Funnily enough, the B-2 is now about 30 years old, about the same age as the B-52 was when the B-2 was rolled out.
That 1963 Flip-Top Flip-Phone... FACT TREK
- Thread starter Maurice
- Start date
Funnily enough, the B-2 is now about 30 years old, about the same age as the B-52 was when the B-2 was rolled out.
And still one of the world's best. And I actually like the old 1970s and 1980s fighter aesthetic more than I like the fifth-generation stealth fighter aesthetic.
There's no need to get lost in the weeds of wording and examples. @Maurice's point about fighters is true, I think.
The fighter example is particularly apt, because we're talking about vehicles designed to literally compete with their counterparts whereas technology is constantly evolving. Materials and manufacturing techniques, technical features that are the products of discoveries made at particular times and that can be incorporated only when feasible, mission parameters which are functions of the era, these all play roles in determining the design and date it to a particular period.
The fighter example is particularly apt, because we're talking about vehicles designed to literally compete with their counterparts whereas technology is constantly evolving. Materials and manufacturing techniques, technical features that are the products of discoveries made at particular times and that can be incorporated only when feasible, mission parameters which are functions of the era, these all play roles in determining the design and date it to a particular period.
In fairness, the distinction between "current" (what you originally wrote) and "designed now" (what you write now in clarification) is pretty vast.
In terms of what was originally written, I agree completely.
Indeed. But just to be clear, the B-2 design is well over thirty years old, not just about. The public unveiling was in 1988, and necessarily the design predates that. Whatever nitpicking there is to be had about when the design was finalized, it's clearly circa mid-80s at the latest.
Yeah, I like the B-2 bomber design but that clearly comes out of a 1970s and 1980s program to develop a flying wing stealth bomber aircraft during the height of the Cold War. Were it designed and revealed today I sincerely doubt it would look like a flying wing.
You know, I get the logic behind the coinage of the term "flying wing" -- an aircraft that's essentially nothing but wing -- but it just occurred to me that it's kind of a redundant term. I mean, don't all wings fly? (Except, like, ostrich or penguin wings. Or building wings.)
I always interpreted it as drawing attention to the extreme nature of the design, as if it's missing other elements that might be necessary, yet isn't. So, it's kind of ironic; in that vein, see also "flying brick."
I guess it's a better term than "boomerang bomber." 
That's exactly what they were.
What about those "futuristic" Swedish Ericofon one-piece phones with the dial on the bottom? With the dial mechanism and all the bulky 1960s wiring and electronics, those things must have been pretty heavy.
Or Denny Laine.
not really, no. Most wings have to be attached to something else to stabilize them enough to achieve controlled flight. Otherwise they tend to spin flutter and flop around embarrassingly into a plummet, like this thread. The flying wing is called that because it can fly without a fuselage, canard, or tail.
The B-2 Flying wing is descended from the Northrop YB-35 Flying Wing, designed during WWII.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YB-35
The B-2 borrows heavily from the design. (For instance the wingspans of the 2 planes are the same.) Enough that the Pentagon took a model of the B-2 to Jack Northrop, the original plane's designer to show him in his retirement in recognition for his work on the Flying Wing design.
Besides, the F-22 really is not that different from the F-15 in appearance. Far less than say a JN-4 Jenny and say a P-40 Warhawk, even though they're both only about 20 years apart.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YB-35
The B-2 borrows heavily from the design. (For instance the wingspans of the 2 planes are the same.) Enough that the Pentagon took a model of the B-2 to Jack Northrop, the original plane's designer to show him in his retirement in recognition for his work on the Flying Wing design.
Besides, the F-22 really is not that different from the F-15 in appearance. Far less than say a JN-4 Jenny and say a P-40 Warhawk, even though they're both only about 20 years apart.
Last edited:
Yeah, but that's the point. The entire aircraft (or bird) is flying, therefore its wings are flying along with it. Flying is what the wings are for, so to my wordplay-oriented mind, the phrase "flying wing" suddenly sounded amusingly redundant. Like "rolling wheel." What else would they do??
Yeah, but that's the point. The entire aircraft (or bird) is flying, therefore its wings are flying along with it. Flying is what the wings are for, so to my wordplay-oriented mind, the phrase "flying wing" suddenly sounded amusingly redundant. Like "rolling wheel." What else would they do??
Well, the term does help distinguish the plane from say, an alcove of the Air & Space Museum...
Aviation terms come from all over and some have weird histories. The word "Canard" has come to mean placing the elevator surfaces ahead of the wing. But originally, the word comes from the French insulting the Wright Flyers that used that configuration. In French the word means "Joke" which is what they and the other Europeans considered those upstart bicycle mechanics.
(Yes, literally, it means "Duck" but it's a French idiom. And, no I'm no linguist.)
Later on, the French tried to save face and claimed that they didn't mock the Wrights, and said it flew as well as a duck, but... eh.
Now, go away or I shall Taunt you a Second Time!
Or maybe it was because the Wright Flyer flew so low. "It's coming! Duck!"
(I read once that the first Wright Flyer wasn't technically an aircraft at all, just a ground-effect vehicle, since it didn't get high enough to sustain lift without interaction with the ground.)
She ain't in ground effect here:
(Historically, Europe took a long time to admit that the American Bicycle Mechanics succeeded when their prestigious scientists had failed to get controlled heavier than air flight. As with many things, success has a thousand fathers.)
This is now a fifth-generation nitpicking thread with the most advanced tech.
Last edited:
That's fantastic! Thanks for the photo. Is that a reflection, or an image on the screen?
Have you hooked it up to a digital converter box to pull in modern TV? Or maybe your DVD player?
That's a reflection of the table, but it does indeed turn on, which is actually quite common, these things were built very well. There's no built-in connector for a wired input (it's portable after all), but I read you can clip one lead to the antenna and the other to the chassis (ground), so I'm going to try that. I really want to get a picture of it showing Star Trek.
Similar threads
