
Question Just got a flying wing...questions on what other materials to get...	Picoflyer	Flying Wings	22	Jun 08, 2004 11:10 PM
CG for Le Pew or other flying wing???	Barry Janzen	Foamies (Kits)	7	Apr 28, 2004 12:18 AM
Take a look at this 24 inch flying wing	Acer	Electric Plane Talk	2	Sep 10, 2001 03:29 PM

Jul 08, 2004, 05:20 PM	#2
MikeC Registered User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Albuq, NMex USA Posts: 444	A flying wing is an aircraft with NO HORIZONTAL STAB. It can either be a plank or a swept wing. That is the standard definition. Jim Marske has been building flying wing planks for about 30 years and knows the difference. Martin.Hepperle the well known airfoil designer clearly states that planks are flying wings. If anyone wants to look at the german Nurflügel (flying wing) sites they will see that both planks and swept wings are treated equally as flying wings. Planks use reflexed airfoils to do away with a horiz. stab. Swept wings use wing washout to do away with the need for a horizontal stab. Some sailplanes flying wings use a combo of both washout and reflexed sections to to achieve good flying characteristic.

Jul 08, 2004, 05:24 PM	#3
MikeC Registered User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Albuq, NMex USA Posts: 444	One other point. My first flying wing was built from plans of a plank hand lauch sailplane designed by Keith Shaw. It had a fuse and a vertical fin on the end of a small fuse. He described it as a flying wing.

Jul 08, 2004, 05:41 PM	#4
MikeC Registered User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Albuq, NMex USA Posts: 444	and from the man that designs flying wing airfoils --- http://www.mh-aerotools.de/airfoils/index.htm and select flying wings from the choices on the left.

Jul 08, 2004, 05:53 PM	#5
DaveGherardini Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 543	well, for starters it was discussed and decided before the forum was made permanent buy the administers of this bussiness. They decide what goes where and i think they do a great job. Never will everyone agree what a a tailess ac will look like, But to say a N9M dont quailfy? See there now, To me, this is an excellent representation of a flying wing. Also, no ofense, but a Zagi type label for the forum? Why would you say this. It is a fact that there are more foamy wings on the market than any other type, but Zagi is just one brand. And it wasnt the first foam flying wing manufactured for the market just the most sucsessful. Foam has only been around since the late 60's and early 70's. I would not want the responsibility of deciding what goes where but it defintly woundnt be a stressful job. Its all in sharing our stuff with each other. Theres always a spot for any type of aircraft. And most aircraft will fit in multiple forums.

Jul 08, 2004, 07:04 PM	#7
Rotozuk Need more HOT sauce! Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Lake Forest, CA Posts: 1,061	On a slightly different track... I tend to think the real use of this thread is to share designs and questions related to tailess (horizontal that is) aircraft as these types tend to have their own common little issues that a tailed plane doe not have to deal with. For the most part that involves our flight surfaces, CG, sweeps, and air foils. And can get into the different radio mixings, etc. Lets face it, there are a lot of catagories we can file our planes into here at RCGroups. I could probably post my current project in any one of 6 different areas, but I thought this one made the most sense. It is most related to the design constraints of a flying wing. I consider Delta, Plank and "normal" flying wings all the same. All you are doing is fitting a different plan form or moving the vertical stab around. I will go oout on a limb and say that I feel that is someone that had a question about a pitcheron setup felt like posting in the wing forum, I think he could be on topic, or be off topic. Just depends on the what he is sharing. Radio setup would be identical to a typical wing setup. -Wayne

Jul 08, 2004, 10:11 PM	#8
raptor22 Striving to Rip the Bring Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: San Diego, socal, USA, North America, Earth, Solar System, the Orion arm, Milky way, Universe Posts: 6,257	The whole point of alot of people supporting the creation of this forum is to collaborate on solving the problems of tailless aircraft. Doesn't the description say other tailless aircraft? If you look into the controversial foum about the creation of this forum people specifically agreed to the allowance of planks and aircraft such as the Bird of Prey (which definitely has a fuse and vertical stab). If anyone is disputing the vertical stab of a plank, I would like to mention that most flying wings have a stab or other vertical surface; even if its int he form of winglets. --Alex

Jul 09, 2004, 06:16 AM	#9
gouch feed>burp>clean>work>feed>> Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Lake Macquarie, Aust. Posts: 5,851	I asked the same question over in slope in the flying wing bird sloper thread that used to be here , about what is the definition of a flying wing. After reading aeronuts excellent post and the info on Martin Hepperles' extremely informative site, I have my answer. Thanks guys for the info, and my sanity lives a bit longer My opinions of what makes a flying wing seem to be confirmed by aeronut and Martin Hepperle, and that's good enough for me! Maybe the mods could update their thoughts on the matter? Not meaning to poke sticks at them, but if they can agree on what the experts are saying, then the rest of us "hams" will have a standard to work from. I have read posts where people are saying it's not all open and shut about what makes a flying wing, but after reading the info, I beg to differ. Cheers Paul

Jul 09, 2004, 07:09 AM	#10
leccyflyer Get One Up! Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Cheshire, England Posts: 9,302	It's a bit of a moot point really, given that the forum definition includes tailless aircraft as well as flying wings sensu stricto. Concorde is a flying wing? That's a real stretch Concorde is (was) a tailless* ogival delta winged aeroplane. That means you could make a case for it to be discussed here- though a better place, IMHO, would be whichever of the scale or jets forums would be most appropriate for the particular model. If one wanted to discuss the aerodynamics of the wing then we have always had a perfectly serviceable modelling science forum. Threads like this one merely demonstrates that the entire concept of a separate flying wings forum was flawed in the first place- there is as much cross forum posting about flying wings as ever there was, and there always will be, except now you have to check in seven forums instead of six. Brian * assuming tailless refers to the lack of a separate horizontal stabiliser and thereby discounts Concorde's vast vertical fin

Jul 09, 2004, 09:01 AM	#12
gouch feed>burp>clean>work>feed>> Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Lake Macquarie, Aust. Posts: 5,851	I gotta agree with ScYcS here. Here's the problem I have. The mods that mod this forum seem to hate being here from what I gather, esp Brian, after reading your comments. Why mod it then? pass it on to someone who WANTS to do it. If you have a problem with this forum take it up with Mr Bourke, rather than us. I didn't really care for the flying wing forum as such either way, but I was hoping I would be able to find wing info without searching through a ton of pages in foamies and parkflyers, as those forums are VERY busy and it was easy to miss posts as only a couple of hours later it's on the second page. In this context it has worked for me so far. This is why I gave it the thumbs up. I do however believe that there ARE too many different forums, but with the huge following on RCgroups, what else can you do? As for me having to go to the seperate forums, it isn't hard. As i've said before, stick the individual forums into your favourites. Simply click the forum you want to go to and wala! it's done. I haven't been to the main home page for ages. I have 20 different forums in my own little forums sub menu in my favourites. Very simple system for a simple guy! Back on topic: I'm not getting into another discussion with you brian as to whether the concorde or even your beloved vulcan is a flying wing or not, just because it uses a delta planform with a fin, does not remove it from the base meaning of a flying wing. If the vertical fin is what's cheesing you off, how many planes (real or rc) would be classified as a flying wing? one, two? three max? there goes every plane posted on this forum so far. Just one more whinge. I posted a specific battery question, regarding a specific wing, regarding the balancing issues I might have with using said specific batts. It was moved to power or batts or somewhere. I got one reply from the owner of the same plane and he answered it nicely, so no worries there,(he found it before it dropped off the wings page) but if another user wants to look for the answer, he won't find it here This was a specific wing question and it was moved.

Jul 09, 2004, 01:35 PM	#13
Don Sims Registered User Join Date: May 2000 Location: Outside of Dyer, Tn. USA Posts: 7,135	Moderators for this forum listed for all to see at the bottom of the page: Mark Wood, Don Sims Bri is a supermod and like everyone else is free to express his opinion as long as it's within the site guidelines. Bri has been up front about this from the beginning and I also noticed that he was instrumental in getting the forum moved to this location and out of the dreaded trial forums so he has been more than fair about the new forum. If MW or I decide to move a thread because we feel it will get more attention to help out a member don't sweat it. If folks decide to post threads about wings in other forums don't sweat it. We have this forum and speaking for myself, I'm happy to be here. As I've said before, the mods are volunteers and don't have the time to move every wing thread here from every other forum. I have foamies also and I definately have zero plans to move the thousands of wing related threads here nor spend my valuable surfing time moving new threads here. Mark and I volunteered to moderate this forum and were not pushed into it. Both of us fly wings and enjoy the things. You guys need to please chill down before I close this thread. Don

Jul 09, 2004, 01:43 PM	#14
ScYcS Just fly the darn wing!!! Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Westfield, NY Posts: 2,209	Don, i don't think anything got out of hand in this thread yet. Like Brian is allowed to express his opinion, so are we to agree or disagree with it. So far this has been a very healthy and moderate discussion imho....

Jul 09, 2004, 02:33 PM	#15
TheAeronut 12th Pursuit Squadron Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Garland, Tx. Posts: 448	Perhaps the forum title needs to be changed to 'Tailless Aircraft including Flying Wings'? This has been a civil discussion, including my previous reply post that for some reason did not make it into the thread. This thread was inspired by the actions of moderator Mark Wood when he moved the thread about the bird-like flying wing to slopers because quote ------------------------------------ Moving to Slope! (not a flying wing) mw ------------------------------------ unquote Apparently Mark had forgotten the 'other Tailless Aircraft' part of the forum description that did not make it into the forum title. Easy enough to do I guess, as almost all recent discussion has centered around the typical swept tapered flying with tiplets. I most sincerely mean no offense to Mark Wood. I appreciate the volunteer job that he and Don Sims are doing for us on this forum. Thanks to Mark, Don, Brian and indeed Jim Bourke for providing us with this excellent place to share information and experience about R/C aircraft. J.P.