Can a Wingless Plane Achieve Lift?

[Stanley514]

In a large passenger plane wings used to create lifting force. But in order to create lifting force, body of a plane could be used as well. In order to create as much as possible lifting force you need to have as much as possible difference between upper and down streams of air. In order to slow down air under plane body bottom some straps under bottom could be made. You could even make this straps with regulated angle of air resistance. What is problem with it?

 

[NTW]

Already invented... Look in the internet for 'lifting body'...

 

[boneh3ad]

Well for starters, by putting some kind of drag-inducing features on the bottom of the body, you will certainly slow down the air, but not in the way you are thinking. The viscous drag involved is dissipative, so while you will be slowing down the air, it won't give you nearly the pressure rise you are hoping to create because it will also be removing energy from the flow and therefore the total pressure would decrease, removing a substantial portion of the available energy that would otherwise go toward increasing static pressure, which is the relevant quantity for lift. In essence, it would be remarkably inefficient to achieve lift this way. There are, as previously mentioned, lifting bodies already in use, but the body itself is shaped such that it generates enough lift to glide.

 

[Stanley514]

Already invented... Look in the internet for 'lifting body'...

Those are designed to work at supersonic speeds only, and they are claimed not always working well. They cannot go in the sky from the airstrip, instead they should be dropped from supersonic plane.

 

[boneh3ad]

Those are designed to work at supersonic speeds only, and they are claimed not always working well. They cannot go in the sky from the airstrip, instead they should be dropped from supersonic plane.

That should tell you something, though. These bodies are specifically designed to generate lift, yet they are inefficient at low speeds and require quite a bit of thrust to get sufficient lift. Compare that to your proposal and the best you can do is essentially these sorts of lifting body shapes and your idea would fall somewhere under that in terms of efficiency and feasibility. Ultimately, it's all about thrust, weight and angle of attack. Given a sufficient thrust and angle of attack, you could make a refrigerator fly, just not very efficiently. The same is true of simply removing the wings from a plane. It also wouldn't be very stable.

 

[rcgldr]

The M2-F2 (the glider version of the later rocket powered M2-F3) could glide and land reasonably well at sub-sonic speeds:

 

[Stanley514]

What if we direct jet streams from plane engines not horizontally but under certain angle? Could it help to increase lift? The total surface of large passenger plane body is large enough, it should generate plenty of lift if designed to do so, I think. Why it cannot be regarded as a narrow and long wing? What methods could be used to increase it lift a lot without sacrificing efficiency?

The M2-F2 (the glider version of the later rocket powered M2-F3) could glide and land reasonably well at sub-sonic speeds

At the beginning of this video you could see how this small plane is dropped from a large one.
And it's landing with frightening speed.

 

[boneh3ad]

What if we direct jet streams from plane engines not horizontally but under certain angle? Could it help to increase lift? The total surface of large passenger plane body is large enough, it should generate plenty of lift if designed to do so, I think. Why it cannot be regarded as a narrow and long wing? What methods could be used to increase it lift a lot without sacrificing efficiency?

Sure, thrust vectoring could increase "lift" in that it is an additional upward force on the body. If course, it would then decrease the upward force as a result of the forward motion of the plane slightly, so whether it would result in a net increase would depend on geometry. For example, the V-22 Osprey is an extreme example of this when it turns to helicopter mode for VTOL operations. As the thrust is vectored more and more vertically, there is less generated by the wings.

The surface area of the fuselage of a passenger plane is plenty to generate lift but it would require a large amount of thrust to do so and a higher angle of attack than would be otherwise desired. It would also not be very aerodynamically stable given that it is just a cylindrical tube. Like I said, you could make a refrigerator fly if you had enough thrust and angle on it.

Regarding changing it to be suitably designed to generate lift, the suitable design is the lifting body previously mentioned. The aren't optimal for the type of flight profiles common on passenger jets, but of course, the existing designs for planes are not the optimal shape, either. One of the best solutions, aerodynamically speaking, is the blended wing body, for example the X-48.

What is your goal for this idea? What motivates removing the wings?

 

[Stanley514]

What is your goal for this idea? What motivates removing the wings?

Increase in maneuverability, portability and reliability.

 

[boneh3ad]

Increase in maneuverability, portability and reliability.

I'm not sure you would gain many of those by removing the wings, to be honest. They are already portable, after all, they fly anywhere. There is no reason to put them on a flatbed or anything. I don't see how reliability would be affected. Planes are already some of the most reliable machines we make. You could certainly improve maneuverability, but why would you need to do so? Current airliners are already maneuverable enough and making them more so would simply screw with the passengers. Fighter jets are already maneuverable enough that they are pushing the limits of what a human body can handle.

 

[rcgldr]

At the beginning of this video you could see how this small plane is dropped from a large one. And it's landing with frightening speed.

It was a re-entry prototype, so it needed to be able to handle very high speeds. My guess is the landing speed was probably a bit less than the ~220 mph landing speed of the Space Shuttle, but being a small aircraft, it looks very fast.

 

[Stanley514]

It would also not be very aerodynamically stable given that it is just a cylindrical tube.

The airships have no large wings. Are they unstable?

I'm not sure you would gain many of those by removing the wings, to be honest.

There would be no chances that wing will simply fall out as it sometimes happens, a plane will not crush in other plane or building on airstrip or in the air and not scratch anything with a wing. Imagine a plane on airstrip without wings. It would have many more space to move around without fear to scratch some object.

 

[boneh3ad]

The airships have no large wings. Are they unstable?

Airships rely on an entirely different concept for flight. They are lighter-than-air vehicles, and thus use buoyancy to stay aloft and don't require large amounts of thrust to stay afloat. Planes, on the other hand, are heavier-than-air vehicles and require forward motion to stay aloft.

An airship remains stable simply due to the fact that the buoyancy force is acting at a point above the center of mass of the whole vehicle, so if it were to tip one way or the other, there is a natural restorative torque that would tend to rotate it back to its upright position. If you had just a cylinder relying on lift, orientation doesn't matter, much like a rocket, and you would need to have some kind of control surfaces to maintain stability. Presently, those control surfaces are integrated into the wings and tail. This is one of several reasons that wingless designs are not just tubes.

There would be no chances that wing will simply fall out as it sometimes happens, a plane will not crush in other plane or building on airstrip or in the air and not scratch anything with a wing. Imagine a plane on airstrip without wings. It would have many more space to move around without fear to scratch some object.

In what modern instance have the wings just fallen off of a plane? Regarding clipping objects with wings, that rarely happens and is always a result of human error. You can solve that problem by procedurally rather than structurally.

There's a reason you don't see wingless flying animals. It isn't an efficient means of flight and requires a large amount of thrust per weight to achieve compared to winged flight, so natural selection simply wouldn't allow it to evolve that way, as any organism would be simply be outcompeted by winged animals.

Also consider that the solar planes that are built these days and the planes built for long-duration flight both must be very efficient in generating lift (have a lot of lift per unit weight and thrust) in order to achieve their flight goals, and the solution there is always to make bigger wings. The stubbier the wings (or removing them entirely) is simply extraordinarily inefficient compared to winged vehicles.

 

[Stanley514]

In what modern instance have the wings just fallen off of a plane?

For example:

There's a reason you don't see wingless flying animals.

They use wings as the only way to generate thrust, therefore it is not an absolute prove.

 

[russ_watters]

For example:

That's a famous viral marketing hoax. In reality, wings ripping off of airplanes is pretty rare.

This thread needs to get more serious.

 

[boneh3ad]

For example:

That's not real, has been proven to be fake, and doesn't even look real.

 

[Stanley514]

Still an airship looks to me like an ultimate plane of the future which has nothing excessive. No wings, no large visible engines.
Here is one more design of a plane with small wings.
http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/LIPPISCHE AERODYNE RESEARCH.htm

 

[Simon Bridge]

... anything will fly if you throw it hard enough.
Not thrown hard enough - then I guess it could fly downwards.

You are not the only one to think airships could make a comeback - but they have serious drawbacks i.e. they are slow, difficult to manouver, strongly affected by wind, and large for their carrying capacity.

You are not the only one to think of doing away with those pesky wings...
Short or no wing aircraft are highly unstable - which makes them more manouverable (deliberately unstable designs are used for warplanes) but they tend to be small and need to go fast to work.

Redirected jet thrust, as in the Lippische or Dornier Aerodyne (artwork post #17) use another principle again - lift is produced by directing some of the engine thrust downwards. The same job is usually better done with a helecopter. The Harrier used the principle for vtol, but also used wings for regular flight.

There are lots of novel approaches to flight - the trick is to figure what problem you want to solve.
Anyway - your original question is answered: the concept in post #1 is not practical and won't fly because of drag.

Suggest you review basic aerodynamics before posting yet another concept.

 

[Stanley514]

"You are not the only one to think airships could make a comeback - but they have serious drawbacks i.e. they are slow, difficult to manouver, strongly affected by wind, and large for their carrying capacity."

I just thought to take the best from airships and planes. A levitating transport is a common element in sci/fi.
What could make ships to levitate with exception of buoyancy?

 

[Simon Bridge]

Is this a new topic?

The main, HTA "levitating" transports are maglev trains, and helicopters.
If you want vtol aircraft, here's a list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_VTOL_aircraft

 

[boneh3ad]

(Quote)"You are not the only one to think airships could make a comeback - but they have serious drawbacks i.e. they are slow, difficult to manouver, strongly affected by wind, and large for their carrying capacity."(Quote)

I just thought to take the best from airships and planes. A levitating transport is a common element in sci/fi.
What could make ships to levitate with exception of buoyancy?

As of now, the best current attempt to take the best of best of both concepts is the V-22 Osprey, and that is a very recent development and something that took decades to successfully design and place into production.

The problem with your ideas is that in order to generate aerodynamic life, there has to be forward motion. In general, the less surface area you have on a heavier-than-air object, the more forward motion you need to generate sufficient lift to stay airborne. Further, the less optimal the design, the more thrust you need to overcome the additional drag, so you are getting double penalized. Helicopters (and the V-22) overcome this by using lift generated by rotary wings where the "forward" motion is coming from the rotating airfoils in the rotor so you can generate a lot of lift without much (or any) forward motion of the aircraft itself. You can simply vector thrust downward such as in the F-35, but that is less versatile and not really suitable for long-term hovering, only STOVL operations.

So I think you have to ask yourself what your goals are here? You already said you are trying to increases maneuverability, reliability and portability, but with the exception of maneuverability (which is irrelevant for airliners and already at the human body's limit for military aircraft), the other two aren't helped by your idea. Your later proposals seem to be with some other goal in mind and along a different line than your original, so I am not sure what your goal there might be. It seems like in those points you are simply trying to come up with a feasible wingless aircraft other than a helicopter, so then again, my question is "why?"

 

[Stanley514]

"so then again, my question is "why?"

In many sci-fi movies some transport manages to hover perfectly without large wings or any wings. I became curious if someday it will become possible.

 

[boneh3ad]

"so then again, my question is "why?"

In many sci-fi movies some transport manages to hover perfectly without large wings or any wings. I became curious if someday it will become possible.

Helicopters already do that, as do some small UAVs that are essentially a big fan pointed downward. If you are talking about without directing thrust downward, then the answer is no unless we were to discover some kind of anti-gravity technology, which, frankly, isn't really something about which I am prepared to speculate. It's science fiction for a reason.

 

[Stanley514]

Helicopters already do that, as do some small UAVs that are essentially a big fan pointed downward. If you are talking about without directing thrust downward, then the answer is no unless we were to discover some kind of anti-gravity technology, which, frankly, isn't really something about which I am prepared to speculate. It's science fiction for a reason.

I agree that one of the solutions is to direct a thrust downward, but the question is how to do it with the same amount of energy loss if it were the wings. And desirably without frying anyone downward. Some principally new type of reaction engine need to be invented. Something that is very efficient at zero to slow speed (if you want just to maintain the same altitude it will mean that speed is zero in vertical dimension). And something that doesn't produce some dangerous or dusty exhaust. Nothing that is already known will work. I thought about some noiseless air vibrations similar to what is created by speakers or dynamics but in ultrasonic range. Wander if it could work.

One more example of an almost wingless hypersonic jet plane.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...r-spins-control-crashes-ocean-15-seconds.html

Personally I like the design, if they would make it fly efficiently at slow speeds would be perfect plane of the next generation.

 

[cjl]

That's what Boneh3ad is trying to say though - that kind of design is not efficient at low speeds. For efficiency, you want to cause a small change in the momentum of a very large volume of air. A long pair of wings interacts with a very large volume of air even at fairly low speeds, which is why wings work so well in the first place.

 

[boneh3ad]

I agree that one of the solutions is to direct a thrust downward, but the question is how to do it with the same amount of energy loss if it were the wings. And desirably without frying anyone downward. Some principally new type of reaction engine need to be invented. Something that is very efficient at zero to slow speed (if you want just to maintain the same altitude it will mean that speed is zero in vertical dimension). And something that doesn't produce some dangerous or dusty exhaust. Nothing that is already known will work. I thought about some noiseless air vibrations similar to what is created by speakers or dynamics but in ultrasonic range. Wander if it could work.

First, given current technology, the best you are going to get is a helicopter. Second, what you are describing is impossible according to physics. If you want to maintain altitude without forward motion, you need some sort of force pushing the vehicle up. This would need to be either the reaction to a thrust directed downward, lift directed upward, or some kind of field-based body force like magnetism (thus my mention of a fictional anti-gravity drive). Both the thrust option and the lift option will result in a large amount of downwash just like with a helicopter or a STOVL-capable plane. So your only option then is to come up with some kind of upward force that does not rely on the reaction to moving a bunch of air downward.

One more example of an almost wingless hypersonic jet plane.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...r-spins-control-crashes-ocean-15-seconds.html

Personally I like the design, if they would make it fly efficiently at slow speeds would be perfect plane of the next generation.

It is impossible to make such a design fly at lower speeds efficiently. The X-51 was designed as a hypersonic propulsion test bed vehicle and cruise missile prototype and was never designed to fly at low speeds. Generating lift on such a shape, as I previously mentioned, requires a lot of forward motion. In this case, it especially relies on taking advantage of the shock waves generated to fly more efficiently, which inherently requires supersonic flight. Further, this is an unmanned vehicle that does not have the constraints of the human body placed on it.

You can't just pick a shape you like and say "if they would make it fly efficiently at slow speeds" because those shapes are already carefully designed to work at their own design points. The laws of aerodynamics require that efficient flight at subsonic and supersonic speeds requires two completely different sets of design principles. You can't just will away physics. Compare this with recent developments in efficient low-speed flight. Take the RQ-4 Global hawk, for example. These have very long wings because if you want to fly for a long time on little fuel and low speeds, you need lots of wing area. This is the opposite of very-high-speed vehicles such as the X-51, where more frontal exposed area creates much more wave drag and quickly mitigates any lift advantages with additional drag.

 

[Spike Selig]

I installed Real Flight model airplane RC flight simulation software on my computer and have been experimenting with one wing and no wing flight. I taxi the plane so that one wing hits the wind sock then taxi around and hit the other wing to knock them off. I copy flights using real flights software,. then open the copy and record it on my camera. The below one wing and no wing flight took 187 flights before one came out with good quality. The below video shows the plane flying and doing basic aerobatics with only one wing. At the end of the video, I fly through a tent and nock the other wing off. With no wings the plane takes off again flies around patern until it is facing the camera and makes a perfect landing, with again, no wings.
I have a second video of the same plane, an RC model of a Russian aerobatic Yack. This video has take off, fly by, then loops, snap spins, barrel roles, Cuban 8s, and loops, followed by and landing. All no wings. I am having the video remade by a professional videographer before I publish.
Can a plane (Radio Control model in this case) fly with no wings?? I have to say yes!

 

[boneh3ad]

I'd hardly consider RealFlight to be a sufficiently complex physics simulation to model such a thing. If it was, then why wouldn't Boeing use it to design and test all of its airplanes instead of wind tunnels and supercomputers?

 

[cjl]

To be fair though, I'd expect that you could probably make a remote control aerobatic plane work with no wings. They have an incredible power to weight ratio, so the combination of fuselage lift and simply using the prop like a helicopter rotor would probably be sufficient to fly. You'd need to figure out some method of roll control though.

 

[JBA]

Google "dirigible new technology" to see some of the most recent designs and concepts.

 

[rcgldr]

To be fair though, I'd expect that you could probably make a remote control aerobatic plane work with no wings.

... or more more realistically, knife-edge flight where the wings are oriented vertically, and only the fuselage (and rudder) produce lift. Some models can perform knife-edge loops.

 

[Stanley514]

I installed Real Flight model airplane RC flight simulation software on my computer and have been experimenting with one wing and no wing flight. I taxi the plane so that one wing hits the wind sock then taxi around and hit the other wing to knock them off. I copy flights using real flights software,. then open the copy and record it on my camera. The below one wing and no wing flight took 187 flights before one came out with good quality. The below video shows the plane flying and doing basic aerobatics with only one wing. At the end of the video, I fly through a tent and nock the other wing off. With no wings the plane takes off again flies around patern until it is facing the camera and makes a perfect landing, with again, no wings.
I have a second video of the same plane, an RC model of a Russian aerobatic Yack. This video has take off, fly by, then loops, snap spins, barrel roles, Cuban 8s, and loops, followed by and landing. All no wings. I am having the video remade by a professional videographer before I publish.
Can a plane (Radio Control model in this case) fly with no wings?? I have to say yes!

True. But helicopters have worse efficiency than planes, don't they?

 

[Spike Selig]

Lighter than airships came at a time when airplanes were in their infancy. They flew and docked at their different ports all the time at the mercy of wind and storms. Germony was the leader in use of airship technology but had to switch to Hydrogen for lift because they were approaching and entering war with the USA who was the chief supplier of much safer inflammable helium. The Hindenburg and other disasters turned the world away from airships as a feasible mode of transportation.
Recently there has been a revival of airships, these equivalent to the Goodyear blimp. These blimps smaller and used today for platforms to cary camera equipment for areal video of sporting events, the crafts having the added advantage of large surface area for posting advertising to those at the events the blimp covers.
The side bar to this is that balloons have become popular as a recreation venue and to some extent a competition vehical. The sport of ballooning has many followers but is limited to those that can afford the purchase, maintenance, and storage of the equipment.
the balloons are mostly at the mercy of the wind direction as they only have means of gaining or loosing altitude. However winds aloft at different altitudes generally flow in different directions with altitude increase allowing the pilot to somewhat control direction by changing altitude.

Sport and recreational balloons can be made in different shapes though to date the different shapes are made for novelty and in some instances (a Coke Bottle shape) the shape approaches advertising.

In 2001, I filed a provisional patent world wide for a balloon that is shaped like a wing. As the balloon is descending, the wing acts like a glider an forces the plane to fly forward. The wings contain the necessary helium or heated air to cause the plane to rise. The wings also are reticulated with aeleorons to react with the forward speed to change direction of flight. In another version the invention called for rotating the wings along their axis opposite each other to eliminate the need for aeleorons.

When the balloon is in assention, the angle of the wing is changed so that the leading edge is higher than the trailing edge, the new wing forcing the balloon to again fly forward. Tilt of the wing is controlled by the relative postion of the heavy basket. Pull the front cables-ropes tighter and loosen the rear ones and the basket's weight causes the front of the wing to move below the rear of the wing. Tighten the rear and loosen the front lines and the wing tilts upward for forward ascending flight.
By controlling the angle of the wing, the pilot can controle the angle of descent or ascent.
Now we have a plane that forward speed with direction and we can "penetrate an apposing forward wind. We can take off and land from the same point or choose any destination. Forward speed generation on descent also lowers the descent rate for more prolonged hot air balloon flight.

Provision in the patenet also called for the cables-ropes between the basket and "wing balloon" to be attached in away that "bends" the wings airfoil shape so the the wing shape is correct for ascending or for descending.

In theory, the glide slope could be made efficient enough to approach modern gliders so that the plane-balloon ascends at say 30 to 1 ascending glide slope and 30 to one descending glide slope. The wing could have stiffeners in it to maintain shape with lower or no lifting element which would allow the craft to decend like a plane and land like a plane with no dependence of the lift of a failed heater.

If the balloon plane ascended to 16,000' then shut the heater off, and the vehicle had a 30 to one glide ratio, now glider would be capable of gliding 90 miles before reaching sea level. If the wind was out of the west and you wanted to go east, you could ascend quickly to high altitude where the winds that incease in speed with altitude are stronger, then you would fly up and down in these high altitude winds lowering only when approaching landing. If the forward speed of the up and down flight were only 10mphh and the winds aloft were30. the ground speed would be 40 and the glide slope would be close to 50 to 1! Now were talking.

Functions of rudder and elevator are replaced by changing the relationship of the gondola weight right to left and front to back. In the event of heater failior, the wing can be designed with front edge ports that ram air into the interior oft he airfoil creating pressure that keeps the wing shape acceptable.

If you were flying west, you would fly up and down in vary low altitudes to stay out of the stronger headwinds at higher altitudes. You would also adjust the glide angle for fast forward speed. Ie: If you forward speed in the air is 10 and the head wind is 10 your ground speed is 0! Increasing airspeed to fifteen would mean a 5 file per hour ground speed. Modern hand held GPSs have a VMG figure that can be used tell you what your VMG to your destination is. Simple fly the altitude, airspeed, and angle to destination that gives

How would such an aircraft effect the RC model industry? Imagine 20 or so wing balloons with heaters that heat the air (or helium), the wings being large enough to lift the vehicle when heated. The ascending and descending wing balloons take off and race around a triangular course then come back to land at a 0 miles per hour touch down!.

This could be great fun, low entry cost, and few expensive crashes that would cause structural damage. A workable size model with deflated wing and heater with helium bottled gas cold fit in a briefcase. Cost of production would be low.. Model could be packaged in vary small cube shaped box. Camera support platform in Indore basketball, football events? Quiet wildlife video camera platform? Stealth spy plane? Aluminized Mylar that causes much slower rate of thermal radiation of heated helium or air? this craft could possibly be designed to be capable of staying up all day.

Imagine fully heated helium wing with one side up and one side angled down taking off. The balloon goes in a helicopter like spin. flies around and comes down in a helicopter like spin. Using the winds aloft to maximum advantage, this could become the most efficient aircraft ever produced.

I have abandoned the patent quest and invite anyone who wants to put together a model to go for it.

What are your thoughts?
Spike Selig Upwind Technologies

 

[Spike Selig]

I have been flying with no wings on real flight for a couple of months now. If you were in level flight with the fuselage's axis parallel to the direction of flight, inducing a right rudder would create a rudder vector that is above the axis of flight and fuselage. The rudder turns the fuselage to the right, but the rudder's vector being above the axis of role actually rolls the fuselage (no wings remember?) to the left in a counterclockwise direction. The flight attitude in level flight will causerappid loss of altitude as there is no lift component from the prop and no lift from the body. This coaxial flight also occurs when going straight up and straight down. Hense the death out of controle spin straight down and extremely difficult control flying straight up on the props vector. To avoid this I fly no wing with full up elevator. this puts the rudder below the axis of flight where a right rudder turns the plane to the right and, being below the flight axis rolls the fuselage to he right. this is why when flying with a real plane with the nose above full stall, the rudder works well to control the stalled airplane. In level flight of a normal plane the tall non tapered rudder can induce adverse yaw for the same reason, that reason being the rudder is above the axis of flight. A rudder that is "upside down and below the fuselage is much more efficient, a right rudder inducing turn to the right and roll to the right. Fllying with the nose high requires getting used to the rudder and elevator doing everything. To turn right at a high angle of attack, turn right rudder to roll on side, at the same time applying up elevator to push the tail around and causing a turning moment. to avoid catastrophic nose straight down dive into the ground fly in nose high to line of flight. The landing gear struts will give some lift, the bottom of the fuselage will give some lift, the props thrust being aboe the horizon will give lift. Don't fly straight up as the rudder does not work or works in reverse on roll control. When climbing ease off on the elevator a little to avoid going straight up.
When doing a no wing loop, just keep full power straight rudder, and full up elevator.. High powered Yacs will go over the top and do a complete loop. Let go of the rudder to keep from inducing roll during a loop as this role quickly turns the loop into a barrel roll. Landing no wings requires full up elevator for above reasons. Loose altitude with the throtal. The plane comes down vary quickly but with no wings, the planes mass is so low that vary fast descent landings without knocking off the landing gear are the norm. The Yack has a steerable tail wheel so keep the rudder straight on landing as any minor turn at sped on the ground will induce a role over with the plane lying on its side. Take offs are often long before a bump jumps the nose into the air. I often let the tail come up and wait for a bump, at which time I give full up elevator to change to the needed high angle of attack to create enough lift to fly. Be ready with the reset button and push when the plane crashes. In the real world a Yac crashing is a $3000 dollar loss. on Real Flight, just push the reset. record all you flights as sometimes unreal events occur. I hit the roof of the hangar in level flight, the plane bounced straight up in a high rate spin, I got it out of the spin with elevator and landed. The recorder was not on. Just get used to erasing. The video I presented took 187 tries before I got a flight I thought was worthy enough to publish on You Tube. Learn to use this technology on the simulator. Who knows where it will take us.

 

[boneh3ad]

Let's go back to the original point of this thread. The OP wanted to know about removing the wings from a passenger airliner, not an RC plane. Running RC simulations in RealFlight is hardly suitable to say that the OP's idea is feasible or useful in any way, and that is assuming that RealFlight is even sufficiently reflective of reality to truly model an RC plane with no wings, which I doubt for several reasons.

 

[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.