Air Force funds ‘blended wing body’ design for long-range, fuel-efficient flight
1–10 of 88 posts
Re: Air Force funds ‘blended wing body’ design for long-range, fuel-efficient flight
#2Isn‘t such a design a recipe for lot‘s of ice getting into the engine in the winter if one is not super careful?
Re: Air Force funds ‘blended wing body’ design for long-range, fuel-efficient flight
#3Isn‘t such a design a recipe for lot‘s of ice getting into the engine in the winter if one is not super careful?
No. Why would it?
Re: Air Force funds ‘blended wing body’ design for long-range, fuel-efficient flight
#4It used to be said this would fail in passenger markets because windows. The reality of long haul travel these days is that windows are really only "I can lean here" choices which restrict access to the aisle, for any trans-oceanic journey.
For domestic flights, I am sure there are window seat aficionado who will continue to pay for window in flight. For everyone else, and by current seating maps there are a LOT more of them, this is just a non issue.
If a BWB design permits reasonable density, aisle access, fuel efficiency and a pleasant flight experience (speed, noise) then I'm all for it.
If it has to be a freight or logistics/materiel/fuel aircraft for the forces before general service, so be it.
Re: Air Force funds ‘blended wing body’ design for long-range, fuel-efficient flight
#5Isn‘t such a design a recipe for lot‘s of ice getting into the engine in the winter if one is not super careful?
How
Re: Air Force funds ‘blended wing body’ design for long-range, fuel-efficient flight
#6Reminds me of the X33, a program I remember my dad was working on during my childhood like 20+ years ago. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-33
Re: Air Force funds ‘blended wing body’ design for long-range, fuel-efficient flight
#7It used to be said this would fail in passenger markets because windows. The reality of long haul travel these days is that windows are really only "I can lean here" choices which restrict access to the aisle, for any trans-oceanic journey. For domestic flights, I am sure there are window seat aficionado who will continue to pay for window in flight. For everyone else, and by current seating maps there are a LOT more…
It would fail because people farther from the center of the plain would feel more extreme movement as the plane banks on turns.
Re: Air Force funds ‘blended wing body’ design for long-range, fuel-efficient flight
#8It used to be said this would fail in passenger markets because windows. The reality of long haul travel these days is that windows are really only "I can lean here" choices which restrict access to the aisle, for any trans-oceanic journey. For domestic flights, I am sure there are window seat aficionado who will continue to pay for window in flight. For everyone else, and by current seating maps there are a LOT more…
The real problems seem to be the outside dimensions (primarily width) of the BWB and the question of how to evacuate such a geometry effectively.
Re: Air Force funds ‘blended wing body’ design for long-range, fuel-efficient flight
#9It used to be said this would fail in passenger markets because windows. The reality of long haul travel these days is that windows are really only "I can lean here" choices which restrict access to the aisle, for any trans-oceanic journey. For domestic flights, I am sure there are window seat aficionado who will continue to pay for window in flight. For everyone else, and by current seating maps there are a LOT more…
BWB aircraft have a few more issues than just a lack of window seats.
They require a higher angle of attack on take-off and landing, and, with passengers sitting much further from the centerline of the aircraft than on a conventional design, passengers are subject to much more g-forces during roll maneuvers.
The second issue can be mitigated by avoiding rolling the aircraft and/or by performing less aggressive rolls, but the first issue is something passengers will just have to deal with if BWB passenger aircraft become a thing.