# Should we have a [flying-wing] tag?

As the title asks, should we have a tag for questions about flying wing aircraft?

A simple search for "flying wing" on the main site brings up over 900 results.

If yes, should we also consider potential synonyms like [tailless]?

## 3 Answers

Sounds like a good idea to me. I could definitely imagine someone thinking "I want to learn more about flying wings" or "I want to answer some questions about flying wings."

(Heck, I want to learn more about flying wings. How does that even work?)

But I also feel like it'd make more sense to have the tag be called or instead of . If we created , we wouldn't have a tag we could apply to other tailless aircraft; but if we created , we could apply that tag to flying wings.

The tag description could be something like: Any aircraft that doesn't have a horizontal stabilizer or any other horizontal surface besides its main wing.

A few observations:

• Flying wings are a proper subset of tailless (only one horizontal airfoil) aircraft.
• Flying wing is the more popular term.

Google books ngram viewer says that tailless is hundreds of times more common, but that must refer to animals. "Flying wing" has a blip from 1939 to 1945.

Does the existing count? Perhaps we should discuss its related terms: What should the master term be? And shall we include the terms @TannerSwett mentioned in their response as more synonyms to whichever master term we decide on?

• A blended-wing airplane aka Blended Wing Body might have a tail. A tailless airplane might not be a BWB. The terms are independent, Northrop's famous types notwithstanding. – Camille Goudeseune Aug 9 '19 at 17:01