Oct 132010
Now that it seems that I can post embedded video, it’s time to start abusing the power. Here’s a NACA-Langley video of wind tunnel testing of a Convair XB-53 configuration. While described as a “free flight” test, I believe that this is more like a “kite flying” test, as I don’t think that the model had its own jet engine. Still, it showed that the tailless forward swept configuration was at least controllable, even without computers.
[youtube ZCPI45YNM0E]
UPDATE: I forgot I had CAD drawings of three versions of the A-44/B-53 Not quite finished, but… shrug. Here they are.
6 Responses to “XB-53 Video”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
“Embedding Disabled by Request”
Can click through to youtube however.
-G.
It’s always *some* damned thing…
It’s hard to understand what exactly is keeping it in place in the wind tunnel; it’s only got the bottom line attached to it (which I assume has electrical lines in it to operate the control surface motors), and that goes slack now and then.
The thing looks like its being kept aloft by airflow from below, not from the front.
It was an interesting design concept, and that layout did work somewhat successfully in the Cornelius designs:
http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/flying%20wings/usa.htm
(I like the part about his claim that the design is virtually spin-proof…then the glider is destroyed after going into a spin.) 😀
Nifty artwork of a cargo-delivery version of the XB-53 concept that air drops the cargo in a big pod:
http://www.combatreform.org/plate3.jpg
http://www.combatreform.org/plate4.jpg
http://www.combatreform.org/plate7.jpg
I believe the tunnels used for free-flight experiments did have the ability to “tilt,” to allow a gliding model to actually more or less hover. I imagine the angle of tilt would have to be varied from model to model.
Looks like the model is gliding down a modestly inclined wind tunnel, which would be a good way to do free flight without an on board engine or tow cable.
Looking at flight characteristics, yaw control is marginal or worse in most of the tested conditions. A further aft rudder might help with that.
I made some balsa gliders using that layout and vertical tail placement is a problem (though not as bad as on a flying wing) as it’s hard to get the vertical fin far enough aft of the CG to have much effect without making it very large.
This is probably a case of an aircraft that could be made to work with enough effort, but whose unusual aerodynamic layout didn’t really add enough positive to the aircraft’s performance to make it worth the effort.
You would have to worry about the vertical fin falling into the airflow shadow of the wing at high angles of attack also, resulting in it losing effectiveness; an interesting solution to that would have been to give it a deployable ventral fin that would swing down once airborne, like the YF-12 had.