Piper Cub Vs F-15

Cub Driver wrote:
Not really. The 35 had those great engine pods, and the 49 had a
bunch of vertical fins, so in fact neither one was a true flying
wing. Nobody ever managed to fly the 35 enough to determine its
utility (the long shafts were the main problem), and the 49 was so
afflicted by dutch roll that the bombardier got sicksick. Plus there
was the question whether it (and a British flying wing design)
wasn't prone to spin around its lateral axis. The latter is disputed.
For opposing views see www.warbirdforum.com/cardenas.htm and
www.warbirdforum.com/tucker.htm


I read that the YB-35 managed to do without vertical surfaces due to the
props providing enough longtitudinal stability; although I'm not
entirely clear as to how that would work. In any case, when it came to
the YB-49 it was found that the turbines did not provide the same effect
and the vertical fins had to be added.

The British design would be the Armstrong-Whitworth AW52. Barrie Hygate
in British Experimental Jet Aircraft relates that it had severe probelms
of pitch sensitivity leading to oscillations, at least partly due to the
short control arm provided by the modestly swept back wing. One
prototype was lost in 1949 after entering divergent pitch oscillations,
the pilot making the first British use of a Martin-Baker seat for real.

All three aircraft needed at some stability augmentation system to be
safe and usable platforms. The AW52 was only ever intended as an
experimental type, to test laminar flow.