Boeing Flies Blended Wing Body Research Aircraft

[Larry Dighera]

The Boeing Company <http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/index.html>
Boeing Flies Blended Wing Body Research Aircraft

CHICAGO, July 26, 2007 -- The innovative Boeing [NYSE: BA] Blended
Wing Body (BWB) research aircraft -- designated the X-48B -- flew for
the first time last week at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center at
Edwards Air Force Base in California.

The 21-foot wingspan, 500-pound unmanned test vehicle took off for the
first time at 8:42 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time on July 20 and climbed
to an altitude of 7,500 feet before landing 31 minutes later.

"We've successfully passed another milestone in our work to explore
and validate the structural, aerodynamic and operational efficiencies
of the BWB concept," said Bob Liebeck, BWB program manager for Boeing
Phantom Works, the company's advanced R&D unit. "We already have begun
to compare actual flight-test data with the data generated earlier by
our computer models and in the wind tunnel."

The X-48B flight test vehicle was developed by Boeing Phantom Works in
cooperation with NASA and the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory to
gather detailed information about the stability and flight-control
characteristics of the BWB design, especially during takeoffs and
landings. Up to 25 flights are planned to gather data in these
low-speed flight regimes. Following completion of low-speed flight
testing, the X-48B likely will be used to test the BWB's low-noise
characteristics, as well as BWB handling characteristics at transonic
speeds.

Two X-48B research vehicles have been built. The vehicle that flew on
July 20 is Ship 2, which also was used for ground and taxi testing.
Ship 1, a duplicate of Ship 2, completed extensive wind tunnel testing
in 2006 at the Old Dominion University NASA Langley Full-Scale Tunnel
in Virginia. Ship 1 will be available for use as a backup during the
flight test program.

Three turbojet engines enable the composite-skinned research vehicle
to fly up to 10,000 feet and 120 knots in its low-speed configuration.
Modifications would need to be made to the vehicle to enable it to fly
at higher speeds. The unmanned aircraft is remotely piloted from a
ground control station in which the pilot uses conventional aircraft
controls and instrumentation while looking at a monitor fed by a
forward-looking camera on the aircraft.

The Boeing BWB design resembles a flying wing, but differs in that the
wing blends smoothly into a wide, flat, tailless fuselage. This
fuselage blending helps to get additional lift with less drag compared
to a circular fuselage. This translates to reduced fuel use at cruise
conditions. And because the engines mount high on the back of the
aircraft, there is less noise inside and on the ground when it is in
flight.

"While Boeing constantly explores and applies innovative technologies
to enhance its current and next-generation products, the X-48B is a
good example of how Boeing also looks much farther into the future at
revolutionary concepts that promise even greater breakthroughs in
flight," said Bob Krieger, Boeing chief technology officer and
president of Phantom Works.

While a commercial passenger application for the BWB concept is not in
Boeing's current 20-year market outlook, the Advanced Systems
organization of Boeing Integrated Defense Systems' (IDS) is closely
monitoring the research based on the BWB's potential as a flexible,
long-range, high-capacity military aircraft.

"The BWB concept holds tremendous promise for the future of military
aviation as a multi-purpose military platform in 15 to 20 years," said
Darryl Davis, Boeing IDS Advanced Systems vice president and general
manager of Advanced Precision Engagement and Mobility Systems. "Its
unique design attributes will result in less fuel burn and a greatly
reduced noise footprint, which are important capabilities to offer our
Air Force and mobility customers."

NASA's participation in the project is focused on fundamental,
edge-of-the-envelope flight dynamics and structural concepts of the
BWB. Along with hosting the X-48B flight test and research
activities, NASA Dryden provided engineering and technical support --
expertise garnered from years of operating cutting-edge unmanned air
vehicles.

The two X-48B research vehicles were built by Cranfield Aerospace
Ltd., in the United Kingdom, in accordance with Boeing requirements.

###

[Dallas]

Photo of the test model:

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/148030main_bwb_boeing_hi.jpg



--
Dallas

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dallas" > wrote in message
...
>
> Photo of the test model:
>
> http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/148030main_bwb_boeing_hi.jpg

I want one, just like that!

It sure would make a dandy remote control model !!!

Really though, it is interesting. I did not know they were still working on the
concept.

I would fly in one, if you put a viewscreen in front of my seat, linked with
cameras outside to choose from. That is what I had heard they said would be the
arrangement.
--
Jim in NC

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:38:06 GMT, Dallas
> wrote in
>:

>
>Photo of the test model:
>
>http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/148030main_bwb_boeing_hi.jpg

Nice plan-view. I'd like to see a frontal view as well.

Being that this prototype is flying at Dryden, is Boeing funding this
research? Or are we?

[Phil]

On Jul 26, 6:29 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Dallas" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > Photo of the test model:
>
> >http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/148030main_bwb_boeing_hi.jpg
>
> I want one, just like that!
>
> It sure would make a dandy remote control model !!!
>
> Really though, it is interesting. I did not know they were still working on the
> concept.
>
> I would fly in one, if you put a viewscreen in front of my seat, linked with
> cameras outside to choose from. That is what I had heard they said would be the
> arrangement.
> --
> Jim in NC

I think Boeing would be really smart to pursue this technology. It
will lead to airliners that are much more efficient than the current
layout. If Boeing doesn't do it, you can bet that Airbus or Embraer,
or eventually maybe even the Chinese aircraft manufacturers will.

And I think for the generation growing up today on video games and
computer screens, having a view screen instead of a window won't be a
hardship.

[John T]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
> Being that this prototype is flying at Dryden, is Boeing funding this
> research? Or are we?

I get the impression it's a bit of both. Two things I took particular note
of in the OP are:

1) "Along with hosting the X-48B flight test and research
activities, NASA Dryden provided engineering and technical support..."

2) The two X-48B research vehicles were built by Cranfield Aerospace
Ltd., in the United Kingdom, in accordance with Boeing requirements.

If they truly are Boeing requirements, then Boeing is definitely fronting
some money. However, NASA obviously has skin in the game with their
"engineering and technical support".

I found it curious the vehicles were built in the UK. Do Boeing not have the
capacity to build them at home?

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[John T]

"Morgans" > wrote in message

>
> I would fly in one, if you put a viewscreen in front of my seat,
> linked with cameras outside to choose from. That is what I had heard
> they said would be the arrangement.

What about an LCD screen mimicking a modern airliner window showing the view
to the sides, as well...?

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Phil" > wrote

> And I think for the generation growing up today on video games and
> computer screens, having a view screen instead of a window won't be a
> hardship.

Plus, think of the views that you would never get to see, even with a window
seat. Most of the time, I end up getting a window seat right above the wing,
anyway. Can't see much from there!

A view, as you are looking out the cockpit when landing would be pretty cool, I
think.

Plus you could see the scenery without all of those nose and forehead prints on
the windows, and you would not have to try and look through all of those
scratched up Plexiglas windows.

Yep, give me a viewscreen, with the choice of what camera I want to use.
--
Jim in NC

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Morgans > posted:

> "Phil" > wrote
>
>> And I think for the generation growing up today on video games and
>> computer screens, having a view screen instead of a window won't be a
>> hardship.
>
> Plus, think of the views that you would never get to see, even with a
> window seat. Most of the time, I end up getting a window seat right
> above the wing, anyway. Can't see much from there!
>
> A view, as you are looking out the cockpit when landing would be
> pretty cool, I think.
>
> Plus you could see the scenery without all of those nose and forehead
> prints on the windows, and you would not have to try and look through
> all of those scratched up Plexiglas windows.
>
> Yep, give me a viewscreen, with the choice of what camera I want to
> use.
>
A little reality check... Most likely, one would get to choose which dirty
camera lens to "best" view the scenery.

Neil

[Matt Whiting]

Phil wrote:
> On Jul 26, 6:29 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
>> "Dallas" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>> Photo of the test model:
>>> http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/148030main_bwb_boeing_hi.jpg
>> I want one, just like that!
>>
>> It sure would make a dandy remote control model !!!
>>
>> Really though, it is interesting. I did not know they were still working on the
>> concept.
>>
>> I would fly in one, if you put a viewscreen in front of my seat, linked with
>> cameras outside to choose from. That is what I had heard they said would be the
>> arrangement.
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>
> I think Boeing would be really smart to pursue this technology. It
> will lead to airliners that are much more efficient than the current
> layout. If Boeing doesn't do it, you can bet that Airbus or Embraer,
> or eventually maybe even the Chinese aircraft manufacturers will.
>
> And I think for the generation growing up today on video games and
> computer screens, having a view screen instead of a window won't be a
> hardship.
>

That may be true, but my understanding is that all market survey work
done to date has shown consumers to soundly reject an airplane without
windows. However, maybe future generations will have a different view
as you say.

Matt

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote

> That may be true, but my understanding is that all market survey work done
> to date has shown consumers to soundly reject an airplane without windows.
> However, maybe future generations will have a different view as you say.

If the airline could offer you a ticket reduced 25% in price, that same
market survey would suddenly find that the people really like having no
windows. <g>

Money talks, BS walks, as the saying goes.
--
Jim in NC

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> That may be true, but my understanding is that all market survey work
> done to date has shown consumers to soundly reject an airplane without
> windows. However, maybe future generations will have a different view
> as you say.

Is there enough of a cargo market to make a cargo-only design?

I know I'm being just a little absurd here, but imagine if you came up with
a design which was so much more efficient than the current fleet that it
could capture 100% of the cargo market over the next 10 years. Could you
make that fly with no pax sales?

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Roy Smith" > wrote

> I know I'm being just a little absurd here, but imagine if you came up
> with
> a design which was so much more efficient than the current fleet that it
> could capture 100% of the cargo market over the next 10 years. Could you
> make that fly with no pax sales?

Possibly, I would think.

Depending on its short field abilities, it would help a lot if it had
performance of a C-17, or better. If the military was interested in buying
it, it would definitely be able to make a go of it.
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Whiting]

Morgans wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote
>
>> That may be true, but my understanding is that all market survey work done
>> to date has shown consumers to soundly reject an airplane without windows.
>> However, maybe future generations will have a different view as you say.
>
> If the airline could offer you a ticket reduced 25% in price, that same
> market survey would suddenly find that the people really like having no
> windows. <g>
>
> Money talks, BS walks, as the saying goes.

Maybe, but I really doubt there will be a 25% delta.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Morgans wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote
>
>> That may be true, but my understanding is that all market survey work done
>> to date has shown consumers to soundly reject an airplane without windows.
>> However, maybe future generations will have a different view as you say.
>
> If the airline could offer you a ticket reduced 25% in price, that same
> market survey would suddenly find that the people really like having no
> windows. <g>

Every flight I've flown lately has a full first class, so don't tell me
that everyone goes only for the low-priced ticket. Lots of people will
pay lots of money for a better ride.

Matt

[Scott Skylane]

Matt Whiting wrote:


> Every flight I've flown lately has a full first class, so don't tell me
> that everyone goes only for the low-priced ticket. Lots of people will
> pay lots of money for a better ride.
>
> Matt

Matt,

I'll answer your next question first, by saying "No, I don't have the
exact figures", but I believe that the vast majority of domestic First
Class seats are occupied by mileage plan users, not full fare paying
passengers.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[Matt Whiting]

Scott Skylane wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
>> Every flight I've flown lately has a full first class, so don't tell
>> me that everyone goes only for the low-priced ticket. Lots of people
>> will pay lots of money for a better ride.
>>
>> Matt
>
> Matt,
>
> I'll answer your next question first, by saying "No, I don't have the
> exact figures", but I believe that the vast majority of domestic First
> Class seats are occupied by mileage plan users, not full fare paying
> passengers.
>
> Happy Flying!
> Scott Skylane

I don't think you are correct, but I don't have the figures either. I
fly first class fairly often though and my seat neighbor is almost
always another person flying on business. I only rarely encounter a
person flying on frequent flier miles, unless you are counting business
fliers who got an upgraded ticket. Even so, they still in some sense
paid for the privilege by flying a lot back in coach! :-)

Matt

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote
>
> I don't think you are correct, but I don't have the figures either. I fly
> first class fairly often though and my seat neighbor is almost always
> another person flying on business.

Flying for business (in this case) does not count, because the flyer is not
paying for the ticket, or the difference between coach and first class.

So my thought stands. If you are _paying_ for tickets a 25% difference will
decide every time.
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Whiting]

Morgans wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote
>> I don't think you are correct, but I don't have the figures either. I fly
>> first class fairly often though and my seat neighbor is almost always
>> another person flying on business.
>
> Flying for business (in this case) does not count, because the flyer is not
> paying for the ticket, or the difference between coach and first class.
>
> So my thought stands. If you are _paying_ for tickets a 25% difference will
> decide every time.

Airlines let business passengers fly in first class for free? No
kidding! I'd have never guessed that. I guess I'll fly first class on
every flight from now on and save my employer a bunch of money.

Matt

[Phil]

On Jul 29, 7:51 pm, Richard Riley > wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:48:30 -0700, Phil >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >I think Boeing would be really smart to pursue this technology. It
> >will lead to airliners that are much more efficient than the current
> >layout. If Boeing doesn't do it, you can bet that Airbus or Embraer,
> >or eventually maybe even the Chinese aircraft manufacturers will.
>
> >And I think for the generation growing up today on video games and
> >computer screens, having a view screen instead of a window won't be a
> >hardship.
>
> It's actually left over from Douglas.
>
> One big reason it hasn't gone as passenger liner is what the people
> outboard would experience (plus and minus Gs) as the plane banks.

It could be banked more slowly to mitigate that, especially if it had
fly-by-wire controls. And people experience those same feelings now
in turbulence anyway. I suspect that if you were to offer people a
more roomy plane with a lower ticket price, you would get lots of
takers. I hate flying stuffed in like a sardine in a can. A blended
body aircraft could have more room for passengers. Imagine if an
airline started flying an airplane with twice as much legroom, more
aisles, and wider seats. Maybe even seats that really recline. And
at a lower cost. Let's say 5 or 10 percent lower. I bet they would
fill those planes on most flights. Wouldn't you be willing to pay
less to get more?

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Phil"> wrote

> Imagine if an
> airline started flying an airplane with twice as much legroom, more
> aisles, and wider seats. Maybe even seats that really recline. And
> at a lower cost. Let's say 5 or 10 percent lower. I bet they would
> fill those planes on most flights. Wouldn't you be willing to pay
> less to get more?

Nope.

While I realize space is cramped on airplanes, I find the space allotted
quite bearable.

I get on a airliner for one reason; to get where I want to go a long
distance away, quickly, and cheaply.

Cram me in, and let me spend the extra saved money, the way I want to, at
the other end.
--
Jim in NC

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:04:55 -0700, Phil > wrote
in m>:

>It could be banked more slowly to mitigate that, especially if it had
>fly-by-wire controls. And people experience those same feelings now
>in turbulence anyway.

Exactly.

>I suspect that if you were to offer people a
>more roomy plane with a lower ticket price, you would get lots of
>takers. I hate flying stuffed in like a sardine in a can. A blended
>body aircraft could have more room for passengers. Imagine if an
>airline started flying an airplane with twice as much legroom, more
>aisles, and wider seats. Maybe even seats that really recline. And
>at a lower cost. Let's say 5 or 10 percent lower. I bet they would
>fill those planes on most flights. Wouldn't you be willing to pay
>less to get more?

While I couldn't agree more about offensively cramped airline seating,
I can see how completive forces in the marketplace will force all air
carriers to increase seating density just as soon as the first
cut-rate operator equips his fleet with more seats to undercut his
competition. Cutting services, instead of increasing operating
efficiency, as a means of lowering costs is an easy method of
successfully increasing an enterprise's market share; consumers are
always looking for a 'deal.'

One of the 'features' of laissez-faire capitalism is its ability to
strip away non-essential amenities in the relentless quest to meet the
challenges mounted by competitors. Once the regular-rate, as opposed
to the cut-rate, airlines passenger volume is siphoned off by the
cheap-seats operators, it becomes impossible them to continue to offer
attractive frills and comforts like leg-room, blankets, meals, ...

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 00:39:08 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote in >:

>
>I get on a airliner for one reason; to get where I want to go a long
>distance away, quickly, and cheaply.
>
>Cram me in, and let me spend the extra saved money, the way I want to, at
>the other end.

See what I mean?

[Hawkeye[_2_]]

When the military contracts with airlines to provide an aircraft to
shuttle between the US and Europe or US and Pacific (usually a 747)
they specify max passenger configuration. The airlines call this
maxpax, we refer to them as 'Cattlecars'. Hundreds of sweaty cranky
people, zero leg room, lousy food and never on time.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 08:17:51 -0700, Hawkeye > wrote
in om>:

>When the military contracts with airlines to provide an aircraft to
>shuttle between the US and Europe or US and Pacific (usually a 747)
>they specify max passenger configuration. The airlines call this
>maxpax, we refer to them as 'Cattlecars'. Hundreds of sweaty cranky
>people, zero leg room, lousy food and never on time.

Such a configuration may be appropriate for military personnel,
especially in time of war, but such cruel and unusual treatment of
customers is deplorable, but necessary if airlines are to remain
solvent under laissez-faire capitalism, in my opinion.

[Phil]

On Aug 3, 5:32 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 00:39:08 -0400, "Morgans"
> > wrote in >:
>
>
>
> >I get on a airliner for one reason; to get where I want to go a long
> >distance away, quickly, and cheaply.
>
> >Cram me in, and let me spend the extra saved money, the way I want to, at
> >the other end.
>
> See what I mean?

I'm not convinced that the majority of people feel this way. When
aircraft seating has gotten so cramped that passengers are actually in
danger of getting blood clots in their legs (as some have), I think
the industry should seriously consider making improvements.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Larry Dighera > posted:

> On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 00:39:08 -0400, "Morgans"
> > wrote in >:
>
>>
>> I get on a airliner for one reason; to get where I want to go a long
>> distance away, quickly, and cheaply.
>>
>> Cram me in, and let me spend the extra saved money, the way I want
>> to, at the other end.
>
> See what I mean?
>
Not really, because Morgans' response was to Phil's question,

"> Imagine if an
> airline started flying an airplane with twice as much legroom, more
> aisles, and wider seats. Maybe even seats that really recline. And
> at a lower cost. Let's say 5 or 10 percent lower. I bet they would
> fill those planes on most flights. Wouldn't you be willing to pay
> less to get more?"
>
OTOH, your statement seems to be hinged on the assertion that,

"consumers are always looking for a 'deal.' ..."

So, I'm confused, unless you are suggesting that consumers prefer a *bad*
deal based on Morgans' preference alone. I suspect that most of us would
take the "pay less and get more" route, given a choice. ;-)

Neil

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

>Neil Gould wrote:
>
>
>A little reality check... Most likely, one would get to choose which dirty
>camera lens to "best" view the scenery.
>
>Neil
Another reality check. That is all fine and good...when and if the screens
are working. O_o
A third of my commercial ride time is without decent audio let alone video
entertainment that works.

I have learned to bring my own distractions.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200708/1