It used to be said this would fail in passenger markets because windows. The reality of long haul travel these days is that windows are really only "I can lean here" choices which restrict access to the aisle, for any trans-oceanic journey.
For domestic flights, I am sure there are window seat aficionado who will continue to pay for window in flight. For everyone else, and by current seating maps there are a LOT more of them, this is just a non issue.
If a BWB design permits reasonable density, aisle access, fuel efficiency and a pleasant flight experience (speed, noise) then I'm all for it.
If it has to be a freight or logistics/materiel/fuel aircraft for the forces before general service, so be it.
BWB aircraft have a few more issues than just a lack of window seats.
They require a higher angle of attack on take-off and landing, and, with passengers sitting much further from the centerline of the aircraft than on a conventional design, passengers are subject to much more g-forces during roll maneuvers.
The second issue can be mitigated by avoiding rolling the aircraft and/or by performing less aggressive rolls, but the first issue is something passengers will just have to deal with if BWB passenger aircraft become a thing.
I wonder if you could tilt everyone's seats forward during takeoff and landing. I've seen very high density seating in the far east where people are virtually standing. Maybe the seats could start off that way, stay that way through takeoff and ascent, then gently lower to a normal posture in level flight.
> If it has to be a freight or logistics/materiel/fuel aircraft for the forces before general service, so be it.
The challenge for that is economic: those use cases which are generally filled with adaptations of older generation aircraft at the moment probably don't pay back the R&D costs of the programme. Especially since a viable civil aircraft programme also involves worldwide line maintenance capability, a liquid aftermarket etc.
Blended wings are are not a novel idea, and the major airframers have produced multiple concepts, often combined with theoretically much more efficient open rotor engines. The first attempt at a blended wing passenger aircraft was actually over 100 years ago (it was years ahead of its time... and it crashed on its first flight). But there are a lot of challenges other than the passenger experience characteristics people have already mentioned: instead of a simple tube, you now have a broad internal space that needs bracing in a way which doesn't add weight or negate space advantages, and novel designs greatly increased uncertainty in an industry whose safety record relies on predictability. And there's commercial conservatism in an industry whose customer base invests billions in new airframes on the expectation of commonality with existing airframes, phased replacements over predictable replacement cycles etc, and where the second entrance to the market sector might well be the most successful....
Military use involves completely different economics, but for related reasons the anticipated greater fuel efficiency is rarely a big deal for the military. Still, if the military write blank checks, that leaves scope for prototypes that airline executives might struggle to say no to
> Military use involves completely different economics, but for related reasons the anticipated greater fuel efficiency is rarely a big deal for the military.
Utterly false. Greater fuel efficiency means greater range or less fuel needed for the same range and payload, and you'd better believe that is not nothing to military planners. I can say that because I used to be one. Every drop of fuel burned in theater in a war has to get there somehow. And until it's loaded on a jet and used, it's vulnerable to being targeted either in transit or at rest, and has to be protected. And pre-war, the more gas you're going to burn to accomplish a given task, the more facilities and infrastructure have to be in place at your potential bases to hold it, meaning more access agreements with foreign countries and/or construction contracts having to be paid for in those countries to build said facilities. And you have less ability to use smaller or more austere facilities, limiting your ability to disperse the force and complicate enemy targeting.
> Military use involves completely different economics, but for related reasons the anticipated greater fuel efficiency is rarely a big deal for the military.
I think this assumption is wrong, for airplanes. Higher fuel efficiency means longer range for the same amount of fuel, so it's an increase to range for the same weight carried (or an increase in weight carried to the same range, presumably). I think this is extremely important to the military.
Here's Jack Northrop's view of a flying wing passenger plane. There's a longer version somewhere but I can't find it. Fitting that JetZero is teaming with Northrop Grumman/Scaled Composites on this. I wonder how the workshare divides.
It's been many years since the window next to me was open. So, I totally agree. And for the last flight I took, the windows were a real PITA, since too many people had them open and there was wicked glare. A good 30-60 minutes I spent bobbing and weaving to avoid it being in my eyes.
Windows in planes can be replaced by LCD screens. I don't think they are necessary at all. In fact, they already sell cruise ship cabins with this feature. I've yet to hear anyone talk about this as a showstopper problem.
I love your optimism. There are already designating viewing areas and bars for people who shell out first class $$$. But vast majority of people happen to be rational economic agents who choose lower price tickets. So the reality is - there will just be more seats.
If this is the only practical solution for hydrogen fuelled aircraft, then it can't fail in passenger markets because there will be no other alternative to compete against once kerosene is too ecologically taxed.
If you can make carbon-neutral hydrogen, you can combine it with atmospheric CO2 to make synthetic hydrocarbons (or methanol) that are carbon-neutral. There's an energy cost to doing this, but I'm willing to bet it far outweighs the costs of running an airliner on hydrogen.
The already-reduced carbon in the US waste stream is more than enough to make synthetic jet fuel to supply the entire current US demand. More generally, biomass (including crop waste) will suffice to power aviation world wide, without large increase in farm area.
Looking at the cost spent back then vs. what this startup is getting, it doesn't seem like the JetZero guys have even a remote shot at making this happen.
It's left out of the article that the US Air Force already has the perfect blended wing body they could dream of. It's the B-21 Raider. Its range is classified, but there are quotes from some USAF generals that it exceeds expectations, which can be taken to mean it easily exceeds the range of B-2 (about 11000km without refueling).
Of course, the problem with B-21 is that it's quite expensive. If you made a life size replica entirely out of gold, it would be only 5 times as expensive as the real thing.
That's what the USAF is looking for here: an affordable long range aircraft that does not need to go in the heat of the battle like B-21, but can be used for refueling, cargo movements, etc.
Nice. NASA and Airbus have both flown blended-wing unmanned test aircraft.
Not sure what role this serves for the USAF. It's a transport. Wider loads? Stealth?
The US has had total air superiority in every conflict since the Korean War. That's over. The Ukraine war makes it clear. Against a competent opponent, most of what flies will die. There are just too many man-portable and truck-mounted systems that can take down aircraft. Zipping over hostile territory in helicopters is pretty much out. Flying big, fat transports over contested territory is out. Anything that flies over hostile terrain had better be able to hide, evade, counter, and fight back.
> The US has had total air superiority in every conflict since the Korean War. That's over. The Ukraine war makes it clear. Against a competent opponent, most of what flies will die.
Not sure how you work that out. The state that spent half a century focusing on air defence to take out the USAF hasn't even substantially reduced the pathetically small and outdated fixed wing capability of the Ukrainian air force, and neither side has done much damage to the other side's airborne logistics, which is where this would fit. It's not been a great war for helicopters, but neither this project nor the US fighter capability that their superiority rests on is going anywhere close to frontline portable air defence systems.
The Ukraine war doesn't show anything different from other wars in regards to air superiority. You think the US flew all their slow, vulnerable stuff over contested territory with lots of AA? No, they didn't and they don't. The Gulf War basically started with wiping out AA defenses. Establishing air superiority takes time and bombs. Ukraine simply doesn't have any of the equipment necessary to do it. Apparently neither does Russia, to the surprise of pretty much everybody. That has zero bearing on what the US/NATO is capable of.
Long range anti-ship missile deployment over the Pacific. A design like this can cover large areas and deploy autonomous weapons from long range.
Weapon development of the US military is almost entirely focused on China and its growing fleet. There are several air launched anti-ship missile platforms under development right now, including swarm attack, stealth and hypersonic missiles. The US is looking for an efficient, long range, high endurance standoff bomber for these systems. It doesn't need stealth; they'll operate from behind air defenses. It needs high efficiency, large fuel capacity and large payload capacity.
All of the above, you can’t wage an air-war without tankers, logistics, and large, antenna covered advanced warning and control aircraft (see the AWACS). It’s well known that the CCP has specifically targeted development of long-range air to air missiles so that they could target these types of aircraft behind the front line.
Unfortunately I’m less than optimistic about this particular program actually producing a functional aircraft. The company here is asking for way too little time and too little money to produce a full-sized manned demonstrator IMHO. Especially for a company that has no track record of actually producing full-scale, manned aircraft. It seems like they’re trying to get additional private investment to build their demonstrator but who knows.
Russia would fall like Iraq if we were to attack. Their ground-based anti-air would be hit as soon as even one missile is fired, every radar would be hit within minutes of powering on, their aircraft wiped out as soon as they were within range. With air supremacy we'd be able to fire a precision strike on every piece of active artillery and supply truck. They'd be left with nothing but men starving in trenches and running out of bullets, waiting for death as the sappers close in. It's a crying shame we don't send Ukraine even a tenth of our equipment.
This is all assuming that Russia doesn't resort to nuclear, biological, or chemical attack.
In a conventional war, its true. NATO, or the US alone, or even some individual NATO members on their own, would cakewalk over Russia faster than the coalition did in the Gulf War.
Unfortunately, its pretty hard to tell what their actual red line is for going nuclear which radically invalidates the preceding paragraph.
Ukraine used to be one of the most prolific black market military arms dealers.
We should absolutely avoid sending Ukraine any modern equipment. As soon as the war is over, they'll sell it on the black market to countries that will gladly reverse engineer what we've built.
And as an aside, I have no interest in funding proxy wars with my tax dollars. Let's not return to a Cold War era. Entering this conflict was absolutely absurd.
The is the kind of delusional thinking that has NATO forcing Ukraine to use western strategy and then getting slaughtered for it.
The US has never defeated a peer army since WW2, in which the USSR did most of the work. Russia has fifth gen fighters, the S400, and very capable EW and artillery. To pretend they would roll over is pure fantasy.
How can an introduction like this not create disgust and shame?
>> The Pacific Ocean is vast, and when it comes to planning for how to fight a war in and across it, the United States is turning to a new airframe design—one that promises more efficient flight. In an event put on by the Air And Space Forces Association on August 16, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force Ravi I Chaudhary announced the award of a contract, worth up to $230 million through 2026, for the development and production of a prototype “Blended Wing Body” airplane.
War! Such a fun thing to write about in an enthusiastic article opening! Yay!
The CCP has straight up stolen many billions worth of IP for US military equipment, most notably the C-17 transport plane. The ability of the US military to rapidly deploy people and resources lazily around the globe is one of its biggest strengths and why so many smaller bases is critical - think CDNs.
Now that their main adversary has cloned that advantage, a new generation approach is imperative. Who knows if this is indeed the future of US air logistics or a diversionary press release to mislead the development roadmaps of foes.
This is a superior design for operating off unpaved airstrips. If the landing gear is robust enough, this could handily supplement the C130's capabilities. They can always place heaters on top to manage any ice accumulation.
Readit News
For domestic flights, I am sure there are window seat aficionado who will continue to pay for window in flight. For everyone else, and by current seating maps there are a LOT more of them, this is just a non issue.
If a BWB design permits reasonable density, aisle access, fuel efficiency and a pleasant flight experience (speed, noise) then I'm all for it.
If it has to be a freight or logistics/materiel/fuel aircraft for the forces before general service, so be it.
They require a higher angle of attack on take-off and landing, and, with passengers sitting much further from the centerline of the aircraft than on a conventional design, passengers are subject to much more g-forces during roll maneuvers.
The second issue can be mitigated by avoiding rolling the aircraft and/or by performing less aggressive rolls, but the first issue is something passengers will just have to deal with if BWB passenger aircraft become a thing.
The challenge for that is economic: those use cases which are generally filled with adaptations of older generation aircraft at the moment probably don't pay back the R&D costs of the programme. Especially since a viable civil aircraft programme also involves worldwide line maintenance capability, a liquid aftermarket etc.
Blended wings are are not a novel idea, and the major airframers have produced multiple concepts, often combined with theoretically much more efficient open rotor engines. The first attempt at a blended wing passenger aircraft was actually over 100 years ago (it was years ahead of its time... and it crashed on its first flight). But there are a lot of challenges other than the passenger experience characteristics people have already mentioned: instead of a simple tube, you now have a broad internal space that needs bracing in a way which doesn't add weight or negate space advantages, and novel designs greatly increased uncertainty in an industry whose safety record relies on predictability. And there's commercial conservatism in an industry whose customer base invests billions in new airframes on the expectation of commonality with existing airframes, phased replacements over predictable replacement cycles etc, and where the second entrance to the market sector might well be the most successful....
Military use involves completely different economics, but for related reasons the anticipated greater fuel efficiency is rarely a big deal for the military. Still, if the military write blank checks, that leaves scope for prototypes that airline executives might struggle to say no to
Utterly false. Greater fuel efficiency means greater range or less fuel needed for the same range and payload, and you'd better believe that is not nothing to military planners. I can say that because I used to be one. Every drop of fuel burned in theater in a war has to get there somehow. And until it's loaded on a jet and used, it's vulnerable to being targeted either in transit or at rest, and has to be protected. And pre-war, the more gas you're going to burn to accomplish a given task, the more facilities and infrastructure have to be in place at your potential bases to hold it, meaning more access agreements with foreign countries and/or construction contracts having to be paid for in those countries to build said facilities. And you have less ability to use smaller or more austere facilities, limiting your ability to disperse the force and complicate enemy targeting.
I think this assumption is wrong, for airplanes. Higher fuel efficiency means longer range for the same amount of fuel, so it's an increase to range for the same weight carried (or an increase in weight carried to the same range, presumably). I think this is extremely important to the military.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMTwQ9b5hvk
The modern solution to the "window seat" is an exterior camera(s) feed accessible from the LCD touch screen in the seatback in front of you.
----------------
and you're seated here
--------|-------
Uh pardon me, excuse, pardon me... to get out
Dead Comment
Of course, the problem with B-21 is that it's quite expensive. If you made a life size replica entirely out of gold, it would be only 5 times as expensive as the real thing.
That's what the USAF is looking for here: an affordable long range aircraft that does not need to go in the heat of the battle like B-21, but can be used for refueling, cargo movements, etc.
Not sure what role this serves for the USAF. It's a transport. Wider loads? Stealth?
The US has had total air superiority in every conflict since the Korean War. That's over. The Ukraine war makes it clear. Against a competent opponent, most of what flies will die. There are just too many man-portable and truck-mounted systems that can take down aircraft. Zipping over hostile territory in helicopters is pretty much out. Flying big, fat transports over contested territory is out. Anything that flies over hostile terrain had better be able to hide, evade, counter, and fight back.
Not sure how you work that out. The state that spent half a century focusing on air defence to take out the USAF hasn't even substantially reduced the pathetically small and outdated fixed wing capability of the Ukrainian air force, and neither side has done much damage to the other side's airborne logistics, which is where this would fit. It's not been a great war for helicopters, but neither this project nor the US fighter capability that their superiority rests on is going anywhere close to frontline portable air defence systems.
Long range anti-ship missile deployment over the Pacific. A design like this can cover large areas and deploy autonomous weapons from long range.
Weapon development of the US military is almost entirely focused on China and its growing fleet. There are several air launched anti-ship missile platforms under development right now, including swarm attack, stealth and hypersonic missiles. The US is looking for an efficient, long range, high endurance standoff bomber for these systems. It doesn't need stealth; they'll operate from behind air defenses. It needs high efficiency, large fuel capacity and large payload capacity.
And that is exactly what you're looking at here.
Specifically, Rapid Dragon, a rack that lets a C-130 (or any cargo aircraft with a big enough bay) drop a dozen JASSM and LRASM stealthy cruise missiles at a time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Dragon_(missile_system)
Unfortunately I’m less than optimistic about this particular program actually producing a functional aircraft. The company here is asking for way too little time and too little money to produce a full-sized manned demonstrator IMHO. Especially for a company that has no track record of actually producing full-scale, manned aircraft. It seems like they’re trying to get additional private investment to build their demonstrator but who knows.
In a conventional war, its true. NATO, or the US alone, or even some individual NATO members on their own, would cakewalk over Russia faster than the coalition did in the Gulf War.
Unfortunately, its pretty hard to tell what their actual red line is for going nuclear which radically invalidates the preceding paragraph.
We should absolutely avoid sending Ukraine any modern equipment. As soon as the war is over, they'll sell it on the black market to countries that will gladly reverse engineer what we've built.
And as an aside, I have no interest in funding proxy wars with my tax dollars. Let's not return to a Cold War era. Entering this conflict was absolutely absurd.
The US has never defeated a peer army since WW2, in which the USSR did most of the work. Russia has fifth gen fighters, the S400, and very capable EW and artillery. To pretend they would roll over is pure fantasy.
>> The Pacific Ocean is vast, and when it comes to planning for how to fight a war in and across it, the United States is turning to a new airframe design—one that promises more efficient flight. In an event put on by the Air And Space Forces Association on August 16, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force Ravi I Chaudhary announced the award of a contract, worth up to $230 million through 2026, for the development and production of a prototype “Blended Wing Body” airplane.
War! Such a fun thing to write about in an enthusiastic article opening! Yay!
Now that their main adversary has cloned that advantage, a new generation approach is imperative. Who knows if this is indeed the future of US air logistics or a diversionary press release to mislead the development roadmaps of foes.