Talk:Lifting body

2005-2006
The M-2 was a development of an earlier design in which I worked. Therefore my opinion is probably biased. However, I did receive three degrees in Engineering. In my opinion, if the X-24 design had been picked for the basis of the Space Shuttle, it would have been better. Look at the thick leading edges and compare them to the, relatively, thin edges of the shuttle. The reason for the shuttle's thin wing was to give it higher lift to drag ratio probably because it had a need for lift to alter its entry trajectory. There may, or not, have been a military requirement for this. Of course, if the launch is made in the right trajectory, there is no need for this. Perhaps if there is a follow up design...
 * In order to get U.S. Air Force support (but not Air Force funding) for the Space Shuttle, NASA had to design a much larger craft than it needed. It had to add the larger 15x60 ft cargo bay and the larger cross range performance demanded by the Air Force. By doing this NASA got Air Force support before Congress for the Space Shuttle. Reubenbarton 14:26, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

- Is this a M2 Lifting Body?



Yes, it is the M2-F3 (see, it has the same tail number). andy 17:42, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC) -

Lifting-body planes are safer and more efficient than current jets. Current jets have a fragile, tubular fuselage which breaks apart under a small amount of stress. The equivalent lifting-body design has a passenger compartment which is a rigid metal box, offering much greater protection to the passengers. Also, the engines aren't attached to the fuel tanks, as they are in most passenger jets. Why is this a problem? Because one of the engines could be forced into a fuel tank in a crash. Also, the landing gear on conventional jets are attached to the fuel tank(s), which are in the wing--usually the full length of the wing. So, if the landing gear collapses, the fuel tank could break open. The fuel tank in the wing is also typically under the passenger compartment. Would you want to sit just above the fuel tank in a crash? This doesn't happen with lifting- body planes. Yes, the fuel tanks are in the wings, but the wings are attached to the SIDE of the passenger compartment. Thus, there is no fuel under the passenger compartment. Also, the wings could be detached by the pilot, in case of a fire, at the moment of touch down. With most of the fuel gone, there is a much greater chance of survival. (The passenger compartment, the landing gear and engines continue moving.) Another advantage of lifting-body planes is reduced take-off and landing speeds. A large lifting-body passenger jet will take off and land at 80 mph, compared to 160 mph for conventional jets. This provides several advantages: There is less chance of tires blowing out; take-offs use less fuel; take-offs and landings are quieter; take-offs and landings use much less runway. The reason that lifting-body planes can take off and land at such slow speeds is that the plane's ENTIRE STRUCTURE provides lift, rather than just part of it with conventional jets.

A lifting-body plane, the UB-14, designed by Vincent Burnelli, once crashed into the ground at 195 MPH. This was on Jan. 13, 1935, as reported in Newsday Magazine for Dec. 12, 1982, page 19. Everyone on board survived. It would be interesting to have a Boeing engineer describe what would happen if their latest model crashed at 195 MPH.

Quoting from the Neswsday article, "The pilot, Lou Reichers, reported that he 'flew the ship into the ground from about 200-foot altitude...the right wing being nearly vertical and absorbing the first shock. This impact caused the airplane to cartwheel... The body remained intact, and no fuel leaked from the wing tanks... The box-body strenghth of this type...saved myself [sic] and the engineer crew, and had the cabin been fully occupied with passengers with safety belts properly attached, no passengers would have been injured.  This crash landing is an extraordinary example of the crash safety that can be provided by the lifting-body type of design'." All ellipses were in the original text.

Current jets could be made much stronger by retrofitting the planes with Monocoque construction, which consists of installing strong metal beams in the fuselage walls, from the front to the back of the plane. This would make it much less likely that the flimsy fuselage would break apart under stress, possibly cracking one of the fuel tanks.

Another problem with current passenger jets is the emergency slides, which sometimes blow away in a strong wind, catch fire or fail to inflate. Lifting-body planes don't have this problem. The doors are three feet from the ground, so passengers could jump to the ground, or walk down a few steps.

On April 3, 2006, you may have seen a picture of the C-5 cargo plane that crashed in Delaware. It broke into three pieces, with the cockpit section completely severed from the rest of the plane. This wouldn't happen with the lifting-body design. Apparently the C-5 didn't have Monocoque construction (see above).

For more information, go to www.Aircrash.org.

Above text by S.L., Fridley, Minnesota, USA--Mar. 31, 2006. Updated Apr. 3, 2006.

Lifting body the opposite of a flying wing?
Is this really accurate? "It is related to, but the opposite of, a flying wing"

Doesn't make much sense to me and could use some explanation.

Number of Flights - HL-10
How come the list here shows 1 flight yet the article on the HL-10 itself says 37?

thanks
 * I don't know why it says 1 flight. Pages 193 to 200 of Reed's book list the specific flights, their pilots, and other details. You could count the number of HL-10 flights if you like. Aeronrd (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Also: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/Lifting/HL10/ indicates 37 flights of HL-10. Aeronrd (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Lifting body: it's not just for aircraft any more
The article to date is aircraft-heavy in its emphasis. Increasingly, spacecraft are being designed for horizontal landing (VTHL, or HTHL), and lifting body design is often an explicit part of the spaceplane design. Given the new NASA CCDev phase 2 proposals announced yesterday, at least of couple of which appear to be VTHL spacecraft with explicit "lifting body" design incorporated, I think it is probably time to evolve this article a bit to reflect both aircraft and spacecraft lifting body designs. What do other's think?

If no objections surface, I will begin to incorporate a more balanced coverage of spacecraft lifting bodies, with sources, as I get the time to do it. N2e (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think your suggestion is a very good one. I agree that the lifting aspect of spacecraft is not given adequate coverage at present.  Please add as much extra information as you can find.  Dolphin  ( t ) 23:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * A good protion of the article, especially the Aerospace applications section, is about early designs for the space shuttle, and also mentions several other designs in the past for spacecraft with lifting bodies. The only photos are of lifting body X-planes that were used to research potential Space Shuttle designs. The article just needs updating, not "balancing". - BilCat (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ — I have belatedly begun to flesh out (update) the article to reflect spacecraft lifting bodies. More work is needed, but then the entire article needs a good bit of work.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Mentioned Dream Chaser but not ...
Mentioned Dream Chaser but not the following lifting bodies: * Boeing X-37 * ISS Crew Return Vehicle / X-38 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.251.66.179 (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Photos
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joelogon/2644360795/ --Craigboy (talk) 13:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Dale Reed's book has many details
I added a reference to Dale Reed's 1997 book: Wingless Flight. This book has many details from the history of lifting body research at NASA, and Dale Reed was one of the world experts on the topic.

I think there are many places in this article where a citation is needed, and someone could probably confirm or refute the claim with information in Wingless Flight.

The PDF is available online: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19980169231

Aeronrd (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

ESA IXV
The information regarding IXV ([]) is outdated... The february/2015 test flight has indeed taken place (Successfully; see http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31421200). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.231.146.126 (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lifting body. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041105001911/http://centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/lifting_bodies/Tech29.htm to http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/lifting_bodies/Tech29.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Armstrong Facility Anachronism?
Since Reed was working in 1962, I think the facility should be referenced as "Dryden", rather than "Armstrong." It wasn't renamed for Neil Armstrong until after 1969. Kelseymh (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but not sure on the exact wording. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 05:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)