[2Ccltvcm]

This is patently false. In fact you should delete this post in its entirety because it's just wrong. Don't make these things up and post them as fact. Flying wings easily fly without any computers whatsoever. They are inherently aerodynamically stable. Only manual elevon inputs by humans are actually required and it is quite easy to control unless your center of gravity is too far back. The CG is usually around 70% of the way to the front from the back.

[umvi]

Instead of spending half your comment saying how wrong GP is, why not provide some compelling evidence? I was under the impression that flying wings are indeed more unstable than traditional airframes.

For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Andersen_Air_Force_Base_B...

> After the wheels lifted from the runway, which caused the flight control system to switch to different control laws, the erroneously sensed negative angle of attack caused the computers to inject a sudden, 1.6‑g, uncommanded 30-degree pitch-up maneuver. The combination of slow lift-off speed and the extreme angle of attack (and attendant drag) resulted in an unrecoverable stall, yaw, and descent.

This seems to support GP's assertion that "without very precise computer control they are uncontrollable" and "computer failure is a certain airframe and passenger loss"

[jessriedel]

This says they can be designed to be passively stable, and indeed have existed since the 1930s: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/2252/how-does-a...

I think it requires a little more careful design then traditional plane bodies, so there is some sense in which flying wings are less stable naturally. But the claim that flying wings are necessarily unstable without computer control seems to be false.

[0xffff2]

Absolutely no one denies that the B-2 in particular is unstable, but it is one particular model designed to a particular set of requirements that are vastly different from those for a commercial airliner. It seems that the general public have internalize "the B-2 and F-117 are inherently unstable" as "flying wings are inherently unstable", which is incorrect.

[marvin]

A hang glider is a flying wing, has no computers on board does not crash by itself :) Hopefully that does the job as an existence proof.

[foota]

Uh, not really? Seems more like a failure of the computer. Don't know much about flying but sounds like a pretty extreme maneuver was attempted by the computer.

[dTal]

Take a piece of printer paper and lay it down landscape, fold the top inch down a couple times, then crease in half. A classic.

[2Ccltvcm]

I build and fly flying wings that don't have computers