NASA blended wing-body aircraft concept

NASA video animation of a quiet, efficient blended wing-body airliner concept. From a 2007 video produced by MASA's Fundamental Aeronautics programme.

Category:

Autos & Vehicles

Tags:

• NASA
• aircraft
• BWB
• X-48

[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

[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.

[Foxx1981]

God this is one ugly aircraft...

[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.)

[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

[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]

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.

[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...

[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

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

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.