The Aircraft of the future?! MAVERIC

[@kkarllwt]

I would build a big cargo aircraft to start. Most cargo doesn't need pressure. ( the center could be pressurized . an inner tube ) cargo doesn't need emergency exits, sound padding. toilets or galleys. cargo doesn't get sick.

[@solarissv777]

Actually this would be perfect cargo plane design. Currently, the majority of air cargo are Light packages, that require lots of volume, if put together. And this design provides that volume. With just 2 powerfull engines, like GE9X such plane would surpass C5 and AN-124, with 3, even AN-225, if provided with similar wingspan, while being much more fuel and volume efficient. Also, there wouln't be a need to redesign airport boarding gates , moreover, because engines are put on top, this plane would be able to "kneel", like military cargo planes , thus signifficantly simplifying loading/unloading the cargo.

[@pricelessppp]

Agree & most passenger BWB’s wouldn’t be economical hence the 747/A380/Concorde SST.

[@Optimus-Prime-Rib]

Yup but which of the big 2 has the guts to build something like this SOLELY for the cargo market….?

[@erikz1337]

We need to think outside of the box. . to build a flying box 🙂

[@MentourPilot]

Hahaha!

[@stevewausa]

Call it the Airbus 240dl

[@WOTArtyNoobs]

Call it the Airbus Schrödinger. You cannot tell if the passengers are alive or dead if they have to do an emergency exit!

[@RandomTorok]

i'm imagining an emergency water landing, be like skipping stones at the beach. LOL

[@colignynel2365]

I think this is exactly right - much safer to land on the vast oceans safely - no engines tearing into the water - creating tremendous drag - breaking the aircraft apart

[@ryaeon9793]

@@colignynel2365 yeah unfortunately the sea is not calm as river.. they got wave..

[@andraslibal]

Far better than breaking at impact.

[@FlyLeah]

It could potentially float more than a conventional aircraft due to its bowl like shape

[@Not.Your.Business]

fun for the whole family!

[@adamsnyder5701]

This will easily make my top 5 Mentour videos! Very well executed! You’ve let us see the balance between cost effectiveness within the airlines vs passenger comfort, as well as various upgrades that need to be made before this all happens. That B2 is a sight to behold and really embraces the progression of aviation, which I very much look forward to in my aviation career. Very intriguing. Definitely a possibility for the future! P.S... glad to see you’re feeling much better 😄

[@chriswall27]

I do have to admit I watch all the videos on concepts like this and to hear views from a professional like yourself is fascinating, please do more!

[@Calliopa_22]

I would imagine that if the engines were mounted above the wing, you would be able to attach a large loading tube to the rear of the cabin/wing. It would make embarking and disembarking much faster (it would also look really cool!).

[@SueBobChicVid]

15:31 You have a magic dog!

[@kenmore01]

He beamed up! lol

[@chadportenga7858]

10:15 Thanks for the explanation about VR, Simulators, and the motion sickness resulting from them. I remember getting nauseous at Disney World on a simulator and never knew why it happened so fast. I rarely got sick on rides, but the simulator kicked me in the gut!

[@ThomasJoshua]

Another great video! Thanks again! Very interesting insight, and all the more inspiring to make more of my own videos! Good luck!

[@williamswenson5315]

It is of particular interest to me that you touched on the conflicting perceptions between the visual and balance systems of the body that would be experienced when flying in this type of aircraft. This point is overlooked in every other discussion about blended body aircraft that I've ever listened to. You also pointed to the advantages of moving the high bypass turbofans to the "DC-10" position on the aircraft. A very informative and concise video; thanks. W

[@karlp8484]

The weight/volume/drag ratios of the blended wing blows current designs out of the window. On the evacuation side, large doors/ramps can be installed in the very rear of the plane (a good location for egress anyway) which is currently not an option on planes. Studies have actually found the effects of being further away from the CoG on a blended wing design is pretty trivial. he way they turn has more of a pendulum effect (vertical G load) and has less yaw than a conventional plane.

[@ericoschmitt]

The problem with exits at the rear is that they will be under the engine, possibly burning, and that the rear of the fuselage is thinner and where the control surfaces are. Sounds unlikely to me. Having doors at the leading edges and maybe some emergency hatches at the ceiling and floor sounds more likely.

[@karlp8484]

@@ericoschmitt Fires tend to burn upwards. Today the engines are on the sides close to the fuselage where the doors and emergency exits are, is that better?

[@ericoschmitt]

@@karlp8484 they are at a decent distance, so not a problem. And fuselage offers enough height to walk, while the trailing edge of a flying wing will taper to zero basically, besides possibly having control surfaces, so no place for a door.

[@manvikgoyal9619]

Pls make a video on how to flare aircraft properly while landing

[@lolshark99b49]

Been seeing blended wing airliners touted as "the future" for 30 years...

[@jwenting]

yup. Boeing flew their concept in 2007, and the idea has been in existence since before the end of WW1. It's just never gained traction.

[@lexatwo]

Huh, that's nuclear fusion's fault - it had been like "coming in 30 years" for quite a while by now. Airliners are simply waiting for fusion to happen and will then follow the train :-D.

[@w8stral]

@@jwenting Not 2007. WAY before that. That was NASA dicking around. The deal breaker was the limitation of emergency exit viability. You have the front and only the front as viable. NOT how the pilot mentioned in this video.

[@jwenting]

@@w8stral Boeing's concept flew in 2007. There were various other ideas before that, but none that looked like this and were intended to lead to an airliner class vehicle.

[@w8stral]

@@jwenting Well since, I was sitting in a mock up in the 1990's.... and part of the design where we were trying to get through the issues of the FAR's... Grow up child. The world did not start in the 2000's.

[@gmoops8986]

This seems like a cool concept. The image flashed a few times of passenger seating, looks more like a cocktail lounge. Fat chance of that as a reality.

[@beakytwitch7905]

Borrow from Thunderbird II, and preload the passengers into a pod...

[@jazldazl9193]

@@beakytwitch7905 Pod could be self contained lifeboat with emergency parachute for when the AI gets homicidal

[@tvflight7858]

13:40 Ryanair: I'll take your entire stock!

[@alexogle8950]

"...especially now with the passengers becoming more spread out..." Sorry, which airline is this?

[@excitedbox5705]

Yea, it seems they keep craming us tighter and tighter. A few years ago they were talking about standing room only tickets for short flights. I guess with fold away seats for landing and take off.

[@KabukeeJo]

You are correct. Airbus could build a plane 1 mile wide and the airline will cram as many seats into that space as they can!

[@pihi42]

Remember that plane will still have weight limitations, which could lead to interesting result that they will be unable to pack us as sardines. This could REALLY be a game changer.

[@bigblue6917]

@@excitedbox5705 They have actually been talking about having seats which will mean you will be almost standing. during takeoff and landing. Sounds fun.

[@MoarPye]

Yeah, they always present these concepts with such spacious, luxurious interior layouts, but then the reality turns out to be just more sardine-seating... As always it's gonna come down to each airline's culture, and whether the cabin crew treat you like a guest or a burden.

[@junglecat4480]

15:30 the dog just disappear :'(

[@MrPomelo555]

NordVPN made Patxi disappear because Patxi yawned when NordVPN’s logo appeared at the beginning of the video!!

[@jean-claudevijt4695]

😱 The dog is alien 👽👽👽

[@Lozzie74]

It died

[@k3n_ng]

Teleport is here in 2020.

[@jjeherrera]

Magic!

[@Mag0Lag]

Given the mentioned issues related to fitting large turbofans to low-wing airliners, why aren't Boeing et al coming up with some high-set wing designs?

[@markpell8979]

They have. Boeing C-141 Starlifter was a widely used jet high-wing military transport several decades ago and the current Boeing C-17 military transport is a kind of updated version of the type with a wider fuselage, higher capacity and much greater maneuvering and short/rough field capabilities. I've wondered why they have not applied some of these attributes to a commercial aircraft. Witness also other high-wing military transports such as Lockheed C-5 and the venerable but still in use Lockheed C-130 Hercules. Then there is the modern EADS/Airbus A400 which is a high-performance turboprop similar to C-130 in basic configuration but with much higher performance.

[@cmulder002]

Search for "KLM" and "Future plane" and you end up with many articles about another program exploring the lifting body/ delta/ nurflugel conecpt. They also made mock up interiors for testing how people would like it inside.

[@fhuber7507]

Studies done on the lifting body aircraft have resulted in finding that people don't like being in the massively wide passenger cabin. So these might be useful for cargo but not for passenger service.

[@MoraFermi]

Can you point to these studies? I can't imagine *why* somebody might choose a cramped tube over a wide rectangle.

[@jebise1126]

not body but the lack of windows. but doesnt matter if people will get cheaper flights they will like it anyway besides with lights and movies they wont even notice... other thing is cost of such aircraft

[@LugnutsK]

Passengers also don't like being in tiny cramped seats with no legroom. When are we going to tell the airlines that their current layouts aren't gonna work?

[@karlp8484]

I've never seen this commented on before. I question your sources.

[@jebise1126]

@@karlp8484 i saw it commented before...

[@Live.Vibe.Lasers]

So when I was at Kennedy Space Center as a kid..the F16 simulator attraction was a small hydraulic platform probably not unlike the flight sims. Well something malfunctioned that day and what I was seeing on the screen did NOT match the accelerations I was feeling and..I got very sick. I hit the "I'm sick button", the door popped OPEN in the middle of some pretty rapid movement of the platform, and I think my dad reached over the "attendant" and hit the ESTOP on the attendants panel and grabbed me out. That attraction was closed for maintenance for the rest of that day.

[@aviatrivi]

Outstanding video with very clear, easy to understand explanation of the pros and cons of MAVERIC type aircraft in the future of commercial aviation.

[@Rekuzan]

He's absolutely right in that the problem with virtual windows is the lag time causing nausea can easily be fixed w/ more technical solutions; IE: Fiber-optics coupled w/ rad hardened electronics.

[@purplealice]

I remember the excitement that greeted the design of the 747 - "the Aluminum Overcast", which was based on research about *lifting bodies* (the bulge on the top of the fuselage adds lift).

[@SheepInACart]

The bulge is more about distribution of drag for aerodynamic efficiency than it is about lift. You want a nice even inverse bell curve of resistance along your airframe, and traditional designs failed badly at doing this, with extremely little of the drag before the wings/engines, then huge drag of the wings and engines, then low drag again until sudden spike due to tail/rear control surfaces. The 747 not only added they hump (which they would later extend), it moves the engines forwards of the wings leading edge, moves the wing cord forwards dramatically forwards and rakes the wings drastically backwards compared to earlier designs, and tapered the fuselage extending towards the tail much more drastically.

[@purplealice]

@@SheepInACart That's why so many of the early jet fighter planes were "wasp-waisted" like a classic Coca-cola bottle, and there was a lot of fiddling about with the placement of the swept wings.

[@w8stral]

@@SheepInACart Not true at all. The bulge is 100% for the 747 to be a cargo airplane allowing front to open. The bulge ADDS drag. LOTS of drag.

[@whattheheckisshaddoing]

15:29 Where did your dog go??? Are you a wizard?

[@wkdravenna]

Just a glitch in the matrix.

[@cancelanime1507]

wkdravenna lmao

[@Lozzie74]

It was licking the couch shortly beforehand. That’s not allowed in my house and I’m sure it’s not allowed in Mentour’s house

[@RichardMigneron]

Why don't they start with a cargo version ? No problems with people related issues ...

[@MultiSparkyMarky]

If you have to make an emergency landing in water then the engines won’t hit the water first so much safer

[@jdriley24]

I remember seeing a Popular Science article back in the 90s about blended wing commercial aircraft, it was very positive that in the next decade we'd have those planes everywhere.

[@copuis]

another BIG bonus with the engines being on top is noise, those living near an airport wont see (or hear) any major change, however those living near a flight path, this will make a massive difference!!

[@AndrewSienx]

One quite a big issue is plane versioning. Now it is easy to offer the same plane with different capacities - e.g. A319, A320, A321. Just make the tube longer or shorter. With the new shape, it is not so easy. But we are ingenious, we, humans :).

[@renerpho]

Another issue with providing live video footage to passengers is that you have to think about what to show them, and when. If I recall correctly, it was American Airlines who used to show passengers on DC-10's a live view during take-off. This was abolished after a DC-10 crashed shortly after take-off, because the video view arguably caused distress to passengers who would have been able to follow the progress of the crash.

[@tomgruitt6563]

I’m glad you’re feeling better.

[@TheSwanlake2009]

it makes a lot of sense to go full wing flying. you have more lift with that and that equals fuel effeciency. plus you utilize more aircraft space too.

[@MisterIvyMike]

08:50 This gives everyone the possiblity to fly in a "vomit comet". Enjoy it... 😂

[@NomenNescio99]

An update about the 737 MAX would be interesting.

[@TheDMTLover]

How about ionizing the hull ? Getting ride of drag. Is that too much thinking outside the box or just standing on the ridge of the box. Is riding above the stratosphere (troposphere) is thinkable ? I wonder if there is a Jet Stream to ride there.

[@James-oo1yq]

Will you be putting out a video discussing the FOD found in stored 737 Max?

[@marks6663]

You forgot the main reason no manufacturer will make this: You can't have different lengths. With a tube aircraft, you simply insert a plug section and voila, you have a different model. But with a fuselage which has an infinitely variable cross section, that is impossible. Manufacturers want the ability to sell different lengths of the same plane. The engine on top is also a no go for the airlines. Getting access for maintenance personnel to the No 2 engine was a challenge on the DC-10 and L-1011. It adds to the cost of maintenance. That is also one reason why the rear mounted engines like the DC-9 and 727 have also disappeared in favor of underwing engines like the A220 and the E series from Embraer. Airlines told the manufacturers to put the engines under the wings for easy access. Another problem is emergency exits. With a blended wing design, the ratio of seats to doors becomes far too lopsided especially as the plane gets bigger. The number of doors is a function of only one dimension, the length. The number of seats is mostly a function of one dimension in a tube design. But the number of seats in a blended wing is a function of two dimensions. It would become impossible to evacuate everybody out in 90 seconds with half the doors working. The people in the middle would be too far away from the nearest exit and since the middle would contain the most seats, you would have the bulk not getting out in time.

[@gpaull2]

Engines above is one of the biggest drawbacks. When manufacturers tried high mounted engines in the past (727 for example), the operators quickly realized that maintenance became a nightmare.

[@sorenweisshartmann]

Thanks for yet another good video. :)

[@MCH106]

Wouldn't putting the engines up there increase the likelihood of compressor stall at moderate alpha?

[@MartinCHorowitz]

The Boeing/NASA BWB test aircraft had issues with body boundary air intefrering with engine intake

[@SF-li9kh]

Why do good questions like this get no attention?

[@nikobelic4251]

S F don’t know man but that’s how incidents happen,

[@lukeorlando4814]

My first thought when I saw the design. And I don’t know anything mentoring pilot hasn’t previously said so I’m surprised he didn’t touch on it

[@w8stral]

Engines on top, DECREASE air pressure at throat of engine making them work harder = LOWER efficiency. Differential pressure also creates differential loading on fan blades = BAD for reliability. Then add maintenance nightmare as cannot access them.

[@sgnz2000]

The ability to mount even higher bypass-ratio engines than we have now could be achieved by mounting engines in different locations on the traditional tube-with-wings architecture. Though won't get aerodynamic benefit of the flying wing, perhaps we will see interim tube-with-wings designs in the nearer-term future with over-wing engines, or return to the idea of tail-mounted engines, or high-mounted wings with engines underneath.

[@bruceparr1678]

That engine placement might have problems at high angle of attack. That area would have the engine inlets operating in a turbulent low pressure area.

[@jaroslavsevcik3421]

Yes, this is similar to rear-placed engines. Probably worse.

[@bobbler42]

14:00 given that early concepts always promise luxury and actual airlines invariably ask for as many passengers as can be squeezed in, I wouldn’t hold your breath.

[@P3x310]

Has everyone already forgotten about the Boeing X-48 design? It's more than a decade old so I wouldn't exactly call this a radical new design. I think I have seen it mentioned somewhere that the Airbus design were actually inspired by this plane and was trying to learn from it. I would like to believe that, at the very least...

[@GerhardReinig]

Thank you very much for good concept explanation 👍

[@Akula114]

Very interesting... btw, the talk about cameras feeding a virtual window display made me think again. Why aren't there already cameras so they don't have to ask the flight crew if the right-wing is still on or the left side is still leaking enormous quantities of fuel? Technology and the minimal extra weight would be more than worth the investment. Next, of course, comes the idea of those cameras feeding a flight Data recorder... I would think aircraft safety would overrule (I Just can't say "trump") concerns about crew privacy. Thanks, as always, for another great - and always improving Mentour Video! (Loved the second camera!)

[@jjeherrera]

I still remember when flight attendants used to draw the route on a chart and put a pin where we were. In Austrian Airlines there's a channel here you can actually see what the pilots are seeing, including the landing.

[@markiliff]

Principal difference between A318 & A321 is the length of the tube. What's the stretch/shrink potential for a blended fuselage?

[@arlendavis]

Another problem I saw when I first saw pictures of this design was when the plane initiated a banked. On one side the passengers would experience an increase in downward Gs and on the other side a decrease in downward Gs. If those on the decreasing side were not in their seats and belted in they could begin to float off their seats or the floor. It would be very difficult to keep ones balance.

[@SirAdde007]

You actually forgot to credit Horten brothers. Who created first modern flying wing. Great engineering! RIP guys

[@terryrogers6232]

Of course the designers of the old configurations respond using the very same materials and other technologies that enable blended body design. If composites enable a blended body, it also makes the old cylinder lighter. If fore-aft pitch control adds drag with the old design but not so much with blended wing, then they begin to aggressively manage balance in the old design perhaps using the same Hi Def screens in the center to make it more comfortable over the lift+weight centers. Ultimately, like submarines, you can 'smash' two cylinders together going half way blended, wings redesigned and included (luggage doesn't care about seating so it can go in the 'skinny' blended part) so that the new concept ends up modifying the old for piecemeal topology upgrade. An example of this old vs new competition is vacuum tubes vs transistors in the 50s/60s. Tubes actually made it to integrated circuits sooner than transistors (compactrons)...not by much of course. But that delayed full uptake of transistors. So I would imagine we see blended wing concepts flying but later than one would imagine. I have often wondered why sales teams even bother to fly (except one person with the demos) with most of the team in virtual reality (and that worked when we were forced to do it even years ago). So a new aircraft topology could get competition from 'left field'...virtual reality and 5G. At least for business travel...

[@bearcubdaycare]

I would think that BWB could be viable for cargo earlier than for passengers. (Heck, I wouldn't put it past Amazon to use drone-planes the size of that prototype to deliver packages. ;-). With all the shipping for online purchases, I would think that efficiency could start to matter a fair bit.

[@heavyDriver320]

Much waited one sir!!

[@lukeorlando4814]

Haha I loved the “seatbelt” notice. Very clever

[@thiagor.ribeiro6787]

Nice.. I hope that this generation come just in two or three decades because I prefer the current concept and I want to retire flying a Boeing 777X.

[@colingrant321]

Come and pick me up in Australia. I love this topic. You, I, and your dogs can talk about this for days. Will your company let you borrow a 737 for this purpose :) My poor attempt at comedy over. I think you touched on some important points such as, will the passengers like this; Structural integrity for pressurisation. High bypass engines above body; thrust line with respect to centre of lift & drag. "Super stall" and flaming out engines for same reasons. I'd almost bet my left foot that passenger aircraft in 10 or 20 years will not look like some of the concept sketches floating around today.

[@JoshuaRichards2010]

Emergency exits can't be underneath or ditching in the water is an automatic loss of all passengers and crew (unless it's waterproof).

[@prasakmanitou4925]

Half on the bottom, half on the top... and ditching might be easier, no engines and triangle is much more stronger shape :)

[@MentourPilot]

Yep, like I said, there are some challenges that needs to be looked into. The 90 second rule needs to be followed.

[@wkdravenna]

Josh your thinking like a designer in 1940, it's 2020.

[@dwavenminer]

@@wkdravenna laws of physics havnt changed since then though...we're still using round wheels after all...

[@wkdravenna]

@@dwavenminer we don't choose to do something because it's easy we choose to do it because it's hard. Because that's how winning is done. You let people tell you that you're not good enough. Well you are you got to keep design and keep moving forward.

[@ericwitt23]

BWB... Lots of lift... but at the same time, lots of surface drag. Not as efficient as you think. As others have mentioned, you still have to pass the emergency exit test. Only way to do that in a BWB is to add a lot of emergency exits (doors). Makes the structure really heavy.

[@jorehir]

You've forgotten one big negative aspect: if you want to have a slightly larger or smaller version of the same plane, you won't be able to just stretch the fuselage, like it's done today (ex: Boeing 787-8, 787-9. 787-10). Nobody is willing to sacrifice this kind of flexibility. Also, having engines mounted up there will make them poorly accessible and really hard to maintaine quicky. Also, if the body stalls, the engines will stall too...very bad. A much better proposal for the airplane of the future is the Aurora D8.

[@AmbientMorality]

The D8 is unfortunately quite slow though. Makes it efficient, but if efficiency was enough of a priority to sacrifice speed we'd have turboprops.

[@jorehir]

@@AmbientMorality The speed difference between a 737 and a 787 is 0.065mach (from 0.785 to 0.850) and nobody complains about it. The difference between the Aurora and the 737 would be a similar 0.065 (from 0.720 to 0.785). And still, if you want it faster, just trade some fuel efficiency for speed. BTW modern turbofans aren't much different from encased turboprops....so, that's the trend.

[@AmbientMorality]

jorehir I suspect you lose most fuel efficiency benefits of D8 by increasing speed though. Turboprops and turbofans are very different functionally despite conceptual similarities - even with ultra high bypass engines high subsonic flight is easily achievable

[@georgestreicher252]

Thanks for your expert thinking on this subject. I learned a lot about a concept, I think should already be a reality.

[@JoshuaMichail0]

I think they should be designed a little more with the traditional tube style at the front and rear, to enable easier access to jetways at terminals. I hope that as a passenger the seating will be much more spacious and comfortable. Also, there should be real-time virtual windows with cameras viewing from both just under and over the wings so I can look at the landscape and cities below as well as the stars and sunsets.

[@flyewr1907]

Hey I have a great idea. If you would be able to do a video on ground collisions and near misses that would be awesome. Thanks

[@barneygoogle2720]

Exciting prospects for new aircraft technology. I believe we also need a parallel advancement in product evaluation and test technology to significantly speed up the product development process so that increasingly sophisticated new technology doesn't take forever and a king's ransom to implement.

[@psychocuda]

One of the reasons to have windows isn't just to let the passengers see all the pretty sights, but if there's an emergency, like the wing is on fire, you can look outside and say "I should exit on the other side." If the power is out in an incident, how will the virtual windows, or high up windows help passengers?

[@MentourPilot]

Great points. They will have to be covered in some way. Maybe smaller looking-holes or actual windows at regular distances

[@rcbif101]

Periscopes.

[@murphsmodels8853]

Another thing I've heard, is that they use outside windows to acclimate passengers eyes to the outside environment. If you have to evacuate the plane during the day and there are no windows, if power goes out, passengers will be blinded.

[@rcbif101]

@@murphsmodels8853 emergency lighting on backup power.

[@murphsmodels8853]

@@rcbif101 assuming that doesn't fail in a crash.

[@Gu1tarJohn]

Love this episode! I'm just an enthusiast, but this is one where I knew a lot of it already. Nerding out! :)

[@AviationAustin]

I love the blended wing concept I really think this is future of aviation. Especially as fly by wire tech improves

[@GaryBickford]

Maybe the several major manufacturers could agree to a cooperative-competitive agreement working on a single common basic design in support of the necessary infrastructure etc., then compete on features. This might cut the initial development costs in 1/2, even less for each individual company if more than two are involved, and done well, could guarantee the survival of all of them while allowing for continuing competition.

[@enoughofyourkoicarp]

You've made other videos about pilots who have lost pitch cpntrol and used the engine thrust to compensate, isn't having the engines mounted above the rest of the plane going to eliminate those kinds of contingencies? How would they make up for it?

[@Ouli93]

The biggest disadvantage is in my opinion that aircraft manufacturer will not be able to just make an extended or stretched version. If you want to increase size, you'll have to redevelop the whole air-frame.

[@rogerhargreaves2272]

Graphene is going to be the next Great Leap Forward for many future developments, particularly in the aircraft industry.

[@christopherjohnson3520]

Hello Commander! Hello Patxi! Nice. Thnx As Usual! CJ

[@sillygoose210_6]

Was waiting for this.

[@MentourPilot]

I hope it didn’t disappoint.

[@Deam0007]

@@MentourPilot it was absolutely fantastic ;)

[@gracelandone]

Nice presentation and analysis and I agree we are long overdue to rethink aviation hardware. But my natural cynicism based on 53 years “in the back” is that any corporate entity that decides to venture this direction is going to surgically slice every ounce of available volume in such a way so the most butts can be transported. So there will be no “spaced or widespread lateral seating plan.” If anything they will seat us in the hammock model you reference, giving us all catheters so we don’t have to get out of our cargo net. Can’t wait!

[@phoephoe795]

You could solve the pressurisation issue by keeping the passenger cabin as a cylinder within the box, and use the outer depressurised section for cargo, fuel ect?

[@woolooloo]

One more problem for manufacturers: with tube + wing concept, they can design a base model and easily provide stretched/shortened versions. Just add a segment or two to the tube. This won't work with blended wing.

[@SheepInACart]

A great point actually. I haven't seen anybody else make mention of the fairly large range of sizes of fit-out common on narrow body jets.... my only guess as to why it it may not be a factor yet is that they are initially targeting larger air-frames common in route/longhaul configurations which generally only come in one size (with variations in seats being purely interior layout).

[@woolooloo]

@@SheepInACart Even larger airliners have differently sized versions: A350-900, A350-1000, A330-800, A330-900, 787-8, 787-9,787-10 . I think the only one that does not is A380.

[@AmbientMorality]

@@woolooloo Indeed, and A380 was developed for a future stretch variant. Obviously that never panned out. 747-8 also doesn't have other sizes (besides older 747s, but that's a different generation too)

[@woolooloo]

@@AmbientMorality Aah, I can just imagine Ryanair flight on stretched A380 with 1000 people on board. Terrifying.

[@markiangooley]

“It’s only a model!”

[@lostcreek163]

Boeing's model of similar design flew a couple of years ago. Don't know why the didn't go forward. Thanks very much for this timely video.

[@MentourPilot]

I hope it answered a few questions.

[@gordonlawrence1448]

Two questions came to mind. 1 isn't having engines up there going to make maintenance more of a pain? Having engines under the wings means they are easy to get at. 2 what's the difference between a blended wing aircraft and a lifting body aircraft?

[@VidraduRika]

Cheers for the information captain Many regards and safe flights

[@BlackOWLfly]

I always wondered: if you have ejection seats on jet fighters, why were they not fitted for the passenger compartment too,if not for every seat, at least for bigger parts of the plane? The plane could split in pieces and have some compartment sections that would deploy individual parachutes...

[@johnfitzpatrick2469]

Good presentation and great graphics: Captain, thankyou for sharing your knowledge of the design future in air travel. Interesting you say the B2 is an attractive aeroplane. Always excited to receive your utube presentations.💯🍰

[@bigblue6917]

I had wondered why the flying wing, or flying wing type, had not become reality yet, so that has helped explain much. Thanks I see the Boeing 737 Max has yet another problem. Debris has been found in the fuel tanks of some aircraft. It will, apparently, take three days to inspect each aircraft because they will need to drain the fuel tanks and dissipate the vapours before the fuel tank can be opened.

[@Lexoka]

As far as I'm aware, the current GE9X engine isn't far from the optimal diameter for the typical cruising speed of an airliner. So unless these blended wing-body designs were meant to fly slower, I don't think there'd be all that much potential for bigger engines. One interesting opportunity, however, would be propfans. With the engines on top of the wing/body, noise might be a bit less of an issue, since the aircraft itself would act as a shield. But if we assume a cruising speed around 700 km/h, then bigger engines could make a lot of sense. But this kind of speed would only be attractive for short/medium-haul aircraft where you might not need bigger engines anyway. For long-haul flights, I'm not sure passengers would be OK with longer flight times, and airlines might also balk at the thought of paying more crew hours per flight. Then again, fuel costs might be low enough to make it worthwhile for everyone involved, passengers included. I don't know, it's hard to say without specific numbers, and some notion of how expensive jet fuel will be in 2040.

[@AmbientMorality]

What do you mean by optimal diameter? That'd be a function of several engine-specific parameters. I assume you're talking about installed thrust, so nacelle drag becomes an issue for larger engines, but significantly higher should be possible with near future technology (15:1 bypass ratio or so, versus 12:1 for PW1100G). After that it gets a lot harder

[@disorganizedorg]

I disagree with your view of the attractiveness of the B-1. XB-70, baby! Also, this video seems to be a departure, looking at more speculative things. I heartily approve!

[@MatthijsvanDuin]

For the virtual windows, instead of using a live video feed it might be easier and more effective to just render a scene and adjust the virtual camera appropriately for the aircraft's attitude and motion (based on data from data from the aircraft systems and/or a gyro/accelerometer embedded in the display unit)

[@schwenke069]

Thought flying was possibly my future in high school (mid 80's). Didn't happen ... all good (really! And no regrets) ... still interested.

[@maxwiens]

Hi Petter, glad to see you are doing well again! Sickness has gone completely? When the aircraft will have much more powerful engines at the rear end of the fuselage, it would "push" the aircraft more from behind. Would this decrease the (longitudinal) static stability?

[@Ztbmrc1]

When passengers, sitting near the wintips, walk to the center during the flight, can the autopilot still compensate to prevend the plane from rolling over? And there need to be some isles from left to right so the trolley can reach all pessengers. There is a lot to figur out, but it is an interesting concept.

[@0MoTheG]

Engines on top are also more quiet. Does anyone remember the other setup that never happened: Dual fuselage? That could be used inside the body. Or you use Kevlar inflated balloons like for Mars stations. These might bring the Bee class. I want my own little tube compartment to lay down in. I am over 6' but fold up nicely.

[@charlieirvin5423]

It looks very unique looking

[@Sevetamryn]

I remember this concept was discussed last time in the early 2000's ... Conceptualised for huge numbers of passengers. Biggest issues, very different requirements for Airports.

[@Andreus5]

I think that engines on top of the wing would produce more lift not because of only increasing the force that they give. But also because of increasing the speed of the flow on top of the wing. As the result it will be more lift due to the Bernoulli law.

[@EliAviator]

I have finished the flight school 6 months ago. Really hope to join the jet airliner cockpit one day!

[@kevgermany]

Big fan of the channel, but some serious errors here. Elevators do not move centre of gravity. They compensate for it deviating from the ideal position. Pressure inside any sealed single chamber body is uniform. It does not change depending on where you are. However the forces on the structure do tend to make it try to become a ball. Another benefit of this design is increased airflow over the top of the wing, so more lift at lower speeds. And potentially lower take off/landing speeds. Also the delta concept where wings don't stall in the conventional sense.

[@ellikon9127]

This is amazing!! Ufo type🙂

[@ro3521]

I see a big problem when it comes to fuel: if there is some kind of leak in the side of the tank, it might actually leak into the cabin. It's a big risk, especially if there is even a minor short-circuit or an energy spike.

[@gtr1952]

Good point. Also balance, add and subtract 8T.. ??

[@yottaforce]

Aviation fuel is not that flammable.

[@ro3521]

@@yottaforce it is still flammable.

[@SheepInACart]

Its probably worth noting many current popular designs already have "belly" fuel tanks in the fuselage (normally between or slightly behind the wings). Likewise even wing fuel tanks are still affixed to a body that as simlarly adjacent to passenger space, but keep in mind the cabin area is pressurized separately, the wings, fuel tank zones (or normal baggage) are not, so the risk of a leak into the passenger area not only involves crossing several barriers, its effectively also working "uphill" against the normal pressure gradient.

[@jaroslavsevcik3421]

@@gtr1952 fuel balancing is already solved.

[@Paul1958R]

Petter/Mentour, Great video and subject - thank you! I would love to watch more videos by you on the subject of future commerical aircraft including high efficiency aircraft, low boom supersonic aircraft, and all electric aircraft. God bless Paul (in MA USA)

[@jacakopl]

Interesting point about no windows- but then ... all other passangers always close them when I fly 😡, so already feels like flying in a box.

[@CMDRFandragon]

Flying WW2 flight sims, losing my rudder sure was a shitty endeavor. Then I took the HO-229 for a spin, wow was that awkward. I legit kept trying to use my rudder, not being used to not having one. Thing was wobbly as all hell.

[@roglar]

I started thinking of what if the virtual windows video feed gets hacked with the intent to cause panic. For example while the aircraft is safe IRL the passengers see a scene of it crashing.