Why the Blended-Wing Aircraft is the Way of the Future.

[@megaprojects9649]

Go to surfshark.com/Mega for 4 extra months of Surfshark

[@TheBoringInvestorMan]

Surfshark? Really... come on man I thought you were better than this..

[@keithmuir5077]

so simon is back doing megaprpjects

[@RobynBanks-sg5wl]

Hyperloop lololololol Did I mention I sell cure all snake oil tonic

[@iansteenblock5010]

Aerospace engineer here! So, a huge reason that these are probably not the way of the future and/or viable, is that the structure to make these work is simply too heavy. Aircraft cabins are pressurized, which means that there is a constant pressure pushing from the inside of the aircraft to the outside. This puts a lot of stress on the frame that helps the aircraft keep it's (currently) cylindrical shape. If you want a non-cylindrical fuselage, the stresses will be concentrated in the areas of the fuselage that resist conforming to a cylindrical cross-section. The amount of structure you would need to help support these stress concentrations is so great, that the weight added defeats any performance gains you get from the aerodynamic efficiency. EDIT: Even if you develop lighter, better materials, you're better off implementing those materials in a traditional configuration. The military doesn't mind this for their blended wing bodies, because basically, they have an unlimited budget. BWB for the air force has advantages in stealth technology, and they can also make good cargo aircraft, because cargo bays don't need to be pressurized. When it comes to actual performance, cost, and maintainability, the current airplane configuration is probably not going anywhere. Perhaps we will see open-fan engines or longer/folding/sweeping wings, but when it comes to delivering something that airlines actually want, it has to be weight-efficient, cheap to produce, and easy to interface with existing architecture - which passenger BWBs are very bad at.

[@Bad.BadLeroyBrown]

for military use i:e a refuling aircraft they could contain a clinder within the wide body for presurisation to allow members to go back and forth, but the body would provide the storage for fuel needed for refuling. simple solution covering both the traditional solution with the new wide body advantages

[@ellagrant6190]

I assume a design something like the Akula Class submarine where it's basically two cylinders side by side, would still have significant weight?

[@iansteenblock5010]

@@Bad.BadLeroyBrown sure. There are no doubt military applications for BWB, and you see them used. For civilian, not so much

[@gwarne2304]

How does the galaxy, globemaster and A380 achieve their pressurisation with their none cylindrical bodies?

[@iansteenblock5010]

@ellagrant6190 Circles are extremely circumference-efficient. The double bubble would require the same amount of structure as an equivalently wide wide-body fuselage, but the passenger area would feel more cramped and the cargo area would be significantly smaller. The larger radius of the wide body cabin helps relieve pressure on the frame, allowing it to be designed lighter. Airlines actually run revenue cargo on international flights, so your seat is subsidized by transportation of goods. Sure, you're improving on wetted area, but that gain trades away if you are comparing flying a passenger jet AND a cargo jet instead of just one wide body.

[@natecw4164]

My gut tells me the delays in getting these going for commercial flights largely centers around concerns the seats might be too big.

[@AdamtheRed-]

😂😂😂

[@tlum4081]

Yeah, but they'll just squeeze more seats for each row. Profits over people.

[@EDVenturesFL]

that the wing design is incredibly unsafe should the computer system malfunction because it’s is constantly calculating to keep it in the air

[@mochachaiguy]

😂🤣😂

[@nickdorsett7777]

It's concerns that passengers farther out on the wing will experience too much vertical travel during turns, decreasing comfort and making them less likely to fly

[@michiganengineer8621]

One potential issue with a BWB airliner is going to be airsickness. In a standard airliner, if/when the plane rolls (even very gently) to make a turn the passengers don't experience much of a change because of how narrow the fuselage is. In a BWB many of the passengers will be farther away from the axis of rotation, so they're going to feel that motion a LOT more. If they have to make a harder bank, say for noise abatement reasons, the pax on the "inside" of the turn will feel like they're on an elevator whose cable has snapped, while the pax on the opposite side will suddenly feel like they've been launched on a slingshot ride.

[@Narco42]

Sounds exciting!

[@michiganengineer8621]

@@Narco42 Yeah, until the kid sitting right behind you barfs in your hair!

[@westrim]

They could double decker people down the center and put cargo in the wings, rather than under the people.

[@danielp.2213]

Count me out especially for a long flight. I would come out with ptsd

[@ycplum7062]

If the passenger section is only twice as wide as today's widebody, it shouldn't be too bad. Also, if the engine is above the wingbody, that would significantly reduce noise. Where I see a problem is at the boarding gates. Existing biarding gates naybe to closely spaced.

[@ronfitzhenry3726]

They said the same thing 35 years ago with roughly the same design. One of the problem back then was getting access to the gates with extra large wings. They even had design with folding wings.

[@SonsOfLorgar]

Sounds like the easiest sollution is to give it landing gear that compress at the gate and lowers the aircraft to allow passengers to enter through a set of roof hatches/ramps.

[@twistedyogert]

​@@SonsOfLorgar Or a rear air-stair or ramp.

[@andrewday3206]

My understanding is it is easiest to build a round shape to hold pressure, but pressurizing the cabin that is anything but round was not easy. The round tube is inherently strong. Aluminum back in the day could not withstand the compression and decompression cycles and be both strong and light enough. Composites on the other hand are very light and can be built strong and light enough to work.

[@yakirfrankoveig8094]

​@@SonsOfLorgaryou dont want passengers entering through the roof. Wheel chairs cant do that

[@yakirfrankoveig8094]

​@@andrewday3206yes sort of for any given amount of material a perfectly round shape can whistand more pressure but im pretty sure that planes are already not constrained by the pressure but rather the aero loads and landing loads because the pressure delta in a commercial airliner isnt very significant at the heighest airliners fly at 12 km according to a quick google search at that altitude ambient pressure is about 20 kPa which is 1/5 atmospheres airliners also pressurise to 80% or 4/5 atm pressure meaning the delta is 3/5 atm on the iss the difference is 1 atm and a small hole on the iss was once sealed by kapton tape and some gauze with epoxy on it so i think its safe to say that bwb aircraft wont mind such a minimal pressure delta

[@johnburns4017]

Boeing and Imperial College in London were working on a blended-wing aircraft as a seaplane. It would hold at least 1,500 passenger. Being so large it would be only feasible on trans-ocean trips - similar to large ships. This would mean airports in estuaries or harbors, like the Thames Estuary, the River Mersey estuary/Liverpool Bay, New York Harbor, etc. High speed rail could link the new airports to cities.

[@FloraLauraLou]

This has been the "next big thing" for the last 20 years that I've been in aerospace engineering. In addition to the huge size, getting FAA/CAA clearances to fly commercial passengers something that isn't the standard tube and 2 sticks model is so difficult that its almost impossible

[@jac6548]

Right now, the cost involved in shifting infrastructure seems too enormous for any private companies to undertake I think, as usual, it will take the military to adapt it and use it on a large scale before things trickle down to commercial

[@iansteenblock5010]

It's not even better than stick/tube. The weight cost to implement this configuration in a pressurized cabin is tremendous. Commercial is much better off trying to reduce the cost/increase the rate of composite manufacturing to produce lighter airframes with higher cabin pressures at rate.

[@gpaull2]

We’ve been on the verge of this for 30 years….

[@gearyae]

All I want is a weight-limited design instead of volume-limited so the airlines aren't incentivized to cram people in. Then we can all have leg room.

[@iansteenblock5010]

The math behind aircraft performance is directly tied to weight. No matter how the aircraft is configured, there will always be a cost/sq.ft/mile, which is the figure they use to price seats. Airplane tickets are cheaper than they've even been, and that's a direct result of economy seating. They COULD configure airplanes with only first-class seating, but then every single ticket would be first-class price.

[@xchazz86]

If they get more volume then they will just cram more people in, the last thing they want is more leg room for passengers. The goal of all corporations is always profit maximisation.

[@gearyae]

@xchazz86 perhaps you don't understand what weight-limited means. It means they physically cannot lift more people, but still have lots of room. Currently they are volume-limited by the tube design of airplanes, so they can lift more weight and can cram people in for profit.

[@ctcboater]

Structurally, the ideal shape for a pressurized aircraft is a cylinder. Every deviation from that ideal adds weight. Composites have helped somewhat, but every change to the blended wing adds weight and expense. A passenger aircraft in a non-ideal shape will be limited to a very small overall size.

[@mastpg]

The design and engine requirements lead to it being less noisy during flight. The lower wetted area leads to it being more efficient at lower altitudes. You could see much more gradual climbs to much lower altitudes and a pressurization of

[@number1trucker]

TY for including english and metric measurements. It's refreshing to hear a newer video with those. Please keep it up. Love all your channels. 😊

[@whiteandnerdytuba]

Window seats about to get expensive af

[@nannyg666]

Please consider 1) Current airliners have remained mostly unchanged for about 60 years. There is a reason why. The design has been almost perfected and accidents are now extremely rare. 2) Any fundamental design change will rely upon accidents and the design adjustments that result from those accidents. No one wants to be part of that learning curve.

[@_Bosley]

You still need to keep the passengers in the center of the fuselage otherwise the roll of a turn will make it too much like a roller coaster lol

[@Quagma-b2i]

But roller-coasters are fun! 😂

[@danzevg]

This is why I think the tech will be used for Cargo/Tankers only.. Agreed. Can you imagine some Pet in the hold🥴 ..?

[@gpaull2]

How is that any different than pitching when sitting in the front or back of current designs?

[@paulthebaker]

It’s about the theory of arm and moment. Excess roll.

[@rupamar]

And you really believe that 0,1 g makes a difference? LOL

[@tomedward8652]

We studied this concept when I studied aircraft design at Cranfield University. It will never be a commercial passenger carrier. In the event of a crash impossible to evacuate.

[@davidmccarthy6061]

Can we all have ejection seats? That might be fun.

[@Royce16727]

Thank you for the audio description. I'm blind, so I really appreciate it! Still hate the new outro music, though. Lol

[@metalhead2550]

Blended wing has been on the verge of breakthrough supposedly for at least 3 decades....

[@TricksterDaemon-jw9hi]

'This new design will drastically increase fuselage space for passengers and luggage!' 'So... you'll stop cramming in the absolute maximum seat per square meter, and give passengers a little extra personal space?' 'I never said THAT...'

[@onenote6619]

Blended-wing has been around as a concept for a long time. And the question is: How do you evacuate the central seats in an emergency. No idea? The designers don't know either. That's why it always stays at the concept stage.

[@IKetoth]

Assuming you mean the back half of seats which don't have windows: Ramps (throw bathrooms under them) and roof hatches? that doesn't sound wildly complex IMO

[@정원우-z5j]

@@IKetothit's more complicated than that. What if it lands on water? What if it lands without gears deployed? Ramps would be no use for either of situations, and it would take significantly longer time to evacuate people in the center.

[@IKetoth]

@정원우-z5j I meant to say ramps leading to the top/back of the fuselage on either side, it shouldn't really be more dangerous than emergency doors opening onto wings, as for speed, I don't know why it'd be any slower besides the odd elderly person who might need help to go up an incline

[@felipaorfr]

Another big problem is that a cylinder is the optimal shape to endure thousands of pressurization cycles as the aircraft climbs and lands. Blended-Wing will severely decrease the plane's lifespan.

[@davescott7680]

​@@felipaorfrsomewhere between 0-1 atmosphere of pressure isn't much.

[@winstonsmith478]

Fundamental flaw: hypersensitivity to roll at any seating away from the axis of rotation.

[@SheezyBabyMusic]

Damn. That's an easy one to overlook. Excellent observation.

[@MathewAlden]

That's fair, but can the pilots just... roll slower? idk, I don't know that much about planes.

[@_Bosley]

Much better wording than my sloppy attempt lol

[@bradgump9751]

​Yes. With a fly by wire system, the input is restricted to help control roll. Can't be manual input because speed has a hugh impact on the amount of roll this type of aircraft has ​@MathewAlden

[@NickSteffen]

Still great for cargo though. Especially with the enlarged interior. Biggest problem for me is that these have been talked about for ages and despite that fact there are no real large commercial initiatives at building one. Which leads me to think everyone is overlooking some really big issues.

[@Ga5im]

Ah yes, two of my favourite things in one place: Simon and Aeronautics

[@MrTubeuser12]

2:50 I pictured a sunfish flying at 30,000 feet once, too many shrooms I think LOL

[@jerrysstories711]

0:43 Aw, it looks so happy and excited from the front!

[@tigersharkzh]

For certification passenger aircraft need to be able to evacuate within a small timeframe. These designs have all shown in simulations that they have no chance of doing so. Then the roll rate would have to be reduced to a ridiculously low rate so passengers, their food, drinks, and hand luggage isn't thrown to the ceiling.

[@gpaull2]

That doesn’t happen to passengers in the front and back when pitching in the current designs. The rate of roll wouldn’t have to be any different than pitching is currently done in cruise. Also see “coordinated turn”.

[@Quintinius31]

Yea. For certification all passengers must be out of the plane in less than 90secondes when half the doors are closed. Not a single chance with that concept. And let's not start about manufacturing, pressure and airport infrastructures Tubular design is still there for a looooooong time

[@danzevg]

@@Quintinius31 Sometimes Design philosophy is there for a reason.. Too thin laptops break..and can't be easily fixed.. Autonomous/ EV cars can't drive well in bad weather..yet.... I think with proper Vstol/Vtol tech this .."Could happen" but dang..the cost.

[@TheHarberHangar]

McDonnell Douglas & Cranfield did real world tests in the 1990s and proved evacuation was feasible and motion-simulation showed passenger acceptance was likely.

[@pahtar7189]

BWBs will be truly excellent in the cargo and aerial tanker roles and I expect these will be the first types in service. Passenger aircraft, on the other hand, face big challenges. First, widebody aircraft already induce stomach issues for passengers in window seats. Being in the outboard seats on a BWB would be a roller coaster ride during any turn. They could mitigate this by keeping the 10 abreast seating, with fuel and cargo in the wing roots. This would make it even less useful for short haul flights. Second, most rows of seats won't have side windows which could trigger claustrophobia and/or boredom in some passengers. This could be mitigated by skylights and monitors where the windows would be, streaming video from cameras facing sideways.

[@Hobbityfus]

Most likely as a cargo plane or smth in this direction, seems like evacuation might be slightly problematic. Or you just employ every seat with its own escape hatch and parachute, in case of emergency everyone gets booted from the plane.

[@yakirfrankoveig8094]

The only requirement for evac is less than 90s should be easy enough i think

[@AeroSeb]

You should include that there are concepts like the Aurora D8 or the Onera Nova which combine the blended body concept with the standard plane design. They are meant to be used without modifying the existing gates or infrastructures.

[@ianyoung1106]

Never thought I’d hear Simon discussing motor boating in a video touching on pure aerodynamics, but here we are….

[@matsv201]

This solution is really only good as long as you don´t think about what you are transporting.... humans. The issue with humans is that they do poorly in a low pressure environment. The third largest stress factor on a aircrat is the fuselage length, the second largest stress-factor is the wing. The largest stress-factor is actually the cabin pressure vesil. THis is also the that most often fail. To design a aircraft that don´t have this in mind will make it very heavy, and that is basically the reason why we have no belended wing passanger airfcraft. While, blended wing fighters and bombers are pretty common. The fuel saving is also based on that you would fly consideraly higher, something you may not want to do.

[@davidblair9877]

which is why companies pursuing blended-wing commercial aircraft are focusing on the freight market. No need for high cabin pressures there. They can develop to accommodate humans from there.

[@perezwitt]

I worked in Boeing 20 years ago, and that concept was fully developed, but the reality is it takes way too many changes to the gateway and taxiing, but if those changes had been able to be me, deplaning would take 5 to 10 minutes with a goal of turnaround in 15 to 20 (gate would attach to every exit) and fuel consumption decrease of more than 40% (most innefficient fuel consumption is on the tarmac). That whole idea died - boeing's dreams and vision died (that is when they switched their headquarters to Chicago)

[@williamjohn4984]

Some dude was talking about this design and said its not as practical as current tubular design. For one airports are built around the traditional design. Also the old tube design works good enough. What more important is engine development.

[@warmfreeze]

Boeing and airbus had plans for blended wing aircraft for over 20 years and the reason they don’t work is the fact the cost to re- equip every airport in the world to support them as their physical footprint on the apron and dock are much larger then a conventional aircraft not to mention the ground equipment to support them would cost a fortune.. you would literally need to re design every airport in the world to support them

[@yutakago1736]

Blended-Wing Aircraft may be difficult to adapt by airlines because of airport infrastructure. Same reason why few airlines bought the A-380 and there are limited route for A-380. There are infrastructure limitation at the airports for some countries for new plane design. The infrastructure renovation may reduce all the cost saving of the Blended-Wing Aircraft. Pilots retraining cost is also very high.

[@jetsons101]

As a licensed A&P mechanic I fully approve of this video.......

[@aperson5062]

Cool Stuff! When you say in the intro, tech that is here today, first prototypes in 2027 isn't here today. This was posted right after the Boom prototype flew supersonic for the first time. They claim they will be flying their first full size commercial supersonic jets for flight testing starting in 2027.

[@boqntattoo]

The future of air travel is not speed, it's the cost. I don't care if a flight is 4 or 3 hours but I definitely care about the price of the ticket...

[@gtaclevelandcity]

Why do those blended wing planes look so cute?

[@jimsvideos7201]

Getting cargo in and out might be a pain. Riding in one as a passenger - apart from those close to the centerline - sounds like a pain. Using one of these as a tanker though, that could work.

[@tomamberg5361]

1. Simon, please fix your longstanding camera focus problem - aim it at YOU, not the bookshelf! 2. Those big heavy engines above & behind the fuselage? In a crash, they'll have momentum and plough into the passenger area; 3. Passenger planes need to evacuate in 90 seconds, making super-wide jets a no-go; 4. Unless the pilot always does a "coordinated turn", the outer edge passengers are going to get sick; 5. Aforementioned problems with keeping pressurization high but weight low. But... bring on BWB tankers and lower-than-1ATM-pressure cargo haulers!

[@Adiscretefirm]

1 other potential problem for commercial adoption, Boeing announces radical, new design, the flying public "I'm gonna sit this one out"

[@GijsdeRue]

When I started studying aerospace engineering in the late 90s, they said the very same thing. Wake me when there's a full scale maiden flight.

[@carlkinder8201]

Difficult to pressurize and difficult to evacuate in an emergency. The KLM "Flying V" might be a better alternative

[@yakirfrankoveig8094]

Is anyone working on getting those to work? And do they get the same wetted area per volume benefit? Because i seems like that cut in the middle is adding all that area back

[@nicholaskurtz1645]

I'm not an engineer, but I feel like blended wing aircraft will only be cargo/tankers. A more typical aircraft with a lifting body design seems like it would be the more likely next step in the passenger market. They wouldn't need major changes to airport infrastructure and could provide a large enough efficiency gain to warrant a switch without straying too far from the proven design, which could keep development costs lower than a bwb aircraft.

[@chrisfox961]

These planes would be incredible. Thank you for making this video!

[@reecom9884]

It’s like the Extended Twin Operations (ETOPS) which finally allowed twin-engine jetliners to fly across oceans with the modern safety measures in place and the twin-engine’s reliabilaty. The military will be the first ones to use the blended-wing body design. Airlines were slow to use fly-by wire and computers. The blended-wing will have to make computer flight control movements for roll control with the wide body design carrying passengers moving inside the cabin during flight.

[@RandallSanderson-n1o]

The C130 is a tactical air lifter, not strategic.

[@timgarrett203]

You ignored the pressure vessel problem. A Tube fuselage is the lightest pressure vessel. BWB takes a big hit to empty weight when you pressurize the non-circular cabin. Also, the upper mounted engines imposes a takeoff speed/distance penalty. The high thrust line is pushing the nose down on the ground that has to be overtaken by higher lift off speed. Military airdrops from the short fuselage can be problematic. Non-trivial problems.

[@bagotavesw]

The elephant in the room is pressurization. Cylindrical tubes become more rigid under pressure. The blended wing requires a bulky structure to hold an 8,000 ft cabin at 40,000 ft. This is heavy. Blended wings are not coming.

[@jimsvideos7201]

There’s that keeping them from fully pressurized service, but a small pressurized cockpit could make for a good tanker.

[@klaudyw3]

So overall we've got potential control issues, difficulties with emergency evacuations, potential structural issues, issues fitting in with existing airports, and finally trust issues. Somehow i don't think these are going to be a common sight even by 2050, outside of military planes, and maybe some small private jets.

[@Kevan808]

This design will only take hold when the military starts flying them. I look forward to it!

[@lelandcarlson1668]

Blended wing aircraft might make sense for cargo and military applications. However, the blended wing design will have a limited number of window seats available. I don't think they will be all that popular with the public.

[@RadekSuski]

Ironically the Tupolev is 404

[@iceguy9723]

These things would be death traps. The first accident where most the passengers burn to death because they can't evacuate would bankrupt the airline and manufacturer.

[@yakirfrankoveig8094]

Airliners cant be certified anyways without 90s evac time so that would never happen in the first place Edit: even if it did get certified without 90s evac time planes dont really have that many accidents where everyone needs to evac or they will burn there is a reason they are the safest form of travel and that reason isnt the aircraft shape

[@twistedyogert]

Blended wing aircraft would be perfect for electric powerplants. They look big enough to carry larger batteries than traditional configurations.

[@lightningrod1063]

Why is the Blended Wing Aircraft not already the standard? Are there any obvious drawbacks aside from our natural Fear of Change? Was something preventing this design from being adopted? Was a discovery made? Why now? Why not before? How long have aircraft designers been pushing this and why have they been ignored? Cost? Fear of Change? Have all airplane manufacturers come to the same conclusions at the same time? No monopolistic planning? Are we expected to believe it took a century before new designs were considered - even with advanced airports under construction as I type this? Why has Simon failed to anticipate these questions? I've grown accustomed to his videos being more thorough.

[@superdupergrover9857]

They all seem to have top mounted engines, which are harder to maintain than bottom mounted engines.

[@yakirfrankoveig8094]

Why are they harder to maintain?

[@superdupergrover9857]

@@yakirfrankoveig8094 Access. Bottom mounted ones don't need special equipment to get to, whereas the top mounted ones require a cherry picker and/or crane to work on.

[@yakirfrankoveig8094]

@superdupergrover9857 are you talking about the kind of maintenence that has to be done at the hangar or day to day maintenence that can be done at the terminal?

[@michaelpipkin9942]

As you're flying towards the Cliffs of the island, does it gently slide under the waves into the secret cave, when does hover until the volcano opens up?

[@redparr8490]

This might be a weird comment but I really love the outro

[@daveolson9982]

Just a FYI: using hydrogen as a fuel is not "zero emissions". It only is zero emissions for the end user it's kind of like saying using electricity is zero emissions.

[@snjert8406]

When will Simon finally be in focus instead of the shelf behind him

[@peteregan3862]

Probably great business aircraft, but the blended wing shape needs much more structure where current cabins are structure free

[@flo7165]

I think it will also depend on how wide such aircraft would be because airport gates can only. Fir planes with a specific maximum wingspan without costly renovating them

[@pauldrexel1501]

Really enjoyed this

[@corujariousa]

This is one of the technologies I'd like to see implemented in my lifetime. I keep waiting for decades now... We have the materials, electronic/hydraulics aircraft surface controls, entertainment capabilities to compensate for the lack of windows, etc. What is the excuse? 🙂

[@sigurdurmarolafsson4183]

I wonder how long it will be until we get planes flown like a " combat drone"? By this I am talking about planes being flown " from base " instead of having 2 (or more) pilots on board.

[@peteregan3862]

Circular and near circular fuselages are great for pax and cargo on same plane at low weight and great window views which are sold for a premium

[@yakirfrankoveig8094]

They can be sold for more of a premium if there is less of them proportionally

[@blameyourself4489]

Aerospace engineer here! No, the blended wing is not the future. There are some major issues, such as passenger discomfort due to high pull of G's because of the design layout. Furthermore, the evacation rule of 90 seconds cannot be obtained. In general, blended body a/c are bad in any economic aspect.

[@Jaeger62]

Getting closer to the Arkbird!

[@Pouncer9000]

Visions of air transport including blended wing aircraft, blimps, flying cars and other personal vehicles have been around for over 70 years, with workable prototypes using 50's, 60's 70's ..tech. A more interesting subject for a video would have been trying to explain why we don't have them today in spite of it never have been an engineering problem?

[@PotatoHopback]

Great concept in theory, but we've heard this time and time again over the decades with absolutely zero advancement in commercial aviation. There's a lot more to consider than just efficiency. Aircraft manufacturers would have to invest in various new multi-million dollar manufacturing tools to machine completely new parts, which I would say is pretty much out of the question. Training pilots, mechanics, and ground crews on a new aircraft type will take a substantial amount of time and money for airlines, not to mention the cost of purchasing a fleet of first gen aircraft types. Then there's the task of refitting and reconstruction that airports would have to take on to accept a radically new plane design, which would not be economically feasible for most cities or municipalities. All in all, it's fun to talk about and I look forward to seeing this brought up again in another 10 years.

[@SebSN-y3f]

The historical development goes back further, as the advantages were known early on. "The concept of the flying wing was born on February 16, 1876, when the French engineers Alphonse Pénaud and Paul Gauchot filed a patent for "an aircraft or flying machine" that is driven by two propellers and has all the properties of a flying wing as we know it today. It was only with the end of the First World War and the start of civil aviation that the concept gained momentum. The first technical implementations of the flying wing idea go back to a publication by Friedrich Ahlborn in 1897, in which the stable flight properties of the seeds of the climbing plant Zanonia macrocarpa are described. The Austrian Ignaz "Igo" Etrich developed the first flying wing in 1903 based on this flying seed, received a patent for it in 1905, and flew a manned glider with this wing shape for the first time in 1906. In England, the painter and aviation pioneer José Weiss also designed gliders based on this principle. In 1910, Hugo Junkers registered a patent for a flying wing..."*) The Russians had also tried out such aircraft and the German air force had also developed such aircraft with Horten etc. The US Air Force captured this development and even bomber squadrons with such aircraft. The problem is that these aircraft were not as easy to maneuver at the time, as they later became possible with computer support. It is interesting to note that a few years ago, German aircraft engineers had significantly further developed a model of Horten's flying wing by shifting the center of gravity to the rear. Incidentally, the US company BOOM has just successfully tested the first supersonic aircraft developed entirely privately in the US yesterday. This will soon be used to create a supersonic passenger aircraft that will halve travel time. NASA, in turn, has presented an aircraft concept, the X-61, that could reduce fuel consumption by 30%. *) Also from Wiki (germ. Vers): "The flying wing idea was subsequently continued in Germany by Alexander Lippisch and the Horten brothers, in Switzerland by Alexander Leo Soldenhoff, in the USA by Jack Northrop,[5] in the Soviet Union by Boris Ivanovich Cheranovsky, in France by Charles Fauvel and in Great Britain by Geoffrey T. R. Hill and the Handley Page Aircraft Company. During the Second World War, the development of tailless types in Germany and the USA underwent significant further development, leading, for example, to the Me 163 and the Northrop N-9M as well as the Horten H IX. Immediately after the end of the war, the victorious powers took up these concepts and the De Havilland DH.108 Swallow, the Northrop X-4 and the Chance Vought F7U Cutlass were created. The Northrop YB-35 and its further development, the Northrop YB-49, also did not fly until after the end of the war. The experimental aircraft A.W.52 was built at Armstrong Whitworth. Nevertheless, the pure flying wing was never really ready for series production until the introduction of the Northrop B-2."

[@yakirfrankoveig8094]

This isnt a flying wing it has some of its advantages but it isnt one

[@pkt1213]

Have you done a video on The Bone? Pretty cool plane with a higher bomb payload than a B-52.

[@njm3211]

The compound curves in blended bodies are way more expensive to produce than the tubes currently in use. OK, for the military with unlimited budgets.

[@Bucketroo]

The Aurora project is a Quinjet! Tupolev TU-404: airplane not found.

[@2Burgers_1Pizza]

Thrust vectoring and actually powerful engines would eliminate low speed instability for blended wing aircraft. The only real issue with this design is pilot training.

[@yakirfrankoveig8094]

Thrust vectoring sounds heavy for such large engines

[@flyingconsultant]

I made a couple of rc and wire models with similar concepts 40+ years ago.

[@glike2]

Frontal area is important on cars because their aerodynamics are terrible. But on airplanes the aerodynamics are perfected so the wetted area is an important parameter. But this must be balanced with induced drag which scales with the square of wingspan divided by weight

[@damongraham1398]

Why do most of the concepts have the engines above the body? Do the engines have to be near the center? Could the engines be at the furthest edge of the main body or the tips of the wings? If the B-1 engines were more integrated with its lifting body would that reduce its radar cross section?

[@Quetzalcoatl_Feathered_Serpent]

The blended wings would be good for military, bombers, special fightersn maybe a transport, research craft for various uses, private cause wealthy people would want a new design, and perhaps even future space shuttles. As a commercial aircraft they simply are not reliable on passenger safety due to the blended wing making it difficult for passangers to evacuate in a timely matter unless the aircraft has a novel way of getting around it.

[@bjaymac1712]

No Simon. Thank you for hosting 🤙

[@JessWLStuart]

The only thing I don't like about these designs is I wouldn't be able to look down towards the ground through the windows (my favorite thing to do when flying)!

[@yakirfrankoveig8094]

Yes but ill take it if it reduces the cost of flying

[@djobert2402]

You have to do canadian super scooper plane.. From the CL-215 to the brand new DHC-515!

[@EricPierce-n8y]

The blended wing is the future of aviation...and has been for like 80 years.

[@DLOUI-c7c]

0 to 5,000 mph at a blink of the eye without sonic boom !

[@yakirfrankoveig8094]

What are you talking about?

[@meatloaf5772]

The future of aviation is drones, AI, automated systems etc. that’s part of the reason why people aren’t becoming pilots-they’re terrified they’ll be without a job-and just one contributing factor to the current pilot shortage. Which will only further justify replacing pilots with said drones and automation.

[@yakirfrankoveig8094]

None of that works against bwb

[@hklamb5687]

Big issue blended wing commercial aircraft will run into is emergency exit requirements.

[@glike2]

I think the RT Jones oblique flying wing has even more potential than BWB

[@rossjames9267]

They could think smaller and replace the puddle jumpers to do a wider scale test. Or just talk UPS and FedEx if the increase of cargo and fuel are true.

[@iandickson7699]

Blended wing air travel has been the future for 50 years, and always will be, at least for planes that can carry a decent number of people. Passengers hate it. Shorting JetZero as I watch. Cargo/military might happen. Does look cool. I like cool planes ever since 6 year old me lived under the Concord test flights and watched it doing turns above the house :-)

[@markhuebner7580]

I like it! Hope it works out!

[@GetShrektMrKrabs]

That thumbnail really standing out after what just happened tonight

[@StephenJohnson-jb7xe]

Paint a BWB green and International Rescue might find a use for it.

[@YouTube_user3333]

Just like the A380, every airport would need to be upgraded to accommodate the aircraft. The Airbus aircraft is a standard shape. Imagine how much extra work an airport would need to make it work.

[@yakirfrankoveig8094]

Dont imagine! Stop imagining none of you have the ability to extrapolate what a different shape would mean for infrastructure nothing against you maybe you have the ability to do that but the general public will consistantly come to the wrong conclusion when extrapolating from incomplete data

[@YouTube_user3333]

@ Imagine how much extra work an airport would need it make it work. Such as, all the extra baggage handling, airport maintenance facilities, runway strengthening, refueling facilities etc. It’s not that hard. 😆

[@yakirfrankoveig8094]

@KZbin_user3333 it might be harder it might be just as hard if you pick just any person on the street they will all tell you it will be harder because thats the human tendency reality doesnt care about your tendencies

[@griffinmckenzie7203]

We grow closer and closer to making Fallout a documentary...

[@TheOsfania]

I made paper airplanes in the 1960s. Many had blended wings.

[@pegasusted2504]

I wonder if the older research is where they got the design of Thunderbird 2?

[@J.A.Smith2397]

Video was well blended

[@davidblair9877]

50% fuel savings is very much the upper estimate for fuel savings. I believe Airbus estimates closer to 25%.

[@yakirfrankoveig8094]

But even 25% is a ton of savings

[@alexarmstrong3852]

I know it’s not necessarily the flashiest but you kept showing the Bombardier eco jet but never mentioned it. Was there a reason for that or just never got to it?

[@peterlucas2998]

"seats might be too big" you know it brother 😅😅😅😅