End of an ERA_Part 1

NASA's Environmentally Responsible Aviation Project is winding down. The final testing of some key projects will bring this successful program to a close. NASA X investigates leading edge wing coatings that may deter bug strikes. Plus, Boeing's PRSEUS composite box lands at Langley and gets put to the test.

[@tom7601]

The description of success is spot on. I remember John Denver say it took him almost 20 years to be an overnight success.

[@peachtrees27]

Thank you for continuing coverage of NASA's aviation work. Love to see and hear about HWB progress. I hope to see such a design at Oshkosh sometime soon...

[@pierrescalet1265]

Pete Kuhn

[@garymcaleer6112]

This is the most amazing "Erector Set" I've ever seen. Hats off to those boys.

[@venusreena2532]

"just barely" that Guppy could have held 1/2 dozen of those

[@ronnormson]

How ingenious! Talk about innovative! I'd like to hangout with the people at Flexsys! I remember seeing the Wright flyer with the wing warping feature and thought the concept was way off base. How wrong was i. Great video! Go Flexsys. Hoping for an update at sometime.

[@TheHead9999]

Take a look at the vertical take off from a NON sandy platform at the beginning and contrast that with the take off from the Moon video on a very dusty surface and also remember the cleanliness of the feet of the Lunar Landing craft. Seems every grin of dust/sand on the lunar surface was held together with cement.

[@hendrsb33]

3:13 THAT is a cool-ass shot!

[@dosmastrify]

that's a pretty cool intro animation Pally

[@UTubeGlennAR]

Vary Interesting and Informative, Big Thank You to All Envolved......

[@MarcStollmeyer]

One big problem with the morphing flaps is that without a gap between the main wing and the flap, airflow over the top of the flap is reduced and increases the chance of stalling. You can very clearly see this at 22:55, the air over the flap is going backwards, loosing lift, and creating an unsafe condition.

[@StephenMortimer]

Wish you would use the term "wing warping" for the old efforts

[@UsherLinder]

Would you please compare and contrast the Flexsys wing with the Mission Adaptive Wing (MAW) that came before it? Thanks!

[@satchpersaud8762]

I kept seeing the udf engines, i was hoping that they would explain why they never got put to use??? They were very cutting edge and fuel efficient

[@gungaldin]

I think the Super Guppy is gorgeous.

[@Zbip57]

Just curious. At 22:55 the airflow over the upper surface of the flap appears completely stalled, with the ribbons fluttering in the wrong direction. That must be generating a huge amount of drag. I guess that's to demonstrate the flaps are strong enough to withstand an over-speed situation?

[@andrewanane9715]

Nice!

[@jaydensatsuki1793]

Awesome!!!

[@bobbypaluga4346]

I love the "flying wing" design. I wonder why it's necessary to punch holes in the frame for windows, when it would be far easier to feed the images outside the aircraft from tiny camera's mounted on the tail, pointy end, and the left and right sides. Thin screens mounted on the interior of the passenger compartment where windows would be can display those camera images. Result less drag from window frames, less cost, as well as a stronger fuselage without punching large holes along the sides as with conventional windows.

[@gendaminoru3195]

Engineered flexible spines which keeps discrete positions inside according to the algorithm and allows the skin to follow a contour. This is all just an evolution process, for example the basic concept was used back in the early 1960's by McDonnell Douglas in the Bent Up Trailing Edge articulating doors when flaps were extended, which followed a very smooth curve like you see here, but it used slide rule designed pivot and support points with cams and guides and flexible seals. We also have morphing winglets before this. Some mechanically actuated like this, but also some thermally expansive dissimilar sheets. This is also useful for active load control, not discussed here. My associate at Phantomworks has been working on the BWB / HWB for decades on behalf of Boeing.

[@jerrysmith7166]

Alllll that engineering for a upward hit! They could have paid me to strike upwards with a damn hammer !!!’

[@MotoGreciaMarios]

After control surfaces utilize the principle that Flexsys pioneers now, the next step will be wings with adjustable section profiles, further enhancing efficiency depending on speed and AoA.

[@davemanmartin]

Any sign of the Flex wing appearing on a commercial plane? Or a timeline?

[@loftsatsympaticodotc]

Great video and we fully subscribe to NASA's goals here- improving general aviation efficiency and safety. A nitpick- I have heard the word for fiber composite creation as "pultruded" ( the opposite direction technique of forming products linearly inside a shaped die as in extruded) or is it really 'Proltruded' as at minute 7:52 ?

[@NASAXrocks]

Lofts, good catch. It is in fact, incorrect. It has since been corrected on programs that air elsewhere, but we have not re-uploaded another program yet.

[@ancharotube7658]

Moooon landing

[@Aeronye]

What is the name of the music at the end? Thank you in advance

[@NASAXrocks]

It's a custom piece written for the program.

[@ronaldngadze9037]

Very informative. Off the topic, why is the 757 at 12:19 taking off with slat asymetry? Anybody know of this flight?

[@bwfvc7770]

I would guess some type of, crosswind/shaded wing, situation

[@samhoang8753]

Can someone tell me what's that object in 18:05?

[@Carstuff111]

Ok, after watching this, it is freaking AWESOME!!! to know that the Super Guppy is still flying :D

[@NASAXrocks]

It's antiquated, loud, scary, but a lot of fun to fly in.

[@Carstuff111]

I would love to fly any of the old birds, I am old fashioned :)

[@harolds789]

Why not build a test xplane using the same composites as the 787. Surely the radical design shape not offer much the same improvement without testing a brand new material

[@realulli]

Most great discoveries are not announced by "Heureka!" but rather by "That's funny. Wait a minute, why does it do that?". I wouldn't be surprised if Archimedes hadn't just been annoyed by his bathtub making a mess on the floor, wondering why it was doing that... ;-)

[@karstenschuhmann8334]

They could have asked Airbus to realize the transport. I guess the successor of the Super-Guppy the Super-Transporter is significant saver and faster.

[@dosmastrify]

17:45 you're also ignoring that the Wright brothers held that patent and were the patent trolls of the day

[@aerohk]

Will all the study data be available to the general public?

[@waynet8953]

It's finance by the public, so it's available.

[@dosmastrify]

9:41. looks like an alien queen! DON'T LET IT EAT RIPLEY!

[@NASAXrocks]

That it does!

[@jennydiazvigneault5548]

787 was not the first all composite aircraft built.

[@kimballscarr]

Home builders have been doing for eons now....

[@finecutpost]

EDITING EDITING EDITING!!!!

[@MasterShot-ke1mr]

How do these composite in carbon pieces deal with lightning strikes?

[@dontsubscribeme9547]

Conducive paint

[@javierespadafor9604]

with a brass grid between layers

[@wayneyd2]

Wing Body aircraft has been in work since the mid 1930's.

[@JFrazer4303]

There is nothing next generation or 30 years ahead of our technology, in the Boeing 754 lifting body, and it offers advantages like this; Range, payload, short field, fuel efficiency. Boeing will not build a blended wing body or any sort of lifting body because they will not ever pay patent royalties to the Burnelli estate. That's the only reason they've been dragging their feet on lifting bodies.

[@tbas8741]

but the space shuttles were full lifting bodies

[@macbomb]

Given he died over 60 years ago, any patent has long since expired. Boeing also owns all the McDonnell Douglas patents for flying wings. No one has figured out hot to pressurize it yet. Current materials will be so heavy it will hurt fuel economy.

[@Eo_Tunun]

According to what I know, patents expire and become public domain after 20 years. The Bunrnelli lifting bodies were what vintage? 1935? Hum. I smell inconsistency of infos here, M'Lud. I guess the greatest issue with flying wings is their incompatibility with established infrastructures at the airports. Maybe the way to success would go via cargo planes in the first place.

[@olsmokey]

Who owns the patent for the Horten bomber design?

[@Payne2view]

I love that your "footage of early aircraft" at 07:00 was a modern video of still flying aircraft taken at The Shuttleworth Collection, Old Warden airfield in the UK in the last few years but turned black & white. :-) There was really no need to do that.

[@NASAXrocks]

Robert, good catch! We love attending shows like that. We thought it would be nice to include that footage and the color just wasn't cutting it.

[@princekp1]

im going to design an aircraft like no other.

[@roxasparks]

Capt.J-Paul do it up??

[@AirborneRenegade]

Why didn't boeing offer the 747LCF

[@AirborneRenegade]

No offense boeing

[@dosmastrify]

so my question to you now is it's kind of ambiguous is NASAx a part of the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration?

[@NASAXrocks]

We are a contracted production company that has worked with NASA for 20 years. We've produced over 100 programs. We also produced "NASA 360" from 2007-2012. And Destination Tomorrow before that.

[@ChamplainDivision]

File footage of train was not of an American train.

[@dontsubscribeme9547]

4:30 Lol if you reduce drag by 8℅ and weight by 10℅ it already ads up to fuel consumption reduction of 18% 😁😁😁

[@ObiTrev]

It's just a piece of fabric covering the gaps!

[@gendaminoru3195]

no it has an engineered flexible spine which keeps discrete positions inside according to the algorithm and allows the skin to follow a contour. We also have morphing winglets before this. Some mechanically actuated like this, but also some thermally expansive dissimilar sheets. This is also useful for active load control, not discussed here.

[@DidivsIvlianvs]

Umm, I like 2X a whole lot better than 1.5X, especially since it inevitably goes down over time until it goes 1X too many.

[@maxdoubt5219]

Uhhh...that's all great but where's my anti-gravity belt?! And my personal warp-drive spacecraft? I'm waaaiting!

[@daneh6240]

Deacon Verter the mindless consumer...

[@andrewporter4636]

Deacon Verter Well you can beam yourself to the mall & book a vacation on Mars or two weeks on good old Luna.

[@joe-ut7ee]

They already got it but is only for their use.

[@budmeister]

Those are impossible.

[@pteppig]

2015 has passed, still waiting for Mr. fusion...

[@TheDirtflyer]

Lifting body or Blended Body Aircraft is realy an old idea. It's been around for some 50 years. I believe Patents were taken out, but , just like the flying wing has some history going back to end of WW 11, for Political reasons it was't chosen to be built. The B-29 was given the contract. Same story here, Berneulli flying AirBody proved it could lift heavier PayLoads with smaller wings. Back in the 1950's.

[@AirborneRenegade]

Go boeing call the blend wing the 807

[@cristineashurst6864]

Concept of ultra efficient low carbon emitting aircraft jet engine: Today's jet engines are efficient with one sizable exception: taking off. For short-haul flights, 80% of the trip fuel is needed for takeoff and getting up to cruise speed. If we could come up with some other way to provide that initial burst of extreme energy to take off and get up to cruise speed, the trip would require but a fraction of the jet fuel that today's jet aircraft use. What we need is an energy storage medium optimized for gigawatt seconds of energy over a period of several minutes. Well, we have such a device, the super capacitor. Keep in mind that, once we've reduced the amount of jet fuel we need, we've gained some leeway in what we can do with the space and weight. Super capacitors and electric motors? Could an electric motor be utilized to run the compressor of the jet engine? All I'm saying is the concept deserves study.

[@dontsubscribeme9547]

Can use the aircraft carrier technology... Buy that would be way way expensive at that scale...

[@harolds789]

Incremental improvements to modern commercial jets have only resulted in incremental boosts in fuel efficiency. Speed has flat if not dropped. Only composite materials and the eureka geared turbofan design has boosted efficiency. What new plane design or engines changes has even been shown in beta form. No supersonic releases. Modern fighter jets are just stealthier, same rough design as those since the F16

[@joshuaburton154]

can you make a hybrid jet use turboshaft engine to power a genarator that drives a internal electric ducted fan and use the jet thrust as well for propulsion

[@DumbledoreMcCracken]

Yes you can, but the losses from going through the generator -> motor will make this less efficient than a normal shaft driven fan.

[@AXgamesoft.Official]

Actually hybrids are predicted to be the future in aviation, but without using the jet's thrust for propulsion, because that would negate the fuel efficiency advantage of such an arrangement (which is why you would seek to make this kind of hybrid in the first place).

[@spidergoose891]

Joshua Burton could, but each conversion of energy causes more energy to be lost to friction

[@omepeet2006]

Yes you can! Sure. No problem. But why would one do that, when driving the fan directly off the turboshaft is far more efficient? Let's face it: the best generators have an efficiency of around 90%, which means around 10% of the power is wasted. Then the electric motor - if you're lucky it will have some 90% efficiency as well, so in the end only 90% of 90% of the turboshaft's power will be left to power the ducted fan. And.., there's the added (dead) weight of the generator and electric motor, which wouldn't have been there with direct drive....

[@jwaustinmunguy]

Joshua Burton Too heavy and there are conversion losses.

[@KuhnOber1]

Flying does not need to be safer. It needs to become enjoyable again.

[@roxasparks]

kuhn oberholtzer needs to be both

[@dontsubscribeme9547]

Lol when tv came it was enjoyable in itself. Same with flying ✈

[@potatoraider7320]

Oi nasa! I think you are still not considering VTOL! Engineers want to save space and save extra plot of soil grid.

[@harolds789]

Nasa could have used the large Ukranian cargo plane or airbus cargo jet

[@adventure9119]

We need a new kind of engine

[@zyadhq8672]

Toxic Bubbles it's not that easy

[@PetrGladkikh]

Draw medic improvements...

[@Marc1973Dez]

at 13:55 , that doesn't make too much cense. Why all of that was built just to simulate a hit from the "bottom", whereas in the real world, that very same hit could come from anything from the nature, with no special calculations, shapes, consistence, color, weight, angle , power etc. !!!!!?!???? Just get random teeagers to hit the bottom of that metal with anything in their hands!!!

[@Incadazant01]

why not just turn the box upside down, then do your weighted drop test as normal?

[@benjwgarner]

Having gravity in a different direction relative to the structure results in different loads and stresses on the material. An impact to the side must be tested horizontally because otherwise, the different loads on the material due to gravity would result in differences in the damage.

[@Will-W]

because then they couldn't come up with an overly complicated and expensive answer. You're thinking with common sense, not like an engineer.

[@MyCicerolima]

Ben Garner

[@flybyairplane3528]

FknRa I just wanted to say, in these years "COMMON SENSE" is a rather RARE commodity, something,g, I have looked at for about, 58 years !

[@MrSunrise-gm5ne]

Ben Garner - Correct. For a structure this size, gravity loads on the components of the structure itself are significant. The exact nature of the failure at the impact point depends on the sum of all of the loads, some of which would be changed to the opposite sign if the structure were inverted.

[@MichaelWilliams-ub3ow]

'New technology winglets and ailerons' ... I had those on my paper darts 60 years ago. Shame I didn't take out a patent!

[@acadman4322]

So, I guess you didn't think of simply inverting the keel to allow the vertical drop to work? Hmmm? More fun to make something complex.

[@benjwgarner]

Having gravity in a different direction relative to the structure results in different loads and stresses on the material. An impact to the side must be tested horizontally because otherwise, the different loads on the material due to gravity would result in differences in the damage.

[@acadman4322]

If it is that fragile, I'll agree. thanks. Sorry to sound snide.

[@FPVREVIEWS]

it's not about if it's fragile, but about testing the exact fragility of the material, removing other variables, so that the structure can be optimized. being off by a couple percent would be a complete failure for the test. Most Nasa dev. programs are meant to make a structure up to 4 percent more efficient, sometimes much less, so even a quantifiable percent is a big deal to a program.

[@dosmastrify]

ACADMan of course it's more fun to make something more complicated and new haven't you ever played Kerbal Space Program? if not you really should try it

[@Eo_Tunun]

That's what I was thinking, Spring load is too unpredictable? Well, why not get a set of springs and measure them meticulously at each bit of compression, rather than having that sled bumping and bopping over the uneven bits of that rail and even scratch its arresters along it with unknown normal force at unknown speed in unknown places of unknown friction coefficients… I'm still scratching my head over that bit.

[@dosmastrify]

how the hell do you only have 3 subscribers?!? well, I'll do my part and increase your subscriber Base by 25%!

[@NASAXrocks]

No idea why. But we reach millions on DIRECTV and iTunes.