NEW Boeing X-47 Blended Wing Jet-(Discovery Channel)

[onetrickhorse]

For the benefits of boundary layer ingestion to take place, the traditional gas turbine engines will need to be replaced. Ingesting the boundary layer is all well and good; but along with it, you ingest the rain and hail falling on top of the aircraft as well. Current engine designs would suffer from the effective 'river' of rain/hail, negating many of the benefits. Electric propulsion will need to be developed, and only then will it see the full benefits talked about in this video. BWB FTW tho!

[moistfaucet]

I will not sit close to the wing, can not imagine when the pilot make a turn.

[saultube44]

Fuel efficiency on plains, jet turbines, and there are lot more commercial plains that military ones, military should do it too, but the problem is bigger on the commercial airlines so there should done first.

[saultube44]

MIlitary use? NO, comecial use FIRST damn it, there is where the problem is!

[mike31jmb]

@saultube44 are you serious? Do you know how much fuel a Jet fighter uses or an Abrams tank, or a Humvee?

[saultube44]

@mike31jmb Yes of course I'm serious and that plane is not to be used as a jet fighter but a carrier or bomber. Humvee? Abrams tank? what are you writing about? check the video AGAIN and then write.

[mike31jmb]

@saultube44 I did watch the video and it's about fuel efficiency. Your "Military use" statement led me to believe you really don't know how much fuel military planes/vehicles use and those were my examples.

[TalksWithDirt]

Bring back the Convair 880. I like to burn fuel.

[nealshireman]

no passenger windows :( I love looking out the windows...

[maganreggie6]

Nerd Feeds Below. :-D

[Bravo21]

The new Pratt engines go along way toward increasing fuel efficiency and decreased noise. It would be interesting to see what the combination of the two technologies could produce

[Oldbmwr100rs]

The real issue I see with these giant wing designs is in construction of a safe and durable pressurized cabin. The main reason behind tube and wing designs is that the cylindrical shape doesn't distort unevenly with pressurization cycles. With the use of composite structures being more common, that's going to be the only way the majority of these structures can be made to meet the durability of these designs.In a way, the B-787 is closer to a testbed for the eventual manufacture of new designs.

[whatisfloyd]

@Oldbmwr100rs team members who helped design and test the X-48b came to my school for a seminar about it because im an aerospace engineering student... the structure is not the real issue because any slight weight penalty will be insignificant compared to the increased efficiency of its geometry. in my opinion, the control system would be the greatest challenge since there is no elevator or rudder

[TommiTdi]

The blended wing body......sure as hell is ugly! Give me a 747 or an airbus!

[alfred38uk]

bollocks to global warming

[greydotjaguar]

Fully loaded 747 is more efficient than an empty school bus. Last year, my school bus only had 4 ppl on. I should taken a private plane to school since there is an airport next to my school.

[TommiTdi]

@greydotjaguar Its a bit cheaper to get the bus lol

[greydotjaguar]

@TommiTdi 200% cooler to ride a plane to school!!

[TommiTdi]

@greydotjaguar You'd get beaten up for being posh :) but i do agree with you!

[RichardOhKaNoi]

the Navy is already flying airplanes on Bio fuel now why cant the commercial market use bio fuel

[human0un]

it saves fuel...chaching

but it lands like a piece of shit..

[saultube44]

The plane also need to be supersonic to not have engine sound waves pressuring the air ahead and creating more unnecessary air dragging. SO the sonic boom should be considered in the design to reduce its propagation when it occurs.

[saultube44]

First off, that plane has a "belly" underneath which should be flat to give the curved top more efficiency on lift and at 2:32 you can see the "belly" is much curved the the top so the lift comes only from the wings and we go back to the old "cylinder" plane, and at the back is flat reducing lift totally, don't know how that thing flies. I'm not convinced this is a good plane; the idea is good tho.

[Gin520]

why use it on military...that's stupid..

it's like they are looking for war instead of peace and eco-friendly products for the whole world to use...

[TheEvilApple]

@Gin520 it's far from stupid if this jet is produced by the military first it will be funded very well allowing many factories to be opened and lowering the cost of producing civilian models later on. its very smart for a company to seek government contracts as they pay extremely well. also think of how much tech we have today that was once military tech how many people use GPS today?

[Gin520]

@TheEvilApple my point is, instead of aiming to develop all these technology to be first used in military, they should aim for the civilians first. Look at this new design wing for example, they are hoping to be use it in military first. Think about it, more eco-friendly design, not using it economically, but for military, where they don't use as much as civilians. we have norma planes flying every where more than military ones...

[Darthbelal]

@Gin520 the military pushes the pace of technological advancement far faster than what the civilian market will. Planes got a 20 yr leap in advancement during WWI, jet engines and swept wings were proven during WWII, GPS, the internet, radar, sonar and a host of other projects got a huge boost from military usage first. IF a given concept WORKS better, the military will grab it and refine it. The civies will then reap the benefits.

[MyFoodsRtouching]

Why Vincent Burnelli planes should've been built when he designed these in the fuggin' early 50's.

You can thank FDR for most commercial airline deaths, too. He blacklisted Burnelli because Burnelli had a Republican funder.

[High9231]

One question about intakes position: wouldn't it take turbulent layer into the motor?

[Dorisequador]

Cheez can you guy's make a new plane that is comfortable and fly's 5 x faster than a airbus 380 for vacationers. I mean come on guy's how many years we are gonna fly in the same shitty planes..

[TheIrishgamer101]

@Dorisequador you sir are wrong using converted nuclear power plants we turn carbon dioxide into gas, jet-a, and oil. It was in popular science magazine LOOK IT UP.

[xXAnifinityXx]

lol @ 4:45 there wont be nearly enough fossil fuels by the time we get to the year 2050 to fuel that amount of consumption

[Brad1711]

I want to know what they're going to do about engine intake air at high alpha.

[Brad1711]

I want to know what they're going to do about keeping laminar flow to the engines at high alpha.

[gwissel1]

The reference to "Global Warming" at the beginning of this vid is BS!! Get over it!! Go cry to Al Gorebalbullshi@t!!

[pr4wn5tar]

geezus, his opening line is absolute bollocks. Yes they polluet, but less than ANY other transport !

minus bicycles. and walking.

[Brad1711]

@pr4wn5tar And trains. ;)

[bujoun76]

Beautiful.

[brightchin]

but there is less fuel in the world

[MrTimothytim]

yeaaaaa Fokker a old Dutch company whos gonna restart will use 7 itmes less fuel then the curent boeing

[pjami1]

Wow for a professor Ann Dowling has no idea what she is talking about. The tube in a tube and wing aircraft actually adds more like 15-25% of lift to the aircraft and besides lift has never been the issue, aircraft have plenty of that its thrust that is the issue. we need people to design a newer type of engine. We have been evolving oil fuelled engines for over a century now i think its time to move on... piston and turbine engines should become history....

[EpiDemic117]

@pjami1 sorry but the turbine engine is here to STAY. There really hasn't been anything more reliable than it so far. That's why they are still here and that is why they will be around for a long while.

[pjami1]

@EpiDemic117 i wouldn't be so sure about that but you could be right. Only time will tell us what the future holds for commercial airliners.

[EpiDemic117]

@pjami1 Think about it. What type of engine can be developed that has few moving parts, sucks in air with it's fan blades, and is as reliable. There is the option of the scram jet which has NO moving parts. But it's unlikely that it would EVER be economical. The modern turbo fan engine bypasses more air through the fans than it does in the combustion chamber. Some of them go like 15 to 1. so in terms of pollution there really isn't that much.

[wqwwqwqqpoppopoo]

jets are more efficient than cars. yes they burn more fuel, but they are moving a heck of a lot more people than your little car, and they are going a zillion times faster...

[grekos1940]

@wqwwqwqqpoppopoo but we need to build more airports so that we can land where we want...

[Helge129]

@grekos1940 You can build STOL/STOVL planes, which would make airports much more space-efficient.

[iToasterman]

@grekos1940 No. We need less.Less planes. they are damaging. D:<

[TommiTdi]

@iToasterman Its the future.....7 billion people on this earth all would like to go to exotic places...now unless we engineer roads and tunnels every where the flying is to only option....because going by ship is far to slow and burns even more fuel!

[iToasterman]

@TommiTdi Planes burn more fuel >:C its called trains, or... GIANT SLINGSHOTS / CATAPOLTS! (they exist) or better yet, as technology advances, we can teleport :3

[TommiTdi]

@iToasterman Actually....Airplanes are way more efficent that the average family car.

average car is about 45 mgp...some more...many do less. and they often only have one maybe 2 persons in the car....some more.

On average worked out per person. an modern aircraft with modern engines....would equal to about 70 - 75 mpg per person.

Technology would suggest that they will get only more efficient, and with development of bio fuels, will have even less impact on the environment.

[iToasterman]

@TommiTdi No one said cars. and efficiency dosent help the fact the polution is closer to the ozone...

[TommiTdi]

@iToasterman Trains are just as bad or boats.....so whats YOUR solution.

We should all sit at home and do nothing but work and sleep all our lives?!

I like to see the world, I'm very aware of impact on enviroment and I back companies with cash that are making investments in to developments to make everything cleaner.

[iToasterman]

@TommiTdi boats dont need to polute, its called a ore. also we can use human slingshots, just saying...

[TommiTdi]

@iToasterman Ore.....And i suppose that isant mined buy huge machines burning gallons of fuel!

idiot!

[iToasterman]

@TommiTdi Your the idiot. A ore aka padel. Not mined by huge machines. you clearly have no idea what your talking about.

[TommiTdi]

@iToasterman I have only heard of one type of ore....so how is this "ore" you describe gotten?

[iToasterman]

@TommiTdi what. and i believe i spelt it wrong, oar?

[prohelipilot1]

@TommiTdi I did my own calculations on this based on A380 fuel burn and range and passengers and came up with the same numbers ( 72 MPG/person ) as far as MPG per person was concerned

[TommiTdi]

@prohelipilot1 Thank you....I don't know why people always fuss about these kind of issiues....the same people who proberly own a 4x4 and live in London no doubt!

I'm all for advances in fuel consumption and fuel effiencey and such.

Every one should be behind projects which support Bio fuel....not wind power!

[prohelipilot1]

@TommiTdi Yes it is true people compare range to fuel burn when they should compare tons moved to fuel burn rate

[TommiTdi]

@grekos1940 We dont actually need to build many airports...not here in the uk.

[Arachnikadia]

@grekos1940 or just make VTOL flying cars that land anywhere, and you get rid of airports all together.

[LTF85199]

@wqwwqwqqpoppopoo Technically you are mistaken..  learn the facts..

[scavenom2008]

@wqwwqwqqpoppopoo and....... and you can have sex in the lavatory.....with.....with a hot looking flight attendant ....mmmm you can do that with your car can you ...?

[KOKOCrunchist]

@wqwwqwqqpoppopoo

and longer range



[redbeast2]

@wqwwqwqqpoppopoo Wikipedia has an article on fuel efficiency in transportation, you should read it, it's very interesting. Air travel is less efficient per person per mile than automobiles.

[BrooklynNYC777]

very nice..

[Helicopterpilot16]

Scilent Aircraft! What bull. I'd rather listen to a tu-134 takeoff rather than a GEnx powered 787! Grrr

[grekos1940]

@Helicopterpilot16 i watched your videos!!..GREAT!..you are a US pilot??

[Helicopterpilot16]

@grekos1940 Thanks!!~ Working on my glider pilot rating.

You?

[grekos1940]

@Helicopterpilot16 i am a greek marines soldier...

[n1kthegreek]

@grekos1940 greek huh? im greek also. i live in the USA

[grekos1940]

@n1kthegreek haha...greetings bro...we never forget you there...in which city do you live>?

[n1kthegreek]

@grekos1940 chicago Illinois