Take a look at RV jet . Payload is the best i've seen on a wing . Its a new company , so be patient . Don't go with a glider . I've yet to see a glider that has any decent payload . The glider require a fair amount of wind and is not as agile . I've yet to see any professional use a glider for photo / agriculture . Yes , landing can be tricky at times ( But this is also true with RC plane as dirt road , grass can be hard on a plane and its landing ) . A Agriculture ariel company told me that they land their flying wing in the corn or soybean field . Wing has long flight time . Handle the wind . RV jet has the ability to fly up to 10 miles ( maybe further , still being tested as to its limits ) . Climbs really well .
The wing is new (RV jet ) . As you know it just came out this summer . Yes the company been around for a while .
flying wings are inherently unstable and flying fly can be troublesome sue to less internal space but mostly due to wing waggle as flying wings cannot fly as high speed as the equivalent size traditional plane
Did i say they were less efficient?, no i did not....
and yes they are more unstable, why do you think most planes are traditional rather than Zagi?
it is because they are unstable in flight, this makes them maneuverable but also adds instability.
If flying wings were so great why are they still so rare, it is because of the reasons i gave.
I have a skyhawk and a FPVraptor, they are similar in size and weight however the video is much smoother on the traditional raptor, and i can fly faster without wing waggle.
Wings are not more unstable, if your wing is unstable then your CG is not correct. My X5 and my home designs all will fly very happily and stable without either me operating the RC and with the APM in Manual.
Wings are not rare, look at all the wings on this site, X8's, X5'x, Raptors home builts and many more. The truth is that wings give less trouble than your conventional aircraft and so you don't see people asking questions , they are too busy flying.
If your wing is waggling then you need to fix something, Stability has nothing to do with maneuverability. they are two very different issues.
I also fly normal aircraft and have done for 40yrs.
Wings are King in every department except one??? They CAN be difficult to ship to customers once the 2 wings are joined.
If you still think flying wings are bad then take a look at some of the very best videos on you-tube taken by the EXPERTS at team Black Sheep.
The videos they produce are fantastic and beautifully flown at both high and very low levels. Guess what....They use Flying wings for almost every video.
It is true to say that they have been very inspirational to many fliers on this site.
dude it is the law of physics here, Flying wings ARE by the nature of physics more unstable than traditional designs.
A clean flying wing is sometimes presented as theoretically the most aerodynamically efficient (lowest drag) design configuration for a fixed wing aircraft. It also would offer high structural efficiency for a given wing depth, leading to light weight and high fuel efficiency.
Because it lacks conventional stabilizing surfaces or the associated control surfaces, in its purest form the flying wing suffers from the inherent disadvantages of being unstable and difficult to control. These compromises are difficult to reconcile, and efforts to do so can reduce or even negate the expected advantages of the flying wing design, such as reductions in weight and drag. Moreover, solutions may produce a final design that is still too unsafe for certain uses, such as commercial aviation.
Further difficulties arise from the problem of fitting the pilot, engines, flight equipment, and payload all within the depth of the wing section. A wing that is made deep enough to contain all these elements will have an increased frontal area, when compared with a conventional wing and fuselage, which in turn results in higher drag and thus slower speed than a conventional design. Typically the solution adopted in this case is to keep the wing reasonably thin, and the aircraft is then fitted with an assortment of blisters, pods, nacelles, fins, and so forth to accommodate all the needs of a practical aircraft.
For any aircraft to fly without constant correction it must have directional stability in yaw.
Flying wings lack the long fuselage, the component that provides a convenient attachment point for an efficient vertical stabilizer or fin.
Any fin must attach directly on to the rear part of the wing, giving a small moment arm from the aerodynamic center, which in turn means that to be effective the fin area must be large. This large fin has weight and drag penalties, and can negate the advantages of the flying wing. The problem can be minimized by increasing the leading edge sweepback and placing twin fins outboard near the tips, as for example in a low-aspect-ratio delta wing, but many flying wings have gentler sweepback and consequently have, at best, marginal stability.
Another solution is to angle or crank the wing tip sections downward with significant anhedral, increasing the area at the rear of the aircraft when viewed from the side.
Yet another approach uses differential twist or wash out, together with a swept-back wing planform and a suitable airfoil section. Prandtl, Pankonin and others discovered this and it was fundamental to the yaw stability of the Horten brothers flying wings of the 1930s and 40s. The Hortens described a “Bell Shaped Lift Distribution” across the span of the wing, with more lift in the center section and less at the tips due to their reduced angle of incidence, or washing out. This creates a slightly forward-pointing lift vector for the rear (outer) section of the wing. When displaced, this vector essentially "pulls" the trailing wing forward to re-align the aircraft along its flight path.
In some flying wing designs, any stabilizing fins and associated control rudders would be too far forward to have much effect, thus alternative means for yaw control are sometimes provided.
One solution to the control problem is differential drag: the drag near one wing tip is artificially increased, causing the aircraft to yaw in the direction of that wing. Typical methods include:
A consequence of the differential drag method is that if the aircraft maneuvers frequently then it will frequently create drag. So flying wings are at their best when cruising in still air: in turbulent air or when changing course, the aircraft may be less efficient than a conventional design.
MaerialPhoto wants a plane for mapping and photography, he never mentioned FPV which for the record is easy with flying wings.
In answer to the question raised, Both have advantages and disadvantages. If you want a long range, high payload stable aircraft then go and get a Skywalker X8. Plenty of room for everything and lots of information and support on DIY drones
You cannot compare full size aerodynamics to model aircraft , they are very different, ask anyone who has tried to fly an exact scale Spitfire as an RC model.
I don't thing I need to make my wings thick enough for a pilot. !
I own 16 conventional aircraft and 4 flying wings, I am not trying to justify one over the other. I don't need to do that.
I also produce aircraft for mapping purposes that I sell to my customers, they all get great results and that aircraft IS a flying wing. The customers like them because they are almost indestructible. They DO land them in corn fields, roads and on dirt tracks that would destroy your Skyhawk on its first landing.
The APM has full support for all flying wings and it works,
I will agree that wings need to be hand launched OR you can use a catapult if you want perfect launches. (yes, I sell Catapults as well) Flying wings CAN be dangerous due to the rear mounted propeller during hand launching.
With that I feel I have answered the question and I will leave you to continue trying to justify your own personal preference to MAerialPhoto.