Blended Wing Aircraft: The Future of Efficient Aviation

[@aviapages]

"Thanks for watching! 💪 Please share this video to help more people find it. Let us know your thoughts or suggestions in the comments. Your input is valuable to us. 🙌✨ Cast your vote: Will it be a real aircraft or just a marketing hook? ✈"

[@inkyproject]

The best of your videos ❤❤❤ Thank you!

[@aviapages]

Thank you for your comment

[@Macrocompassion]

The HP 117 was a proposal for this more than 60- years ago, that was like this. I was there and saw its design details. The structure is less heavy for the equivalent performance of its traditional tube and swept wing designs and its drag is also much smaller, with the result of greater efficient when it does the same job of the bigger traditional design.

[@GeorgeTheIdiotINC]

Honestly the lack of windows would probably be a non-issue for most passengers if they were to promise more space. for me the worst part of a flight is being cooped up in an uncomfy seat for several hours where I can't stretch my legs or readjust myself much at all

[@maxgruzin]

Interesting concept

[@ASYoutube2024]

Contact Deltaburn. They can make any turbofan engine greater than BPR 2.3 use 30% less fuel, without making a BWB aircraft....

[@jfkastner]

For Passengers any Roll movement will be uncomfortable if they are sitting far from the Center - they are being pushed up or down by several Feet within a short Time. For Cargo this will be a good Solution, though noone builds Aircraft just for that use case, since the costs are too high.

[@JustaPilot1]

As I have posted elsewhere does anyone want to be sitting in a seat 60-90 feet away from the aircraft centerline while banking for or during a turn? No. This concept has been rejected by the airlines for that, among other, reasons.

[@JFrazer4303]

If they're being aerobatic, something is wrong. People ride through all sorts of motions all the time, in planes, cars, trains, etc.

[@JustaPilot1]

@@JFrazer4303 Not aerobatic. Riding 40- 60+ feet from the center line banking it a turn. That's a long moment arm to be at the end of.

[@The1Pope]

@@JustaPilot1 Yes, but if the banking is modified to replicate the feel of banking in any other aircraft. It seems slower, longer, shallower turns would make the passengers almost unaware of the turn. I think this could easily be accomplished by the pilot.

[@JustaPilot1]

@@The1Pope I'm guessing you're not a pilot. Nowhere in any of the press announcements or literature is modifying the turns to replicate conventional aircraft mentioned. That is just not possible all the time. There are a lot of times during flight, especially during an approach to landing when steeper turns are necessary. Regardless they are still at the end of a long moment arm and will feel the bank much greater than at the centerline. It's a moot point as the airlines rejected this design concept years ago for this and other reasons. As I said in another post this would be a good cargo aircraft but the very high cost of repairing and rebuilding the terminals would not be cost effective.

[@MySpace662]

I would prefer the engines below blended with the body.

[@The1Pope]

It's about time this concept is being built by JetZero and Northrop Grumman. It'll be great for the military but it's way too expensive and unstable for the passenger airline and air cargo industry. There is another. See patent D984,353. Simpler, cheaper to produce and stable, this design is much more practical. The BWB is great as a larger, military transport with stealth capability. The airline/cargo industry can't afford this AND it can be made only SO small and still fit people in it. The LFC (Lifting Fuselage Configuration) can easily be made any size needed down to 150 or as large as 1,000 passenger planes. This is perfect for hydrogen or battery conversion and still have room for high profit cargo. The LFC IS the design for the future of air transport.

[@glike2]

Thanks, I will look. BS Aeronautical Engineering CPSLO 1995

[@glike2]

Ok, I get it. Simplify the BWB for competitive manufacturing costs, add canards for greater stability and efficiency. PRSEUS 1 atmosphere capability enables large flat panels body. Competing with the established low cost tube and wing manufacturer base, with a better product is the 1st step.

[@The1Pope]

@@glike2 Yep. You get it. I just hope the airline industry can get it, well, Boeing. Not much alternative if I want to keep it in the U S. I'm workin' on it.

[@JFrazer4303]

search turns up nothing for D 984,353

[@The1Pope]

@@JFrazer4303Thanks for looking. Try this. Google Patents, D(no space)984,353.

[@TheGhungFu]

"will change air travel forever..." Meh, been hearing that since I got Popular Science in the '60s.

[@aviapages]

It will definitely change, but the question is when. :) Perhaps not with this project, but through the exploration of one concept, we might make other discoveries and revolutionize the entire conventional concept of aviation. The key is to keep developing theories and testing them.

[@bensmith7536]

Nope, wont be seen for hundreds of years, if at all.... the A380 four jet design is extinct, passenger jets are smaller and slower than 1950s types, two engines for economy.... these megajet concepts are great for wooooo the fuchur!!!11!! theories and youtube content for people who dont know much about actual jet design evolution, the reality is these lumbering triangles just wont exist from a cost/benefit and design efficiency reason. Yet these videos keep appearing, again and again, relying on viewers ignorance of the field.

[@aviapages]

Hello Ben Smith, an interesting point of view. So, Airbus, Bombardier, Boeing, and other companies investing in these prototypes are doing it for marketing purposes?

[@gort8203]

Yeah, this is not a new concept. We've been 'on the cusp of this revolution' for many decades now. The claims for dramatically increased efficiency have yet to cause one to be put into production. As a start I would like to see a comparison of the real world drag numbers of a BWB vs a conventional aircraft that have the same cruise speed, payload, and range. Then we can consider the other issues.

[@The1Pope]

@@gort8203 Yes, you are right to be skeptical. This appeared on the cover of Pop-Sci in 1995 and here we are, almost 30 years later. This design has been proven to be much more efficient BUT it's to stinkin' expensive to expect a decent return on investment. There is another choice. Look up Vincent Burnelli, born in Temple Texas in 1895. Built 9 planes of a simpler, inexpensive, stable design called a Lifting Fuselage. It outperformed all tube and wing designs of the day. He was backed by all the experts of the day but was ignored because the tube and wing design seemed set in stone and was good enough, as it is today. But today, this Lifting Fuselage design could be built with NASA's PRSEUS composite for less than any tube and wing and way less than the BWB. It can carry much more with the same propulsion. It will be more profitable. Check it out. See patent D984,353, a Lifting Fuselage Configuration (LFC). It CAN replace all the world's inefficient planes, cost less to produce, fly and maintain and make airlines and cargo companies more profitable again. See the ongoing research on the LFC by Thomas Reist, University of Toronto.

[@JFrazer4303]

Efficiency savings apply for regionals as well as jumbos. And freight & military users are buying big.

[@The1Pope]

You may be right about the "Mega-jets" thing. This is why the "Lifting Fuselage Configuration" (LFC) is the right thing for the time. As efficient yet can be made as small as 100 passenger bodies. There's also a new, proven technology coming up fast, the CoFlow Jet system. May be used to replace the broken copter. It will make the LFC even more efficient and safe. Check that out too. Google, Mars MAGGIE. Surpasses Ingenuity's reach by more than an order of magnitude.