340
Tailless Aircraft and Flying Wings
A Study of Their Evolution and Their Problems
D URING the past 40-odd years or so, a
number of experimental aeroplane types
have been invented, visualized, designed,
constructed and even flown which, in a quite
unorthodox manner, had neither behind the
wing nor in front of it any sort of stabilizing
and/or controlling surfaces.
Such aeroplanes have usually been considered
freaks. While the younger generation has looked
hopefully at them, prepared to see in such a
revolutionary conception the ultimate result
of all aeronautical pains and labours, older and
more experienced experts were inclined to pre-
dict another failure and to see in them merely
the useless repetition of a futile idea.
As it seems a fact that experience collected
in the past with tailless aeroplanes is cither
unknown or forgotten or, at the least, ill-
judged, a (necessarily incomplete) survey of the
technical achievements and problems might
assist a more appropriate assessment of the
"Flying Wing", in which at the present period
more interest than ever is being displayed.
Such a harking back might also show promising
but forgotten ways along which future research
and experiment could proceed towards new and
advantageous solutions.
A HISTORICAL SURVEY
The Dawn of Human Flight
Birds have a tail. Leonardo da Vinci's and
Sir George Cayley's designs therefore incor-
porated tails. If inventors of the earliest period
omitted such stabilizing devices, it was a proof
that they had not considered the principles of
stability and control. Such tailless conceptions
are without interest for us. I t was fortunate that
their flying qualities were not put to the test.
Nevertheless, two of these "prehistoric" pro-
jects deserve our attention for the reason that
they anticipated in a truly ingenious way tech-
nical features which are commonly presumed
to be achievements of our modern aeronautics.
The first was due to an Englishman whom no
history of aeronautics seems to mention.
On May 21, 1870, Richard Harte, of 42
Argyll Road, Kensington, in, the County of
Middlesex, described as a gentleman, petitioned
Her Majesty to grant Her Royal Letters Patent
for an invention for "Improvements in Means
an Apparatus for Effecting Aerial Locomotion".
This Patent Specification (No. 1469 of 1870)
describes a tailless monoplane having the
following features :
(1) Flap-like controllers serving in modern
fashion as elevators and ailerons (i.e.
simultaneously and differentially con-
trolled);
(2) Longitudinal trim effected by shifting the
centre of gravity;
(3) Pusher arrangement of airscrew;
(4) Variable-pitch airscrew with automatic
pitch control;
AIRCRAFT ENGINEERING
By A . R W e y l , A.F.R.Ae.s.
(5) Tandem-wheel undercarriage;
(6) Provision for longitudinal balance during
take-off and for neutralizing the airscrew-
thrust moment;
(7) Foldable wings (apparently cantilever);
(8) Control gear incorporating torsion rods;
(9) Landing manoeuvre to be performed with
the means of flattening out from a glide;
gliding approach in circles;
(10) Possibility of trim adjustment for take-
off and landing by way of swivelling the
airscrew axis;
(11) Neutralization of the torque reaction of
the rotating airscrew by differential de-
flection of controller flaps;
(12) Employment of ailerons for the purpose
of circling flight (i.e. as generators of
yawing moments), in place of any vertical
rudder surfaces.
Harte, of whose work unfortunately not much
more than his patent has become known, may
be called the inventor of the tailless aeroplane,
since most of the features mentioned above have
now become requisites of the modern concep-
tion of the tailless aeroplane and of the Flying
Wing. Harte's ideas were too far ahead of his
time; thus they have remained without in-
fluence upon the development.
In 1870 Alphonse Penaud proved the import-
ance of a tailplane for longitudinal stability and
balance; he thus became known.as the originator
of the "Penaud type", i.e. the conventional
aeroplane type with a non-lifting tailplane.
However, he has to be included in an histori-
cal survey of the tailless aeroplane by reason of
his "Planophore" monoplane for which he and
Paul Gauchot secured French Patent No.
111574 of February 18, 1876. In this project of
a tailless monoplane the following features of
modern Flying Wings were suggested:
(1) Braced or cantilever wing with no
sweep-back, but with taper, wash-out,
dihedral and bent-up wing tips;
(2) Cambered aerofoil' sections with reflexed
trailing edge (over the whole or part of
the span) for longitudinal stability;
(3) Wing span greater than the length of the
aeroplane;
(4) Centre of gravity located at 20 per cent
of the wing chord behind the leading
edge (i.e. in front of the aerodynamic
centre);
(5) Provision of stressed skin construction
(wood or metal, with or without interior
trussing);
(6) Employment of streamlined wires for
exterior bracing;
(7) Twin tractor-airscrews located at both
sides of the fuselage and oppositely (and
outwardly) rotating;
December, 1944
(8) For stability and trim, airscrew axes
below the wing, the thrust axis passing
through the centre of drag and the centre
of gravity;
(9) Metal airscrews with variable pitch and
the possibility of feathering the blades in
flight; moreover, the take-off to be facili-
tated by prior over-speeding of the air-
screws with feathered blades, and bringing
them into positive pitch (the principle
of the "jumping" autogiro);
(10) Provision of internal combustion engines
with liquid fuels (petrol), the engine to be
accessible in flight;
(11) Watertight fuselage or nacelle also serving
as the hull of a flying boat; the provision
of "belly" landings with retracted under-
carriages is also foreseen;
(12) Totally enclosed cabin with a modern
cockpit cover for the pilot;
(13) Fully retractible undercarriage (folding
backwards and upwards). Two nose
wheels and two main wheels. The front
wheels are castoring. The wheels of the
disk type, and sprung either by rubber
cords in tension or by shock absorbers
compressing air;
(14) Two-control operation (elevator and
rudder) by means of a single handle-bar
motion: (backwards-forwards for elevator
and turning for rudder);
(15) Rudder control either by a vertical central
rudder with fin, or by (horizontal) brake
rudders mounted at the wing tips;
(17) Provision of automatic control devices
for keeping altitude or landing, and for
directional control (magnetic needle as
director);
(18) Provision of the following navigational
instruments: Visual altitude indicator in
front of the pilot; spirit level for longi-
tudinal inclination; barometric altimeter;
mechanical altimeter for landing; air-
speed indicator; artificial horizon; indica-
tor of the air pressure below the wing.
This remarkable Flying Wing was estimated
to weigh, fully loaded with two people, 2,650
lb. and to fly at 56 m.p.h. with 20-30 h.p. The
"Planophore" of Penaud and Gauchot, how-
ever, remained a project with no records of any
attempts at realization. It was obviously too
advanced for its time and, in 1880, the disap-
pointed Penaud committed suicide.
Far less advanced were the tailless aeroplanes
which Clement Ader constructed between 1886
and 1897. Ader's experiments were insufficient
for any conclusions as to the stability and con-
trol obtained. Most probably he never gained
the insight into the matter that Pénaud had
achieved. The gull-shape and the control
devices of Ader's wings were based on investi-
 December, 1944
gations made by J. C. Pompeien Piraud who,
interested in flapping flight, had recommended
bat wings as ideal for human flight.
Lilienthal began in 1870 with tailless gliders.
He was soon converted to adopt a tailplane.
Also Ferbcr's first gliders (1899/1900) had no
tail. Later they grew tailplanes but the rudders
emained at the wing tips in a similar manner to
those of most modern Flying Wings. In 1905/
06, Baden-Powell experimented with tailless
monoplane and biplane gliders.
Relying solely upon the low position of the
centre of gravity, deep below the wing—an old
misconception of stability—the tailless Vuia
monoplane of 1906 remained a failure.
More developed but also without success were
the tailless aeroplanes of Pemberton-Billing
(1906-1908). They already had "controllers"
behind the trailing edge of the wing, a modern
tricycle undercarriage and a pusher airscrew.
Following G. T. R. Hill, such movable parts of
the wing surface will be termed "controllers"
as are positioned and shaped like ordinary aile-
rons but which serve simultaneously as ailerons
and as elevators, and, eventually, even as
rudders. The idea of employing one and the same
control surface on a wing for effecting two
different motions of an aeroplane dates back to
1870 and forms the subject of the British patent
of Richard Harte.
Not unlike Pemberton-Billing's designs was
the tailless high-wing monoplane of Stoeckel
(France). I t had a 12 h.p. engine in front of the
pilot, driving two pusher airscrews. Two large
controllers were provided. It was tested at
Issy-les Moulineaux in 1909 and remained
without success.
However, the first free flight in Europe (or,
at least, one of the two "first flights") was per-
formed with a tailless aeroplane on September
12, 1906; the Dane, J. C. H. Hansen-Elleham-
mer, a persistent lone experimenter, flew with
his biplane on the secluded island of Lindholm.
This aeroplane was a curious tractor high-wing
biplane having a sort of automatic longitudinal
control, the body of the pilot forming a pendu-
lum which was coupled with an' elevator con-
troller surface in the lower wing (Brit. Pat. 7377
of 27-3-1906).
Automatic stability by means of a pendulum
is, of course, unsatisfactory in an aeroplane.
With his later aeroplanes, Ellehammer had to
discard this manner of control, and adopted the
conventional Pdnaud type. His original solution
of the tailless problem is, however, of interest
in so far as it seems to be the first and only
serious attempt to secure the flying stability of
an aerodynamically unstable wing system by
the expedient of an automatic control device.
All other experimenters with the tailless
principle have chosen the way of inherent
stability, i.e. by selecting wing systems which
had aerodynamical features giving stability in
flight without artificial means.
José Weiss
Among the first experimenters, with inherent
stability and the founder of this trend in British
aeronautics was Josd Weiss, an artist of French
origin naturalized in this country. Weiss also
originated the "Flying Wing" in 1890; he de-
AIRCRAFT ENGINEERING
signed tailless glider models which had canti-
lever wings.
Although his persistent work was never
crowned by success with man-carrying aero-
planes—he kept constructing such up to about
1912—this ardent student of bird flight has
influenced many successful designs of in-
herently stable aeroplanes in this country and
abroad. His influence can be traced in the
scientific flight investigations of E. T. Busk,
which helped to produce some, of the most re-
markable aeroplanes still in use, and also in
A. A. Holle's "Alula" wing of 1920/22.
The Weiss high-wing monoplane of 1908/1909
had a cantilever wing of crescent shape, con-
trollers in the wing and an enclosed cabin. Two
airscrews were running at both sides of the
nacelle in cut-outs of the wings; a peculiar ar-
rangement which several other tailless experi-
menters have tried. The airscrews rotated in
an opposite sense. The wing portion behind them
formed the controller surface, i.e. the controllers
were in the slipstream. British Patent No. 17150
of August, 1908, describes this interesting
experiment; it mentions also that the wing tips
may be folded in flight in order to increase the
speed (principle of variable wing surface). More-
over the (cantilever) wing could be warped in
flight, and its incidence against the nacelle
varied. The peculiar shape of the wing is
described in British Patent No. 29072 of
December, 1912.
From this short description it can be easily
realized how far ahead of his time the ideas of the
late Josd Weiss must have been.
In order to render justice to a seemingly
forgotten pioneer of aeronautics, the following
summary of the achievements of Jos6 Weiss
within the domain of the tailless aeroplane may
be helpful; it has been extracted from his patent
specifications:
(1) The parabolic plan shape of the wing, which
has much later achieved importance for tail-
less aeroplanes, has first been considered
by Josd Weiss and his collaborator A. Keith
(see Brit. Pat. Spec. No. 29072 of 1912).
Weiss contended that a parabolic plan
341
gave the minimum -drag and hence maxi-
mum efficiency. He also maintained that the
upper and lower contours of the aerofoil
sections should be formed by parabolic arcs.
(2) In 1908, Weiss suggests to achieve the ad-
justment of trim by the means of raising or
lowering (i.e. tilting up or tilting down) of
the tips of the wing, independently from
control (see Brit. Pat. Spec. No. 17,150 of
1908, p. 6, line 50/53).
(3) In 1908, Weiss suggests wing tips which can
be folded together or extended, in order to
provide a variable wing surface (Brit. Pat.
Spec. No. 17150 of 1908).
(4) In 1908, Weiss suggests the deflection of
controllers as airbrakes and as landing helps
(Bri. Pat. Spec. No. 17150 of 1908).
The 1908 patent of Weiss has no reference to
an elevator; the longitudinal control to be
effected by the means of shifting the centre of
gravity (sliding seat of the pilot). As his wing
system is inherently stable, this method is
admissible (within limits). The controllers pro-
vided are only means for lateral and directional
control.
With a tailless Weiss glider Gordon England
flew from Amberley Mount (Sussex) a distance
of nearly1½miles in 1908; a record glide for many
years. About a year later, Gordon England
fitted to this glider a 35 h.p. E.N.V engine and
a tail. The tailless principle was given up: all
later Weiss aeroplanes were conventional.
Only the crescent shape of the wing with its
bent-down leading edge in the centre and
pronounced wash-out at the tips remained.
The inherently stable Handley-Page mono-
planes and biplanes of pre-1914 vintage owed
their exceptional flying qualities to similar
though somewhat less pronounced design
features of their wings. A Handley-Page biplane
of this class was demonstrated with the fabric
covering of the tailplane removed, early in 1914,
thus giving evidence that a tailless aeroplane
with such a stable wing system was a possi-
bility.
A fairly similar wing system was the "Alula"
wing of A. A. Holle which was promoted by the
Blackburn firm during 1920/22.
Aerodynamically the Weiss wing and its
derivatives can be classified as closely related
to the Zanonia Group, although it seems well
established that Josd Weiss himself had not been
influenced by the remarkable properties of this
Javanese seed-leaf.
The Zanonia-Leaf Cult
Zanonia macrocarpa is a Javanese plant and a
member of the cucumber family. This plant
enjoys a curiously shaped seed-leaf (Fig. 5)
which consists of a flat seed kernel surrounded
by very light tough tissue; the latter is stiffened
by fibres. The whole has about the shape of a
 342
kidney with somewhat bent-up tips. The span
is between about 5 and 8 inches.
This seed-leaf can do extraordinary stable
long glides and even performs soaring flights of
sorts.
Probably the first to make use of this natural
wing shape, was the French sea-captain Le Bris
who, in 1867, made gliding experiments with
large wings of similar shape. These gliders were
at this early date provided with a sort of wing
warping.
Learned German naturalists were the next to
pounce upon the aeronautical exhibitions of the
exotic plant.
In 1889, Professor Dingier published a treatise
on the motions of vegetable flying organs, giving
a description of the flying properties of the
Zanonia seed-leaf. Somewhat later, Professor K.
Muellenhoff actually demonstrated such a seed-
leaf to a circle of aeronautical anthusiasts, but
having unfortunately encountered an assembly
exclusively consisting of sworn balloonists, his
recommendations met with no response. Later
again, Professor Dingier drew the attention of a
friend, a schoolmaster of Hamburg, to the
qualities of this natural sailplane. This school-
master. Professor F . Ahlborn, was a remarkable
man. In fact he could well claim to be counted
among the pioneers of aerodynamics. Like
Lilienthal he had early begun to observe and
describe the flight of the different birds and to
find an explanation of the phenomena of soaring
flight. Probably he was the first to observe the
slot effect on bird wings. Numerous tests in
specially designed water channels had given him
a deep insight into aerodynamical flow pheno-
mena.
While critically surveying the work of Otto
Lilienthal, Ahlborn had come to the conclusion
that Lilienthal had neglected the problem of
stability in flight in favour of mere efficiency,
by choosing cambered aerfoils which had the
concave side towards the ground. Contrary to
Lilienthal, he strongly advocated the use of
AIRCRAFT ENGINEERING
cambered aerofoils inverted, i.e. having the
convex side towards the ground. Such aerofoils
have indeed inherent stability.
Now, after having investigated the Zanonia
seed-leaf, Ahlborn became quite convinced that
this was the shape an aeroplane wing ought to
have. He put this idea down in a pamphlet,
"On the Stability of Aeroplanes"; which was
published in 1897, after Lilienthal's fatal acci-
dent. Then, meeting with no response, he read,
early in 1904, a learned paper on "Drag
Phenomena in Fluids" stating therein em-
phatically that "the flying seed of Zanonia is the
ideal example of passive gliding that nature has
given us".
These repeated recommendations of a Javan-
ese cucumber plant came to the attention of
two would-be flying amateurs, Ignaz and Igo
Etrich, father and son, wealthy industrialists
of Moravia. The two had begun to experiment
with an old Lilienthal glider which they had
acquired for a mere £5 cash after Lilienthal's
death (Lilienthal's original price off his work-
shop had been £15). After some strenuous
efforts, the Etrich's had acquired from Hagen-
beck some Kalongs (flying dogs) with the intent
to study their flying habits. But these lazy
mammals required about an apple per flight
as fuel and were, therefore, discarded as un-
economical.
The Etrichs got in touch with Professor
Ahlborn. Aided by him, they constructed a tail-
less glider in the shape of the Zanonia seed. I t
was a somewhat cumbersome affair made of
bamboo, canvas and plenty of wire bracing,
supported by a sledge-like undercarriage.
After many model tests and glides with sand-
bags in lieu of an inmate, F. Wels, the collab-
orator of the Etrich's and a teacher of gym-
nastics and fencing by profession, succeeded
in making, glides of more than 250 yards in
length down a hill; sensational performances in
1906. This tailless Etrich-Wels glider inspired
by Ahlborn had no control organs. The pilot
December, 1944
was standing in it and supposed to affect the
direction of his adventure by leaning to one
side or another. This glider must have been the
first inherently stable aircraft in history which
has proved its quality in man-carrying flight.
The launching was done off a small truck,
running on rails down an incline.
The efficiency of this tailless glider was,
however, poor, partly on account of the enor-
mous parasite drag of the whole contraption
and of the weight, but partly also because of the
inefficiency of the Zanonia shape itself. Hence
the attempt to convert it into a powerplane met
with no success. The adaptation bears a curious
resemblance to the Weiss monoplane mentioned
above: a 24 h.p. Antoinette engine drove by way
of elaborate differential gears two airscrews
which were arranged in cut-outs of the wing at
both sides of the nacelle. The idea of this ar-
rangement was to dispense with a rudder and
to obtain yawing moments by the means of
thrust differences. No real flights could be
achieved. The short hops, moreover, indicated
that the stability qualities had suffered too.
Modifications of the aeroplane to a normal trac-
tor proved of no avail, while a tail-first version
brought also no improvement.
Finally, Igo Etrich separated from Wels on
account of their different views, re-designed the
aeroplane completely and finally fitted a Penaud
tail in order to conquer all the difficulties.
The outcome of this development was, ir
1910, the "Taube" (Dove) monoplane, an aero-
plane type which became quickly characteristic
of German aeronautics prior to 1914. Several
hundreds of these aeroplanes were constructed
by a number of firms in Germany and in Austria
to be flown by pilots who were gifted with
enough muscles to handle these tender but
strongly self-willed birds of bamboo. In 1914,
one of these "Taube" monoplanes left standing
oh an aerodrome with the engine idling and
nobody on board, the throttle not being properly
gated, performed a take-off, a short cross-
country flight and, after loss of pressure in the
petrol tanks, a landing in a field without the
slightest damage, all by itself.
The principles of Etrich's "Taube" are to be
found in British Patent Specification No. 14204
of 1910.
Among the Zanonia fraternity ranks also the
physician Geest, an early experimenter who
made numerous tests with tailless gliders. The
patent for his inherently stable gull wing dates
from 1906 (Bri. Pat. Spec. No. 22943 of 1907).
While the Zanonia wing does not depend upon
dihedral (although the "Taube" monoplanes
usually had a slight dihedral), the Geest wing
shows a very pronounced gull shape with the
wing tips tilted downwards and having negative
incidence. Such a wing is rather difficult to
construct and far more difficult to keep in shape
by wire bracing when thin wing sections are
being employed. The shape of the wing, how-
ever, looks quite modern, not unlike certain
high-performance sailplanes, and, in connexion
with a nacelle, it offers the minimum of inter-
ference drag, besides its stability qualities. The
shape is quite uncommon. A. Wolfmueller
 December, 1944
obtained in 1910 a patent on a similar bird-
shape wing (Brit. Pat. Spec. No. 13331 and
No. 24179 of 1911), and the "La Fregate"
monoplane of De Lesseps of 1909 has a very
similar wing.
W. Geest made gliding experiments; expe-
riencing control difficulties (presumably due to
the distortion of the wing) and developing an
aversion against unconventional aeroplanes,
he too fitted a normal Penaud tail to his in-
herently stable wing system. Several such ex-
perimental aeroplane types were constructed
and flown prior to 1914. The last of these was
tested under supervision of the German Re-
search Institute for Aeronautics, and found to
be extremely stable, especially in gusts, and
yet not to be as unmanagable as most of the
"Taube" type monoplanes; it also was stated
to have exhibited an unusually good lift-drag
ratio (which the "Taube" monoplanes definitely
lacked). The war of 1914 prevented further
interest in the designs of Dr. Geest, who about
ten years ago went back to his aerodynamical
studies, this time deciding for the "Flying
Wing", but, more than surprisingly, good model
flights have not become known.
J. W. Dunne's Experiments
Lieutenant (now Colonel) J. W. Dunne is the
first experimenter who has stuck to the idea of
the tailless aeroplane in spite of all difficulties
and objections; he is also the first investigator
who succeeded in creating a practical tailless
aeroplane. His main default seems to have been
that he was far ahead of his time.
Dunne, a friend of Ferber, the great pioneer
of the aeroplane, seems to have taken an interest
in flying by reason of the military value of an
aeroplane for tactical reconnaissance. He ap-
pears to have gone very thoroughly and method-
ically into all problems of flying and of the work
done before his time. He became also a serious
and far-sighted investigator of stability prob-
lems. For his time, he may have had a clearer
insight into stability and control than most
other aeroplane designers, and his papers con-
tain much of what we usually assume to be
recently acquired knowledge.
Dunne was well aware of the qualities of the
Zanonia type, and had even drawn attention to
it nearly forty years ago, but he preferred for
AIRCRAFT ENGINEERING
his designs the combination of pronounced
sweep-back with wash-out towards the tips,
including a diminution of the aerofoil section
camber towards the tips. Sweep-back had first
been suggested by Mouillard, many years before
Dunne, but the purpose was then not stability
but an intended variation of the flying speed by
shifting the centre of gravity in that manner.
So Dunne can claim to be the first to employ
sweep-back for stability in conjunction with a
wash-out. At the same time, he was also fully
aware of the structural disadvantages of such an
arrangement. Thus he even considered achieving
inherent stability with only moderate sweep-
back: one of his 1909 patents suggests for this
a very small aerofoil (tailplano-elevator) located
at a short distance in front of the main wing
(Brit. Pat. Spec. 26441 of November 1909), and
he seems to have constructed a similar aero-
plane together with the late Professor Hunting-
ton.
The earliest history of Dunne's work is still
somewhat shrouded in mystery; certainly it
would be rather interesting. An accidental
observation of flowing fluid seems to have
brought him to the idea of his swept-back wing,
and a first glider model shaped accordingly
surprised by its stability. Dunne seems to have
taken a deeper interest in 1904. In 1905 he is in
touch with Lord Raleigh on aerodynamical
matters, and also with H. G. Wells.
Dunne distinguishes clearly between static
and dynamic stability (see Pat. Spec, 8118 of
April 1900, line 8/9). He is also aware that, for
stability, sweep-back must be combined with
wash-out towards the wing tips. His patent also
refers to aerofoil sections having a convex lower
contour (in those days generally considered as
unsuitable for providing lift). He discards flex-
ible wings as apt to cause oscillations, instability
and loss of lift (at a time when nearly all aero-
plane designers were convinced that flexible
trailing edges were beneficial). Dunne also
realizes the existence of span-wise flow com-
ponents and considers them beneficial in his
wing system. He further emphasises that the
smoothness and' shape of the upper wing sur-
face is most important. His Patent No. 8118 of
1909 describes a low-wing arrangement which
includes wing-root fairings.
This short summary of one of Dunne's
343
patents seems to be sufficient proof to show how
far advanced the ideas of this pioneer of aero-
nautics have been.
During 1907/08, secret experiments with
Dunne gliders and aeroplanes were carried out
for the War Office in the Perthshire Highlands.
The secrecy emphasized at the time, of course,
raised general interest in the work of Dunne.
Scores of spies pilgrimaged to the picturesque
scene of events, according to the statements of
contemporary newspapers. The first glider met
with an accident during the take-off. The second
aeroplane was a triplane and was later assigned
to Professor Huntington by the War Office,
who performed short flights with it in 1910 at
Eastchurch. The third glider, constructed in
1908, was successfully flown by Lieut. Gibbs.
Number four was equipped with an engine and
larger. In 1910 the War Office disclaimed further
interest, but Dunne was lucky enough to see the
Blair Atholl Syndicate formed for the develop-
ment of his aeroplane at Eastchurch.
The next aeroplane, a biplane, was con-
structed by Short Bros. and with it the first
public flight with a Dunne aeroplane was per-
formed by Professor A. K. Huntington, a
balloonist and an authority on explosives, to
whose abilities as an experimental pilot the
War Office had entrusted the aeroplane.
Between 1910 and 1913, one tailless mono-
plane and three more tailless biplanes were
constructed at Eastchurch under the manage-
ment of C. R. Fairey.
The 1910 biplane had a 50 h.p. Green engine
mounted behind the pilot in the nacelle, driving
two pusher airscrews installed on an elaborate
girder structure by means of- chains. The 1909
patents of Dunne (No. 8118) describe the engine
to be in front of the pilot and driving by way of
a long shaft the sprockets for the chains to the
airscrews. The wings had no stagger, no dihedral
and about 30 deg. sweep-back. From a descrip-
tion in Flight, No. 77, it would appear that
some sort of slot along the leading edge of the
wing had been provided. The wing tips had
"curtains" serving as fins. Aileron-like control-
lers in the trailing edges near all wing tips served
for longitudinal and directional control, there
being no vertical rudder surface. Like all subse-
quent Dunne aeroplanes, the undercarriage was
a rather complicated and clumsy structure,
even for those days. Two hand levers, right and
left from the pilot, each moving the controllers
on the same side, could be locked in gates, a
scale indicating the controller position. This
proves how far Dunne relied on inherent
stability, controls only being provided for
voluntary changes in the flying path. In general,
 344
the features of this aeroplane are identical with
the Brit. Pat. Spec. No. 11021 of May, 1909.
This first biplane had originally been intended
for participation at the "Daily Mail Prize"
contest of 1909. Delivered too late it was found
frightfully heavy with nearly 1,800 lb. for a very
doubtful 50 h.p. The weight was reduced to
1,700 lb., and between autumn 1909 and
December, 1910, a number of flights succeeded
with this severely underpowered aeroplane.
On December 12, 1910, J. W. Dunne was
able, for the first time in the history of flight,
to demonstrate,- before a commission which
included Orville Wright and Griffith Brewer,
that an aeroplane could be flown for an ex-
tended period without the necessity of handling
any controls. For this undeniable evidence of in-
herent stability, Dunne had to write a note
during the actual flight, which necessitated the
use of both his hands. This demonstration was
the more impressive since Dunne had at that
time only a scanty experience as a pilot, and
because the aeroplane was so under-powered
that it must have been pretty near stalling all
the time; moreover, the engine was stated to
have run badly. Anyhow, Dunne had proved
beyond doubt that his aim, to find a flying
means for military observation from the air,
had been achieved.
Later on, the Dunne aeroplane was also flown
by a one-armed pilot, another milestone in
aviation.
The next aeroplane was a real progress, though
less successful. I t was the Dunne monoplane of
1911, the main features of which—apart from
the power-plant arrangement—are contained
in Brit. Pat. Spec. No. 8118 of April, 1909, and
in Brit. Pat. Spec. No. 16276 of July, 1910.
With its tilted-down diffuser-type wing tips
and a pusher airscrew this monoplane incor-
porated nearly all the essential features of a
modern tailless machine. With more tapered
and cantilever wings, thicker and stable wing
aerofoil sections permitting less sweep-back,
and a decent undercarriage, the modern form of
a tailless aeroplane would have been completely
anticipated more than thirty years ago!
But J. W. Dunne has anticipated even more;
in one of his 1909 patent applications, he
describes a low-wing arrangement of the nacelle,
and he mentions especially the fairing of the
bottom of this nacelle to the convex surface of
the wing. He also refers to the possibility of
giving his inherently stable wing system a
triangular plan form, thus anticipating the
"Delta" type realized by Lippisch twenty-years
later.
The Dunne monoplane flew quite well, but
Dunne and his company were discouraged
from further experiments with this type,
because the War Office stipulated that only
biplanes would be considered, on account of a
few wing breakages on conventional mono-
planes which had been caused by faulty design
and/or bad workmanship.
So Dunne's later aeroplanes were biplanes
again, and in their wing shape very similar to
the first one. I t seems that Dunne personally
would have preferred to continue with the
monoplane type, and he has very ably repre-
sented the case of his "negative" wing tips
in a paper read before the Aeronautical Society
of Great Britain.
The later Dunne biplanes had single pusher
airscrews with direct drive by stationary or
rotary engines. Some of them seem to have been
equipped with a normal joystick control having
a differential gear at the base of the control
column (a feature of Dunne's patent No. 14318
of June, 1909, which has since often been re-
invented for the controls of tandem and tailless
aeroplanes). The undercarriage still remained
elaborate and sledge-like, with a bow-skid in
front, two tailskids underneath the wing tips
and a very narrow wheel base. Some of the
biplanes also show a distinct anhedral.
In 1912, the French military authorities
became interested in the possibilities of the
AIRCRAFT ENGINEERING
Dunne biplane and acquired a licence for con-
structing it. Subsequently, the late Commandant
Julien Felix flew a Dunne biplane from East-
church across the Channel to Villacoublay—
the first cross-country flight performed with a
tailless aeroplane—on August 19, 1913. This
biplane was equipped with an 80 h.p. Gnome
rotary engine. The weather was reported windy,
and at Versailles an intermediate landing had to
be made for refuelling. The flying weight was
about 1,700 lb., resulting in the respectable
power loading of not less than 23.5 lb./b.h.p., at
a wing loading of 3.7 lb./sq. ft. In spite of this,
the extended experiments with the original
Dunne biplane satisfied the French technicians
so much, that the Nie'uport firm actually con-
structed a Dunne biplane under licence, ex-
hibiting it at the Paris Aero Salon in December,
1913. Shortly before the outbreak of the 1914
war, the French Astra works were constructing
an improved Dunne aeroplane under the super-
vision of C. L. Pitt, one of Dunne's collaborators.
Owing to persistent ill-health, J. W. Dunne
was unable to devote his energy to the further
development and, lacking any encouragement
in this country, he ceased his aeronautical
activities in 1913, his patent rights being taken
over by the firm of Armstrong-Whitworth. In
1914, the building rights for the U.S.A. were
acquired by Burgess. This firm constructed a
number of tailless pusher biplanes of the Dunne
design, with wheels for military use and also
with floats for use by the' United States Navy.
These aeroplanes and seaplanes seem to have
performed successfully at least till the year
1919. Constructionally, they did not show much
progress over Dunne's experimental types. All
the biplanes had the characteristical "bustle"
of the Dunne biplanes, i.e. a sharp downwards
bend of the trailing edge of the upper wing
joint above the nacelle, a feature intended to
deflect air sideways. The two-seater seaplane
of the U.S. Navy had side-by-side seating and a
single central float with two wing tip floats. The
engine had 140 h.p. One of these Burgess-
Dunne seaplanes was used for years as a private
aeroplane by Mr. Vincent Astor and seems to
have given full satisfaction. In 1915, W.
Starling-Burgess was awarded the Collier
Trophy for the greatest achievement in aviation
in U.S.A. recognizing the development and
demonstration of the Burgess-Dunne seaplane.
To our knowledge, there has never been a
fatal crash or a serious accident with any of
these Dunne aeroplanes, however underpowered
and fragile they were. Their disadvantage seems
to have been mainly their poor performance,
especially in take-off and climb, and this was
doubtless due to their weight and to their
enormous parasite resistance. How ' far the
ground handling has been difficult, is not
known, but the undercarriages most certainly
do not look encouraging. For a tailless aero-
plane, a well tracking and steerable under-
December, 1944
carriage is of great importance, since there are
no control organs in the slipstream, and since
oscillations of all sorts can easily be set up and
persist during the take-off, the pilot being
unable to check them.
The development of the Flying Wing owes to
Dunne's work far more than is generally
realized, Dunne has very ably combined metho-
dical scientific research with practical experi-
menting He has laid down the principles
governing the stability and control of the
Flying Wing. His 1911 monoplane has been the
nearest approach to our present ideals. He
rejected the Zanonia principle because he
wanted to preserve controllability and a mini-
mum disturbance of the flight path in gusts.
Dunne also pioneered the "Two-Control"
system, and he has done it in a way which has
later been shown by theoretical consideration
to be the most practical one.
If more attention had been paid to the efforts
of this early investigator in this country, the
development of the aeroplane would have
received a great impetus, saving years of
gradual approach to the ideal.
The Junkers "All-Wing"
The late Professor Hugo Junkers has been
repeatedly mentioned in connexion with the
evolution of the tailless aeroplane.
On February 1, 1910, Junkers filed a patent
application for an aeroplane with a thick and
hollow wing in which non-lift producing com-
ponents, such as engines, crew and passengers
could be housed. This patent, however, does
not refer to a tailless aeroplane, and in subse-
quent repeated references to this basic patent
specification, neither Professor Junkers nor his
organisation have ever visualized their "all-
Wing" aeroplane ideal in the shape of a Flying
Wing. All pictures of Junkers giant aeroplane
projects, which were widely circulated for
publicity purposes by the Junkers aircraft
works, exhibited aeroplanes or flying boats of
the tail-first type (like the Reissner canard
monoplane with which Professor Junkers
started his acquaintance with aeronautical
matters).
H. Junkers has, on the other hand, done
certain wind tunnel investigations in his rather
systematic research work relating to plan shapes
and aerofoil sections of wings (in 1916) which
would have been of special interest for designers
of tailless aeroplanes. His aim, however, was to
discover an efficient plan shape of small aspect
ratio, i.e. an (unsuccessful) attempt to cir-
cumnavigate the laws of the Lanchester-
Prandtl theory of the induced drag.
As Junkers and his organizations have never
made any attempt at tailless aeroplanes,
Junkers can scarcely be ranked among the pion-
eers of the Flying Wing. Nevertheless, the
modern Flying Wing owes to H. Junkers the
insight that parasite drag can be obviated by
 December, 1944
placing everything except the airscrews inside a
thick cantilever wing.
A Swiss Pioneer
The second persistent investigator of the
sweep-back type was Alexander Soldenhoff
whose first patents for tailless aeroplanes date
back to 1912.
One of these early patent specifications
describes a tailless aeroplane with pronounced
sweep-back having a particular arrangement of
aerofoil sections and incidences along the span.
Analogous to Dunne, the section camber be-
comes flatter towards the tips, while in the
central portion (joint) of the wing panels, a
species of "bustle" forming an "air sack" open
towards the rear, is provided. This sort of
central diffuser is claimed essential for the
stability, according to "systematic tests". The
almost identical, though less pronounced,
"bustle" of the Dunne biplanes has already
been mentioned.
Up to 1925, Soldenhoff seems to have re-
stricted his aeronautical research to models and
gliders. In 1926, his first aeroplane flew at
Duebendorf near Zurich—with a Penaud tail.
In 1928, however, two tailless light aeroplanes
with pusher airscrews were constructed at
Duesseldorf in collaboration with the glider
pilot G. Espenlaub who had formerly been
connected with A. Lippisch. These Soldenhoff
tailless were cantilever low-wing monoplanes
with rectangular wings, pronounced sweep-
back and without dihedral (similar to Dunne).
Another tailless two-seater was exhibited in this
country at the Olympia Show of July 1929,
by the Berlin firm of Soldenhoff, Langguth &
Friedmann.
The flying tests with these aeroplanes were
tedious and full of disappointments. Originally,
the directional control was done by the con-
trollers in the manner Dunne had demonstrated
earlier. Later, a special sort of vertical rudders
were fitted to the leading edge of the wing a t
about mid-span: the two halves of these rudder
elements could be spread at the trailing edge of
the rudder surface, about a hinge arranged
along the leading edge, thus providing a braking
effect. The idea .of such split rudders was not
quite new, since the Howard-Flanders biplane
of 1912 had such a split rudder (to prevent ex-
cessive diving speeds) and Bleriot had shown a
central but identical brake rudder on one of his
monoplane types in 1914. It was claimed by
Soldenhoff and Espenlaub that their particular
AIRCRAFT ENGINEERING
brake rudder arrangement did not affect the
longitudinal trim when in operation. In addi-
tion, there were cambered disk fins at or near
to the tips of the wings.
Finally, these tailless light aeroplanes were
demonstrated. They seemed to fly very well,
except for one serious crash caused by involun-
tary skidding during a turn near the ground.
But after 1931, Soldenhoff's further activities
seem to have ceased, and Espenlaub was unable
to get sufficient interest for a continuation of
his experiments with a rocket-propelled tailless
glider.
Soldenhoff secured a number of interesting
patents concerning tailless aeroplanes. One of
these relates to control by means of split flaps,
in the lower or upper surface of an arrow-shaped
wing. His ideal seems to have been the develop-
ment of a large Flying Wing for air transport.
The outer portions of the wing should terminate
in a sort of staggered biplane arrangement
implying a slot effect. The very thick central
wing should house, passengers, engines, crew,
etc., without any sort of nacelle or fuselage.
Soldenhoff may be termed a disciple of J. W.
Dunne. Although he adopted modern structural
methods and materials, he scarcely progressed
further than Dunne in the solution of those
problems which are peculiar to the tailless
design.
The Arnoux "Flying Plank"
Much less known and spectacular than the
experiments of Dunne has been the persistent
work of the French aeronautical engineer,
Rene Arnoux, during the period 1909 to 1923.
Apart c from occasional papers on aero-
technical matters, and although he has served
for years as a vice-president of the important
Technical Committee of the Aero-Club de
France, only meagre details of the technical
achievements of this modest pioneer have
become known. Arnoux cither must have
shunned publicity, or his idea of an aeroplane
with the tail cut off must have been considered
too ridiculous as to deserve attention. The very
modern looking tailless monoplane, a low-wing
pusher, for instance, which he exhibited at the
Paris Aero Salon in 1913, found practically no
mention in the detailed reports of the con-
temporary technical journals.
Rene Arnoux is very significant in that he
has followed quite a new way of designing a
tailless aeroplane which has become of more and
more importance.
345
All his tailless aeroplanes—about six different
types of which have become known by casual
photographs, including monoplanes and bi-
planes, pushers and tractors, low-wing and
mid-wing arrangement—consist of a plain
straight rectangular (or slightly tapered) wing-
ox of a pair of straight biplane wings: there is
neither any sweep-back, dihedral, stagger, bent-
up or bent-down wing tips, or any other sort of
stabilizing frills or fringes. Arnoux is thus the
originator of the "Flying Plank" class of'tail-
less aeroplane.
His first biplane (1909) had wing warping
with no other means of control of an aero-
dynamical nature; the airscrew was thought to
help in achieving satisfactory control. The re-
sults with this first type have not become
known, but they" cannot have been too dis-
couraging, since the development was proceeded
with. This biplane had been constructed by the
Astra works and incorporated also a special
invention of Arnoux termed "Girouette de
L'Aviation", i.e. a device mounted on the dash-
board which indicated the airspeed, the angle of
incidence, the inclination of the machine and
the speed of climb. For 1909, a creditable
achievement indeed, proving much forethought.
In 1912, Arnoux adopted the monoplane
fashion with controllers running along the whole
span. In their downwards deflection, these
controllers were restricted by stops, so that the
aerofoil section which had a reflexed camber
with the controllers in normal range, could not
be transformed into one with simple camber,
i.e. into, one which exhibits an unstable travel
of the centre of pressure. This very essential
idea of the restricted controller movement was
communicated by Arnoux in a paper read before
the Commission Permanente Internationale de
l'Aeronautique in November, 1912. Limited
controller angles are to-day a feature of practi-
cally all tailless aeroplanes. At the same time,
Arnoux pointed out that, in addition to his
controllers, the throttle of the engine could
effectively assist in controlling his aeroplane.
The 1912 monoplane was a single-seater with
tractor airscrew and the centre of gravity
slightly below the wing. The undercarriage was
orthodox with two wheels and long skids.
According to a patent specification of Arnoux
of the same period, protection was claimed for a
"lift-regulating" device (i.e. a fore-and-aft
trimming device) according to which an auxi-
liary aerofoil or any other aerodynamical means
(the controllers in their raised neutral position)
which are influenced by the lift forces would
control the engine so that the thrust power of
the engine is varied inversely to the magnitude
of the lift at the wings; a manually-operated
throttle lever can overrule this device, but does
not put it out of action.
At the Paris Aero Salon in 1913, Arnoux
exhibited his "Stablavion" monoplane, a low-
wing two-seater with pusher airscrew, and un-
doubtedly a modern looking aeroplane, apart'
from certain details such as the upright radia-
tor. The wire-braced wing had a rectangular
plan shape and no dihedral. As to the position
of the centre of gravity above the wing, Arnoux
explained that, according to his extensive experi-
ments with model gliders, a high position of the
centre of gravity was of definite advantage for
stability and control. The full-span controller
had slightly less chord at the tips than at the
centre. The undercarriage was that of the period
with skids and four wheels. The engine was a
55 h.p. watercoolcd Chénu.
Both monoplanes'were tested at Issy-les-
Moulineaux. The results have not become
known.
Shortly after the war, Arnoux took up his
work again. In 1919/1920, he constructed from
components of war-time aeroplanes a tailless
biplane along the lines indicated. It was a two-
bayed tractor with a 130 h.p. rotary engine.
The controllers extended over the whole span
in both wings, being in their neutral position
under an angle of 3 deg. tilted up. This aeroplane
 346
had also vertical rudder surfaces behind "the
pilot at both sides of the short nacelle. During
1922, a number of successful flights were made
with this biplane. After modification to a single
rudder, Madon demonstrated it with success
before the "Service Technique de l'Aéro-
nautique", and the results of the tests were so
promising that the "Société des Avions Sim-
plex" was formed for the further development.
The biplane was, however, destroyed in a crash
in which the pilot, Fetu, sustained severe in-
juries, the reason presumably being that the
pilot had removed the stops restricting the
downwards movement of the controllers, thus
making the aeroplane hopelessly unstable.
The first design of the Simplex firm was a very
courageous enterprise, far too courageous,
indeed. They constructed a racing monoplane
with a 320 h.p. Hispano-Suiza engine for the
Coupe-Deutsch Race of 1922. The design was
due to Carmier, and the aeroplane was to be
flown by a well-known French fighter pilot,
Madon. It was a cantilever monoplane with a
tractor airscrew and full-span controllers. On
advice of the test pilot, again the control stops
restricting the downwards movement of the
controllers were omitted, very probably in
contradiction to the wishes of Arnoux. A
symmetrical aerofoil section (Goettingen No.
411) had been chosen, probably "the first adop-
tion of a symmetrical profile to the wing of a
full-size aeroplane. The short fuselage ended in a
vertical fine with a rudder. The position of the
pilot's cockpit showed the disadvantage of the
tailless tractor: the pilot sat rather far back
behind the leading edge of the wing: in addition,
a Lamblin barrel radiator excluded any view
forward. So it was not surprising that even a
very experienced pilot like Madon could meet
with an accident during a test flight prior to the
race. Although he escaped severe injuries, the
general impression created was rather unfor-
tunate; the general opinion being that such a
valuable pilot should not risk his life again in
such a freak design. Since Fetu had previously
met with a grave accident in a crash with the
Arnoux biplane, the fate of this interesting
development was sealed. Arnoux himself seems
to have been discouraged from further pur-
suing his line of investigation. Generally, his
intentions had been misunderstood and often
AIRCRAFT ENGI NE ERI NG
enough misinterpreted by writers meddling
with aeronautical matters.
Of all tailless aeroplane systems, the type
created by Réné Arnoux undoubtedly presents
the greatest simplicity. Except for its sensitive-
ness in the position of the centre of gravity, the
Arnoux type is aerodynamically satisfactory
and structurally superior to any other known
tailless system. Tor these reasons, the patient
work of this French pioneer deserves more atten-
tion and merit than it has received.
The Inverted Arrow
A singular and unfinished experiment in a
new line of development was undertaken by
two French engineers in 1922. At the same time
as the unfortunate Simplex racer of Arnoux was
being built and tested, Messrs. Landwerlin and
Berrcur were constructing (presumably in one
of the workshops of the Hanriot firm), an even
more powerful racer of tailless design for the
coupe Deutsch to be flown by the famous
Nungesser.
The peculiarity of this monoplane was that
the wings were swept forward, having a wash-in
(i.e. a larger incidence) towards the tips. Such a
wing system is longitudinally as stable as a
swept-back wing with wash-out towards the
tips. Certain bird's like buzzards show in soaring
attitudes a corresponding shape of wings.
A British patent of Landwerlin and Berreur
(No. 203654 of 1922) refers to a tailless aero-
plane of the stable sweep-forward system which
has ailerons in line with (or forward of) the
centre of gravity, while the elevators are ar-
ranged behind the centre of gravity.
The Landwcrlin-Berreur racer was a canti-
lever tractor with a 700 h.p. Fiat engine. The
wings had no dihedral and a symmetrical
section (Goettingen No. 410). Along the trailing
edge were two sets of controller flaps, the inner
pair being employed as elevators, while the
outer pairs were used as ailerons. The cockpit
was enclosed, the nacelle terminated in a large
fin with a rudder. The wind tunnel tests had
proved satisfactory longitudinal stability up to
incidences of 10 deg.; i.e. up to the stall.
This daring experiment was unfortunately
not finished in time for the race. I t is doubtful
if it has ever been tested in flight. If it has been
December, 1944
tested, it presumably has been found unsatis-
factory for one or other reason, since there has
never been any indication of a continuation of
this rather interesting approach to a solution
of the tailless problem.
Some time ago, an American experimental
tailless, the Cornelius monoplane of 1943, has
revived the idea of Landwerlin and Bereur even
to the extent of the controller arrangement, the
main difference being the more pronounced
taper of the wings.
The Wenk and Peschkes "Weltensegler"
Sailplane
The idea of omitting the tail of racing aero-
planes was due to the endeavour to reduce the
drag to its minimum. The efforts of Arnoux-
Carmier and Landwerlin-Berreur in that direc-
tion had however,' not much hope of success
because their racing experiments were evidently
not solidly founded on sufficient previous deve-
lopment work.
One can, of course, arrive at the conception
of a tailless aeroplane from quite a different
point of view; for instance, in the endeavour to
secure inherent stability, as Weiss, Dunne and
Etrich did.
Another aim, namely the conception of
"dynamical" soaring flight (i.e. the exploitation
of the energy of gusts for the purpose of soaring
flight) has also led to an approach of the tailless
aeroplane. We know to-day that the idea of
utilizing the Katzmayr (recte, the Knoller-
Betz) effect in that way is a fallacy, since the
effect does not take place when the wing assumes
quickly the changed direction of the relative
wind.
In 1920, two young Germans interested in
the newly rediscovered art of gliding, concluded
on the basis of Harte's studies in that direction,
that a tailplane would give far too much damp-
ing for "dynamical" soaring, and that—as
Harte had found—the fore-and-aft control
should act directly, i.e. immediately changing
the angle of incidence. At the same time, they
considered that inherent stability, especially at
minimum flying speed, was desirable, in com-
bination with a minimum of inertia in pitch.
That a high aspect ratio and low wing loading
 December, 1944
would help for the purpose in mind was also
realized.
The outcome of this train of thought was the
"Weltensegler" (World's Soarer) tailless sail-
plane. Its peculiar plan shape shows a rectangu-
lar wing, to the ends of which outer panels are
attached with a pronounced sweep-back. Seen
from the front, the wing exhibits a definite M-
shape, with dihedral on the centre wing and
anhedral for the outer wing panels. The shape is
described in Brit. Pat. Spec. No. 2839S0 of July,
1926, while the original patents giving the basic
ideas of the layout go back to August, 1922
(German Pat. Spec. 424378).
With such a sailplane of very fragile construc-
tion, Peschkes seems to have performed in 1920
what may be called the first real and intentional
soaring flight in the world, keeping above the
starting point for two minutes without any loss
of height. This remarkable flight was performed
on the Great Feldberg in the Black Forest. We
may assume that it was not due to dynamical
soaring but to ascending air currents. On land-
ing, the sailplane collapsed.
This sailplane had a sort of. wing warping
with springs effecting the return from the
deflected position. The wing panels were braced
by a light girder structure arranged underneath
the wings, a renewal of Etrich's "bridge"
structure. The weight was surprisingly low
(93 lb.) for a span of nearly 53 feet, an aspect
ratio of 11 and a wing area of 195 sq. ft. For the
take-off four men lifted the sailplane bodily and
launched it by running against the wind, in the
same fashion as the Wright's did with their
gliders.
A subsequent sailplane of this type, however,
collapsed in flight, during the Rhoen Soaring
Competition of 1921, causing the death of its
pilot W. Leusch.
Structurally improved designs with control-
lers instead of wing warping and without spring-
loading in the control system, never achieved
performances which were anywhere, comparable
with those performed with conventional sail-
planes. Even such refinements as cantilever
wings did not help. Quite probably, pilots had
lost confidence in the structural safety of the
peculiar wing, the stressing of which required
more skill than that of a normal wing system.
Besides, the control effect seems to have been
unsatisfactory, probably owing to lack of
stiffness in the wing structure, the importance
of which was not realized at the time.
AIRCRAFT ENGINEERING 347
Some years afterwards F. Wenk constructed of a flaplike controller arranged at the tip of the
a light aeroplane along the "Weltensegler" lines. outer wing panel which could be split; i.e. the
I t had a cantilever gull wing and was tested halves of each flap could open out at their
first as a tailless aeroplane and, finally, after trailing edge to produce an additional drag as a
the addition of a Penaud tail. A wing breakage yawing moment for directional control. Besides
sustained in flight terminated this experiment. these spreading controllers or "brake rudders",
While obviously the structural design of the the normal controller for lateral and longitudinal
peculiar wing of the Wenk type requires special control remained as before.
skill, it was s c - e l y due to these difficulties With this improved but somewhat heavy
that no more than an initial success resulted type, some good soaring flights were performed
from this interesting development. by Winter. They indicated, however, that the
rudder control was still unsatisfactory, while
"Charlotte" of Berlin the fore-and-aft stability seemed doubtful.
Based on similar ideas about soaring flight Owing to insufficient view for the pilot, the
another experiment with tailless sailplanes was sailplane was damaged before the trials could be
conducted in Germany. Its inspirator and gene- -concluded.
ral adviser was Professor Von Parseval, one After a last modification in 1924, and after
of the early pioneers of aeronautics and also the fitting a normal stick control, soaring flights
designer of the non-rigid airships which have of seven minutes duration succeeded, and it was
borne his name. The designers were three under- stated that "Charlotte" not only had become
graduates of the Technical University at Berlin- stable but also manageable by means of the
Charlottenburg; hence the name "Charlotte". controls. The large central fin had, incidentally,
The three students were H. Winter, J. Kutin been removed, without impairing the lateral
and G. Pfister, of whom the first has since and directional stability.
become known as the designer of the Fieseler This interesting experiment was not further
Stork slow-flying aeroplane. continued. There is no doubt that the final
Parseval's idea was to enlist the energy of version of the "Charlotte" was considered
gusts for soaring by immediate response to the satisfactory, though in no way equal or superior
longitudinal control, to exclude the possibility to contemporary conventional designs of sail-
of blanking of control surfaces by the wing, and planes.
to reduce the drag by a drastic reduction in the Alexander Lippisch
total wetted area.
The original "Charlotte" sailplane of 1922 One of the greatest promoters of the modern
was constructed by the L.F.G. works at Stral- "Flying Wing" is again a soaring enthusiast
sund, after careful preparation.. In plan, the who has for many years been closely connected
wing resembled that of the "Weltensegler", but with the technical side of the German gliding
seen in front, the whole wing was straight movement.
without either dihedral or anhedral. Moreover, Spending a lone dreary winter on a snow-
the original sailplane had a central fin with a covered foggy height of the Rhoen mountains,
large rudder fitted to the stern of.the nacelle. completely secluded from the outer world,
The control followed the original Dunne scheme Alexander Lippisch (formerly of Gottingen)
with two hand levers, each operating the con- employed this period of enforced leisure for
troller on one side. This' version proved un- systematic glider and model experiments. The
successful and soon came to grief after some in- experiments impressed him with the possibi-
conclusive test hops. The pilot escaped injury; lities of tailless wing systems. A primitive tail-
another indication how relatively harmless less glider was constructed with the assistance
daring flying experiments can be made with of the carpenter-apprentice Espenlaub. This
sailplanes. glider had a symmetrical wing section (Goettin-
A completely modified design of 1923 had a gen 410, designed by Lippisch in 1918) and
stiffened wing, as the original one had exhibited was crashed by Lippisch after a number of
insufficient control effect due to elastic torsion short flights. On account of the poor maximum-
of the wing structure. The ineffective vertical lift coefficient of symmetrical sections, Lippisch
rudder was replaced by an unusual braking adopted sweep-back in combination with
device suggested by Von Parseval, consisting normally cambered aerofoil sections,
 348
In 1925, Lippisch constructed a tailless
"motor-glider"; i.e. a sailplane with an auxi-
liary engine of 4 · 5 h.p. driving a pusher air-
screw. This "Experiment 64" had a wing of
moderate sweep-back and cambered disk
rudders arranged below the wing tips. As a
glider with an open seat (i.e. without a faired-in
nacelle) it seems to have performed quite
satisfactorily, even without any vertical sur-
faces. The engine-powered version with a
nacelle, however, was not considered airworthy
and excluded from taking part in the Rhoen
Lightplane Competition of 1925, one of the
reasons stated being that the controller area
was considered insufficient. Later flight tests
gave no encouraging results, and it was finally
fitted with a tail and flown as a glider.
Shortly afterwards Lippisch was given the
post of designer of the newly established "Rhoen
Rossitten Society for the Promotion of Soaring
Flight" (later, the German Research Institute
for Soaring Flight). In this position, he was
encouraged to experiment with unconventional
aeroplane types. He was thus able to contribute
to a large extent to the development of tailless
and tail-first aeroplanes. He also undertook
valuable experiments with large rocket-pro-
pelled models of tailless aeroplanes which
greatly helped towards an understanding of the
powered-aeroplane problem.
During the years following 1926, a number of
large flying models (usually of one-third full
size) were tested in close combination with
wind-tunnel research work done with the
assistance of the Goettingen Laboratory. In
1927, the first full-scale tailless sailplane
"Stork I " was constructed. With its moderate
sweep-back and wing taper, it resembled the
"Experiment 64" type. At first the flying tests
proved rather disappointing. Insufficient lateral
and directional controllability and even marked
instability necessitated many modifications,
and a vast amount of valuable flying experience
with the tailless type was acquired during
patient gliding experiments at the Wasserkuppe.
This development clearly demonstrated how
quickly, safely and inexpensively complex
problems of aerodynamical design may be
investigated by means of gliders and sail-
planes. It is worth while noting that during all
those years of experimenting not a single
accident occurred, and not one of the gliders
suffered damage to such an extent that it
became a complete loss.
The aims of Lippisch were neither directed
towards great inherent stability—his tailless
aeroplanes have actually been demonstrated in
aerobatic flying—nor towards an adaptation of
the tailless system for the purposes of soaring
flight. On the contrary, he has repeatedly ex-
pressed the opinion—not long before the war, in
this country—that the tailless sailplane offers
no superiority over the conventional Pénaud
type. From the earliest days of his successful
work, and that is one of Lippisch's merits, he
emphasized that the aim of his development
ought to be the "Flying Wing" as the definite
form of the coming large transport aeroplane.-
All the tailless sailplanes and light aeroplanes
constructed by him have been for Lippisch
solely the means to achieve this target.
For the flying experiments, Lippisch was
fortunate enough to have the able and intelli-
gent assistance of enthusiastic engineering
pilots like Stamer, Nehring, Groenhoff and
Hanna Reisch who were fully acquainted with
his train of thoughts. The encouragement given
by such team work cannot be over-estimated.
Finally a version of the "Stork" emerged
which was considered satisfactory enough to be
tried as a light aeroplane. In 1929, a (very heavy
and unreliable) 9/14 h.p. D.K.W. two-stroke
motor-cycle engine driving a pusher airscrew
was installed. The undercarriage retained the
skid of the sailplane, and the aeroplane was
launched with the help of a rubber cord. This
first "Motor-Stork" proved, after a number of
AIRCRAFT ENGINEERING
modifications, convincing evidence of the fact
that a tailless aeroplane can fly like any con-
ventional aeroplane; it was widely exhibited
in flight by the late G. Grocnhoff and achieved
quite remarkable cross-country performances for
an underpowered lightplane with such an
erratic source of propulsion.
This "Stork" type, however, was only one of.
the three ways along which Lippisch investi-
gated the possibilities of the Flying Wing.
Though the other two ways were in the end
not deemed promising enough to warrant
experiments with man-carrying gliders and
aeroplanes, the results of the investigations
with large flying models and of "wind tunnel
research have not remained without a definite
influence upon the development work by
Lippisch.
One way was the "Flying Plank" a la Arnoux,
i.e. the plain straight wing equipped with a
positively stable aerofoil section. Symmetrical
sections, i.e. with neutral stability (at least
at medium incidences), had already been em-
ployed by Lippisch during his first attempts at
the tailless problem. Now the N.A.C.A. "M"
sections evolved by Munk with reflexed
medium camber lines, offered good scope for
experiments with longitudinally stable wings
having neither sweep-back nor wash-out. The
behaviour of large models convinced Lippisch
that not only static longitudinal stability was
secured, as predicted, but that the dynamic
stability, which had appeared doubtful, was
also practically obtainable. Contrary to expecta-
tions, the models of the "Flying Plank" type
proved exceptionally steady in flight, far
steadier than those with sweep-back, provided
that the centre of gravity was correctly located.
This important, now generally confirmed,
justification of Arnoux's patient work (of which
Lippisch had scarcely been aware at that time)
induced Lippisch to merge his sweep-back type
with the "Flying Plank" type into the triangular
wing shape of his "Delta" type.
The third way investigated by Lippisch was
the "Inverted Arrow", for the discovery of
which he has claimed priority. As mentioned
before, the priority for this stable wing system,
however, seems to be due to Landwerlin and
Berreur. The swept-forward wing proved diffi-
cult during model research and appeared to be
afflicted by various fundamental disadvantages,
especially structurally, so that Lippisch ceased
to take further interest in it.
From the beginning, Lippisch had realized
that sweep-back is structurally bad. Sweep-back
of a pronounced character is also disadvan-
tageous for longitudinal dynamic stability. He
thus tried to restrict the amount of sweep-back
to the minimum required for stability, and, by
the use of stable aerofoil sections, to reduce the
torsion moment in the wing employing an
appropriate selection of the aerofoil sections
along the span. He has claimed such variation
of sections as an original idea and going beyond
Dunne's achievements whom he imagined as
having employed one and the same aerofoil
section all along the span. This is, however, not
so: Flight's contemporary description of the
Dunne 1911 monoplane, for instance, expressly
states that the wing camber as well as the
incidence change towards the tips.
Lippisch's "Delta" wing, the outcome of his
work in 1930, had consequently a triangular or,
later, a trapezoidal wing plan. It may be
thought either as a wing of the "Flying Plank"
type with taper on the leading edge, or as a
swept-back wing with a straight trailing edge.
The original "Delta" was tested as a glider
during 1930 and found satisfactory. In 1931, a
two-seater cabin 'plane with a 36 h.p. Bristol
Cherub, a pusher airscrew and a tricycle under-
carriage was successfully flown by Groenhoff
and even exhibited in simple aerobatics, the
first tailless aeroplane to perform such feats
by the free will and wish of its pilot.
This much admired forerunner of the "Flying
December, 1944
Wing" had a cantilver thick wing, the greatest
thickness of which took nearly three-quarters
of the height of the cabin. For directional
control the vertical end disks of the "Stork"
had been adopted. The other controls, however,
differed from those of the "Stork" type.
Instead of a single pair of controllers for control
in roll and in pitch, there were now two pairs of
flap-like controllers in the straight trailing edge.
The inner pair served as elevators, and the
outer as ailerons. The combined span of these
four controllers took nearly the whole of the
wing span, with the exception of the wing
portion just in front of the airscrew. "Delta I "
had wheel control with a special gearing device
which permitted trimming laterally and longi-
tudinally. A neat feature was the steerable nose
wheel: it had a fairing in the shape of an aerofoil
forming a vertical rudder behind a fin, thus
acting as an additional rudder situated in front
of the centre of gravity. The wing had a single
spar of girder structure.
The "Delta I " reached a maximum speed of
93 m.p.h., a surprisingly good performance
for the small power loading of the wing area,
and climbed up to 13,200 ft. with a maximum
flying weight of 1,150 lb. The landing speed was
stated to be about 31 m.p.h., a creditable value
in view of only 4·28 lb./sq. ft. wing loading
and the possibility of stalled-glide landings. It
was flown by a number of pilots, some of them
fairly inexperienced and ham-fisted, and gener-
ally found pleasant to fly and simple to handle,
with the exception of the take-off. The latter
manoeuvre was stated to be rather tricky and
requiring careful attention as well as skill.
Tailless aeroplanes are generally apt to display
difficulties in the take-off.
Orginally, tiltable wing tips had been sug-
gested for the design of this aeroplane, replacing
the vertical disks at the wing tips. But this
suggestion of the financial promoter of the
"Delta I", the late Captain H. Koehl, was
turned down for the sound reason that it was
unsafe to try too many new devices at once.
The "Delta I ' " was rightly deemed the
nearest approach to the ideal of a "Flying
Wing" which was possible within the dimen-
sions given, and Lippisch found official en-
couragement to proceed with his development.
The subsequent designs, however, did not show
the progress hoped for.
The Fieseler firm constructed three twin-
engined tailless monoplanes of the type "Delta
Wasp" for participation in the European
Circuit Competition of 1932. They were low-
wing two-seaters with two 75 h.p. Pobjoy
engines driving a tractor and a pusher airscrew
mounted at each end of a nacelle. The wing
had a trapezoidal plan shape and a new sort of
longitudinal control incorporating slotted con-
trollers with external hinges above the wing
surface, and also a wing-like aerofoil arranged in
front and above the leading edge of the wing.
Besides the usual end disks at the wing tips, an
additional fin had to be fitted on top of the
nacelle forward of the pusher engine, in order
to give directional stability during the take-off.
This Lippisch-Fieseler "Delta Wasp" proved
to be a failure and was put aside after a number
of test flights and modifications. Apart from
defective view for the pilot, the flying qualities
were not considered satisfactory, while the
performances did not come up to expectations,
the take-off of the small monoplane proved to
be tricky; at least one crash was reported during
a take-off made by Fieseler, who, however,
escaped injury.
The Lippisch "Delta I I I " , an experimental
two-seater with 110 h.p. Argus engine, was
constructed by the Focke-Wulf works for the
German Research Institute of Soaring Flight
between 1932 and 1934, and abandoned after
a number of modifications. It had been con-
structed in the hope of developing from this
type an inexpensive tug for towing sailplanes,
but this hope had to be given up. This was the
December, 1944 AIRCRAFT ENGINEERING 349
350 AIRCRAFT ENGINEERING December, 1944
 December, 1944
first official development order Lippisch ob-
tained from the Government.
At this time, Lippisch must have felt thor-
oughly disappointed with the "Delta" type;
he returned to the "Stork" type. "Stork IX."
of 1934 was again an experimental sailplane.
The outcome of the new development was a
parasol monoplane, type "DFS 39", as a light
aeroplane, and finally, in 1935/36, the type
"DFS 193", an experimental two-seater parasol
with a 240 h.p. Argus engine driving a tractor
airscrew. This tailless aeroplane, less developed
that "Delta I", had an aerodynamical sweep-
back of 25·5 dcg., a wing loading of 12·8 lb./sq.
ft. and a power loading of 9·5 lb/h.p. The wing
plan was fairly rectangular with slightly tapered
tips. Along the whole trailing edge were three
pairs of flap-like controllers, partly hinged with
slots. The outer controllers served as ailerons
and elevators, the middle pair for trim and the
inner one for landing flaps. At the wing tips
were end disk rudders and fins of the skewed
adjustment preferred with all Lippisch designs.
The aerofoil sections at the centre of the wing
had reflexed medium camber lines, while the
sections at and near the tips were symmetrical.
Structurally, the wing was braced by V-struts
against the fuselage which, for a tailless aero-
plane, was rather long. The undercarriage was
conventional, consisting of two wheels and a
tailskid. Wind tunnel measurements confirmed
that, at small incidences, directional instabliity
could be expected, and that increased vertical
fin area did not help very much.
Later experimental tailless aeroplanes again
went back to more trapezoidal plan shapes for
the wings. They wrce low-wing monoplanes with
tractor airscrews and nacelles ending in a
vertical fin. Instead of vertical disks at the
wing tips, tilted-down wing tips were now used,
not unlike the Dunne monoplane of 1911. An
auxiliary aerofoil (spoiling the view) is fitted in
front of the leading edge of the wing; its plan
shape follows the form of the central part of the
wing.
One of Lippisch's patents concerns the fore-
and-aft control of tailless aeroplanes with
swept-back wings by means of separate aerofoils
arranged forward of the centre of gravity; i.e. a
AIRCRAFT ENGINEERING
sort of disguised "tail-first" type. The purpose
claimed is to increase the lift directly and in-
stantly, without any deterioration of the
stability.
The "Delta IV" single-seater of the German
Research Institute for Soaring Flight ("D.F.S.")
was also constructed with a retractible under-
carriage. A larger cabin two-seater of similar
lines had spats over the wheels.
In all cases, with the exception of the parasol
monoplanes, the view for the pilot seems to be
poor; while this is a criterion for the practical
value of an aeroplane. As the tailless aeroplane
is prone to suffer from this deficiency, the lack
of further interest in the development can be
understood.
Before the beginning of this war, Lippisch
severed his connexion with the Research
Institute; he was stated to have, joined the
Messerschmitt firm. His occupation with the
tailless problem has ceased, although it may be
assumed that the Horten brothers have bene-
fited much from his technical advice.
Lippisch's dream of the large "Flying Wing"
for long-distance flights, for which he made
plans many years ago, has not been realized
by the Nazis.
Lippisch based his work essentially on that
of J. W. Dunne, though for a different purpose.
He broadened the basis created before him, and
successfully accomplished a union between the
conceptions of Dunne and those of Arnoux.
His work stopped short of practical application.
Modern Pterodactyls and Their Begetter
The choice of the name of a fossil lizard for a
modern type aeroplane would seem to indicate
some "sort of re-discovery 'of long extinct aero-
nautical habits. In the case of G. T. R. Hill's
"Pterodactyl", however, the name connects
the lizard with the interesting tailless aero-
plane only so far as the (supposed) plan shape
of the extended wing of the flying lizard goes;
in consequence of an inspiration received
through a paper of Dr. Hankin dealing with the
aeronautics of the original Pterodactyl.
Professor G. T. R. Hill, a war-time pilot and
an enthusiast of flying, belongs to the intrepid
and persistent sort of research workers who
351
with a clear idea in their head, venture to probe
along unconventional lines. The award of a
research grant for three years permitted him to
devote his energy to the development of an
aeroplane which was incapable of getting out of
control whatever its position in the air may be.
This was at a period at which stalling, and
concomitant spinning, formed insurmountable
obstacles.
The target Hill set himself distinguishes his
research and the results obtained very definitely
from the work of Lippisch. Failure to under-
stand the difference, has often led to mis-
judgment of the work of Hill.
Hill's conception docs not necessarily imply
inherent stability. Hence there is also a marked
difference from Dunne's endeavour to create an
aeroplane which would fly by itself.
Hill's work is, therefore, born of an original
idea, and that the results of his labours did not
grow a tail, is purely incidental or, considering
the unfortunate and unsuccessful adoption of
the Pterodactyl for military purposes, even
accidental.
Hill began his research work with an investi-
gation of the problem of controllability in 1923.
The insufficiencies and deficiencies of the con-
ventional control by means of control surfaces
located within a Penaud tail (which is subject
to down-wash and slipstream effects, and
which takes effect by indirect action—hence
also with an inevitable delay) and of control by
way of ailerons which become ineffective at the
stall and, generally, produce also adverse
yawing moments, lead Hill to a tailless aero-
plane equipped with controllers on the wing
tips, which were completely unaffected by the
attitude of the aeroplane and/or by the slip-
stream.
Movable wing-tips had already been used
before, by L. Bleriot for instance, and floating
ailerons have been among the oldest devices for
lateral control. But the combination of both
these features formed the essential element of
Hill's original controllers. His controllers were
movable aerofoils arranged at the side of the
wing, but they did not form part of the lift-
generating surface, being so hinged that they
adjusted themselves in their neutral position
 352
under the incidence of zero lift, whatever the
attitude of the aeroplane was. Control surfaces
of this sort will, therefore always remain
effective, since they cannot come into a stalled
condition. In this way, longitudinal and lateral
control seemed to be safeguarded under all
circumstances.
As at the period of Hill's first Pterodactyl
there was not much known about the full-scale
properties of aerofiol sections with a stationary
centre of pressure, Hill chose a swept-back plan
shape with wash-out. The wing was heavily
tapered, but not to the extent of a triangular
shape. The floating controllers formed the tips
in continuation of the plan shape. They were
rather large in area and accordingly heavy. The
directional control was by vertical rudders.
Originally, these were fitted below the wings,
near the point where the controllers were at-
tached. The later Pterodactyls with their differ-
ent controllers had end-disk rudders at the
wing tips; in all cases, the rudders could also be
employed as air brakes.
Hill reported his suggestions to the Aero-
nautical Research Committee in 1923, propos-
ing the construction of a full-size glider for
immediate flying experiments. The A.R.C.
arranged for wind tunnel tests to be made.
During this time. Hill made gliding experiments,
modifying his glider in the light of the results
of the model tests. The glider was then re-
designed as a two-seater, and the tests proved
so promising that the Air Ministry authorized
the installation of a Bristol Cherub engine, giving
full assistance to the development through the
Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough.
The Pterodactyl Mk. I light aeroplane had a
pusher airscrew, no dihedral and a device
arranged between the control column and the
controllers which gave a low gearing "at high
speed and a high gearing at low flying speeds,
an essential feature for an aeroplane with a
great speed range. The nacelle was built with
light Balsa plywood weighing half as much as
Birch plywood. The undercarriage was conven-
tional, with a tail wheel at rather a short dis-
tance from the main wheels, which may have
rendered take-offs and landings more un-
comfortable than the tailless system necessi-
tated. In view of the fact that the rudders were
outside the slipstream, the control during the
take-off must have been difficult.
Hill seems to have expected dynamic in-
stability in the fore-and-aft direction. The
flying tests undertaken by him in quiet weather
indicated at first nothing of this sort, and there
were also no unpleasant oscillations during and
after the take-off. The Petrodactyl indeed flew
very well, permitting stalled flights and landings
out of stalled glides, under perfect control.'
The Mk. IB Pterodactyl had a more powerful
engine and a higher wing loading, though
being still in the lightplane category. Here
certain deficiencies in the flying qualities became
obvious. Pilots complained that the longitudinal
stability was bad and made flying in bumpy
weather rather unpleasant. The matter was
investigated, and it was seen that the small
damping about the lateral axis, which is in-
herent with tailless aeroplanes, in conjunction
with the large controllers which had consider-
able moments of inertia about their hinge axes,
were responsible for making the elevator
AIRCRAFTENGINEERING
control rather delicate, not only while flying in
gusts, but also while taking-off from rough
aerodromes or landing in gusts near the ground.
The Mk. IB had an undercarriage' with
wheels in tandem and a modified system of
directional control with a brake rudder fitted
at the trailing edge of the wing (double flap).
It was equipped with an Armstrong-Siddelcy
Benet engine. One of these original Pterodactyls
is now in the Science Museum in London as
an example of systematic research work carried
out for the solution of a clear-cut problem.
For the reasons stated above, it would be
inconclusive to attempt a comparison between
the performances of apparently equivalent
experimental lightplanes of Hill and Lippisch
(as for instance the Pterodactyl Mk. I with the
Delta I) on the ground that they were both two-
seaters equipped with the same type of engine
and a pusher airscrew. But although the
Pterodactyl was not intended to form a step
towards the Flying Wing, it exhibited a quite
creditable performance: A maximum speed of
70 m.p.h. was measured with 658 lb. actual
load (i.e. 2·95 lb./sq .ft. wing loading) and a
stalling speed of about 29 m.p.h. This perform-
ance refers to the type with Bristol Cherub
engine. Hill observed the valuable and un-
common feature of immediate transition from
stalled flight to the unstalled condition, without
picking up speed by means of an intermediate
dive. This peculiarity, which is a characteristic
of tailless types only, would obviate the common
accidents caused by stalling near the ground
with aeroplanes which are not apt to go into a
spin.
As the result of the successful flying tests in
1925/26, the development was followed up in
connexion with the Westland Aircraft works
to whom G. T. R. Hill became attached for this
purpose. The original floating controllers,
described in Hill's patent (Brit. Pat. Spec.
249572 of 1924) as being constituted by the
outer parts of each wing and being pivoted so
that the whole wing tip can rotate about an
axis which is approximately parallel to the
leading edge of the wing, were found wanting,
especially in bumpy weather, and even danger-
ous when flying with hands off. So the later
experimental aeroplanes were fitted with
practically normal controllers, i.e. in accord-
ance with Hill's patent Spec. 427186, The float-
ing wing tip controllers which had given the
possibility of control at all attitudes of the aero-
plane, were now replaced by fixed wing tips
provided with controller flaps of the usual
aileron type and hinged to the trailing edge.
Such controllers are, of course, liable to become
ineffective at incidences a t and near the stall,
and completely inoperative at incidences beyond
the stall. At the same time, wing tip disk-
rudders were fitted.
In 1932/33, a three-seater cabin high-wing
n\onoplane with a 130 h.p. De Havilland Gipsy
engine driving a pusher airscrew was construct-
ed by Westland. With this Westland-Hill
Pterodactyl Mk. IV fairly extensive flying tests
were undertaken in co-ordination with wind
tunnel and other research work on models,
and valuable reports have been published on
these tests by the Aeronautical Research Com-
mittee. An interesting, though not novel,
feature of this tailless design was the possi-
bility of altering the sweep-back of the wings in
flight, by means of a gear incorporating a large
turnbuckle. The sweep-back could thus be
varied by nearly 5 deg. The primary result of
this variation is equivalent to shifting'the centre
of gravity with regard to the wing; it thus per-
mits the obtaining of a perfect trim in flight—
one of the major difficulties of the tailless prin-
ciples. The undercarriage consisted of two
wheels arranged in tandem, the front one being
stcerable, and the rear one provided with a
brake. In order to give lateral support to this
single-track undercarriage skids were provided
underneath the wing tips.
December, 1944
Generally, this tailless type has proved a fair
success, and it is regrettable that its develop-
ment has not been further proceeded with,
considering that the engine could not be fully
used, owing to insufficient cooling—a defect of
the experimental installation of an air-cooled
in-line engine as a pusher—the performances
were quite good and comparable with the best
designs of corresponding conventional aero-
plane types of the period. A maximum speed of
109 m.p.h. was actually obtained, and a speed
of 113 m.p.h. considered obtainable, and the
rate of climb of 760 ft./min. near the ground
was actually superior to that of the De Havil-
land Puss Moth, the best comparable type,
The flying qualities were considered fair, in
comparison with equivalent types, except for
directional control near the stall. The take-off
was described as poor and requiring care but,
apart from this, the Petrodactyl Mk. IV was
stated to be pleasant to fly and easy to handle.
Familiarity with the very flat gliding angle was
soon acquired. The serious longitudinal in-
stability of the previous Pterodactyls had dis-
appeared. The take-off required a run of 250
yards.
Spinning tests were also begun with this type,
after extensive model experiments. Tlie aero-
plane showed no difficulties in recovering. Model
tests had indicated that the wing tip disk-
rudders were not of much use for recovery, and
this seems to have been confirmed by the flight
tests, but that the controllers were quite suffi-
cient to bring the aeroplane out of the spinning
motion. Unfortunately the flight tests had to be
terminated before being brought to a finish,
owing to the necessity of fitting a new engine
after only 50 hours' run. Very valuable experi-
ments remained thus undone.
In 1934, the development culminated in a
military two-seater biplane with a 700 h.p.
Rolls-Royce engine and a tractor airscrew. This
type "Pterodactyl Mk. V." was the first modern
tailless aeroplane constructed for military use.
The military reason for this unorthodox experi-
ment was apparently the advantage offered
by the unobstructed field of fire from the rear
seat. The design features followed closely those
of the Mk. IV monoplane with the exception
of the automatic slots fitted in front of the
controllers in order to increase the range of
effectiveness of the controllers at higher angles
of incidence. This is probably the first instance
where Handley-Page slots have been employed
on a tailless machine. The controllers were in
the trailing edge of the main (upper) wing only.
The biplane flew well and was repeatedly
demonstrated in flight, but since its perfor-
mance seems to have been rather inferior to that
of conventional military two-seaters, this
adaptation of the Pterodactyl proved a blind
alley.
Unfortunately, after this biplane venture,
further development was discontinued. Civil
aviation might have profited much from further
research work in the direction originally in-
dicated and pursued by Hill.
I t seems, however, that Professor G. T. R.
Hill has not ceased to take a further interest
in the problem of the tailless aeroplane. A
recently published Patent Specification (N.o
558498 of January, 1944) refers to a trimming
(Continued on page 360)
 360 AIRCRAFT ENGINEERING
Tailless Aircraft and
Flying Wings
(Continned from page 352)
device for tailless aeroplanes of the Hill Ptero- seem to have given satisfaction, for reasons
dactyl system consisting of wing tips which can which have been mentioned above in connexion
be adjusted during flight about a transverse with the floating wing tip controllers of the
axis by the means of an irreversible control. oroginal Pterodactyl designs. The Halton tail-
According to the invention, the aileron-like less, originally designed in 1928 and after a
controllers form part of these tilting wing tips, number of modifications completed in 1930, was
and the wing tips themselves can only be tilted equipped with automatic slots along the whole
downwards, i.e. in a negative (anhcdral form- leading edge, except the floating controllers,
ing) range. The idea is to have anhcdral at the and had controllers which were identical with
wing tips at and near the stall, in order to those of the early Pterodactyls. The vertical
prevent the wing tip from stalling, while at high rudder arrangement was also identical. The
speed, the wing tips shall be adjusted in line single-seater monoplane was equipped with
with the wing itself. two Bristol Cherub engines driving a pusher and
The work of G. T. R. Hill has given a certain a' tractor airscrew in the same manner as the
inspiration to British designers to devote some (later) Lippisch-Fieseler "Wasp" mentioned
thought to the problems of the tailless aero- above. The single-track undercarriage had two
plane and of the Flying Wing. wheels. The front wheel was steerable, together
As directly influenced by the Pterodactyl with its fairing which should act as a rudder
design, the tailless racing monoplane con- in the air. A maximum speed of 120 m.p.h. was
structed by the Halton Aero Club deserves expected.
mention, although the final outcome does not (To be continued)
December, 1944
Books Received
Metallurgical Experiments. F. Johnson. 78
pages. [Paul Elek. 5s.]
Radio for Aeroplanes. D. Hay Surgeoner. 122
pages, illustrated. [Longmans. 3s. 6d.]
War Planes of the Nations. W. Winter. 389 pages,
illustrated. [Harrap. 15s.]
Materials of Aircraft Construction. Sixth
Edition.' F. T. Hill. 469 pages, illustrated.
[Pitman. 20s.]
Instruments: Category 'X' Licence. Fifth
Edition. R. W. Sloley. Ill pages, illustrated.
[Pitman. 6s.]
A College of Aeronautics. 98 pages, illustrated.
[H.M. Stationery Office. 2s.]
Quality Control Chart Technique when Manu-
facturing to a Specification. B. P. Dudding and
W. J. Jennett. [The General Electric Co. Ltd.,
Wembley. 2s. 6d.]
Tolerances for Screw Threads—Plastic Mould-
ed Screw Threads. J. Butler. [British Industrial
Plastics, Ltd. Free.]
A Complete Course in Elementary Aerodyna-
mics. N. A. V. Piercy. 305 pages, illustrated.
[English Universities Press. 21s.]
Air Transport and Civil Aviation. 311 pages,
illustrated. [Todd Publishing Co. (G. G. Harrap)
21s.]
Instruments. E, W, Sloley, 111 pages, illustrated.
[Pitmad. 6s.]