500ks
A BWB tanker might be the stimulus to advance civil aviation in that direction as well - much as the -80 was in the '50s.
Though I suspect any BWB tanker will take a long, LONG time if recent history of procurement is anything to go by.
A BWB tanker might be the stimulus to advance civil aviation in that direction as well - much as the -80 was in the '50s.
Though I suspect any BWB tanker will take a long, LONG time if recent history of procurement is anything to go by.
Boeing spent a great deal of money on BWBs for civilian use and chose not to pursue the designs. But our government will surely be happy to waste our money on them.
What if the oil they need to burn is coming from somewhere less friendly than Texas? Still no whit?
The reference to Texas was allegorical. I’ll take the oil from where it comes, and we have enough to be energy independent, especially if supplemented by nuclear and hydroelectric.
Texas, California, The Dakotas, Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Canada
Ho-Hum…If the “Newest and Greatest” dream doesn’t work–drag out an OLD and FAILED one." For those of us old enough, it reminds us of the failed promises of the Northrup “Flying Wing”–the other failed concept aircraft, and the B-2 “Stealth” bomber. None of them became popular.
The problems with the concept are many. From Wikipedia “Blended Wing”:
Evacuating a BWB in an emergency could be a challenge. Because of the aircraft’s shape, the seating layout would be theatre-style instead of tubular. This imposes inherent limits on the number of exit doors.[12][13]
It has been suggested that BWB interiors would be windowless,[14] more recent information shows that windows may be positioned differently but involve the same weight penalties as a conventional aircraft.[15]
It has been suggested that passengers at the edges of the cabin may feel uncomfortable during wing roll[14] however, passengers in large conventional aircraft like the 777 are equally susceptible to dutch roll.[15]
The centre wingbox needs to be tall to be used as a passenger cabin, requiring a larger wing span to balance out.[16]
A BWB has more empty weight for a given payload, and may not be economical for short missions of around four or fewer hours.[16]
A larger wing span may be incompatible with some airport infrastructure, requiring folding wings similar to the Boeing777X.
It is more expensive to modify the design to create differently-sized variants compared to a conventional fuselage and wing which can be stretched or shrunk easily.[16]
To which I would add–“It doesn’t lend itself well to cargo variants of the same aircraft”–an important consideration to manufacturers. The tankers would likely be OK.
Don’t you think that if the concept REALLY delivered on these promises–the vast engineering staff of the world’s airframers would be the ones actually PROPOSING it?
The Air Force was “Going Green” when I enlisted, in 1972. When Carter started lowering speed limits, and the Oil Embargo erupted, the military had to enact fuel saving measures. They switched the Thunderbirds to T-38s, and the bombers practicing MITO during simulated scrambles would not takeoff. I’ll guess all of this conservation was a prelude to more “Green” restrictions.