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

Air Force funds ‘blended wing body’ design for long-range, fuel-efficient flight

popsci.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 88 posts

Re: Air Force funds ‘blended wing body’ design for long-range, fuel-efficient flight

#51

Post by sbierwagen »

topspin wrote: post #42
Animats wrote: post #18

Nice. NASA and Airbus have both flown blended-wing unmanned test aircraft. Not sure what role this serves for the USAF. It's a transport. Wider loads? Stealth? The US has had total air superiority in every conflict since the Korean War. That's over. The Ukraine war makes it clear. Against a competent opponent, most of what flies will die. There are just too many man-portable and truck-mounted systems that can take do…

> Not sure what role this serves for the USAF. Long range anti-ship missile deployment over the Pacific. A design like this can cover large areas and deploy autonomous weapons from long range. Weapon development of the US military is almost entirely focused on China and its growing fleet. There are several air launched anti-ship missile platforms under development right now, including swarm attack, stealth and hypers…

>There are several air launched anti-ship missile platforms under development right now

Specifically, Rapid Dragon, a rack that lets a C-130 (or any cargo aircraft with a big enough bay) drop a dozen JASSM and LRASM stealthy cruise missiles at a time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Dragon_(missile_system)

Re: Air Force funds ‘blended wing body’ design for long-range, fuel-efficient flight

#53

Post by KingLancelot »

ggm wrote: post #4

It 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…

[dead]

Re: Air Force funds ‘blended wing body’ design for long-range, fuel-efficient flight

#54

Post by bee_rider »

twic wrote: post #30
usuallyalurker wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

I wonder if you could tilt everyone's seats forward during takeoff and landing. I've seen very high density seating in the far east where people are virtually standing. Maybe the seats could start off that way, stay that way through takeoff and ascent, then gently lower to a normal posture in level flight.

Or don’t go back to normal posture; just have them lay flat the whole ride. Plus they can save on industrial design by buying parts from morgue suppliers.

Re: Air Force funds ‘blended wing body’ design for long-range, fuel-efficient flight

#55

Post by fbdab103 »

notahacker wrote: post #40
neltnerb wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Military use involves completely different economics, but for related reasons the anticipated greater fuel efficiency is rarely a big deal for the military. I think this assumption is wrong, for airplanes. Higher fuel efficiency means longer range for the same amount of fuel, so it's an increase to range for the same weight carried (or an increase in weight carried to the same range, presumably). I think this is ex…

It's not completely useless, but the US military's existing transport aircraft are not exactly pushing the boundaries of fuel consumption. A regular 777 freighter will get quite a bit further. Ultimately the military don't care about the cost, have many refuelling options, and are relying on much shorter range aircraft in other aspects of any conflict. Plus unlike other areas of aviation, if you solve a range problem…

I could imagine that it makes a real impact to a bomber. I have read that WW2 planes essentially were loaded to the maximum allowable weight between the fuel + ammunition. If you can cut down the fuel for same range, that allows for more ammo.

Re: Air Force funds ‘blended wing body’ design for long-range, fuel-efficient flight

#56

Post by _hypx »

ggm wrote: post #4

It 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…

Windows in planes can be replaced by LCD screens. I don't think they are necessary at all. In fact, they already sell cruise ship cabins with this feature. I've yet to hear anyone talk about this as a showstopper problem.

Re: Air Force funds ‘blended wing body’ design for long-range, fuel-efficient flight

#57

Post by psunavy03 »

notahacker wrote: post #29
ggm wrote: post #4

It 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…

> If it has to be a freight or logistics/materiel/fuel aircraft for the forces before general service, so be it. The challenge for that is economic: those use cases which are generally filled with adaptations of older generation aircraft at the moment probably don't pay back the R&D costs of the programme. Especially since a viable civil aircraft programme also involves worldwide line maintenance capability, a liquid…

> Military use involves completely different economics, but for related reasons the anticipated greater fuel efficiency is rarely a big deal for the military.

Utterly false. Greater fuel efficiency means greater range or less fuel needed for the same range and payload, and you'd better believe that is not nothing to military planners. I can say that because I used to be one. Every drop of fuel burned in theater in a war has to get there somehow. And until it's loaded on a jet and used, it's vulnerable to being targeted either in transit or at rest, and has to be protected. And pre-war, the more gas you're going to burn to accomplish a given task, the more facilities and infrastructure have to be in place at your potential bases to hold it, meaning more access agreements with foreign countries and/or construction contracts having to be paid for in those countries to build said facilities. And you have less ability to use smaller or more austere facilities, limiting your ability to disperse the force and complicate enemy targeting.

Re: Air Force funds ‘blended wing body’ design for long-range, fuel-efficient flight

#58

Post by someplaceguy »

OldGuyInTheClub wrote: post #28
ggm wrote: post #4

It 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…

Here's Jack Northrop's view of a flying wing passenger plane. There's a longer version somewhere but I can't find it. Fitting that JetZero is teaming with Northrop Grumman/Scaled Composites on this. I wonder how the workshare divides. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMTwQ9b5hvk

That looks cool, but wouldn't such an airplane have huge drag due to the wing having to be so thick to accommodate the passengers?

Re: Air Force funds ‘blended wing body’ design for long-range, fuel-efficient flight

#59

Post by pohuing »

enterprise_cog wrote: post #35
coryrc wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia would fall like Iraq if we were to attack. Their ground-based anti-air would be hit as soon as even one missile is fired, every radar would be hit within minutes of powering on, their aircraft wiped out as soon as they were within range. With air supremacy we'd be able to fire a precision strike on every piece of active artillery and supply truck. They'd be left with nothing but men starving in trenches and ru…

The is the kind of delusional thinking that has NATO forcing Ukraine to use western strategy and then getting slaughtered for it. The US has never defeated a peer army since WW2, in which the USSR did most of the work. Russia has fifth gen fighters, the S400, and very capable EW and artillery. To pretend they would roll over is pure fantasy.

And yet they struggle to take one of the poorest countries in Europe with a fraction of the population of the US. But I'm sure their dozen maybe kinda stealthy fighters with little training will be able take on literally hundreds of jets with competently trained pilots.

Re: Air Force funds ‘blended wing body’ design for long-range, fuel-efficient flight

#60

Post by nradov »

notahacker wrote: post #40
neltnerb wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Military use involves completely different economics, but for related reasons the anticipated greater fuel efficiency is rarely a big deal for the military. I think this assumption is wrong, for airplanes. Higher fuel efficiency means longer range for the same amount of fuel, so it's an increase to range for the same weight carried (or an increase in weight carried to the same range, presumably). I think this is ex…

It's not completely useless, but the US military's existing transport aircraft are not exactly pushing the boundaries of fuel consumption. A regular 777 freighter will get quite a bit further. Ultimately the military don't care about the cost, have many refuelling options, and are relying on much shorter range aircraft in other aspects of any conflict. Plus unlike other areas of aviation, if you solve a range problem…

That has been true, but the US military is now pivoting to confront China in the Western Pacific theater. This means an increased emphasis on fuel efficiency to boost unrefueled range.
Post reply on HN