I’m actually surprised that this design was never activelly used. The efficiencies of the flying wing are insane.
From WiKi on “Flying Wing”
A clean flying wing is theoretically the most aerodynamically efficient (lowest drag) design configuration for a fixed wing aircraft. It also offers 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 to 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.
Other known problems with the flying wing design relate to pitch and yaw. Pitch issues are discussed in the article on tailless aircraft. The problems of yaw are discussed below.