Cranfield AVD 2015/16 NASA N3-X

[@samievans9632]

A big thumbs up from a former AVD student at Cranfield University. Nicely done. Good luck for the future.

[@howardlucca7949]

Instablaster.

[@ezyrod]

You might want to work on the interior layout! It is absolutely claustrophobic!

[@philoso377]

Curved surface facing (up) was intended to produce lift (upwards), while surface facing (down) should not produce lift (downward). The delta fuselage in this video 9:10 has flat top with a balloon belly bottom. This way the fuselage will produce lift (downward) is a mistake. Which is excusable if we are dealing with an artist, not excusable to aircraft engineers or science student.

[@em3876]

sorry, you have it all wrong, the "upside-down aerofoil" is actually deliberate and generates more lift and greater stability for the aircraft. Remember that aerofoils produce lift regardless of the orientation (unless specifically shaped to generate lift in one orientation, which this one does not), also if you are interested in the reasonings to this read the Cambridge mit institutes silent aircraft initiative, they have a research paper explaining why the aircraft has a belly and the different types of aerofoils used at different cross-sections of the aircraft.

[@philoso377]

@@em3876 I’m afraid we have a new member to the science celebrity academia, embrace concepts whole but scrutiny and reasoning of what they offers. When we want to kill lift, add bow to lower surfaces and reduce bow at top, to wing and fuselage. Example? Gliding space crafts returning from orbit or upper atmosphere doesn’t need much upward lift (if they don’t to missed dinner of the day) are usually have little or wingless. All of them have fuselage bow downward - for increased sink rate and stability. The artist misunderstood this piece of aerodynamic.

[@Macrocompassion]

This design does not take full advantage of the wing/body thickness, which can reduce structural weight but with some increase in form drag. The 1960's had the Handley Page proposal HP 117 all wing design, but doubts about its stability and control were not satisfied although it saved on fuel by its suction boundary-layer control.

[@steve-rr3nq]

bring the engines inboard. a single engine failure would cause a bad yaw, and possible loss of control. other than that. i like it.

[@x-gamessimulator1067]

No

[@x-gamessimulator1067]

The TurboShaft engine make energy for eléctric engines

[@steve-rr3nq]

@@x-gamessimulator1067 electric motors can and do fail. with the engine that far outboard, will put you on a spin, if one fails. that or add a big honking rudder.

[@xpeterson]

Biggest hurdle for blended wing bodies that I'm aware of, and the main reason they haven't been developed yet, is how to pressurize something more complex than a cylinder without adding tons of weight. How does this plane propose to solve this?

[@JFrazer4303]

McD earliest studies, then Boeing and NASA and others all say it's a lighter structure, (even discounting the lesser overall area) less fuel burn per set mile, more payload, reduced landing speed by ~60 kts compared to a "normal" jet of same power and fuel load and footprint. Even if they need to reinforce structure with more mass (which they aren't even sure is necessary), it's less overall.

[@ArturMcCloud]

So this means we gonna be crammed as usual but with more people and no window?

[@michaeltalbot8242]

That's not the worst bit as a aircraft systems and safety engineer I'd like to see the escape procedure for a wg a whells up and in or water ditching how will they get all the passengers out in the given time

[@thomasfiore9635]

If the crammed in is your issue write Congress and the Senate to get the minimum seat width and legroom increased to human sized proportions. The concept here is to move to electricity instead of jet fuel to make flight more sustainable as part of combating climate change.

[@phillcom3]

@@michaeltalbot8242 I was thinking the same. There's no way that many sales can evacuate in the standard time.

[@jsmariani4180]

@@thomasfiore9635 Congress's main concern is keeping the airlines in business. Lobbyists will pressure Congress to keep hands off.

[@armenio1947]

Great video, excellent work.

[@tariyaposhar8363]

I've contributed to this project!

[@GregorKropotkin-qu2hp]

Claustrophobic with so few windows, also how would passenger evacuation in the event of an emergency be carried out?- i imagine that there would be a lot of panic as the exits are much further from where people would be seated.

[@JFrazer4303]

McD and Boeing and NASA and Airbus do all the normal tests for evacuation and it meets every one if designed right; only so many people per door, no more than 6 steps to door,, etc, even if half the doors aren't useable. No one but media says they need to e huge 900 passenger monsters either. 120 pax plane is no problem. Freight doesn't care, nor do military users.

[@matthewchang5701]

Can someone build this please build the full scale model

[@th1nk_outside]

where is it? i guess the problem is the electric propulsion

[@MEBSHIVA]

Which software is you used in the project

[@allanradcliffe6204]

Thought the Cranberrys were going to come on... but I like the Blended Wing Lifting Body designs!

[@arksodyssey]

bro how did u do the animation?

[@M.T....]

Welcome to an airframe manufacturers nightmare.

[@davidazichek5377]

great idea now let's make it happen!

[@marklarson3934]

There's 100 reasons why that won't happen. The future HPM Aircraft will enter low orbit then reenter toward their destination as a glider.

[@allanradcliffe6204]

Would it be worth it to also have a positively charged ionic field in front of the wing and body? Might get some good benefit from laminar effects and general smooothing? Less atmospheric drag? Good to see young people with ideas and vision!! Yeah makes an old geezer happy!!

[@datathunderstorm]

Shhhh! Aurora’s Classified Black Flying Triangle says to stop giving its secrets away! 😎

[@rathwije1579]

100%.Well done , well explained everything.

[@Yetipfote]

why do they have so many Nintendo Switch near the cock pit?

[@salem42salem42]

I wonder if she came in for a cross wind landing ..wheres its stability...no Rudder or tail fin.

[@computeraddic675]

A lot of tanks and electric motors?????

[@JFrazer4303]

For safety and cost, a tailed flying wing might be the better option. Lock-Mart is exploring this for their hybrid wing-body logistics planes, and see the US patent 6923403 by Dizdarevic, Faruk Also the earlier Burnelli lifting body planes had tails, as the simpler and safer solution, compared to relying on complexity for survivability. Even for a chunky Burnelli body, performance is markedly improved. See also the '70s Boeing 754 lifting body, which like the Burnelli did not require advanced technology to achieve large gains in efficiency, with tails. As well, Airbus and others are working on similar lifting bodies which have tail surfaces added, similar to the older Tu-404. You're sacrificing differential static drag or thrust by going tail-less, and the tail instantly removes all doubts about the general fly-abilty of the plane.

[@DevoteeCT]

Evacuation looks like a problem.

[@sineadhylandart8688]

The mandatory 90 second emergency egress requirement was fulfilled

[@p.sanchez9952]

Great Job!!

[@DANTHETUBEMAN]

i would think on a "advanced" aircraft like this they could double the seating by stacking another halve of the passengers to the ceiling. :) or just "update" to cattle pens and feed troaugh's

[@briangarrison1323]

needs a 3d jet engine in the middle of electric fans to offset the stress on the outer wings by the other two or you can put the jet engines ressesed in the body like the stealth bomber and remove them from the outer Wings all together

[@usamahlatif]

I wonder how the yaw movement is controlled in this aircraft? As I didn't see any rudder control surface. Thanks in advance for the insight.

[@CranfieldAVDOctober]

there is no vertical control surfaces, we based our calculations on differential thrust of the 14 fans to create yaw

[@JFrazer4303]

That's never enough. It needs to fly power-off, or it's a death trap if complexity fails. Military might accept such a thing, but you're dooming it to being a paper plane. Burnelli CBY-3 was an efficient lifting body and you could stall it and kick the rudder and let go - and it glides straight out of it.

[@DomokosLajos]

2024 ? 🤔🤨

[@x-gamessimulator1067]

🎉

[@x-gamessimulator1067]

Iss good concept

[@j.e.turcotte7015]

music sounds like something from sasche ende =)

[@jebise1126]

doesnt seem hybrid makes any sense for aircraft since aircraft engines mostly work at optimal anyway.

[@joshuarobinson8103]

That leg room though.

[@adrianfernandez3459]

Cuantos motores tiene????????????

[@anthonytriolo3643]

Its a good cargo plane that is all,too scary to be on it.

[@desolatesurfer8651]

The animation is very well done. This is obviously not the same size or shape as the N3-X in the official NASA flight photograph. Having witnessed the N3-X in flight in 2009, the size of the actual bird is about 3 times larger than the animation guestimates.

[@CranfieldAVDOctober]

Thank you, but I'm confused about your comment, this aircraft is still in the conceptual phase and has never been built, perhaps you are mistaking it for the Boeing X-48? There is a slight scaling issue with the background airport in this video. However this is just for visualisation (we aren't video making experts by any means). The dimensions and all basic technical data used to start this project was provided by NASA Glenn Research Centre who we produced the design for. We were given multiple data sets and airfoils of the aircraft from wingtip to wingtip, therefore the size and shape was never altered. The main difference between NASA rendered images and ours from the exterior is the windshield, which was design to meet pilot viability while providing structural integrity.

[@desolatesurfer8651]

Cranfield AVD October 2015/16 I am not mistaken. It flew over my house at about 900 feet above me. It was banking right enough to see a large party happening inside. The speed was less than 100 miles per hour. Wing tip to wingtip was 300 meters and nose to tail was 125 meters. I wish I had taken my camera with me that night. I thought aliens at first but realized it was NASA Lewis which is 20 miles Northeast of me at Hopkins airport.

[@desolatesurfer8651]

Cranfield AVD October 2015/16 0

[@richardcook1987]

Mate, you do know that these guys designed this plane? It is a Masters Degree project.

[@AndyMatrix]

It was X-48 not N3-X .

[@AndyMatrix]

nice plane, put some windows(Skylight ) on top and you good to go.

[@glennbryanbacus1704]

660th Approved !!!

[@craigkdillon]

Interesting - using liquid hydrogen for fuel, instead of jet fuel. That eliminates GHG CO2, which is good.

[@ElohimElite]

Almost same design as my spaceship. the wing is not needed. a lift body is more than enough with a fusion reactor engine. running on 3He and Hydrogen. My ship have a 45/100 yrs range. future plasma pulsar engines can reach alpha centauri in less them 50 years on 3He and running on antimatter under 10 yrs. Electric is the answer but please drop these fans ideas soon as possible . this is not the way. Btw each engine needs a supercapacitor battery delivering 50 TWh of power.

[@michaelkruk553]

FUSION REACTOR?!!!!! Stop watching Star Trek ,and get a life(girlfriend)!!!

[@My-Opinion-Doesnt-Matter]

Cool, it has 30 windows for 300+ passengers.

[@solarslot01]

Use network of cameras instead of windows - aerodynamic gain.

[@ioanbota9397]

I like this plane

[@tsclly2377]

pipe dream. won't have the speed due to turbulent and differential flow issues over the large wing area when hitting the electric fans Single engine out issue with the fan jet engines and the more efficient jet engines work best at lower speeds and the large frontal area if the large radius nose of the leading edge is a low speed design then there is the altitude that this thing will be flying at , it is going to structurally bulge of the compartments aren't rounded out into a series of more cylindrical forms internally,.. this thing will spin like a top if it get slightly out of control. Fly this first as cargo, 'cause passenger travel is going to CoV tank anyway

[@MINDLE55EMPIRE]

About 480seat though

[@stevenorcutt2099]

Save a lot of expense by just letting and enabling passengers to use their smart phones and tablets.

[@jannicolaisen4671]

Thunderbird 2

[@paulpalermo6763]

Jammed inside with no windows. No me!

[@BadWebDiver]

No public toilets in the design?

[@fayzemourie7776]

👍👍👍 GREAT DESIGN

[@jsmariani4180]

great video but nightmare to fly in. Perfect for dummies though.

[@jamesfarley4644]

No windows will freak out some from getting on plane!

[@sichere]

Glass roof panels

[@marklarson3934]

Sorry, impossible as those wings cound not exceed to speed of sound Must be swept-back design like the B1 Bomber

[@mahmodbozo2062]

Good. .Pliny nasa..😎

[@twistedpi1xelz]

yay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@sonjusamanta2188]

nice

[@atchireddy7680]

Cranfield avd NASA develop in India tata aerospace. India always love s USA united States

[@NikolaiJanovich]

Rough lifting combuster needs a bright spade ,mean it,s a head of stone fish rather then classic trilobite in mine Google+/turkovnj-trilobite Koanda Fly .

[@jozopospa6766]

Jak zastaralé

[@marcoferrari3484]

Ingegneri sono fisi aerei con ali . Areio se vuole andare bene non deve aver le ali Non è u uccello e poi altre tante cose che sbagliano ingegneri di tutto il mondo

[@umvhu]

High tech cattle class transport, moo

[@alfredneuman6488]

TOO SLOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@JFrazer4303]

They are slower and don't fly as high if heavily loaded, but if the payload per footprint is the same as a normal plane they're sightly faster with much more range onto shorter runways.

[@natielesantosdesouza5593]

Pontes

[@陸龍猜]

นี่มันเครื่องบินหรือเรือดำน้ำยังกับหยู่ไนกล่องเลยเข้อ

[@josefverner9653]

Motory na krajích blbost!

[@NeoRazor]

This is the worst presentation I've ever watched.