It will fly (the aerodynamics aren’t the problem) but the engines are in a bad spot for routine maintenance and there aren’t enough window seats for the passengers and the pressure vessel isn’t a nice round shape.
1 reply
A couple million is nothing in terms of development and certification of a new large airliner design. Think billions.
Heck, the new GE9X engine (as well as the GEnx of last decade) both exceeded two billion in development costs prior to getting a TC. And that’s just the engine. The airframe must be certified, and then the combination of the two must be validated.
Looks like a good idea to me. The only time I really like to see the ground is during takeoff, departure, approach and landing, and real-time cameras could accommodate that. Sure, it would be much more expensive than just cranking out minor modifications of the same old plan form, but progress always costs money. Ultimately, it will be investor’s money taking the risks, and potentially harvesting the rewards. I say “go for it”.
We went to the ICR museum in Dallas. They had some portraits of scientists on the wall. Suddenly the “pictures” started to talk with each other. Screens are good enough now that I think most passengers will be okay without windows. The bulk of them pull the shades down the moment they take their seats, never to open them again. This may actually make construction easier. But access to maintenance items - that is an issue. My grandkids may see it in their lifetimes.
I think the bigger question is how are the passengers going to get out when this thing crashes?
The USAF selected JetZero a year ago as the winner of the $235 million contract to build this Full-Scale Multi Role Commercial-Military Blended Wing Body Demonstrator. This has been sub-contracted to Northrop Grumman, whose subsidiary, Scaled Composites, is building it right now. The USAF considers this as their next generation tanker/transport.
Nothing new with blended wing-body.
PR?
I think you’re right about the pressure vessel shape for a normal passenger load. Public acceptance for sitting in a flying auditorium may be another issue though!
2 replies
The windows are actually fairly conventional. Check out the rendering at the bottom of jetzero.aero/why-jetzero. It’s smaller than I visualized - it will fit in existing gates.
Windows only go back to the leading edge of the wing root, not the length of the pax cabin.
Passenger discomfort during turns (especially for those furthest from the center line) is a characteristic of a flying wing (FW), not a blended wing body (BWB) design. The BWB has an extra wide body, but it’s longer than it’s wide, and is distinctly separate from the wings. The FW cabin is the wing, and is much wider than long (consider the Northrop XB-35, which was 53’ long and 172’ wide). This put passengers further out in the wing, where they could experience the elevator rides.
The FW’s dimensions and geometry also mean that they would need special gates and taxiing accommodations, while JetZero’s design has the capacity of a small widebody, the engines from a narrow-body, and uses existing infrastructure.
1 reply
As interesting as the concept is I 'll guess that if it ever sees the light of day it’ll be a freighter with low pressurization and large low mounted freight doors.
Sure looks like it to me!
My recollection from that time was that ‘serious’ passenger/freighter designs focussed more on flying wings than on BWBs. I think this was based partly on them being relatively easy to build using then available technology - would composites on an airliner scale have been practical back then? Beech had its problems with the Starliner (which was unfortunate, for it was a gorgeous plane.).
