Continue Discussion - visit the forum 20 replies
August 15

n8274k

So, how do I get someone to hand me a couple million in exchange for a drawing of something that may not be feasible or even fly?

1 reply
August 15

davidbunin

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
August 15 ▶ n8274k

rkphillipsjr

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.

August 15

svanarts

Looks like all the windows face the sky. Sorry, I need to be able to see the ground. Unless maybe they add HD screens with video images of the ground and horizon. I don’t think this will be feasible for pax operations though. It would work well for cargo.

2 replies
August 15 ▶ svanarts

WBJohn

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”.

August 15

henderrj

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.

August 15

joe5

I think the bigger question is how are the passengers going to get out when this thing crashes?

August 16

Andreas

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.

August 16

RationalKeith

Nothing new with blended wing-body.
PR?

August 16 ▶ davidbunin

Tom_Waarne

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
August 16 ▶ svanarts

rpstrong

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.

August 16 ▶ Tom_Waarne

RationalKeith

Need column in centre of cabin to take pressure load.

And to hold class dividers. :slight_smile:

August 16

f4gary

Windows only go back to the leading edge of the wing root, not the length of the pax cabin.

August 16

pilotmww

This design has been proposed many times since jet powered airliners came about and rejected for various reasons, mainly passenger comfort during turns. I wonder why Alaska Air now thinks this is a good idea?

1 reply
August 18 ▶ pilotmww

rpstrong

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
August 18 ▶ rpstrong

Tom_Waarne

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.

August 19 ▶ Tom_Waarne

Dan_D_Ruff

Flying auditorium is a good description.

1 reply
August 19 ▶ Dan_D_Ruff

Tom_Waarne

Sure looks like it to me!

September 24

T.V

What’s old is new again! BWB, flying cars, lead free fuel… I believe my first introduction to the BWB concept was a popular science magazine close to 30 years ago.

1 reply
September 25 ▶ T.V

rpstrong

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.).