Airbus almost always has a flying wing illustration for its stories about hydrogen. Pretty sure it even published “research” showing that passengers will love being in a row of seats 20 long with windows only for the very few.
Promises passengers bars, showers, and surround screens too – where have we heard that before?
I like Natilus. The concept makes sense, even if the published timescales are the usual capital-snaring nonsense. It was not so long ago that Natilus was breathlessly informing us that we could expect deliveries to begin in 2025.
I have always wondered if the founders meant to name the company “Nautilus”, but a spelling mistake found its way into a press release or a filing or something, and then it was too late.
However, the company has greatly disappointed me by removing the most attention-grabbing quote I have ever seen in a corporate website:
“VU’s taken a leading investment position with the confidence that Aleksey and the Natius team is going to unf*ck the movement of goods globally in a very big way.” - Andrew Zalasin, VU Ventures
That’s my editing with the asterisk. I doubt that AVweb would tolerate the full vibrancy of this wonderful quote.
" it says will use 30% less fuel than a conventional aircraft of similar capacity"
Only if it flies a lot slower.
You cannot add that much cross section without penalty.
The concept is reasonable but I am extremely skeptical that a startup can do this in any time frame let alone by 2030. The cost and complexity of designing, building and certifying even a conventional airliner is very daunting. Doing this with an entirely new concept that has not yet been accepted by the marketplace seems impossible.
Sure, bars, showers, spas, water parks, bowling alleys… in the end it will be as many seats as they can cram into a triangle…
A few things come to mind (other than the near-impossibility of a start up pulling off a project like this):
Judging from every efficient glider design, no one adds cross-sectional area to increase efficiency. Then again, I’ve never seen anyone want to store all that fuel in the same structure as the passengers either.
For freight you have to fly fast enough to support a network of overnight package delivery. Just being faster than a boat isn’t good enough to justify the expense of air freight.
A sink hole for OPM. (other peoples money. WHY. time scale is way off. the FAA has to determine HOW to certify such an item meaning what structural verification and =validation to be performed. I am assuming they are smart enough too use off the shelf avionics and control systems, they still have to work a number of very hard things to .do in a conventional airliner. Airbus and Boeing have had major setbacks on EVERY major program and they do know what they are doing. a start up does NOT. if they really understood the problem and were honest about it this would not have been printed. also the efficient of a BWB is no where near the stated goal esp when the very INEFFICENT internal structure which will be required to support seating. Also the airport infrastructure does not accommodate this and will not after the very expensive A 380 debacle which cost major air port many many BILLIONS to support a plane concept that in reality is a failure.
2 replies
I also plan to build a blended wing airliner, as soon as I round up billions in investor dollars. 
Also the airport infrastructure does not accommodate this . . .
In fact, being able to fit the existing gate infrastructure is a design requirement of the Natilus. (It isn’t that wide - it’s a BWB, not a fying wing.)
Yes, you’re right. These wonderful “new” ideas crop up every few years when the previous hubbub has sunk below the memory horizon and there’s a lot of uncommitted cash floating around. As pointed out by several bloggers this is another of those OPM magnets with significant engineering drawbacks and a fantasy timeline for operational status.
Re infrastructure
This will require a significant change in
Freight handling which is based on standardized unit designed for circular fuselage
New skyways gate layout as the curent system are designed so the narrow fuselage is supported a wide one will nit be
Etc
Saying a system is to be designed to be compatible when a simple review of the proposed layout says otherwise is a foolish stance.
LAX spent tens of billions on a runway rebuild and is the ONLY west coast airport that can handle an A 380
I doubt they or any other airport operators will
Make a dedicated terminal for BWBs
Dean dedicated freight handling equipment for BWB
Etc.
A quick perusal of Wikipedia shows the first BWB was the Westland Dreadnought in 1924. With other prototypes proposed or built in the 30s, 40s, 90s, and 00s. There’s probably a reason none of those ever became operational aircraft. I’m not saying a BWB is impossible, it’s just probably not as easy one might think.
Remember, a startup’s job is to downplay the risks and emphasize the rewards in order to sell themselves to investors. It’s much better for private companies to attempt these difficult things with private money; instead of using taxpayer money. They might be successful despite all the challenges.
I hope this and the JetZero BWB become a reality but there is another. You can see some examples here… Change the Way We Fly for the Better . Simpler, cheaper to produce and maintain, this design could easily compete with or be produced instead of any of the BWB designs. And, with a newly proven CoFlow Jet (CFJ) system, there would be no other design that would be as efficient. Check out the CFJ system. It is quite possibly the next flying platform for Mars. Mars Aerial and Ground Global Intelligent Explorer (MAGGIE) - NASA
The Natilus aircraft shape and name clearly refer to flying in ground/water effect. This is also supported by the placement of the engines. This plane will not suffer from ETOPS restrictions.
So it is no wonder that Boeing’s successful visionary and former CEO Muilenburg sees the project as encouraging. And he must, if he wants his Venture Capital company to get a share of the investors’ billions.