Can a plane without wings fly?

[rootone]

Well the definition of an 'airplane' is
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/airplane

The 'plane' part of the word is a direct reference to horizontal (more or less) plane which comprises the wings.
(Which is why early airplanes which had a double set of wings were called biplanes)
Any form of aircraft which does not have wings is there not an airplane but some other kind of flying vehicle.

 

[Spike Selig]

In reply to the Now if we can only develop a means of controlling the role, I just posted this video on You Tube; Read the comment on the video to understand where the plane in the video is getting its extreme role rate. Role vectors come from the rudder vector not being on axis with the fuselage (no wings) and can be generated by eliminating half of the elevator (as happened in the below video). Right rudder in flight aligned with the fuselage roles the hull to the left. If the left elevator is missing, the right rudder, when oriented to nose down actually raises the tail (nose down) but also induces a torque vector on the hull just as the rudder does. This vector also rolls the hull to the left (counter clockwise looking to the front). The motor turning the prop generates a counter prop direction vector which if ligned with the rudder's and elevator's vectors spin up the hull to speed I do not believe a pilot could survive in the real world. I hope somebody slows down this video and tries to count the rotation rate. It is extreme! Real Flight simulation makes experimenting with these concepts practical, no $3,000 plane crashes, lost pilot lives, and loss of personel on the ground. These concepts must be done on simulator. The simulator may not get it exactly right, but it gets it vary close to "real flight". We don't take a 747 up and shut the engines off to teach emergency proceedures to a pilot.

 

[Spike Selig]

Correction for above comment: A downward deflection of the right elevator (looking from the rear of the plane) would rotate the hull in a counterclockwise, left role(when looking from the Rear toward the front) . A great solution to no wing ailerons would be to split control of the elevator. Both would be used in unison to initiate pitch up and down of the wingless fuselage, however, the separate left and right elevators could be made to act like ailerons when roll is induced, a left role lowering the right elevator and raising the left elevator. A servo could push and pull a tray of 2 servos for instance. The push and pull operating up and down on the elevator. The 2 servos push and pull with the elevator servo but each of the 2 is connected to one or the other of the two halves of the elevator. operating left or right "aileron" would then cause a left or right role in addition to the up and down deflection. Since these controls are the only means of controlling role, they could be made longer with more surface area to give more stable control. This concept would work well in aerobatic and Harrier flight as the elevator- ailerons would be in line with the prop wash and work a "0" airspeed. I think most aerobatic planes would benefit from the added control in spin, nose high flying on the prop full stall, straight up flight. The coupled elevator aileron's should eliminate some of the mushy, dynamically instable control problems that make entering a harrier attitude so difficult and imprecise. In flying attitudes where the nose is high and the wing near stall, the set up would make the aircraft more controllable, that attitude known for poor role control, the poor control necessitating over exaggerated movement of the rudder. In no wing flight, nose high level flight means the rudder is below the axis of flight and right rudder roles the plane to the right. In level flight (climb or rapped descent) the rudder is above the axis of flight and right rudder creates a left role vector to the fuselage. This is one reason, I believe, that a no wing flight often "spins out of control" with rudder ineffective, the rudder on the wrong side of the axis of flight. No wing flying necessitates the nose be kept high. With the high nose, loss of altitude can be made by throttling back. My video showing aerobatics just got posted on You Tube.
Spike Selig

 

[boneh3ad]

Again, Real Flight is not a suitable program for determining the flight characteristics of planes. It is not designed for that and does not have nearly enough computational power to react to the vastly different flow field around a plane with no wings. I really wish you'd stop acting like it is somehow a realistic simulation for things like this or else prove to the rest of us that it actually is.

 

[cjl]

First off, I generally don't trust simulators to get unusual/atypical situations right. They work fairly well within a normal flight envelope because they are calibrated based on measured and observed behavior of real objects. Aerodynamic simulations are very difficult to do in real time (or even not in real time), and a simulator's behavior is really not a great indication of how real aircraft would behave in that situation.

Secondly, that just looks like a reaction to the prop torque to me. With no ailerons and very little to resist a rolling moment, the engine torque being applied to the prop spins the fuselage in the opposite direction to the propeller. This is why you'd need some other method of roll control to make a wingless flight work.

 

[Spike Selig]

I agree with you completely that Real Flight does not always get it right especially when it has to try and resolve unusual attitudes and circumstances. In the below video just posted, many things were going on in the simulated flight that were probably never imagined by the engineers at Real Flight, the most obvious being that the plane lands in flat spin, the tail bangs down and the plane tips over allowing the wing to absorb some shock, but, with full power, how did the simulator handle what happened after that?
Thanks for keeping the discussion positive. I do want to get a plane into the field and hopefully demonstrate the aerobatics I have developed on Real Flight. Cost is a major problem for me, being 73 and retired. I will be attempting to take off and land a model RC plane with no wings shortly, and I do expect crashes that will cost money.
If I am right, history will be made as I have found no internet material demonstrating no wing flight.



Spike

 

[Spike Selig]

I think they did a pretty good job on this video also.

 

[boneh3ad]

It's not a matter of what the engineers anticipated. It's a matter of how the software works and what it was designed to accomplish. The purpose of the software is to emulate flying an RC airplane. It is most likely doing this by solving a very simplified set of physics equations based on measurements made on each model, including wings. Removing wings fundamentally changes the aerodynamics of the situation and is almost certainly outside the scope of what this program can handle given its most likely mode of operation. It does not simulate aerodynamics to come up with new characteristics once a wings falls off, as that would take far more time than your videos. You can't do that in real time.

This Real Flight program is not a valid predictor of no wing flight. It was not designed to do this and doesn't likely operate in a fashion that would allow its extension to such a problem. Further., even if it was valid, the OP asked about doing this on a large scale, and what you've "developed" is certainly not going to be good for moving passengers.

If I am right, history will be made as I have found no internet material demonstrating no wing flight.

You haven't found it because no one wants to fly with no wings. It's not really worth the massive simulation cost (as real aerodynamics simulations are far more complex than Real Flight). The closest you will get is a missile.

 

[russ_watters]

Good place to close the thread.