Boeing Blended Wing Body Aircraft 513
pcolley writes "I love it when Science Fiction becomes reality. Boeing is nearly finished designing their super efficient Blended Wing Body (BWB) airplane. It looks like the BatJet." Boeing is considering both civilian and military roles.
what exactly is the revolution here? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:what exactly is the revolution here? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:what exactly is the revolution here? (Score:5, Informative)
Calling this airplane a "delta-wing" is a misnomer. The Saab Gripen fighter and the Concorde are delta-wing aircraft, the BWB is not. The blended wing body is best described as *suprise* a "Blended-Wing Body." It is not just a flying wing, and is not a delta wing.
The "revolution" is in the application of this technology to a practical and profitable passenger aircraft. The idea that blended wing aircraft have not caught on with the airlines or the public is ridiculous. The airlines are in fact eager to purchase airplanes that are more profitable, and the public is eager to save money.
Re:what exactly is the revolution here? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:what exactly is the revolution here? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:what exactly is the revolution here? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:what exactly is the revolution here? (Score:2)
Re:what exactly is the revolution here? (Score:2)
That's nothing new...the F-117 wouldn't get off the ground without its computers.
Re:what exactly is the revolution here? (Score:3, Interesting)
Stability (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Stability (Score:2)
FWIW, the X-29 is a highly manoeuverable experimental aircraft. One of the reasons it's so agile is that it's instable - so much so that it requires a computer to fly it; people aren't capable of controlling it. Same goes for the F-117 (nickname: the wobbly goblin). Stability is an old problem; computers are usually pretty good at that type problem.
Re:Stability (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, most modern fighter aircraft are designed to be inherently unstable, it makes them much more maneuverable.
However, the F-18 is controllable without its flight computer (as is the F-15E). They learned their lesson with the F-16, which was nicknamed the Electric Jet, because of its sophisticated flight control systems. Without electrical power, the F-16 is not capable of human control or even sustained flight: the pilot has about 2 seconds to eject or get the Emergency Power Unit started. Its EPU is actually a hydrazine powered rocket engine in the wing root, very nasty stuff. So the next fly-by-wire aircraft designs factored this into their designs.
Re:Stability (Score:3, Interesting)
I suspect that the recent advent of "fly-by-wire" that Airbus first used has finally made this configuration "flyable".
Ok, so now they can build it, but passenger issues also have to be solved for it to be accepted. Personally, I think most folks would gladly trade the window view for more washrooms (which the new configuration might have room for).
If any of you have been on a 747-400 series, there is a LCD screen in the back of each seat. This allows each passenger to watch from movies/music/telemetry (my favourite). This could also be used to provide a "ground" view for those that have to have a window. Additionally, I suspect windows cost a lot of $ and weight. Look at cargo planes and you'll never see them (except for the pilots [well duh!]).
2010 eh? Well, I'll be happy to give it a try.
LCD screen with ground view (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:LCD screen with ground view (Score:3, Informative)
If you fly in business/first class it's always available on one of the channels.
Frankly this is much better than having a window since most of the time all you're looking at are white clouds or water.
What, you don't trust computers? (Score:2)
Fly-by-wire is already present in new passenger aircraft and has been used to control inherently unstable airframes in military aircraft for over a decade.
Actually... (Score:4, Informative)
Performance pretty much sucked, so they switched the powerplants to eight turbojets (this was the YB-49) which solved the performance issues. Around 1949, Northrop started to think about a civil version, supposed to hold 80 passengers, IIRC, with one big window in the front, the flight deck above.
A combination of (some say) conspiracy, political pressures, strategic considerations, and cost killed the program. Much of the research went into the early development of the B-2 (also by Northrop, almost 50 years later).
At any rate, none of these machines were computer controlled. Not saying that's how it will be on Boeing's machine (probably will be--the 777 is fly-by-wire, as are all the Airbuses), but it's not strictly required for a flying wing.
--Ribald
Re:_Directional_ Stability (Score:3, Informative)
For more information on flying wing stability, here [danford.net] is a talk by Jack Northrop to the the Royal Aeronautical Society.
Jack provides a very thorough discussion of lateral stability (your "hunting" problem) in the latter parts of his talk, where he describes a simple method to solve this, without computers:
For you non-aeronautical engineers, "deadbeat damping" means "rock-solid stable". The "rudders" he talks about are split flaps at the wing-tips, same as those used on the B-2.
The real problem with a BWB as I see it is the wingspan and the position of the passenger doors -- how the heck is that thing going to fit [aerosite.net] into most terminals? The link shows a planform comparison of the BWB with a 747-400; the 747-400 wingspan is much smaller, 212 feet compared to the BWB at 289 feet. Regular 747 wingspan is 195 feet.
This is a fundemental problem -- if an airline can't fit the thing into its hub-airport terminals, they're just not going to buy it, no matter what its other benefits.
This is a McDonnel Douglas design. (Score:3, Informative)
Hooray for industry.
Re:This is a McDonnel Douglas design. (Score:2, Informative)
"".. configuration called the BWB was conceived by the McDonnell Douglas Corporation." [nasa.gov]
Re:This is a McDonnel(l) Douglas design. (Score:2, Informative)
And Boeing merged with McDonnell Douglas, and it was a merger in name only
Re:This is a McDonnel(l) Douglas design. (Score:2)
Don't forget that several companies were competing to make a plane that was basically one big wing. That was considered the 'holy grail' of aviation. I saw a couple of old old films of failed attempts at designs that looked a little like a boomerang.
The confusion of who invented what doesn't surprise me. I'm confused about it myself because of all the different models that were tried. Heh.
You have it backwards. (Score:2)
Re:This is a McDonnel(l) Douglas design. (Score:2)
Additionally alot of long-standing Boeing policies got replaced by MD style policies. To this day he's hates travelling for them as he has to expense his stuff and pay any credit interest rather than the way Boeing used to give a daily allowance. I'm stuck expensing my stuff and I can attest to how much I hate having to file expense reports that can take weeks or months to be fully reimbursed.
meanwhile, in the real world (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:meanwhile, in the real world (Score:3, Insightful)
Top down (Score:3, Funny)
"We've dropped off the passengers in France, now to drop off our 'packages' in northern Afganistan."
Cool renderings, background info. (Score:2, Funny)
OK, "Redundant" I can accept... (Score:3, Funny)
Neither! (Score:2)
Crash safety (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Crash safety (Score:2, Interesting)
For an extra layer of safety, these planes won't actually fly to their destinations. Instead, they'll make use of the nation's vast network of interstate highways to drive from place to place. That should cut down on emissions as well.
In all seriousness, what's wrong with plane safety these days? It's better than car/bus/motorcycle/etc safety, which is pretty cool considering these things travel at 500-600mph 6 miles in the air. Do you want individual parachutes, or maybe a stork to follow the plane and pick up the people who fall out?
I have an idea, let's not build anything ever again just in case someone decides to break it.
Re:Crash safety (Score:2)
As other posters have noted, quite a few things about the Blended Wing design make it inherently more safe than cigar-body aircraft. I would like to see a lot more of this design mentality go on. Just look at what it did for the auto industry. A few years ago, I was in a crash that totally destroyed my car. Because of the way my car was designed and because of the seatbelt I was wearing, I walked away from a crash that should have killed me.
If people can start saying that about plane accidents, it will be a wonderful day.
Re:Crash safety (Score:3, Interesting)
Car accidents are far more survivable than your average an airplane disaster because they by and large happen on the ground and at much lower speeds. Cars have all kinds of nifty restraints, crumple zones, and airbags. They're great, and they've saved thousands of lives. Still, if you whack a bridge support at 70 MPH, you're probably toast.
Now, look at an airplane. 70 MPH is about the slowest you're going to be going during your journey - You're clipping along pretty good when you take off and land. Not to mention you're probably at least a couple of hundred feet in the air. If the pilot loses control of that craft, you're going to be in trouble when you hit the ground. Even if the plane is still intact, unless the passengers are wearing helmets and full safety restraints you're probably going to have a cabin full of nasty bits. Not to mention the extreme difficulty of creating a craft that can survive such a crash with current materials - anything capable of surviving intact through a 200 mph crash into mother earth is probably too heavy to fly. And thats best case, assuming its not at cruising altitude.
Instead aircraft designers have chosen to devote resources to a more attainable - making sure the plane doesn't crash in the first place. And they've done very well. Plane crashes are very rare, given the number of flights each day around the world. It's the safest way there is to travel.
Re:Crash safety (Score:2)
Pictures! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Pictures! (Score:4, Funny)
Your original search: boing bwb returned zero results.
The alternate spelling: boeing bwb returned the results below.
Re:Pictures! (Score:2, Funny)
Isn't that what he meant when he said "google to the rescue"? ;)
MJC
Re:Pictures! (Score:4, Funny)
Who would fly on it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Who would fly on it? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Who would fly on it? (Score:2)
The engineers would (Score:5, Funny)
Boeing has a solid method of both ensuring an plane's good design and ensuring the public that their plane is airworthy.
The send the design engineers out with pretty much all the first flights. As a budding mechanical engineer, that's damn good motivation for me to make sure my plane is designed well.
Re:Who would fly on it? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Who would fly on it? (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, I just about to ask who would care about the fact that there are no window seats. Personally, I like window seats and ask for them every time, but I don't see this as a critical need particularly if this would cut the cost of airline travel.
Is there anyone out there who WOULDN'T fly on it just because it doesn't have windows? I guess you would, but...
As far as who would fly in "radically new, untested airframes", every airliner starts out as a new, untested airframe. I don't see the new Boeing 777 dropping out the sky.
Re:Who would fly on it? (Score:2)
So does that mean you don't fly at night? What about when you're above the clouds? It's not like there's much to see.
Not suffering from any phobias, I guess it's hard for me to understand. Why would "sitting in a box" be any different from sitting in a lecture hall or a movie theature or any other enclosed space? Just the amount of time?
Well, one thing is probably better. It sounds like the cabin will be a lot larger, so it will be less "closed in". I wouldn't be surprised if they had a view port where people can get up and go look out every so often.
Quote from 1903: Who would fly on it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Fewer than 50% get window seats anyway. (Score:2)
In fact, many flyers deliberately choose aisle seats so they have a little more room.
More like "Who would buy it?" (Score:2)
Re:Who would fly on it? (Score:4, Informative)
A1. Anyone looking to pay 25-50% less to fly.
A2. You won't have much choice, the economics will have airlines snapping them up for certain routes.
(At least if the design can achieve the efficiencies and cost reductions they're talking about - plus whatever improvements are made between now and actual construction.)
Of course, for cheap, point-to-point travel, I'm still waiting for my $837,500 Eclipse Jet! [wired.com]
Re:Who would fly on it? (Score:3, Funny)
How about a glass-bottom design, then?
Re:Who would fly on it? (Score:3, Interesting)
And the passengers on the leading edge will have a FANTASTIC view.
And what the hell are you talking about, untested? You think Boeing's just going to start selling seats on the prototype? Just because an airplane looks conventional doesn't mean it's safe. Look at the delamination issues Airbus is facing with their composite empennages.
Sure, some people are going to be "scared" of the new design, but I bet many more people are going to be interested in the new layout.
FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
We at Boeing have the solution you are waiting for. Yes, our 747 is outdated and someone else is making a better product. We don't have an alternative to show but if you hold off buying your new big planes just another few years we'll supply you with a cheaper, better and more efficient product.
Now, why exactly does this all sound so terribly familiar to most of us?
As contrasted with Airbus 5 years ago.... (Score:2)
Or any other announcement about future products from any other manufacturer.
Been out in the real world lately? Newly fallen off the turnip truck?
Re:FUD (Score:2)
Re:FUD (Score:2)
they were comparing to Airbus 380s with 480 CRT screens behind every seat.
Re:FUD (Score:2)
With commercial airliners, this means that the manufacturer has to make its case to potential customers before moving on to more intensive design.
Every manufacturer does this. They have to. Developing a new airplane is too damn expensive not to do this. Bringing a plane to market, only to discover no one wants it would break the company.
Aircraft windows? (Score:2)
Let's hope someone gets a clue and makes the entrance to the cockpit come from the outside of the craft.
Re:Aircraft windows? (Score:2)
Re:Aircraft windows? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Aircraft windows? (Score:3, Interesting)
That's one of my gripes with modern airliners - they have such teeny, hard-to-see-through windows. My guess is that they make them that small so the airframe can withstand the streeses of pressurization.
The DeHavilland Comet, one of the first jet airliners, was originally built with large square windows. About a year after they went into service, Comets started falling out of the sky because of metal fatigue from pressurization. Since then, airliners have been designed with those tiny round windows we've all come to hate.
It would be really nice if the BWB was built with big panoramic front windows, so anyone could stick their heads into the aisle and get a decent view. But I don't know if they can do that without comprimising the structure.
Avro Vulcan (Score:2, Interesting)
-Fzz
Hmm (Score:2)
Does that mean it uses a Referential Universal Differential Indexer for navigation?
(ref [cybercomm.nl])
trouble finding airports big enough (Score:2)
we will see... the US has ran out of room to build more airports (or we don't wanna or something) near metropolitan areas -- so there are virtually no new airports built that will accomodate these massive things.
Follow the trend... (Score:2, Funny)
If this trend continues, someday everyone will be riding on a craft that no-one is flying, that uses no fuel and is too big to land anywhere.
Oh, wait...
corrections and addentums (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Airbus 380 has wingspan of 79.8m -- and many airports (the stat was ~20% last i heard) cannot accomodate its size. by comparison, Boeing 747 has a wingspan of 64.4m
2) This proposed design has wingspan of over 88 (88.1?) meters. so if airbus 380 does not fit into some of today's airports, this will be having lots of troubles
3) the rate of new airports being built in the US is diminishing to a handful per year. Most metropolitan areas are surrounded by suburbs and new airports to accomodate new (bigger) planes is out of the question. this leaves us with a serious dilemma: our current airports do not fit these things, and there arn't any new airports here to take their place.
4) before anybody asks -- yes airports can be re-fitted. Chicago-midway, for example, is currently undergoing something like that. but even AFTER refitting, A380 will *still* not fit in ~5% of the airports. (something to do with runway length, gate width, etc etc that makes it economically or logistically impractical to refit) so i do not expect refit to be all that powerful a solution to our new one-wing design.
so... like the concord -- this might come off to be one of the vanity flights offered at only a few airports (for a different reason, of course) -- but it *would* make an excellent alternative if it could land on, say, water. so instead of cruise ships, we can ride THESE all day -- and maybe the top observation deck can be made with a glass ceiling dining room, etc etc. the possibilities are great for these planes -- but i just don't see it in people-carrying NY-Tokyo flights.
Re:corrections and addentums (Score:2)
I'm Calling Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
I'm inclined to act on behalf of Jack Northrop, who was flying blended wing bodies in the 40's. I'm calling BULLSHIT! The N-1M is still a popular flying wing aircraft with private pilots today. The N-9M is equally popular with model aircraft enthusiasts (I personally spent two years of my youth finding a rare Tamiya kit of one of these). Then theres the B-35 which just barely missed WWII, but was featured in the original Orsen Wells "War of the Worlds" movie. Then there was the YB-49, a jet powered blended wing bomber. And lets not forget the MX324, Americas first rocket powered military aircraft (the designation "MX" is for "Missile, Experimental", which probably didn't comfort the pilot too much). Of course, the Nazi's had everyone beat with their ME-262 Komet - a rocket powered blended wing fighter-interceptor.
Boeing can no more claim this is "revolutionary" than I can claim that my G3 PowerPC powered linux server at work is revolutionary.
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/fta/fta198.htm" [af.mil]
Re:I'm Calling Bullshit (Score:2)
I think it's a matter of how you interpret it, but that's what I got out of it personally. I think it's kind of like Apple claiming the G4 Cube was revolutionary. *shrug*
P.S. I appreciate your post, I learned more some stuff.
Re:Soo.... (Score:2)
You'll haveta stuff it in a plastic kleenex box first...
I, Sir, am calling out you as well! (Score:2, Informative)
The Germans had many revolutionary aircraft, but you have attributed at least three wrongly.
The Me 262 "Schwalbe" was a duel-jet engined fighter-bomber.
The Me 163 "Komet" was a (somewhat) blended-wing rocket interceptor.
The "true" blended-wing aircraft used by the Germans were built by the Horten and Gotha companies. One of which, the Go 229, was actually test flown before surrender to the allies.
A large number of aircraft designs from many German firms in development at the end of the war showed a fascination with the blended-wing design. Even Messerschmitt, who continued building Bf (later Me) 109s right up until the end, was working on aircraft such as the Me 329, a 'zerstoerer' (heavy fighter) of blended-wing-body design.
In fact, we should all be crediting the brothers Reimar and Walter Horten, who began experimenting with flying-wing gliders in 1931. It was their Ho IX which was put into small-scale production as the Go 229.
Boing BWB site (Score:2, Informative)
Boeing vs. Airbus (Score:2, Interesting)
Traditional "bus" like airplanes cost a lot for fuel, maintenance, etc. Also, many of those planes aren't easily modified to support the new TVs, internet, etc that the newer Beoing and Airbus planes have. With this plane, it has all of the gadget, gizmo's AND it saves the airlines money.
Sure, not seeing out the window may not be a big deal to some, but saving money for the airlines is what they want. This plane will be rolled out and if it fails, it's gonna hurt Boeing a lot for the commercial side (its doubtful, but possible).
Last, but not least, the stability issue isn't going to be a problem for this wing craft. With all of the computer involved, GPS and fly by wire, its about as advanced as the military grade fighters and bombers, just without the stealth and weapons.
Re:Boeing vs. Airbus (Score:2)
What exactlly are the cost benefits? (Score:3, Insightful)
So how exactly does this benefit the consumer? How much do airlines currently spend on fuel? How much does one flight cost other than the fuel?
I suppose if fuel costs would be 1/3 less per person and the number of flights required per day would be cut in half, the savings per passenger would be somewhere in the 33% to 50% range, but how much of that are we likely to see?
The plane would weigh 19 percent less, suggesting that it would cost less to build. And it would need 19 percent less thrust, saving on engine manufacturing and maintenance costs.
Okay, now _that_ is cost analysis for you! By that reasoning a gun should cost less to build than a club because it weighs less. That example is a little oversimplified, but if the BWB was really similar enough to the tube and wing design to justify that kind of ballpark estimate then they wouldn't have needed to spend as much time researching as they have (and will continue to spend) to solve the engineering dificulties presented by the new design. And Boeing is going to have to factor in the costs of the long research period once they actually start producing it.
Last i checked the airlines weren't in great finacial shape, and once these things start rolling out of the factories they may have to start taking out large loans to update their fleets. And of course they're unlikely to drop the price on tickets by a huge amount for as long as they have those loans to pay off.
That means that the smaller airlines that can't aford the new jets will continue to be feasible for awhile, until five or ten years later when the big airlines finish paying off the loans, and at _that_ point we may see some big price drops. Of course by that point it may be too late for the smaller companies to switch over, and i'm not sure what they'll have to do to stay competitive.
This isn't to say that the idea isn't really cool and would make good economic sense for the long term, but the idea that a medium increase in efficiency will "slash the cost of air transport" all by itself is a naive view of economics. (I won't pretend my view is perfect, but i'm trying to be a _little_ more realistic)
As for the windows issue, it would be cool if they could replace the walls and ceiling with polarizeable high impact plastic of some kind. Make the entire thing into a skylight! It wouldn't give you much view of the ground unless you were near one of the edges, but it would still help everyone feel less cramped i think.
Re:What exactlly are the cost benefits? (Score:2)
Re:What exactlly are the cost benefits? (Score:2)
They're already buying the planes anyway. Most airlines are continuously renewing their fleets at the tune of a couple of planes a year, either replacing old or unsafe planes (like the 747), or getting new planes as routes are added and removed.
You think laying out large amounts of cash for new fleets will somehow aleviate this problem?
Its not like they're going to replace their entire 747 / 767 / 777 fleet overnight - it takes time. The 777 has be available now for 5 years, and most of the US carriers have only 3 or 4 of them. It takes time to phase in new aircraft.
Either the airlines are going to factor the cost of buying the planes into the operating costs over the next X years
The money is already budgeted. Wouldn't you want them to buy the cheapest and most efficient aircraft they can?
And finally, how are they going to account for the price differences between flying the new planes and flying the old planes? Charging less for people to fly in the cool new planes would lead to all kinds of advertising and accounting problems.
The money that you pay for a flight doesn't nessesarly pay for that particular flight - the carrier handles it charges in a more general way (ie, per airport).. Its not important how much money they make per flight, but rather how much money they make over a given period of time. More effecient aircraft = less money / passenger = lower ticket prices.
and what type of plane you end up with will be luck of the draw.
Virtually all routes have a dedicated aircraft type.
Re:What exactlly are the cost benefits? (Score:2)
Re:What exactlly are the cost benefits? (Score:2)
I suppose if fuel costs would be 1/3 less per person and the number of flights required per day would be cut in half, the savings per passenger would be somewhere in the 33% to 50% range, but how much of that are we likely to see?"
Well, considering that the airline industry is an economic mess, and pretty much always has been, anything that can bring costs down has to help get things back in order.
The benifits for the consumer. Well, being able to fly. The potential for some competition on all routes, so we don't end up with a solution to the airlines woes that takes the form of a few airlines who stifle competition in order to force prices up to a profitable level.
As for the rest of it. You seem to be assuming that you know more about the building airplanes, and the economics of the airline and aircraft industries than say, boeing, or an aviation reporter. I bet you don't.
Great for cargo. (Score:3, Insightful)
Wonder why they picked NorthWest's colors for their graphic?
EnkiduEOT
great, just what we need (Score:2)
If we need that kind of volume in airplanes, then passenger miles have come to the point where high speed trains make sense: on most routes, they are more economical, more comfortable, and more environmentally friendly.
Missing the point (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not an SUV, it's a freighter for the skys.
Time to rebuild the airports (Score:4, Insightful)
This thing has a projected wingspan of 289ft (88.1m), which means that at airports where it can't "accidentally" fit, special gates will have to be built for it. (Then again, it'll probably have such a weird arrangement of doors, that you'll need multiple oddly-arranged jetways anyway.)
Re:Time to rebuild the airports (Score:2)
Check this out! BWB jet fighters in WWII! (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.hotel.wineasy.se/ipms/stuff_eng_deta
Another site of amazing flying machines.
http://visi.net/~djohnson/luftart.html
In today's market, this is a step back (Score:4, Interesting)
These days many airlines are having trouble filling their 400 or 200-passenger jets. If they're only able to book a maximum of 200-400 passengers on these planes, the airlines are going to end up paying even more for fuel per passenger than they are now.
There went that idea. Next?
An answer to the naysayers--or, why BWB is good (Score:5, Informative)
Prior to now the BWB was not an option for several reasons, perhaps the greatest being the design of a pressure vessel (remember airliners are pressurized). Typical tube and wing style airliners solve the problem of the pressure vessel by taking pressure load in hoop tension. While this is, from a structural perspective, the preferred way to carry the pressure load, it is not feasible to do so in a BWB aircraft, as the vessel is shaped more like a pancake. This brings is to our first point, modern composites permit a pancaked pressure vessel that will tolerate the load at an acceptable weight. The materials available prior to now (aluminum) were simply not workable in the design of such a pressure vessel without an enormous weight cost-thus vitiating the efficiency increase of the design and sending costs prohibitively high.
In addition to the materials issues, another factor that made Blended Wing aircraft heretofore infeasible was the fly-by-wire systems needed to solve the stability issues associated with the design. Although Northrop's early flying wings flew without benefit of computers, they did exhibit some nasty characteristics and were very sensitive to center of gravity changes, issues that aren't acceptable in a commercial airliner.
That said, the fly-by-wire systems of today eliminate the stability issues that plagued early designs. For those of you who believe computer controlled and stabilized aircraft are not feasible for service in commercial applications due to safety considerations, look no further than the Airbus A-320 & A-319. Both of these aircraft use full authority fly-by-wire. All control actuators are electro-hydraulic, when the aircraft is in autopilot, the stick does not move when control inputs are made by the autopilot, and the throttles sit fixed in a "cruise" detent-regardless of actual throttle position as seen from the perspective of the engine's fuel distribution unit. Further, the aircraft has full trim authority, constantly trimming to 0 G, with no provision for pilot override. What all of this adds up to is that there is no physical link between the pilot and the control surfaces of the aircraft. When the pilot makes an input, the computer decides if, and how much, a given surface will deflect. Complex as it sounds, it works, and works well, and given the degree of redundancy required of flight-critical systems (10^-9 I believe) for certification, the likelihood of full failure is less than today's direct-hydraulic systems
With these problems solved, the design makes infinitely more sense than the tube and wing designs of old. It is much more fuel efficient, and given the overwing engine mounting, much quieter, as aircraft with engines slung under the wings reflect noise off the wings and back at the ground, whereas overwing mounted engines reflect the noise up. Overwing mounted engines are also less susceptible to ingesting debris, and bird strike on rotation.
In short, the BWB is a better way to design an airplane, and this note only scratches the surface as to the reasons why. We haven't seen them before because they weren't feasible before, but now that they are, let's hope Boeing pulls up their socks and builds one
Picture of what it might look like... (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/megajet.htm
OK, but what about engines? (Score:3, Insightful)
Although I agree that aerodynamics are prevalent in aeronautics, there's MUCH room for improvements in engines as well. I don't buy the claim of 30+% less energy consumption with only a new design. I bet the engines they intend to use are part of these 30+% as well.
Just look at cars... In less than 5 years, at least in Europe, gas engines have seen their consumption reduced by more than 40% at equivalent power, with close to no progress at all in aerodynamics. Progress has been even more spectacular with fuel engines. Worse, the friction car engines have to face is higher than in the past (higher total weight, larger width of tires, and recently greater height of cars - see the new Honda Civic). Nowadays, all of these improvements are barely applied to aeronautics. They would help at least on non jet thrust powered airplanes, and that means the vast majority of planes out there. But I'm confident that at least part of these improvements (stratified load for example) could be applied to jet-thrust engines as well.
As a side note, sound is energy as well... The noise generated by aircraft engines is awfully high, especially with jet thrust engines, but the vast majority of this noise is due to frictions in the engine itself... Instead of adding isolating material into the plane (which brings in more weight, hence more energy to move that weight), a better way to solve the problem is just to reduce the friction into the engine itself...
Re:OK, but what about engines? (Score:3, Informative)
Remember, when the Boeing 777 was being designed Pratt & Whitney, General Electric and Rolls-Royce all designed a new generation of high-bypass jet engines with huge front fans (about the width of a 737 fuselage). The BWB will likely incorporate a variant of these new engines (using three of them), and engine nacelles will use new designs to drastically lower noise levels. In short, the BWB could actually be much quieter than today's widebody jets.
Re:OK, but what about engines? (Score:4, Insightful)
Speaking as a former jet mechanic in the Air Force (NH Air Guard) on KC-135A and E models, I have to assume you haven't read a thing about jet engine development in the past 20 years.
Todays engines are extremely powerful, quiet, and fuel efficient. The GE engines on a 777 are AMAZING!
I don't understand what you mean about all this "friction". Even jet engines designed in the early 50's (The J57's on the KC-135A) didn't have a hell of alot of "friction". Oh, they burned fuel like crazy and were extremely noisy, but friction wasn't the cause of inefficency and noise. It was the design of the blades and airflow thru the engine that caused noise and affected efficiency. I've been *under* a J57 at idle and I can attest to their noise! (I was adjusting the fuel control)
The engines on the 777 put out about 100,000lbs of thrust EACH. I'll assume the BWB will have engines that put out AT LEAST that much, while running on less fuel and running quieter than anything else in the air.
Batjet? (Score:3, Funny)
I like this part... (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah. Real obvious. except that it would be DUMB. That'll tack on quite a few dollars to your ticket, as well as take up too much room.
What they really need to do is give the whole plane a glass bottom. Then every seat is a window seat...when you look down.
Oh, the irony.... (Score:5, Informative)
Boeing, fielding a flying-wing-type design?? Sheesh... Boeing is the reason these sorts of planes weren't commonplace 50 years ago!!
Listen, children, to today's aerospace history lesson....
Waaaay back in the late 1940's, Boeing was the darling of the newly formed US Air Force, on the strength of their sturdy, functional WWII bomber designs (B-17, B-29).
However, they were not the only manufacturer capable of designing high-capacity long-distance aircraft.
One of the sucesses of the WWI aircraft industry was a startup called Northrop Aircraft. Led by the brilliant and iconoclastic designer John Northrop, they had started with nothing but ideas, but by the end of the war had already provided one remarkable aircraft to the war effort, the US' first dedicated radar-equipped night fighter, the P61 Black Widow, which decimated Japanese airpower in the latter stages of the war.
John Northrop was well versed in our enemies' aircraft design efforts. He was particularlry intrigued by the work of Germany's Horten brothers, who did pioneering work on "flying wing" aircraft. Much like Boeing's "blended body/wing" designs, there was no separate fuselage; the entire aircraft contributed to lift, and hence were astonistingly efficient.
(Aside: the Hortens also experimented with the use of evading technologies. Their early wings were built of plywood, but their shape, with no corners, no edges, no right-angle "reflector" areas between tail fins or between fuselage and wing, made them unusually hard to detect on the primitive radars of their day. The Hortens added conductive layers of charcoal to the plywood layup, reducing the already low signature dramatically, creating the world's first "stealth" aircraft.)
In 1940, after the defeat at Dunkirk, the US Army Air Corps was convinced that Britain would soon be overrrun by Germany, and realized that it had no way to strike at European targets from North America. They were desperate to develop a bomber that could reach the Germans if England fell. So they put out an open competition for a transcontinental bomber.
Boeing had already designed a pressurized, high-altitude bomber, the B-29, which later in the war would help decimate Japan, both with conventional ordnance as well as the the first atomic bombs. They offered up an improved version of the B-29 to the competition. (yawn)
Another established airframer, Consolidated Vultee Aircraft (later Convair), borrowed heavily from Boeing's B-29, but proposed a much larger, eight(!)-engine monstrosity, the YB-36, IMHO one of the most homely aircraft ever laid out on paper.
Northrop, on the other hand, shot for the moon. They proposed a radical flying wing design, far larger and more sophisticated than the Horten designs. For the sort of long ranges missions the USAAC was proposing, the efficiency of the flying wing gave it a distinct edge. With a weight similar to the B-29, it had the range of the far larger Convair design, with the same bomb capacity. Northrop had already built experimental flying wings; they folded their accumulated experiment into an amazing prototype, the four-engine YB-35.
Suffice it to say, the USAAC wasn't all that open-minded to such a radical design. Boeing's design was a non-starter. Plus, at the time the congressional delegation from California had leadership positions in key appropriations committees... so the huge, ugly, inefficient B-36 got the nod for full production.
But that wasn't the last of Jack Northrop, or his flying wings.
Almost before the ink had dried on Japan's surrender on the deck of the USS Missouri, tensions with the USSR had escalated to the point where the US military had to consider yet another intercontinental war scenario, but this time the ranges were even longer, up over the North Pole. Hence, another design competition.
Convair's B-36 proved to be a disappointment; even retrofitted with newer turboprop engines, it didn't have the sort of speed and range the new US Air Force needed.
Boeing went back to the well yet again, with a technologically modest design; huge, conventional winged airframe, with four pairs of new turbojet engines to get it off the ground.
Northrop went back to their YB-35, refined the design with the results of the extensive testing they'd done on flying wings since the YB-35, scaled it up for enough volume to carry the bombload and fuel required (and then some!), and replaced the prop engines with turbojets, to create the YB-49.
By all accounts, technologically the YB-49 cleaned up. Northrop was so enthused by their success, they set about designing commercial passenger and cargo versions.
But once again, politics won out.
The details are a but hazy, but Boeing lobbied all the right people very heavily, and in a decision that surprised the entire industry, their design was chosen to become the first nuclear-era strategic bomber: the B-52. Northrop was howling mad, and were quite public with their displeasure.
Just to make the whole affiar that much more scandelous, the Department of Defense sued Northrop, claiming that since the YB-49 was designed for them, they owned the design. They won, and the blueprints vanished from history, precluding the commercial version from ever seeing the light of day. The prototypes and test aircraft were ordered cut up for scrap, to prevent Jack Northrop from embarassing the Air Force with a better plane.
Dont' get me wrong, the B-52 has proved to be an amazing aircraft; whiel far from efficient, it's sturdy enough to allow almost endless modifications, and that has allowed it to survive as a front-line weapons platform even today, 50 years after it's first flight.
But stop and think for a moment where we might be today if the better plane had won, validating the general design. If Northrop's commercial models had been allowed to compete with the more conventional early Boeing and Lockheed airliners.
Yeah, the Blended Wing/Body looks radical in the current context. But it shouldn't.
Re:Oh, the irony.... (Score:5, Informative)
First, the plane was not a paragon of stability. The plane proved difficult to control in the days of mechanically-controlled moving surfaces.
Second, the YB-49 used relatively inefficient turbojets, so speed and range was not a great leap forward as some people think. The B-52 used the same aerodynamic research that resulted in the breakthrough B-47, and also used the much more efficient Pratt & Whitney J57 engine; this meant the B-52 could fly over 600 mph and had a range of over 6,000 miles, which meant the B-52 could hit most targets in the Soviet Union from US bases with just one air-to-air refuelling.
Finally, the YB-49's bomb bay could barely carry the large-sized atomic weapons of the day. The B-52's bomb bay could easily carry the large nuclear bombs, and improvements to the B-52 allowed additional underwing carriage of weapons.
The modern Northrup B-2 benefits from modern structural design (which allows for a much larger bomb bay), modern, much smaller nuclear bombs, modern jet engine technology and fly-by-wire controls, none of which was available in the 1940's when the YB-49 was being designed.
Re:Oh, the irony.... (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately, the stability problems were not completely overcome with the YB-49. Edwards AFB was named after a pilot who crashed during YB-49 testing.
OK, so turn that on it's head: imagine how well the YB-49 would have done with those same J57 engines!
However, because YB-49 had it engines buried into the wing, the result was that it would have required some pretty expensive structural modifications to accommodate the larger J57 engine. If I remember correctly, the top speed of the YB-49 was around 510 mph; the B-52 had a top speed well over 600 mph, something the USAF definitely liked.
Hmmm... the sketches I've seen of the YB-49 (yes, sketches, since the original plans were confiscated) showed some pretty cavernous bomb bays. I'm not sure the size of the bombs of the era, but it seems they designed to fit the payload requested by the customer.
Unfortunately for Northrup, the gravity-dropped nuclear weapons were huge monsters that literally hogged much of the bomb bay of even the huge B-36 bomber. Given the size of the bombs of that era the YB-49 was pretty much a non-starter as a nuclear weapons platform. It wasn't until the late 1950's that gravity-dropped nuclear bombs started getting smaller (the B28 bomb, which dates from the late 1950's, was small enough that the B-52 could carry four of them internally).
Guess they were both a bit ahead of their time.
The Northrup and Horten designs were ahead of their time, but stability problems dogged both design teams. People forget that Horten planes weren't paragons of stability, either; a research prototype of a jet fighter built by Horten crashed after a few flights due to controllability problems. It wasn't until the advent of reasonably cheap fly-by-wire systems in the 1960's that finally made it possible to build a flying wing that flew with reasonable stability.
A VASTLY superior design (Score:3, Insightful)
First, the plane uses substantially less fuel on a seat-mile basis than even the Airbus A380. This means the BWB could carry 200-250 more passengers per plane for the same range as the A380-800 (8,000 nautical miles). If Boeing is willing to keep the passenger capacity at around 550 passengers the plane could achieve perhaps the last major goal of commercial aviation, the ability to fly between London, England and Sydney, Australia non-stop in both directions year around (the distance is about 9,000 nautical miles on a Great Circle route).
Second, because the engines are located on the back of the plane, this could mean lower noise levels, meeting the upcoming ICAO Stage IV noise standard easily.
Third, since the entire plane's shape becomes a lifting surface, that could mean the BWB will probably need less runway lengths than the A380-800. Also, the BWB's landing gear placement will also mean compatibility with today's airport taxiways.
Fourth, because the BWB's length from front to back is about the same as a 767-300, a simple incorporation of folding wingtips could mean the BWB can easily fit into airport parking gates now used by the 747--no need to build parking gates that comform to the 80 x 80 meter standard that the A380 will require (an very expensive proposition for many airports).
Finally, because of the unique interior volume area of the BWB, Boeing could easily design much more efficient seating areas and airlines could put in large lounge areas or for the first time turn First Class seating into roomettes like you see on railroad sleeping cars.
Let's face it folks. Air travel is going to continue to increase in popularity, and given the space restrictions and noise abatement rules at today's airports the BWB could become the new queen of the skies by 2015.
Doh!! I'm stupid! (Score:2)
I withdraw my question. *hides* I'm so used to Yahoo not having pics. Heh.
Hmm.. I'm looking at the plane now. I see the design problem with adding windows. I was hoping I could offer a suggestion, but it is a huge challenge.
I bet what they do is make a 'lounge area' where people can get up and look out the window. I don't see right away how else they can, non-electronically, give people a view outside.
Re: Whatever (Score:2)
Or, you could just realize that I made a simple mistake and continue on.
The reason I was asking was that I wanted to see if I could come up with an interesting solution to the windows problem.
As for +2 posting: At least I'm not hiding behind AC so I don't lose my karma. +2 is a default setting. I didn't change it.
Re:size problems (Score:2)
The "flip tips" are winglets that reduce drag and generally improve the aerodynamics of the wing.
Nothing to do with space as you'll see them on many modern aircraft no matter what size.