Boeing X-48B

[sarongsong]

One-tenth size prototype:March 15, 2007
...up to 30 percent less gas to reach its destination...the blended-wing, a radically new kind of aircraft set to take to the skies for the first time this month...CNN (http://money.cnn.com/2007/03/12/magazines/business2/planestakewing.biz2/?postversion=2007031309)

[torque of the town]

Thats an amazing aircraft.

[MrClean]

We've been flying blended wing Deltas in RC for years now. Nice to see someone in full size Aviation is catching up. And Northrups original flying wing, Civilian version, was planned for the same reason, but that didn't catch on either.

Like the Moeller flying car, don't hold your breath just yet. Boeing is just going to go fly a futuristic looking RC airplane. You can buy something equally as radical looking at Walmart for about 90 bucks last time I looked.

[Delvo]

No windows! :( But maybe more passenger space?

That's weird engine placement. I guess the idea must be that the wing generates enough lift to compensate for the fact that the engine thrust line goes over the center of gravity and would thus create downward torque. It reminds me of the thread I started asking about current passenger/cargo planes with tail engines and the A-10's engines being high and near the back and tilted nose-up

[MrClean]

They're back in the clear air and away from the passengers so you don't have to hear them. Windows are averated BUT the Northrup design had quite a big bay window in front AND rear for quite a viewing deck. But you have to worry about running into geese with that much Viewing area. Oh, I know its rated for birdstrikes, but it's quite a bit more weight and expense where thinner, lighter metal might be used.

[farmerjumperdon]

We've been flying blended wing Deltas in RC for years now. Nice to see someone in full size Aviation is catching up. And Northrups original flying wing, Civilian version, was planned for the same reason, but that didn't catch on either.

Like the Moeller flying car, don't hold your breath just yet. Boeing is just going to go fly a futuristic looking RC airplane. You can buy something equally as radical looking at Walmart for about 90 bucks last time I looked.

Always wondered why those very cool looking and highly manueverable models never came to life as people haulers.

A bias against what a plane should look like?

[Nicolas]

The engines are shielded from the ground by the aircraft, reducing ground nose. They are unlimited in size due to no ground clearance requirements. They improve the possibility of belly landings (though sometimes pilots have used a conventional engine as replacement landing gear with great success, it can also trigger wing damage and fire when the eninge gets large forces and remains blocked onto the wing instead of breaking loose, due to being sandwiched between the runway and the wing). They are less likely to soak up things lying on the ground.

The small pitch down moment generated by the engine thrust is (partially) compensated by the pitch up moment generated by the engine weight.

A flying wing needs to have its centre of pressure at the same location as the centre of gravity in order to have no net moment an hence remain in attitude. It needs to have its aerodynamic centre behind the centre of gravity in order to be stable. Hence it can't use a conventional cambered wing.

(cp is where the lift force acts, ac is where changes in lift force act)

[Larry Jacks]

Always wondered why those very cool looking and highly manueverable models never came to life as people haulers.

A bias against what a plane should look like?

High maneuverability isn't really required for cargo or people haulers. And yes, there is a strong conservatism over what a plane should look like, at least among a lot of airline executives.

Northrup's flying wing was very efficient aerodynamically but weak in pitch stability. Artificial stability technology (basically enhanced autopilots) just wasn't up to the job in the late 1940s. It certainly is today but you're adding another failure mode that could lead to a crash. If the flight control computer fails on a fighter, there are redundant units. If they fail, there's the ejection seat. That isn't an option for an airliner.

Aircraft certification organizations like the FAA are very conservative. New technology has to be extensively (also expensively) tested before it is certified for widespread use. As cool as it looks, an airliner based on the X-48B would likely be tough to get certified. It costs many millions of dollars to get a private plane through the certification process. It can cost billions to do the same with airliners, even seemingly conventional ones.

[Nicolas]

The A380 was a major pain to get certified, because of the double deck evacuation thing and the use of GLARE (for which they wanted to loosen the evacuation time, which ended up being a total no-go from the conservative authorities). Imagine certifying a flying wing...

I'm not saying it's a bad thing the authorities are conservative, as conservative planes are extremely safe. Though maybe, just maybe, they could be slightly more open to new ideas. It's a balancing act, and given the safety of airliners, the authorities do their jobs very well. This discussion can't be held black and white.

[mugaliens]

One-tenth size prototype:

"Radical new?"

Who're they trying to fool?

The first flying wing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_wing)was prototyped by the Germans in the 1940s, with the YB-49 (awfully close to the X-48B...) having been built and flight tested in shortly after WWII.

[ToSeek]

They'll need ushers to show passengers to their seats....

[Larry Jacks]

For an airliner, this design is radically new. The closest thing to it ever seriously proposed was a derivative of the Northrop YB-49. It never went anywhere because those early Northrup designs had serious stability problems. Ever heard how Edwards Air Force Base got its name?

As for which was the first flying wing, there were several people working on the design at the same time. Northrop's first true flying wing was the N-1M (http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/northN1M.htm) that first flew on July 3, 1940. It was a major step up from his 1929 "Flying Wing" that still had tail surfaces. At the same time, Alexander Lippisch (http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/Lippisch_Nurflugels/lippisch_nurflugels.html) (of Me-163 and delta-wing fame) was working on tailless designs as were the Horten brothers (http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/Horten_Nurflugels/horten_nurflugels.html).

[MrClean]

The FAA is one thing, but even though Air Travel is statistically safer than most other modes, the public perception of safety is lacking. So, they'll show up at the airport and say, "Wow, look at that cool airplane' and get in line for the more conventional one. Why would an airline executive even bother spending the money.

And many of the airplanes look alike, just like fish look an awful lot alike, they're purpose designed. Sure, there's an odd fish every once in a while, but they're the exception.

[Donnie B.]

I for one would line up to fly in a blended-wing aircraft.

I don't bother with window seats anymore anyway. I've flown enough times that there's no special thrill from the view, and my shoulder freezes. Give me an aisle seat and I'm happy.

In a blended wing, there's lots of room for creative seating arrangements. It's possible that evacuation could be quicker than a standard tube-and-wing, since you could have exits all along the wing.

While I understand the need for conservative design, that can't be the only principle at work. If it were, we'd all be hitching old Hoss to the surry to get into town.

[Nicolas]

Public perception of aircraft indeed is way out of line with statistical safety. They should be glad that there is a thing that kicks you at formula one speeds over a concrete runway, gives you nice G forces, banks over 20 degrees in normal mode, and all that under the cover of "public transport" :).

(and in a large aircraft, all this feels like nothing much at all, but anyway :))

[tofu]

No windows!

They *could* put windows on the leading edge, which would give you an absolutely spectacular view. At least, if you were sitting the front few rows you would have such a view. But something tells me there are too many weak, panicky people who would scream at the sight of a runway coming up fast. So, probably no windows.

Actually you know what, the last time I heard about this aircraft was when the first A380 rolled out. Now today we have the first A380 in the US... I think that Boeing is just trying to steal some of Airbus' thunder. I'll believe they are serious about this blended wing when I see something larger than an RC model.

[Nicolas]

Oh btw for you US guys, that 80 meter wide A380 that is in the US right now, that's just a 1:10th scale RC model.

Be prepared :D ;)

[Donnie B.]

800 meter wingspan? :eek: It wouldn't even need to take off. By the time you got to your seat, you'd be at your destination.

Reminds me of an old Kate Wilhelm short story (also the name of the anthology that contained it): The Mile Long Spaceship.

[Nicolas]

Well, this:

http://www.futura-sciences.com/communiquer/g/data/547/A380_formation2.jpg

Comes rather close to 800m of A380 :)

[MrClean]

That A380 is Soooo FAT
If you painted it black, it'd look like outer space.

[MrClean]

Well, this:

http://www.futura-sciences.com/communiquer/g/data/547/A380_formation2.jpg

Comes rather close to 800m of A380 :)

That's pretty impressive.

Did they get that many flying at once or is it a photoshop job?

[Nicolas]

It's the real deal. They also did some low flying formations, I'll give you a link in a minute. I thought I once saw a pic of 6 A380's in flight, but I think it was this formation of 4 that I saw and remembered a bit too large :).

[Nicolas]

Here you go (http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1167866&WxsIERv=Nveohf%20N380-861&Wm=0&WdsYXMg=Nveohf%20Vaqhfgevr&QtODMg=Gbhybhfr%20-%20Oyntanp%20%28GYF%20%2F%20YSOB%29&ERDLTkt=Senapr&ktODMp=Nhthfg%2030%2C%202006&BP=0&WNEb25u=G.Ynherag&xsIERvdWdsY=S-JJRN&MgTUQtODMgKE=Sbhe%20N380%20va%20syvtug%20va%20gur% 20fnzr%20obk%21%21%20ZFA%20009%20%28S-JJRN%29%20vf%20yrnqvat.&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=40888&NEb25uZWxs=2007-01-27%2019%3A04%3A51&ODJ9dvCE=&O89Dcjdg=009&static=yes&width=1200&height=805&sok=JURER%20%20%28nvepensg_trarevp%20%3D%20%27Nveo hf%20N380%27%29%20%20beqre%20ol%20cubgb_vq%20QRFP&photo_nr=16&prev_id=&next_id=1167602&size=L)

BONUS: in flight with the Red Arrows (http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1168606&size=L&width=1023&height=694&sok=JURER%20%20%28nvepensg_trarevp%20%3D%20%27Nveo hf%20N380%27%29%20%20beqre%20ol%20cubgb_vq%20QRFP&photo_nr=15&prev_id=1169251&next_id=NEXTID)

[tofu]

Here you go (http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1167866&WxsIERv=Nveohf%20N380-861&Wm=0&WdsYXMg=Nveohf%20Vaqhfgevr&QtODMg=Gbhybhfr%20-%20Oyntanp%20%28GYF%20%2F%20YSOB%29&ERDLTkt=Senapr&ktODMp=Nhthfg%2030%2C%202006&BP=0&WNEb25u=G.Ynherag&xsIERvdWdsY=S-JJRN&MgTUQtODMgKE=Sbhe%20N380%20va%20syvtug%20va%20gur% 20fnzr%20obk%21%21%20ZFA%20009%20%28S-JJRN%29%20vf%20yrnqvat.&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=40888&NEb25uZWxs=2007-01-27%2019%3A04%3A51&ODJ9dvCE=&O89Dcjdg=009&static=yes&width=1200&height=805&sok=JURER%20%20%28nvepensg_trarevp%20%3D%20%27Nveo hf%20N380%27%29%20%20beqre%20ol%20cubgb_vq%20QRFP&photo_nr=16&prev_id=&next_id=1167602&size=L)

Our planes will block out the sun.
Then we shall fly in the shade.

:)

[Nicolas]

I've seen such a formation of 3 C-130's which was impressive, but with 4 A380's it must be nuts. The C-130's did block out the sun indeed, for a very short time :).

[Graybeard6]

To go to the other extreme: http://hondajet.honda.com/
I showed a picture to SWMBO and she asked "Why?" My answer: "What if we want to go from here (Melbourne, FL) to visit my brother in Clarkdale AZ"? "We drive to Orlando, pay to park, fly to Atlanta, then Dallas/Fort Worth, to Phoenix, rent a car, and drive for two hours to Clarkdale."
Or, we take a taxi to Melbourne airport (5 mi, 8 km) Get on board, and 5 hours later we're having lunch with bro & family!
Bigger ain't always better!

[Maksutov]

If there will be passengers in the wings, I can see a slight problem. With the standard tube/wings arrangement, the passengers are very near the axis for roll, and to a lesser degree, pitch and yaw. But folks out there in the wings will experience some rather noticeable effects (much more noticeable than when in the tube) when the plane banks, turns, and runs into turbulence. Inertial dampers, anyone?

[Nicolas]

For roll, yes, but for pitch they are closer to the axis in a flying wing.

The wings will need to be stiff upto the last passenger row for passenger comfort, but other than that I see no problem with rolls as long as they keep things gentle. The larger roll inertia of a flyin wing will mae rolls naturally more gentle anyway.

But if the wings flex too much, it will be a hell on the outer rows.

[Larry Jacks]

If there will be passengers in the wings, I can see a slight problem. With the standard tube/wings arrangement, the passengers are very near the axis for roll, and to a lesser degree, pitch and yaw. But folks out there in the wings will experience some rather noticeable effects (much more noticeable than when in the tube) when the plane banks, turns, and runs into turbulence. Inertial dampers, anyone?

Take a long plane like a stretched DC-8 (looks like a flying pencil) or 757 and sit in the last row of seats (or worse, in the lav) in turbulence. You're a long way from the axis of rotation and get beat up pretty bad. Been there, done that to both. No fun.

As Maksutov said, a design based on the X-48B would have the passengers closer to the pitch and yaw axis than on several conventional airliners. Those in the outboard seats would be further from the roll axis than on a tube design. There are dampening technologies (such as on the L-1011) that can dampen oscillations in the wings.

I do wonder how they'll handle boarding and emergency exits. It's relatively easy to locate a bunch of exits on a tube.

[Nicolas]

As Maksutov said, a design based on the X-48B would have the passengers closer to the pitch and yaw axis than on several conventional airliners.

As Nicolas said... :)

And not to the yaw axis, just pitch. For yaw axis, you trade lengthwise separation for spanwise separation.

If the airframe is too flexible, they can add some movable surfaces to the wing tips, just like they did to stop the socillations in the front of the B-1B (thelittle canards are used to dampen oscillations). This likely will be a lot lighter than making wings stiff enough to remove oscillations.

[tofu]

I've seen such a formation of 3 C-130's which was impressive

off topic I know, but imagine what it must have been like to see thousands of B-17s during the battle of britan.

[Nicolas]

It must have been nuts.

I've seen 18 F-16s in slightly spread groups of 3, not that impressive. I've seen 24 Apaches in a close pack (post-shipping tranfer flight from Antwerp to Ramstein). terrifying. B-17's a gogo: must be heart stopping.

[mugaliens]

Why would an airline executive even bother spending the money.

Fuel Savings=Money=Profits=Continued Success as a Board Member and more likelihood of a fat retirement?

Just a thought...

[mugaliens]

[QUOTE=tofu;951368]They *could* put windows on the leading edge...[QUOTE]

Well, what with the video screens mounted at every seat and the ability to put one camera in each position of interest, along with the user being able to select the camera, it would be far cheaper to do that than to put any windows at all.

[NEOWatcher]

Well, what with the video screens mounted at every seat and the ability to put one camera in each position of interest, along with the user being able to select the camera, it would be far cheaper to do that than to put any windows at all.

I prefer to use my depth perception... and I'm sure others would.

[tbm]

Is it just me, or is this not more alien technology that has filtered into modern aviation since the crash and secreting away of that alien craft at Roswell? The X-48B just doesn't look "normal".

HMMMM?

tbm

[tbm]

off topic I know, but imagine what it must have been like to see thousands of B-17s during the battle of britan.

Not too get nitpicky, but there no B17s involved in the historical Battle of Britain, in which the Luftwaffe failed to destroy England's ability to defend her airspace and facilitate a German invasion.

The B17s (in significant numbers) didn't start arriving in England until late 1942.

tbm

[Maksutov]

For roll, yes, but for pitch they are closer to the axis in a flying wing.

The wings will need to be stiff upto the last passenger row for passenger comfort, but other than that I see no problem with rolls as long as they keep things gentle. The larger roll inertia of a flyin wing will mae rolls naturally more gentle anyway.

But if the wings flex too much, it will be a hell on the outer rows.Right concerning pitch, given a seating layout symmetrical to the pitch axis. The effect there would be much like roll in a conventional airliner, just front to back versus side to side.

Agreed yaw is a 90 degree trade-off. Re roll, design and training might take care of that, especially once the simulators are operational. Don't want the passenger's stomachs winding up in their throats, which is probably part of what Larry Jacks experienced at the back of that stretch DC-8 or 757.

[Nicolas]

Agreed :).

It will require different ways of handling indeed, if you need to take into account that there are passengers in your wings. The designs I've seen don't have passengers upto the tips, but still. I think that apart from new handling methods, also some active virtual stiffness enhancement/oscillation damper will need to be used. G forces are one thing, oscillations something else. Large positive G forces are quite OK for most people. Large negative ones get most people seriously sick. Oscillations make everyone sick. Negative G forces can only be counteracted by handling the plane differenly (easy on the turns).

That said, while too many G forces and oscillations are unacceptable, passengers shouldn't be surprised that they sometimes actually feel they are moving. We've got cruise ships for that, after all they chose to go 3 times as fast as an F1 car :).

[mugaliens]

The blended wing body also appeared in the 2006 overview of an Air Force magazine one guy brought in to work. It's a small-scale (about 30' wingspan, my guess), wind-tunnel test model, but if you look real close, you can read "NASA" painted on the right front leading edge.

So it's not really pie in the sky stuff. After all, they built the B-2 for a reason.

[sarongsong]

...Boeing Phantom Works has partnered with NASA and the Air Force Research Laboratory to study the structural, aerodynamic and operational advantages of the advanced aircraft concept... NASA (http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/X-48B/index.html)9 hi-res images http://bautforum.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Nicolas]

From what I remember, passengers will be seated only upto the seam next to the "X-48B" text, maybe even the light seam (reinforcment strip actually) even further to the middle, the one extending from the flap. So they won't be too far away from centre, and in a very stiff part ofthe airframe. THat means they won't have oscillation problems, but possibly the plane will have to roll more gently (roll rate that is; roll angle doesn't matter) in order to keep G forces and especially negative G forces low.

Impressive how they give such deetailed pics of the geometry of such an advanced craft. Of course, maybe the scale model isn't exaclty like the full model, for good reasons inherent to scaling. That means the data, converted to real craft parameter, can't be applied to the scale model directly. They've done similar things in the past. It's not lying, not at all. It's both useful extrapolation (third parties get to know what the estimated full craft would be capable of) and as a side effect, it's a form of copy protection. Copy protection in that sense that in order to grasp the full meaning of the output data given for the scaled test craft, considerable research would have to be performed by third parties. In the first stage, third parties accept the claims made for the scaled test craft. After some research, they find that the claims are impossible for the scaled test craft. After further, very detailed research, they find how to translate the impossible claims to actual scaled test craft performance, and that the claimed results still make sense. The cellar of aerospace design is a beautiful jungle :).

[mugaliens]

Is it just me, or is this not more alien technology that has filtered into modern aviation since the crash and secreting away of that alien craft at Roswell? The X-48B just doesn't look "normal".

HMMMM?

tbm

It's just what your eye is used to seeing. Find a copy of Da Vinci's human glider.

Ta-da!

Flying wing, not an elongated tube with tail surfaces.

And centuries before Roswell.

[mugaliens]

People have talked about the lack of windows being a problem.

I don't think it would be a problem at all, and here's why:

1. Even in the Boeing 767, most of which are outfitted with common TV/Movie screens viewed by all, the windows remain closed during the day so that passengers can see the movies without glare. During the night, over the pond, pax can't see anything out the windows anyway.

2. Personalized screens are common on later, large-pax aircraft, such as the 777 and 380.

3. Cameras could easily be installed which would give all pax the ability to have a complete 360 view, through their personlized screens, of all areas around, and beneath, the aircraft.

Bye-bye, claustrophobia.

By the way, I actually sat next to a claustrophobic on a 777 about a year and a half ago, flying from Germany to the US. She self-described as "severe," but said she had no problem flying, because the 777 was such a huge plane inside, and the TV/Movie screens kept her mind off of things. The only problem she had was going to the bathroom, as the stalls were rather small.

Interestingly enough, she said that the way sound changes affected her as much as anything else. Inside the bathrooms, she'd turn the vent on full blast just to mask the quietness and present the image of a larger room. She actually liked the flush, as it broke that pillow-smothering-like restrictive sound of a quiet bathroom.

Interesting, huh?

[Trebuchet]

I don't think there's any serious consideration of using a BWB design for a commercial transport anyhow. All the suggestions I've seen lately have been military. The concept was developed at Douglas prior to the Boeing merger. Around Boeing Commercial it seems to have the NIH (Not Invented Here) problem.

[Larry Jacks]

It's possible it might make a better freighter than passenger plane. Air freight is a huge and growing business. Developing more efficient freighters could have both military and civil cargo applications, and with freighters, you don't have to worry about all of the passenger related issues. Of course, Boeing would prefer to have a plane that does both to have a larger potential market.

I suspect the Air Force would love to have a more stealthy tanker capability. Tankers are big and vulnerable. Their location can be detected a long way off, indirectly giving away the position of even stealth aircraft. A plane like that might be able to support two or more flying booms, allowing it to refuel more than one fighter at a time.

[sarongsong]

Lots of pics!July 20, 2007
...in flight for the first time. The prototype...flew for 31 minutes, reaching an altitude of 7,500 feet...
Gizmodo (http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/the-right-stuff/first-flight-of-x+48b-blended-wing-body-aircraft-prototype-283547.php)

[JustAFriend]

"A Brief History of the Flying Wing"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_vtcFzIIpY

I'm also an R/C'er and have been flying an electric Zagi wing for many years. Good stable plane.

[Trebuchet]

Off topic, but cool: A post earlier in the thread reminded me that on Saturday, near Bellingham, WA, my wife pointed out the car window and said "What's that airplane?" It was a B-17 flying by, quite low. I'd previously seen what I think was the same one a couple of months ago in another location. It's on some sort of tour.

[tbm]

Off topic, but cool: A post earlier in the thread reminded me that on Saturday, near Bellingham, WA, my wife pointed out the car window and said "What's that airplane?" It was a B-17 flying by, quite low. I'd previously seen what I think was the same one a couple of months ago in another location. It's on some sort of tour.

Again OT, but I have been to a couple of events where a group (Collingsfoundation.org, for example) fly a classic warplane (or several) to points around the country to allow people the chance to view, walk around in, and go on a flight in a real classic warbird or other airplane. I had the chance a couplel of years ago to tour a B-17 and B-24. It was a lifetime dream to go into one of them, both was a real bonus. I balked at the $400 tour flight, thought it might end up being a down payment on a divorce. I'm taking my 10 year-old son to see a B-25 this weekend.

tbm

[Larry Jacks]

I balked at the $400 tour flight, thought it might end up being a down payment on a divorce.

Beware of AIDS - Aviation Induced Divorce Syndrome. It has killed quite a few marriages.

My wife keeps asking me why I have such an expensive hobby. I tell her that I don't drink, smoke, gamble, obscess over sports cars, or chase other women. Compared to that, flying my plane is a bargain.

[Stuart van Onselen]

I've heard of AIDS striking a model plane builder. He spent so much time and money (2 years, £15k) on his Vickers Valiant flying model that his 2nd wife walked out on him. (He had already lost his 1st wife because of his "model planes obsession")

And then he crashed the model, so now he has neither model nor wife.

See The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/14/valiant_crash_and_burn/ ) for details. Or the original article in The Sun (http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007120134,00.html), with pictures.

Hint to single men out there: Women hate coming second in a relationship. And they really hate coming second to an inanimate object! ;-)

[Nicolas]

Hint to single men out there: Women hate coming second in a relationship.

must-take-board-rules-into-account-shall-not-make-joke

It's indeed important to give a hobby the right position in a relationship. I'm buying headphones for my instrument hobby. You'd think that's a bad thing because I'll isolate myself from her, but in this case it's a blessing for her as the sounds of tweaking a synthesizer drive her mad :).

[sarongsong]

...Women hate coming second in a relationship. And they really hate coming second to an inanimate object! ;-)Ha, ha---like men are OK with being 2nd to a woman's interest[s], in a relationship?! http://www.bautforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif