Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Air Force Plans New Blended Wing Body Cargo/Tanker Aircraft by 2027

airandspaceforces.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 114 posts

Re: Air Force Plans New Blended Wing Body Cargo/Tanker Aircraft by 2027

#51

Post by dotancohen »

Gravityloss wrote: post #41

A tanker is a good fit for a blended wing body. Fuel efficiency is important for that mission, fuel tanks can be easily adapted to the odd shape (compared to cargo), and fuel doesn't care about the bobbing up and down in turns that comes from the wide hull shape (compared to passengers who don't like about that). Reconnaissance would work too.

  > fuel doesn't care about the bobbing up and down
Maybe the fuel doesn't care, but the flight crew certainly will care about a large oscillating mass constantly changing the aircraft's center of mass.

Re: Air Force Plans New Blended Wing Body Cargo/Tanker Aircraft by 2027

#52

Post by KerrAvon »

mandevil wrote: post #45
bombcar wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but they didn’t just build a new plane (pilots perhaps?) and instead always seem to try to modify existing designs, which would argue that is cheaper than greenfield.

It wasn't Boeing that was trying to save money themselves- it was Boeing trying to save airlines money. There are hundreds of thousands of people today who can fly a 737, and mechanics who can fix a 737, etc. The airlines wanted to get the better fuel efficiency from modern engines on a plane that everyone already knew how to fly and fix. Boeing actually started with a clean sheet design, tried to pitch it to airline…

“Give us a 737 but more crashy” is also not what their customers really wanted. There were surely more possibilities available than just the two extremes of “737 but crashes more” and “tiny Concorde.”

Re: Air Force Plans New Blended Wing Body Cargo/Tanker Aircraft by 2027

#53

Post by pinko »

dotancohen wrote: post #51
Gravityloss wrote: post #41

A tanker is a good fit for a blended wing body. Fuel efficiency is important for that mission, fuel tanks can be easily adapted to the odd shape (compared to cargo), and fuel doesn't care about the bobbing up and down in turns that comes from the wide hull shape (compared to passengers who don't like about that). Reconnaissance would work too.

> fuel doesn't care about the bobbing up and down Maybe the fuel doesn't care, but the flight crew certainly will care about a large oscillating mass constantly changing the aircraft's center of mass.

Baffles are typically used to control this, even in conventional aircraft fuel tanks. It's a non-issue.

Re: Air Force Plans New Blended Wing Body Cargo/Tanker Aircraft by 2027

#54

Post by waste_monk »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #48
waste_monk wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but I'll bite: The 747 MAX that killed 346 people in two separate accidents and was grounded for nearly two years and cost Boeing 10's of billions of dollars in fines, cancelled orders, etc.? It is perhaps not the best example of modifications to an existing design.

Don't you mean 737 MAX or is that some other plane?

I did - thanks for picking that up, but I am no longer able to edit my post.

Re: Air Force Plans New Blended Wing Body Cargo/Tanker Aircraft by 2027

#55

Post by mannykannot »

chrisseaton wrote: post #9
mauvehaus wrote: post #7

The KC-46 program has not gone swimmingly. I'm curious how they think they're going to get a demonstrator flying in 5 years when they can't get a tanker that's based on an existing production airframe flying on schedule. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-46_Pegasus

Maybe working off an existing design is harder than greenfield?

I am ready to consider that proposition as soon as I see quantitative evidence.

It seem it is possible to write specifications that cannot easily be met by incremental change, and that might be one reason why the British aircraft industry ended up creating technically competent aircraft with little sales potential.

Re: Air Force Plans New Blended Wing Body Cargo/Tanker Aircraft by 2027

#57

Post by topspin »

dirtyid wrote: post #13
mauvehaus wrote: post #7

The KC-46 program has not gone swimmingly. I'm curious how they think they're going to get a demonstrator flying in 5 years when they can't get a tanker that's based on an existing production airframe flying on schedule. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-46_Pegasus

Maybe NGAD rapid development cycles can be applied.

That's what I thought as well. Then you read this[1] and all the NGAD "record breaking" starts to look like smoke and mirrors.

Who knows? Maybe a tanker could happen that fast since it won't integrate a bunch of weapons. They're only promising a full scale test by 2027.

[1] https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/next-gen-air-dominance...

Re: Air Force Plans New Blended Wing Body Cargo/Tanker Aircraft by 2027

#58

Post by topspin »

walrus01 wrote: post #34

I think that a blended wing body design extremely similar to this was one of the more radical proposals on the table, when they were developing the budget and concept for the 787. Ultimately ended up with a carbon fiber bodied more conventional aircraft of course. Reading the URL, I think that anything about the Air Force caring about a climate action plan, or environmental sensitivity, is window dressing to say that…

> I think that anything about the Air Force caring about a climate action plan

Indeed. The Military Industrial Complex has figured out that anything with a lot of zeros must be Climate-Washed.

Looking forward to our climate friendly hypersonic anti-ship missile program!

Re: Air Force Plans New Blended Wing Body Cargo/Tanker Aircraft by 2027

#60

Post by dirtyid »

topspin wrote: post #57
dirtyid wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe NGAD rapid development cycles can be applied.

That's what I thought as well. Then you read this[1] and all the NGAD "record breaking" starts to look like smoke and mirrors. Who knows? Maybe a tanker could happen that fast since it won't integrate a bunch of weapons. They're only promising a full scale test by 2027. [1] https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/next-gen-air-dominance...

Pretty much. Roper's Digital Century pitch for iterative 6G fighter(s) seemed like powerpoint bullshit. But a relatively clean sheet tanker much less complex integration demands seems feasible, more comparable to how B21's development is going, apparently on time and under budget.
Post reply on HN