As a passenger jet, this aircraft would be 30 to 50% more fuel efficient, cheaper to manufacture, safer, much more quiet and could carry near 1000 passengers. Personally I think they look better than tube and wing too. Why aren't we making these right now?!!
it isn't easier and cheaper too build. As every part is unique in that plane, it's way much more expensive to build. Regular passenger fuselage are tubes, easy too make in big numbers. You need a longer plane? just ad 2 pieces of that tube, with a bigger wing and you're done.
"The BWB concept reportedly offers greater structural, aerodynamic and operating efficiencies than today's more conventional tube-and-wing designs. These features translate into greater range, fuel economy, reliability and life cycle savings, as well as lower manufacturing costs. They also allow for a wide variety of potential military and commercial applications."
Actually, with composite manufacturing coming of age at Boeing with the 787, this will be a cheaper form of manufacture in the future. The reason these processes are higher cost isn't the complex shape, but the huge amount of R&D that goes into every build because it's "one-off". Look at the production lines being built at Scaled Composites for Virgin Galactic. Building with carbon-fiber will be as easy and common as wood in 20 years.
Because of the lack of window seats. Most of the people will be sitting in the middle, nowhere near a window. To me, this wouldn't matter if it was cheaper, but I guess not many people think the same way.
@chickenz666 ever sat in the middle seat on a 747, 777, or A380? As those blended wing bodies could transport 1000 people, prices for flying would drop to shit. If I could fly across the atlantic for 100 bucks, I wouldn't mind a bit where I sit. They could also have those new intelligent ambient lights used in the A380 that look and work almost like sun light.
@yourrealmother mostly because of cabin pressurization problems. There's a reason for the current tube shape... its an efficient pressure vessel. Any shape beyond a sphere or a tube with outward bulged hemispherical caps would be too heavy and complicated to fly with (and pressurize regularly).
@yourrealmother because every new design has to be tested thoroughly. If anything happens and they crash because they haven't been tested, it's people like you that whine and ask on youtube why this premature design was already made so early before possible flaws were known.
@yourrealmother this is ram jet design i thnk, so is really inefficent at sub sonic speeds so needs rockets / a normal jet engine. also its highly experimental
@threadgoldc sorry, but no. this is simply a passenger jet and it used regular turbofan engines. there is no way in hell that thing can break the sound barrier.
@yourrealmother We could make cars that perform better 4 to 5 years earlier too. But we don't. Why? My thinking is they want to use the material and take one step at a time. You and I both know "they" could do just about anything. I heard they/we are working on a 100+ passenger moon ship out in Groom..that should be cool and it answers many questions as to the growth of the base too...
you guys do realize that they aren't planning on makeing it a passenger jet but possibly a refeuling plane?
90Blakey 1 month ago
gives it away at the start that its a RC model because of the truck
Sundaybmxmag 3 months ago
Flying Sting Ray :D
itswillyxD 7 months ago
@meankookoo ahaha sorry about that, i was just watching that video and didn't pay attention at the dates :D
seicheberlin 10 months ago
@meankookoo yeah I don't think so. This airplane is not a high speed (read: supersonic) design.
seicheberlin 10 months ago
is it gonna take less space for take offs and landings?
rubenfonte 11 months ago
Why UAVs 3 turbines?
gassmail115 1 year ago
I've heard of this as the 797 from a discovery episode, boeing airliner. Probably 1000 passengers and very fuel efficient.
XYZslayer 1 year ago
за такой компоновкой будущее
ANDREY37492 1 year ago
okay who stole my drawings
i wont get angry
marktimmer2212 2 years ago 13
Man that is one flat little plane.
nc69th 2 years ago 2
As a passenger jet, this aircraft would be 30 to 50% more fuel efficient, cheaper to manufacture, safer, much more quiet and could carry near 1000 passengers. Personally I think they look better than tube and wing too. Why aren't we making these right now?!!
yourrealmother 2 years ago 10
it isn't easier and cheaper too build. As every part is unique in that plane, it's way much more expensive to build. Regular passenger fuselage are tubes, easy too make in big numbers. You need a longer plane? just ad 2 pieces of that tube, with a bigger wing and you're done.
keissaus 2 years ago
Comment removed
yourrealmother 2 years ago
"The BWB concept reportedly offers greater structural, aerodynamic and operating efficiencies than today's more conventional tube-and-wing designs. These features translate into greater range, fuel economy, reliability and life cycle savings, as well as lower manufacturing costs. They also allow for a wide variety of potential military and commercial applications."
Source: NASA (monograph31 pdf)
yourrealmother 2 years ago
Actually, with composite manufacturing coming of age at Boeing with the 787, this will be a cheaper form of manufacture in the future. The reason these processes are higher cost isn't the complex shape, but the huge amount of R&D that goes into every build because it's "one-off". Look at the production lines being built at Scaled Composites for Virgin Galactic. Building with carbon-fiber will be as easy and common as wood in 20 years.
Kamakiriad66 2 years ago
yes but the prices would even out if this becomes mainstream
DASGLion 2 years ago
Because of the lack of window seats. Most of the people will be sitting in the middle, nowhere near a window. To me, this wouldn't matter if it was cheaper, but I guess not many people think the same way.
chickenz666 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
seicheberlin 10 months ago
@chickenz666 ever sat in the middle seat on a 747, 777, or A380? As those blended wing bodies could transport 1000 people, prices for flying would drop to shit. If I could fly across the atlantic for 100 bucks, I wouldn't mind a bit where I sit. They could also have those new intelligent ambient lights used in the A380 that look and work almost like sun light.
seicheberlin 10 months ago
Costs.
Devilsfurry 2 years ago
Comment removed
kamikazestyle71 1 year ago
@yourrealmother b/c they're not VTOL yet!
Ralroost 1 year ago
@yourrealmother mostly because of cabin pressurization problems. There's a reason for the current tube shape... its an efficient pressure vessel. Any shape beyond a sphere or a tube with outward bulged hemispherical caps would be too heavy and complicated to fly with (and pressurize regularly).
waltibaba 1 year ago
@yourrealmother because every new design has to be tested thoroughly. If anything happens and they crash because they haven't been tested, it's people like you that whine and ask on youtube why this premature design was already made so early before possible flaws were known.
seicheberlin 10 months ago
@yourrealmother this is ram jet design i thnk, so is really inefficent at sub sonic speeds so needs rockets / a normal jet engine. also its highly experimental
threadgoldc 10 months ago
@threadgoldc sorry, but no. this is simply a passenger jet and it used regular turbofan engines. there is no way in hell that thing can break the sound barrier.
fhadynamo 6 months ago
@yourrealmother We could make cars that perform better 4 to 5 years earlier too. But we don't. Why? My thinking is they want to use the material and take one step at a time. You and I both know "they" could do just about anything. I heard they/we are working on a 100+ passenger moon ship out in Groom..that should be cool and it answers many questions as to the growth of the base too...
stellarblue51 7 months ago
i would have called it the sparrow
hateunavailablenames 3 years ago
that's not the x 36 man! change title. still pretty cool vid though.
albann90 3 years ago 3
its not the x-36 its the x-48
novolo 3 years ago 3
Its no X-36, but its cool looking anyway.
nightowl8936 4 years ago 2
thats x-48 right?
ambrosen 4 years ago