NASA blended wing-body aircraft concept

[Foxx1981]

God this is one ugly aircraft...

[seaplaneguy1]

I spoke with these guys at Oshkosh years ago. They will not bring the future of aviation to you. They don't have viable solutions. There is a reason for tube/wing designs. This design does not solve anything and will only raise costs by many times.

[krazyazn1011]

So you claim to know more than engineers who have been working in the industry for decades? What exactly makes you more qualified?

[seaplaneguy1]

Private research that shows what they are doing is vastly inferior to what our research shows.

It is a matter of vision. Let them fund it themselves, like we do...no government money. They will fail because there is a better way...

[krazyazn1011]

What company do you do private research for? Its hard to believe that your company can afford better research than a huge company such as Boeing.

[seaplaneguy1]

What about the BWB turns you on?

As I see it, from my research, the basic concept is flawed...there is a much better way...

You think if Boeing does it, it must be good. A Bus in the sky is NOT the future. Our target is 50-70 mpg for ONE person...matching transports with single passenger.

Some guy at Stanford dreamed this up...after he looked at some 1940's German designs. This is NOT new. Ever seen the "Atlantica" ?

The paradigm shift is soon to occur. Boeing is yesterday's ideas.

[krazyazn1011]

If you look at the genesis of modern passenger aircraft, the basic form has not changed for almost 60 years. The BWB proves that engineering is about innovation and a new way of thinking. I'll admit that the BWB's unique shape adds challenges such as control stability, but what about its ability to reduce noise and carry large payloads?

[seaplaneguy1]

There is little need to make it fly by wire, even at supersonic speed, if you solve the "mach tuch" issue. You DON'T need unstable designs. These guys on the BWB can't seem to do the aero right. Same on fighters. The "reasons" for a BWB are somehow missed by these guys. I explained it to them at Oshkosh 98, yet they could not get it. Get 2-3 times lift, with same cruise drag, but not how they do it, all without fly by wire.

Click my name...see picture... 1999 design linear stall to 32 AOA

[KonaRurrik]

What is this better way you're talking about? And let me guess, you're still stuck on the fact that BWB designs are inherently unstable? And please, the Atlantica does not accurately represent BWBs because of wing sweep, it does not experience the benefits of lowered drag, nor the challenges of stability, it is a silly concept that honestly does nothing. True blended wing-body aircraft ARE more aerodynamically efficient.

[seaplaneguy1]

@KonaRurrik

Efficient, maybe in a limited sense, based on what? Useful is my measure. I don't like to be in a box when I fly and I like to see where I am when I fly.

Skin area vs lift...you can get a lot more lift, but not how they do it. I have data...

I don't see large transports as the future. The A380 et el is like the massive trains of yesteryear. We are at a turning point and this transport will die when new technology comes out. Invest your own money it it...good luck...

[KonaRurrik]

Aerodynamic Efficiency = higher (L/D) correct? This has been validated countless times (google it). Valid point, however you can design in more windows with advances in composites, this combined with skylights in general is considered acceptable. Personal preference issue, not a performance one.

How do they do it? Skin area? Do you know what you're talking about? Skin area = more parasitic drag, but still over 30% less than conventional design due to less protuberances.

[KonaRurrik]

I agree that the A380 is not the way to go, but who said the BWB has to be huge? Smaller BWB aircraft still retain all of their benefits, no one said you could only have a 600 passenger BWB.

And what new technology are you talking about? What do you recommend instead? Your hybrid hydraulic engine works great for cars where there is energy through braking to recover, but is mostly useless for aircraft unless you climb and descend constantly.

[seaplaneguy1]

@KonaRurrik

No the engine is 60% at the shaft... 60 mpg at 138 @Sl, constant torque to 25K ft...207 mph...still 60 mpg. Piston and turbos can't do this. Short duration 3x power on takeoff, flowed wing, dynamic CL's way high (25 mph landing), smaller wing, vectored thrust without the nozzles... simple, effective, inexpensive... $60k target... and it lands in water, drives down the road, and parks in the garage...door to door...a must...like wireless..."airportless"

More...

[seaplaneguy1]

@KonaRurrik

A BWB makes a poor roadable airplane as shown...that said, I do combine different types of wings/bodies...for max lift...unlike the shown BWB...like I said...they DON'T do it right...and yes I know what I am talking about...and I use "lifting body" technology...but correctly...all stable...

Believe what you will. I would not invest a dime in that BWB...so don't ask for Gov money...theft...

Useful? BWB...no. Mine...daily... Usefulness/dollar? NOT L/D...meaningless.

[KonaRurrik]

I'm not trying to argue about the specifics of your engine tech, I'm pointing out that your stated aerodynamics claims are incorrect.

This is also the first time you've mentioned a "roadable" aircraft. Smaller aircraft are less efficient in the air due to Re effects, as well as less static+dynamically stable due to gust loading and tip vorticies.

If your engine is indeed capable of those specs, I commend you, they are impressive. But if you ignore STOVL or VTOL, you could be even more efficient

[KonaRurrik]

2 person aircraft used primarily for transportation is a lofty goal, but I think its skirting around the primary use for aircraft, which is an efficient AND fast means of medium to long distance transportation. If you can make it work for short distances, thats great.

For long distances however, especially at the speeds required by current culture, you MUST go at least 500mph, which is well into the transonic regime at std operating altitudes

(more)

[seaplaneguy1]

@KonaRurrik

Nonsense... NASA PAV showed this to be false. If I want to do business on the west or east coast, I can beat the sock off an Airliner....they are near worthless without the huge airports...billion dollar gov money...real total cost...way higher...

I don't need an airport...

[seaplaneguy1]

KonaRurrik,

VTOL and roadable is a MAJOR part of the cost equation. If you eliminate the hangar and airport expense you remove a LARGE fixed cost. Key.

Why are all gliders as they are? Efficiency. Why are all the solar powered projects like a glider? efficiency. Do I see a BWB in any of them? NO!

If you take two types of airfoils, low and high aspect you get advantages in each. In the cruise you don't treat them equal...BWB does...

Imagine when this turkey stalls...Jet inlets...

[KonaRurrik]

Sir, you are correct about the cost issue, I've not yet argued against that you'll notice. I'm all for the decentralization of commercial flight, i do believe in general, it is the future of flight.

However, BWB does have a place in the future of flight as well. Once again, gliders and solar powered planes do not operate in transonic regimes. For flight missions that require speed, for instance transoceanic flights, you need the higher speeds. And BWBs accomplish this mission quite well.

[KonaRurrik]

"if you take two types of airfoils, low and high aspect . . ."

Are you referring to thickness in airfoils? Or possibly WING aspect ratios?

"in cruise you don't treat them equal . . . BWB does . . ."

What are you saying? The BWB concept is OPTIMIZED for cruise at about 0.8 mach. It perfectly obeys Whitcomb's area rule, and delays the onset of most normal shocks by nature of the leading edge sweep.

[KonaRurrik]

Youre talking about entirely different goals than designing a better passenger transport. If your design gets the FAA and the general population over the safety issue of every idiot currently on the road being able to FLY, not to mention safety testing and certification, as well as is easy enough to operate and use on a daily basis, AND carries enough extra weight (luggage) then kudos to you.

If you want to fly in your airplane go ahead, but until the public agrees with you, the airliners stay

[seaplaneguy1]

Kona,

I agree with you!

It took 20-30 years for trains to become obsolete. It will take 20-30 before 10-20% of the population will fly themselves.

Question: What happens when the lift is high and the flow becomes unstable into the engines?

There is a reason why they put the engines out into the free stream. This design has the engine inside the boundary layer being accelerated over the top and turned down (how?) into the intake.

Why is this not a problem? (I say it is.)

[seaplaneguy1]

@KonaRurrik

Let me put is another way.

Road tax is $0.45/gallon, $0.02/mile. My airplane runs on NG, gasoline, Diesel, etc. Not stuck on one fuel...Key. At $1.0/gallon NG and 60 mpg 138 sl, 162 10k ft that's $0.0166/mile, or LESS than the road tax.

If you fly...no tax. It is less than driving and only paying the road tax...can you understand what I just said????? Can you open your mind to a NEW reality??? Cheaper to fly than drive, 2-4 times faster... Airlines = trains...bye-bye.

[KonaRurrik]

Im well aware of the math, thank you. If that method of transportation works for those distances, thats excellent. You're still missing the point that, as YOU said before, time = money, and unless your aircraft can sustain 500mph or higher, it has no chance of competing with airliners for flights in excess of 100 miles. Airlines don't do short distances. If you can replace cars with personal aircraft, thats great. They still will never

(more)

[KonaRurrik]

be able to cover medium to long distances as quickly or efficiently as airliners, specifically a blended wing-body. You are picking on BWBs as inefficient, when really they just aren't designed for the same mission profile as your own creation. I would never say a helicopter is good for slope soaring because its not designed for that.

BWB are more efficient than current airliners at THEIR mission. Not yours. Do what you want with personal aircraft, I'd even buy one if it does what you say.

[seaplaneguy1]

@KonaRurrik

Waite a minute...real world please.

2 hrs check in, 1 hr post baggage/rental car pickup, 1/2 booking time, driving time to airport on both ends, schedule factor 1-2 hrs in reality. The last time I flew my average speed door to door was about 125 mph, NOT 500.

NASA PAV program did several studies on this. At 200 mph you can beat an airliner up to 1200 miles which is the average leg for most discount tickets.

Airlines=hurry up (500) and wait...NOT efficient...speed costs.

[seaplaneguy1]

@KonaRurrik

The BWB will prove to be a government waste project. They do not lend themselves to different models by extending the fus tube. Volume trumps, and BWB will always be low volume because it cannot meet a wide range of pass numbers. Total costs is all that count, and BWB will be MUCH more costly.

Last, the engines...do you see serious problems there? I do...Eff.? NO way.

[seaplaneguy1]

@KonaRurrik

I stated 60 mpg for a 4 place. That is over 3 times what an A319 (77 mpg) gets per pass. I am (will be) MORE efficient in time and fuel..

I can travel 1200 miles for $24 in fuel... 2 people baggage fee is $40 vs $24 for fuel. I also get their first...door to door. The airline ticket costs $300-400 per person, or $600-800 for two. Engine reserves might be $100 for about $124... 600/124=4.8 When I get this done, the game changes...

[seaplaneguy1]

@KonaRurrik

Yes...kind of. What if you can get Cl of 4 instead of 2, you need 1/2 the wing... Higher speed at max L/D.

My world is VTOL (less than 100 ft over 35 ft), door to door. 60 mpg with 4 place....240 mpg/pass, compared to 77 mpg A219.

BWB? Maybe <<120 mpg/pass...so what.

Airlines will die when on can get there FASTER and on LESS fuel with two people (120 mpg/pass with two, 60 with one). Nobody wants naked body scans... Time is money.

[seaplaneguy1]

These guys are clueless. I would fire their sorry asses in a minute... They offer no new insight into flight,,,just old ideas that don't work, coupled with unneeded fly by wire... Where do I start? I have done more research than they fools on what will work...what a waste of taxpayer money... It is NOT the future...just a waste...

[619cactusjack]

6 engines, i saw photos of it with 3 engines the advantage that it haves is that all is a wing = all produce lift but it would be slower and if you search in wikipedia bwb put spanish version and you could see more disadvantages than advantages

[xyimlovinit]

How did you ever come up with that reaction.

I think the design is great even not considering that the plane is also physically beautiful

[BlackKingX]

It looks awesome, like it was ripped straight out of a Final Fantasy game.

[Peragrine1]

kind of like your mom?

dont diss this thing. besides, you have no idea what youre saying

[MadMichigander1313]

I don't believe the B787 is more efficient, but it is easier to fabricate, and not as sensitive to weight distribution. Last I knew, there's still ongoing research on the BWB consept. The X-48 does differ from the original McDonnell Douglas consept, where the engines would pull air over the top of the wing improving laminar flow. This might be accomplished with using Unducted Fan Engines such as the GE-36. The what might kill BWB is disinterest by airlines as being too different.

[liftsifter]

To bad Boeing and NASA have stopped testings on the BWB! The 787 has proven to be much more fuel efficient.

[krazyazn1011]

Actually, Bob Liebeck is my professor in Aircraft Design and apparently the BWB was just flown last thursday 4/3/09.

[Fox111one111eleven1]

This plane is not a new idea.

[type2mike]

Then just build it for frak sakes quit talking about it and making CG clips. I want to see one being flight tested.

[marcodieter100]

@type2mike Right, just build a mid-sized one with a tail, not to exotic. I'm surprised that we haven't seen any plane that incorporates a lifting body to any significant degree.

[SkyA340]

More surface area can increase HUGE amount of drag which slows the aircraft and thus more fuel will burn to gain speed.... I am really Confused!!!!

[Fox111one111eleven1]

Then get you some learnin'.

About the simplest way I can explain it is to picture a flying wing. Every inch of surface is there to create lift. Now add a huge fat tube with some stabalizing fins in the back to the same flying wing... You get the picture?

A wing produces lift and lift creates induced drag, it's unavoidable. Any surface that does not produce lift can only increase drag without any benefit to lift. This is where ineffeciency starts.

[humexavier]

Could you put double magnetic roters under helicopter just small enough to change direction. Magnetic roter is for better oppisite magnetic pull offering better spin gyro control.

Are bi-wings coming back.Yes though magnetized on both wings and bottom wing is smaller than top wing for better control and enhanced, at higher distances.

[theworacle]

they think that high lift will allow the aircraft to climb and descend steeply, cutting down the amount of noise the gets outside the airport boundary

[DJ0JJ]

Looks like that this aircraft is gonna have great lift at low speeds.