Author Topic: X-48 Blended Wing Body Research Aircraft  (Read 25136 times)

Offline hornet

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 206
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
« Last Edit: 08/09/2012 05:50 pm by jacqmans »

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4034
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 1275

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 436
I really hope that Boeing's next new aircraft is of the supersonic variety rather than some subsonic blended wing monstrosity.

Offline kfsorensen

  • aerospace and nuclear engineer
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1568
  • Huntsville, AL
    • Flibe Energy
  • Liked: 150
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
vt_hokie - 26/7/2007  9:54 PM

I really hope that Boeing's next new aircraft is of the supersonic variety rather than some subsonic blended wing monstrosity.
There's no reason to hope for a supersonic aircraft.  Do you know how much the drag coefficient goes up once you've gone supersonic?  Airplanes are subsonic--at ~Mach 0.85--for a very good reason.  That's the maximum Mach number before the drag coefficient goes up dramatically.

That's not going to change in a thousand years.

It's not stupid to fly subsonic.

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8566
  • Liked: 3603
  • Likes Given: 327
Quote
vanilla - 26/7/2007  9:04 PM
It's not stupid to fly subsonic.

Sure is boring, and it takes a long to to go a long way.

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 436
So, was the Concorde merely an aberration that will still be one of a kind a thousand years from now, or was it an idea ahead of its time?

Offline kfsorensen

  • aerospace and nuclear engineer
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1568
  • Huntsville, AL
    • Flibe Energy
  • Liked: 150
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
vt_hokie - 26/7/2007  10:10 PM

So, was the Concorde merely an aberration that will still be one of a kind a thousand years from now, or was it an idea ahead of its time?
The Concorde was a plane that flew on afterburners the whole time and burned fuel like there was no tomorrow.  Unless we discover a few more Saudi Arabias, then yes, there won't be anymore Concordes.

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 436
If Boeing's Sonic Cruiser could have met its fuel consumption targets in the Mach 0.95 range, would it not be possible to achieve similar fuel consumption just beyond Mach 1?  I thought the drag curve basically peaked at ~Mach 1 and then decreased dramatically.

What are your thoughts on supersonic biz jets?

Offline kfsorensen

  • aerospace and nuclear engineer
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1568
  • Huntsville, AL
    • Flibe Energy
  • Liked: 150
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
vt_hokie - 26/7/2007  10:18 PM

If Boeing's Sonic Cruiser could have met its fuel consumption targets in the Mach 0.95 range, would it not be possible to achieve similar fuel consumption just beyond Mach 1?  I thought the drag curve basically peaked at ~Mach 1 and then decreased dramatically.
Killing the "Sonic Cruiser" was the smartest move Boeing ever made, because its fuel consumption would have been terrible vis-a-vis a subsonic plane, and now gas prices have gone way up and the 787 (with its promise of fuel efficiency) is making a killing.

Supersonic drag does go way down, compared to the "sound barrier" around Mach 1, but it's still much higher than at Mach 0.85.  That's why ~Mach 0.8 is called the "drag-divergence Mach number" and is explained in any decent introductory aerodynamics text.

Offline kfsorensen

  • aerospace and nuclear engineer
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1568
  • Huntsville, AL
    • Flibe Energy
  • Liked: 150
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
vt_hokie - 26/7/2007  10:18 PM

What are your thoughts on supersonic biz jets?
Rich people don't care about fuel costs.  Poor schmucks like me who watch Travelocity fares do.

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 436
Quote
vanilla - 26/7/2007  11:23 PM

Rich people don't care about fuel costs.  Poor schmucks like me who watch Travelocity fares do.

I hear ya...I'm certainly in the poor schmuck category too!

And what can I say, I think I got a C+ in aerodynamics and in compressible aero, and that was over 10 years ago!   ;)  Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Quote
vt_hokie - 26/7/2007  9:54 PM

I really hope that Boeing's next new aircraft is of the supersonic variety rather than some subsonic blended wing monstrosity.

I would like to have my own armrests (two of them because I have two arms) when I fly - and enough room to stretch my legs.  I think that every passenger should get the same.

I would also like to be able to fly from Chicago to Newark in less than seven hours, which has been the norm of late.  I don't think that supersonic flight would make much difference, since far more than half of my recent "flights" were spent waiting on the ground.

- Ed Kyle

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 436
Quote
edkyle99 - 26/7/2007  11:57 PM

I would also like to be able to fly from Chicago to Newark in less than seven hours, which has been the norm of late.  I don't think that supersonic flight would make much difference, since far more than half of my recent "flights" were spent waiting on the ground.

- Ed Kyle

Chicago - Newark...no, not too much difference.  Los Angeles to Sydney or New York to Tokyo is where you're gonna see a real difference!

Offline CFE

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
vanilla - 26/7/2007  9:14 PM

The Concorde was a plane that flew on afterburners the whole time and burned fuel like there was no tomorrow.  Unless we discover a few more Saudi Arabias, then yes, there won't be anymore Concordes.

IIRC, the Concorde only used afterburners during takeoff and during the transonic flight regime.  Once it got a bit past Mach 1, it could maintain a supersonic cruise without afterburners.  Still, the fuel consumption on such an aircraft would be enough to make the average passenger put up with a cheaper (but boring and lengthier) flight on a subsonic jet.

If a future SST ever comes along, it will have to carry ~300 passengers, be capable of supercruise, and have a reduced acoustic signature to allow supersonic overflights of land.  Expect to see supersonic bizjets long before you see anybody seriously propose an SST.

Sonic Cruiser was misguided in retrospect, but Boeing viewed it as a backdoor way of achieving an SST.  I suspect that Boeing was inspired by the success of the Cessna Citation X, but the challenges of building such a large aircraft to travel at the same speed were far more daunting.  In the end, though, it was the lack of a business case that doomed Sonic Cruiser.  The market will be even less forgiving towards an SST.

As far as BWB goes, I'd be surprised to see it evolve into a passenger liner.  It will be a radical departure  for a lot of airline customers who are used to having windows and not having to bank too drastically to make turns.  I think that military applications (cargo planes and aerial tankers) are more likely applications.  The majority of air travelers won't come to accept the BWB unless they can be convinced that it will reduce the cost of travel.
"Black Zones" never stopped NASA from flying the shuttle.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Quote
vt_hokie - 26/7/2007  11:10 PM

So, was the Concorde merely an aberration that will still be one of a kind a thousand years from now, or was it an idea ahead of its time?

Yep, much like the shuttle

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 436
My grandparents won a flight on the Concorde back in the late 80's!  I'm sure that was cool.  If only they'd have kept the Concorde in service a few years longer....I'd probably spend the money for a once in a lifetime flight today!  I used to love watching it fly over Atlantic Highlands in New Jersey on approach to JFK.

I did finally get to board the Concorde displayed in NYC on the barge next to the Intrepid back in '06.  I was surprised at just how small the windows are!  And the cockpit layout certainly gave away the plane's age.

Of course, I'll always think of those poor souls and the horror they must have experienced on Air France flight 4590 whenever I see the Concorde now.  But I'm the same way with any aircraft....can't board a 737 without thinking about US Air 427 for example.  Certain disasters always stand out in my mind for some reason.

Offline PhalanxTX

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 209
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
If the military sees increased cost-savings and cargo capability with blended-wing body designs, I'm sure we'll see it enter the civilian market eventually.  Perhaps FedEx super-transports and stuff like that.  I wish Boeing luck with the X-48B.  Personally, I'd love to see a BWB airliner.  Popular Science had some amazing concept renders done for them on what such a design might look like a while back.

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat_files/space/space1103seven_slideshow/slide01.html
"The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program, and if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!"

-- Larry Niven, quoted by Arthur Clarke in interview at Space.com, 2001

One Percent for Space!

Offline jacqmans

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21709
  • Houten, The Netherlands
  • Liked: 8562
  • Likes Given: 320
Boeing Flies Blended Wing Body Research Aircraft
 
CHICAGO, July 26, 2007 -- The innovative Boeing [NYSE: BA] Blended Wing Body (BWB) research aircraft -- designated the X-48B -- flew for the first time last week at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base in California.

The 21-foot wingspan, 500-pound unmanned test vehicle took off for the first time at 8:42 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time on July 20 and climbed to an altitude of 7,500 feet before landing 31 minutes later.

"We've successfully passed another milestone in our work to explore and validate the structural, aerodynamic and operational efficiencies of the BWB concept," said Bob Liebeck, BWB program manager for Boeing Phantom Works, the company's advanced R&D unit. "We already have begun to compare actual flight-test data with the data generated earlier by our computer models and in the wind tunnel."

The X-48B flight test vehicle was developed by Boeing Phantom Works in cooperation with NASA and the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory to gather detailed information about the stability and flight-control characteristics of the BWB design, especially during takeoffs and landings. Up to 25 flights are planned to gather data in these low-speed flight regimes. Following completion of low-speed flight testing, the X-48B likely will be used to test the BWB's low-noise characteristics, as well as BWB handling characteristics at transonic speeds.

Two X-48B research vehicles have been built. The vehicle that flew on July 20 is Ship 2, which also was used for ground and taxi testing. Ship 1, a duplicate of Ship 2, completed extensive wind tunnel testing in 2006 at the Old Dominion University NASA Langley Full-Scale Tunnel in Virginia. Ship 1 will be available for use as a backup during the flight test program.

Three turbojet engines enable the composite-skinned research vehicle to fly up to 10,000 feet and 120 knots in its low-speed configuration. Modifications would need to be made to the vehicle to enable it to fly at higher speeds. The unmanned aircraft is remotely piloted from a ground control station in which the pilot uses conventional aircraft controls and instrumentation while looking at a monitor fed by a forward-looking camera on the aircraft.

The Boeing BWB design resembles a flying wing, but differs in that the wing blends smoothly into a wide, flat, tailless fuselage. This fuselage blending helps to get additional lift with less drag compared to a circular fuselage. This translates to reduced fuel use at cruise conditions. And because the engines mount high on the back of the aircraft, there is less noise inside and on the ground when it is in flight.

"While Boeing constantly explores and applies innovative technologies to enhance its current and next-generation products, the X-48B is a good example of how Boeing also looks much farther into the future at revolutionary concepts that promise even greater breakthroughs in flight," said Bob Krieger, Boeing chief technology officer and president of Phantom Works.

While a commercial passenger application for the BWB concept is not in Boeing's current 20-year market outlook, the Advanced Systems organization of Boeing Integrated Defense Systems' (IDS) is closely monitoring the research based on the BWB's potential as a flexible, long-range, high-capacity military aircraft.

"The BWB concept holds tremendous promise for the future of military aviation as a multi-purpose military platform in 15 to 20 years," said Darryl Davis, Boeing IDS Advanced Systems vice president and general manager of Advanced Precision Engagement and Mobility Systems. "Its unique design attributes will result in less fuel burn and a greatly reduced noise footprint, which are important capabilities to offer our Air Force and mobility customers."

NASA's participation in the project is focused on fundamental, edge-of-the-envelope flight dynamics and structural concepts of the BWB. Along with hosting the X-48B flight test and research activities, NASA Dryden provided engineering and technical support -- expertise garnered from years of operating cutting-edge unmanned air vehicles.

The two X-48B research vehicles were built by Cranfield Aerospace Ltd., in the United Kingdom, in accordance with Boeing requirements.

Jacques :-)

Offline grakenverb

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 434
  • New York
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 27

Quote

As far as BWB goes, I'd be surprised to see it evolve into a passenger liner.  It will be a radical departure  for a lot of airline customers who are used to having windows and not having to bank too drastically to make turns.  I think that military applications (cargo planes and aerial tankers) are more likely applications.  The majority of air travelers won't come to accept the BWB unless they can be convinced that it will reduce the cost of travel.




I don't think the average person has any idea of what kind of plane they are on.  Most just care how much it costs and what is available on the days they want to travel.  As for the windows, I'm always amazed at the number of people who have window seats but close the shades for the entire flight.  perhaps some people would appreciate the greater space of the BWB?  
Have any large scale mockups of interior ever been constructed?
How would a BWB design effect airport operations? Could current jetways, service trucks, etc. be used?



Offline MrTim

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 731
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 0

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1