Skimmed right over it. A little distracted…
Forget even flying the thing - where are you going to park or land it? The widest civil runways are only 200’ - most are only 150’. Are the safety areas and taxiway turn radii wide enough to taxi such an aircraft? Also, gate space becomes a problem. How long do you want to make your terminal if each gate has to be wide enough to accomodate a flying wing?
If we were starting from scratch, I’d say it’s a good idea. With the entrenched aviation infrastructure we have now, no way.
I’ll defer to your knowledge in re flying wing stability; however, I object somewhat to this bit. A good case can be made for a hang glider being less of an aircraft and more of a rigid parachute. A hang glider is stable in much the same manner as a parachute–the weight of the pilot suspended underneath is what gives the craft stability, apart from any aerodynamic qualities it may possess.
This would be the starting point for Francis Rogallo’s work. Modern (since late 1970s) hang gliders are quite evolved by comparison. Rigid batons (ribs) and leading edge stiffeners are used to (fairly) precisely define the airfoil, which has more often than not a second lower surface. Rogallo based “standards” had gone the way of the buggy whip by time I started flying, so I don’t have any first hand knowledge of their characteristics…they have a reputation as low performance death traps. I am very familiar with 1985-1995 designs…much less so evolutions within the last decade.
United States Hang Gliding Association (USHGA) certification standards have long required testing for positive pitch stability about the hang point. This is the point from which the pilot’s harness is suspended…the point where all the pilot’s weight is applied to the airframe when flying “hands off”, and positive pitch stability under hands off conditions is the point of the standard.
While the pilot usually keeps their hands on the triangular control bar, this is not required for stability, and would be fatigue inducing if forces were constantly applied.
The testing is done not with a pilot, or simulated pilot weight, but by attaching the glider (at the hang point) to a truck mounted pylon…the stability is tested WITHOUT any sort of weight that might provide the sort of balancing pendulum effect you allude to.
The hang point is usually on the keel (the only for-aft frame member) in some cases above the lower surface of the wing, and in no case more than a few inches lower than that. In some cases multi-link or curved track devices (“pitchy” “French connection”) have been used that actually provide a virtual hang point slightly above the wing in order to reduce pitch control forces. This is done when structural or yaw stability considerations force the keel to be lower than the desired hang point.
The above speaks to pitch stability, which is where flying wings complicate matters. Hang gliders are typically slightly unstable in roll. This is intentionally done (to reduce control forces) by rigging for anhedral, and manifests hands-off as either a pure tendency to spiral, or a divergent dutch-roll oscillation.
It’s a seaplane, so runways aren’t an issue as such (though if you look at the where they have the water line listed on the two pontoons in the link with the specs, it becomes obvious that they haven’t thought through weight/displacement issue in waterborne mode.
Still, I want to fly on an airplane with a staff gymnast.
I have to assume that the design was merely a flight of fantasy.
Why the fuck would you have onboard repair facilities? Anybody wiith a modicum of sense would just have redundant engine capacity. Christ, this just pisses me off. It’s just stupid even in a “what if” scenario.
Yeah, but it’s typical of early to mid 20th century futurism - we can make things better by making them horribly complex.
“Skimmed”, hah.
Cool vid, I’ve never seen the Monster in action before. 
This extended to government and medicine as well, both of which were based on the Magic Pill Principle: One solution so obviously perfect all problems would melt away and none would dare have the indecency to stand against it. The political solution was the World State, something not even die-hard Socialists seriously advocate these days, and the medical solution was a lifestyle based entirely on pure rigorous vegetarianism and scientific supplements, mixed with mental conditioning based around some notion of General Semantics.
(Note that the foregoing is rather in stark contrast to the similar-sounding Hippie Free Love lifestyle: It is based on a very strong belief in scientific philosopher-kings running the entirety of Earth’s civilization, from massive public works down to unabashedly eugenic planned mating. More to the point, it is based on a belief in the Perfectibility Of Man, physically, mentally, and morally. Brave New World is a sarcastic version of what people like H.G. Wells were honestly pushing for.)
We still do it today. Look at the hype surrounding nanotechnology. It’s not very different from the things people used to say about radioactivity (we were going to have atomic cars, ovens, hairdryers, etc)
A railroad ?! I certainly hope it’s light-rail!
I did see something more plausible just a few years back, a hybrid flying-wing craft where the wing was really a helium-filled inflatable. The entire structure, fully charged, was slightly heavier than air. It was like a blimp that could use standard commercial airports. Can’t find a link for it now.