A San Diego startup says it will build the world's first blended wing body airliner as soon as it rounds up investors with the billions of dollars needed to mount such an effort. Natilus announced the Horizon, a 200-seat BWB design it says will use 30 percent less fuel than a conventional aircraft of similar capacity. “The commercial aviation industry is looking for real solutions to become more sustainable, more efficient, and more profitable. With the Horizon, we’re introducing improved aviation economics that benefit the industry while helping safeguard our planet for future generations,” saidAleksey Matyushev, CEO and co-founder of Natilus.
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 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.
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.
A few things come to mind (other than the near-impossibility of a start up pulling off a project like this):
Is there a weight penalty to be paid to deal with pressurization in a flat body like this, compared to a cylinder or near-cylinder? How does this extra weight impact the efficiency?
What does cabin evacuation look like for a super-wide body like this? Will there have to be be a larger number of exit doors? How does that affect weight and structure?
At first glance, it would seem like the engine intakes are in a low pressure area. How does that affect efficiency? Maybe they are high enough above the fuselage that it is not a big factor but it seems like airflow management into the engines is going to be tricky.
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.