News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Flying-V: Flying long distances energy-efficiently by nabla9 on Tuesday June 04, 2019 @12:10PM (#20096352)
Lift to drag ratio.

Aerodynamically the wetted area that generates drag without lift is undesirable. You need a wing generate lift, but everything else is there for something else like stability, handling, payload etc.

In conventional "tailplane" configuration the fuselage and tail are just providing drag and almost no lift (tail has little wings 'upside down' generating negative lift and trim drag). If you have canard or some more exotic wing configuration you can have all wings generating lift but there is still drag from the body. In clean flying wing, there is nothing else except the lift producing wing.

Re:Flying-V: Flying long distances energy-efficiently by usrusr on Tuesday June 04, 2019 @01:23PM (#20097154)
But thick, deep wings are not exactly known as the very definition of aerodynamic efficiency either. Are we sure that a sleek long tube added to a well-designed wing can be beaten by a wing that is full of compromise to accommodate seating?
Re:Flying-V: Flying long distances energy-efficiently by nabla9 on Tuesday June 04, 2019 @01:39PM (#20097338)
It's the thickness-to-chord ratio that matters, not absolute thickness.

Swept wing in the Flying-V is clever way to get a optimal thickness-to-chord while keeping the total surface area in check.

Re:Flying-V: Flying long distances energy-efficiently by FabHK on Tuesday June 04, 2019 @06:47PM (#20099986)
Concerning the horizontal stabiliser providing negative lift: it's possible and frequently so, but not necessary for stable flight.

(If I understand correctly, what is required is that its angle of attack is lower than the one of the main wing, or equivalently (if the wings have the same shape) its wing loading.)

See section 6.1 here, for example:

http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/aoastab.html#sec-basic-stability

Re:Flying-V: Flying long distances energy-efficiently by nabla9 on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @07:38AM (#20103340)
Yes. That's not theoretical requirement for tailplane.

But as the source you provides say: "indeed most aircraft operate with negative tail lift most of the time."

In practice all commercial aircraft have the center of mass so much forward that require negative lift for stability. If you look at the cross section of the horizontal stabilizer, it's like wing upside down.

Re:Flying-V: Flying long distances energy-efficiently by FabHK on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @09:24AM (#20104060)
My understanding is that airlines like to load their planes such that the CG is such that the tail contributes basically no lift, to minimise drag and fuel consumption.

See also:

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/34963/is-a380s-...

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/30400/will-opti...

Re:Flying-V: Flying long distances energy-efficiently by holoduke on Tuesday June 04, 2019 @01:12PM (#20097047)
Not entirely true. In a flying wing there is constant flap adjustment needed to counter balance a CG (center gravity) offset. The amount of counter drag is higher than a narrow winged tailplane. Obtaining a correct CG is therefore also more crucial. With variations in passengers and other load this will be a challenge.
Re:Flying-V: Flying long distances energy-efficiently by VilleO on Wednesday June 05, 2019 @02:10AM (#20101898)
To get flying wing stabile you have to add aerodynamic twist to wings which also adds drag. Flying wing looks good, but it's not as efficient as people think. It also has some unwanted flight characteristics like jaw hunting which are missing in t-tail planes.