ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Would YOU Fly as a PASSENGER In This FLYING WING?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ส.ค. 2024
- Get Exclusive NordVPN deal here ➼ nordvpn.com/me... It's risk-free with Nord's 30-day money-back guarantee!
Why are modern airliners still shaped the way they are? Why don’t we see any more #modern, streamlined shapes, like the #flying wings that first appeared over SEVENTY years ago and… could this change soon? Stay tuned!
If you want to support the work I do on the channel, join my Patreon crew and get awesome perks and help me move the channel forward! 👇
👉🏻 / mentourpilot
👉🏻 Check out our other channel here: / mentournow
Get the Mentour Aviation app and discuss what You think about this! Download the app for FREE using the link below 👇
📲
📲 Join the Mentour Pilot Discord server here! 👉🏻 / discord
I have also created an Amazon page with Aviation books, material and flight simulator stuff that I think you will enjoy!
👉🏻 www.amazon.com...
Follow my life on instagram and get awesome pictures from the cockpit!
📲 / mentour_pilot
To find the right HEADSET for YOU, check out BOSE Aviation 👉🏻 boseaviation-e...
Get some Awesome Mentour Pilot merch 👉🏻 mentour-crew.c...
Sources
• Air Force's newest ste...
• Meet the B-21 Raider
• United - On board with...
• ATR Flight Safety - Em...
• For the Boeing Flight ...
• YB-35
• Airbus Commercial Airc...
• 787 completes jam-pack...
• Blended wing body free...
• Windowless planes: is ...
• KLM & TU Delft present...
• AZIMUT: Automated manu...
• How Air Filtration Wor...
• Bombardier EcoJet Rese...
• Introducing #ZEROe
• Not Just a Propeller: ...
• Tour of the C-5 Aircraft
• NASA to Shine Lasers o...
Get Exclusive NordVPN deal here ➼ nordvpn.com/mentournow It's risk-free with Nord's 30-day money-back guarantee!
I'm really happy they sponsor you, but really, as an IT engineer, you are completely wrong about what nordvpn, or any vpn, does and doesn't do for you. There are many good reasons to use their services, making yourself safer is never one of them.
Ugh Peter please stop accepting VPN sponsorships, its tarnishing. They are half-scams and we shouldn't promote them.
Yo! Petter, I forget the name, but one of the lesser used designs for a passenger aircraft from back before jets were popular actually DID have a partial flying wing design. Due to the relatively low airspeed it actually wasn't a high sweep on the wings, but did in fact have passenger seating INSIDE the wings. One innovation they had in that design for safety, IIRC, was having the WINDOWS on the wing seating be an emergency exit. In practice it worked much like how the emergency exit is over the wing on a modern Boeing design, but passengers exiting that way needed to go into the wing structure. A modern swept version could have an eject able panel attached to the leading edge of the wing.
15:20 as you've probably guessed by now... this aircraft solved the pressure issue by.... It was a prop design, it couldn't fly at the altitude of a modern jet. Thus it never had a cruising altitude high enough to NEED a pressurized cabin.
Please cover oblique flying wings which are much more efficient than current supersonic commercial transports in development.
Indeed they are borderline sketchy. If you think about it a VPN provider is also financially motivated to monitor people's connections - after all if people choose to use them they want to hide something. The only vpn you can trust is your own. I use one and it's great that the technology exist, but some of these advertisements are sketchy and/or subpar products (including manscape, ray con earbuds that seem to spend all their budget on sponsorships). I feel most sponsorships on youtube are sketcny, at least the ones that you see all the time...
As a structural engineer, I see the pressurization problem as one of the most challenging ones. Circular section can eliminate bending stress while blended wing-body or flying wings will have a lot of locations taking on bending stress which is much less efficient.
I completely agree, being once an aerostructures engineer. I think the proven wing/ tube/ pylon mounted engine layout is the definitive shape of subsonic aircraft, just as ship design is fundamentally the same for over a century. The niche areas of supersonic or military are another matter. Safe air travel is a miracle, taken for granted.
@@joto4294 Yup. Mechanical engineer here, and I think too many developments for for shock effect only. Like the USS zumwalt. It was supposed to carry a new gun, to give ww2 era style capability, but the gun was cancelled cos the shells were a million a pop. Sure, lot of lessons learned from the zumwalt class, but thats the US military, with money to burn. 👍
As a computer (i.e. fake) scientist, I agree. A series of tubes is not just the best design for the Internet, but for aircraft as well.
@@alexandernordstrom1617 How do tubes apply to the interweb ? I know nowt about interweb stuff.. but your comment hooked me 👍😂😂
@@TheScotsalan hahaha 😂
I can see the benefit for private jets. Not the fuel savings, but the more practical shape of the cabin. A tube is good for carrying large amount of people efficiently and safely, but not if you want elbow room.
yep
You could have mentioned why swept wings are key to flying wing stability. Of course aircraft like the B2 also use split ailerons, but the swept wings also play a big role in natural yaw stability.
As the aircraft yaws, the wing on the turn side will move "out of the way" and closer to the center of gravity, perpendicular to the airflow, while the other wing does the opposite. That way there is a torque applied to the aircraft, opposing the yawing moment.
It should also be noted that flying wing designs were using swept wings long before they became common on aircraft, for the exact reason mentioned above.
In addition to the issues with just pressurizing the irregular shape, I expect fatigue from the pressurization cycles would be a massive issue.
The aerodynamic parasite drag minimalization at mach > 0.86 to stay competitive requires area ruling and a long volumetric distribution, span is ok for low induced drag, but less important at high altitude flight, where the lower ambient temperature reqires higher mach to achieve comparable true air speed , TAS = mach × speed of sound ( ss )
ss proportional to sqrt (TempA)
Conclusion is that the blended wing will cruise at noticeably lower TAS, important when confronted by strong headwinds. Affects ETOPS in a major way unless 3 or more engines are used, not very likely.
Older McD BWB studies disagree. They say it's a lighter, stronger, lower cost of construction and of continued operation. NASA agrees as does Boeing, Airbus, TsAGI and Russavia.
Even if there's more structural weight (which they say is arguable) it's still a better plane over all.
That was a good overview of BWB. About a decade ago, I listened to a talk by professor Ian Poll on the prospects for flying wings, and in answer to a question, he conceded that there is only a particular sweet spot for a flying wing design at about 300 seat capacity. Smaller aircraft would need a proportionally deeper mid section for the passenger cabin, so higher form drag would defeat the aerodynamic efficiency advantage; larger aircraft would present problems with excessive span. You mentioned folding tips that could possibly solve that. However, nature doesn't seem to have come up with a blended wing-body design, so I doubt we will do so. One other minor point, it's often the case that tailplanes push down, but not if the tailplane is a bit larger with respect to the wing, so that the neutral point is further aft. Also, the air pushing down on the tailplane may produce thrust rather than drag. If you think about the angle of downwash, typically half the angle of attack, then consider the direction of lift and drag on the tailplane relative to that flow, it is possible for the resultant vector to be forward of perpendicular to the free stream airflow. In most circumstances, the tailplane has a relatively insignificant effect on the total drag of an aeroplane.
I'd say that feathers of many birds kinda form blended wings, and they change shapes too. The clear seperation of wing and body is more of an artificial thing of aircraft, likely for ease of construction and operation.
Sounds like what you’re describing is a tandem wing design, there the “tail” is actually another wing, and so the center of lift is created by the 2 tandem wings…. I don’t think there has ever been a production tandem wing aircraft though…. there was the French “flying flea” but that was a kitplane….
Even with a tandem wing though, if the CG is not in the same spot as the center of lift in the MAC, you still have the need to achieve balance with one or the other wing…
@@PRH123 no, I remember this surprised me when a senior aerodynamicist first mentioned it to me in the early 1980's. He cited as an example the Hawk trainer, which in aft CG conditions could have lift on the tailplane. It's quite well known. At the time some people were claiming in the aviation press that canard configurations had the advantage of removing the drag produced by download on the tailplane. I believe that some manufacturers presumed download on the tailplane and cambered it to minimise drag with download. That is commendable if trim always requires download, but not so good if a legitimate aft CG loading requires upload on the tailplane. If you're interested, and not so clued up on aircraft pitch stability, perhaps Google "tailplane volume ratio".
@@JMWflicks seems to me now that I remember seeing one of the many blended wing concepts with a canard, i.e. a 3 surface airplane... Which is a sound concept, the Avanti is flying for decades now and Piagio claim reduced drag... but it's not such a breakthrough that anyone besides them wants to produce one... of course there have been many canard designs and their producers claim reduced drag from reducing the downforce needed for stability... They were probably right but again it wasn't superior enough to make all airplanes canards...
The Boeing model 754 and associated "Burnelli style" lifting fuselage body designs see a marked jump in efficiency and no changes to airport designs.
A bird is very much a blended wing-body design.
Even if the Boeing 754/Burnelli isn't blended at all, it's still got better L/D and payload/range.
There is one niche of civil aviation where flying wing designs have been quietly: Modern Hang Gliders!
They are incredibly stable and efficient in their narrow operating band, and get away with it by discarding all the commercial requirements (a wide speed range and manageable CG range). I spent decades getting my kicks flying Hang Gliders while also flying "normal" airplanes commercially, and I have always been impressed by the impressive pitch and yaw stability of the modern, non-competitive hang glider.
The Achilles heel of a commercial flying wing will probably always be it's knife-edge pitch stability and narrow CG range.
Actually modern planes are more like powered gliders, they can easily take a half hour to float down with no engines. You can even easily get them out of stall with flaps and only a 5% increase in power.
One other advantage to the standard layout of modern aircraft is that they are easily upgradable. There's no need to redesign the wing if you want to have a longer fuselage (as could happen in a flying wing configuration), or if you want to use a different engine that needs to be embedded inside the sing as opposed to hanging in a nacelle under the wing. Changing to a more efficient wing design doesn't entail redesigning the entire aircraft. This sort of thing helps keep the cost of flying lower.
There's atleast one potential design-approach for this problem: You split the entire wing-fuselage verticalle and longitudinally, so that you get a left and right section. Now you could widen this gap as required and fill it with that additional center section (remember, the fuselage creates lift by itself). After that, you would only really need to extend/adjust the nose- and tail-part of to align it closely with the original shape, so you can replicate/preserve the original aerodynamics without having to scrap the entire. This is ofc. a gross simplyfication and might glosses over a bunch of challenges bc plane design is highly complex and stringent, but I think this could be a good method without major drawbacks.
Also, I'd ad that a BWB airliner would be surprisingly compact compared to a conventional plane with the same capacity.
Yes! I can't wait to see Boeing slap GE9X on its 737 airframe and called it 737XXX with MCAS from hell... That is what we all want, isn't it?
@@kngharv Well, hopefully Boeing learned their lesson and next time would not listen to the airlines that want to save pennies on the staff training but when things go south run to the competitor and blame Boeing for everything.
@@lennoxbaumbach390 While this would be an effective way to increase passenger count and reuse most of the body, the nose and tail would likely still need redesigning, and it has one major flaw that lengthening a tube body also increases available emergency exits for evacuation requirements, while a wider body would not offer more doors and so increase the number of passengers who need to use each. As a result the evacuation requirements would need to be designed for the largest variant and built into the smallest from the start.
See the '70s patents by Int'l Husky for a lifting fuselage, similar to the Boeing model 754, or the earlier Burnelli planes.
Tube and wing planes have been stretched all they can be. Stretching them means redesigning and strengthening the wing box and center fuselage, making stronger taller landing gear to allow for rotation angle.
Extending their lifting fuselage sideways by a few lanes of cargo or aisles of passengers, only takes the L/D ratio upwards, and keeps everything else the same. Every few lanes you add an engine and another set of the same landing gear under it and nothing changes except compared to a "normal" plane you get more payload/range, onto a smaller runway.
Thanks.
Blended wing planes seemed obviously better.
But, your explanation of the tradeoffs, enabled me to see that it is not so easy.
Excellent explanation of the issues.
I would say there is a level of blend to the wing that is reasonable... and a level that might not be.really.. the wing is blended already to day.. just a tiny bit. Increase the blend 10 times... and you get a semi blended wing.
So, what I get out of this is that unless there are major scientific advances (materials technology, engine design and efficiency, etc.), the shape of civilian carrier airplanes is not going to change for many many decades.
Exactly
I reckon some designs just work. Like the diamond frame of a bicycle. Sure, designers keep new ideas coming, but basically, the diamond frame cant be beaten for general use.
And even if they change, then airports you need to rebuild some gateways... and looking at the infamous BER Berlin Brandenburg Airport in Germany that started construction in 2006, was supposed to open in 2011, but due to massive delays opened in 2020 after 14 YEARS of construction, I wouldn't be surprised if it takes a decade until construction for a new gateway would finish. And then an airline would need to operate a route with two of those airports, deem it economically viable to use this new kind of aircraft and train its pilot on it.
Yeah... my guess is, that it actually would take decades until we civilians could board such a plane. Unless saving are HUGE for the airlines, and they really really press forward with their money.
@@Blex_040 BER was a failure bc, it was essentially a vanity project by the governing politicians of Berlin, who seemingly thought they could specify for and manage such an incredibly complex project, ...with predictable results ofc.
The issue is control system redundancy. Flying wings are inherently efficient but also inherently unstable. This means you need to rely on computers to keep it safely and stably flying.
Once robust redundant flight control systems can be designed and proven a flying wing will be possible for civilian airliners. Not too long now.
This is absolutely the best aviation channel, thanks to it's excellent host.
Thank you so much! 💕
Great content Petter. Really interesting video!
As a "BOEING" pilot myself, (and my older brother works at the Renton, Washington Plant) your Videos are something to look forward to.
Sometimes, the general principles are forgotten when it comes to "basic construction"!
I was always taught the "K.I.S.S. Method" (which I am sure that you are familiar with) if it works and is lucrative for the company/safety, make it happen...
I was likewise taught the KISS principle, and in turn instilled it into my staff. Engineering is a scary business.
Keep It Simple but Savy
KISS
very productive, leads to incredible innovation, this is true for young creative engineers. Try it!
@@joto4294
how about keep it simple but savvy
That's the most comprehensive and compelling coverage of the few pros and many cons of flying wings and BWBs. This is teaching material for future projects engineers at Airbus or Boeing.
Hats off to you and the team for the amount of research that went into the video.
Always interesting to be reminded just how old so many aeronautical concepts are. I had forgotten about the 1930s aircraft.
Even more incredible when you consider the first controlled, powered flight had only taken place a mere 30 years earlier at the time!
8:10 the first flying wing was built in 1908, and it had swept wings. And many variations of flying wing followed that one prior to WW1.
Good old J W Dunne.
Sp mzny technical and phydics-related issues that had simply never occurred to me! I am so glad aeronautical engineering is a thing!
In the 60's, as an "Air Explorer" (related to Boy Scouts of America) I completed ground school but because of a family move, I did not get to start out at the controls. Much later in life, a friend allowed me to briefly take control of a Beech Debonaire but I was so busy as a Special Prosecutor, for the state of Iowa, I never got to earn the opportunity to solo and be licensed. I have always regretted that. This is another fascinating offering from Petter.
In addition to a lot of good points made here, flying wings can be intolerant of changes in C of G and also tend to be very pitchy. Could give problems with passengers and cargo loading.
Absolutely. Like I mentioned, stability is a real issue.
@@MentourNow I probably commented before you got to that bit of the programme. Keep up the excellent work Petter.
Hi Petter, I think most of us are very interested in your take on the Jan. 13 runway incursion at JFK when the AA pilot crossed a runway directly in front of the departing Delta plane, nearly causing what would have been the worst aviation nightmare in recent years. Can we expect that soon?
He is meticulous, it may take him a while for it to be ready.
I suspect that, if we see any major changes, it will be towards high-wing designs. Engines are getting bigger, so we need space for them. They are also getting quieter and sound insulation is slightly better too, so maybe it would be bearable for passengers.
Yes and high winged craft have wings narrow front to back at almost 90 degrees to fuselage which is the furthest from V wing integration as you can get. Much more like glider wings. Some new "eco" designs show similar long wings with brace supports like in small privately owned aircraft like Cesna 172's. An exception is the BAE 146.
The problem with high wings is that the wing spars and structure can be quite thick where they pass through the fuselage.. On a low wing, this interrupts the space where you would store cargo and maybe some of the fuel, but passes underneath the floor of the cabin. On a high wing, it interrupts the space where you would store carry-on luggage at best. Nobody would be happy with five rows of seats having to check all their small bags.
Military planes with high wings don't bother with carry-on storage bins, and they prioritize a low floor to aid loading heavy palletized cargo or vehicles. If you did the same thing with an airliner, you might have to load cargo above the passengers. Small turboprops have a much thinner wing since the loads are so much less than say, a 767.
Maybe, with larger engines, we will see the return of tail engines configurations. Additional advantage would be the ability to have a shorter rudder (and thus less drag), as with traditional engine configuration, the rudder has to be extremely large to compensate for engine out situations (for newer langer engines, as they create plenty of drag, when turned off).
Another issue is that high wing planes with the main landing gear still attached to the wing have much longer gear, which transmits much more torque to the wing structure. The wing needs to be stronger to handle this (weight) in addition to the longer and heavier gear. If the gear is attached to the fuselage instead, then the fuse needs to be beefed up dramatically (weight). The beauty of the current low wing design is that the main gear, engine mounts and wings spars are all in the same general location, requiring less areas of the airframe that need to be beefed up.
@@piisfun All checked luggage and non palletized cargo is carried under the passenger floor. If you move the floor down ala C-17, you need to put the luggage and other cargo above the passengers. It could be done, but might need different luggage equipment at every airport the plane visits.
Easier to put longer landing gear on new designs for more ground clearance, if the engine size is a concern.
An adjacent topic might be the laminar flow designs which promise incredible efficiencies albeit at a narrow speed and size range. Also, I have always thought canard designs have too often been overlooked. The front mounted stabilizer reduces drag by creating a lifting force while still being aerodynamically stable even in stall conditions.
I don't think I've ever heard or been told to open or made sure my window shade is open when taking off.
This format and the tremendous success of the secondary channel.. is beautifully validated by such capsules that you and your team make!
The first 3½-4 minutes of this were just as relevant in forming the context! And then you gave a balanced picture of various aspects and summed it up by tying each point to the other... in a fluid manner.
This presentation itself was an excellent blended wing presentation.😊
The content here is orders of magnitude better than a lot of the stuff that is made for TV while TV productions are working on budgets that most TH-camrs could only dream of.
Aww, that’s really nice to hear! Thank you
@@MentourNow You are very welcome. As an aviation enthusiast, I have been following your first channel for many years and this one since you started it. And I have never regretted it at all. Keep up the good work and Thank you so much!
colaholiker6478 Yes! 100% agree.
That is why.. although my life situation does not allow me to pitch in to buy merchandise or pay at Patreon.. I never skip the advertisements.
I also share these🤍💙 productions👌🏽 with others of my ilk.
colaholiker6478 Yes! 100% agree.
That is why.. although my life situation does not allow me to pitch in to buy merchandise or pay at Patreon.. I never skip the advertisements.
I also share these🤍💙 productions👌🏽 with others of my ilk.
The flying wing needs to be huge to have a suitable cabin height and would require a large passenger manifest to be practical. I don’t think flying wings will replace domestic flights, but have great potential for transcontinental cargo transport.
People never mention a flying wing design means a much wider cabin, the problem with that is the passengers sitting further away from the centre of the cabin will have increased G-Forces when the aircraft rolls, normally won’t be much of an issue except for strong turbulence or strong wind landings, the further you sit on a wing from the centre the greater the G-Forces
Agreed
It's mentioned in the video. There's even a stock photo of someone with a barf bag. And I agree it's major. Not only does it make comfort in turbulence a serious issue, but it also puts constraints on roll authority even in fair weather conditions, especially roll acceleration: roll inputs will have to start and end very very progressively if we don't want coffee cups and passengers to fly.
And freight and military users don't care.
They could use those seats to train pilots/astronauts )
He talks about this, watch it again
As Boeing knows, sometimes designing a cargo plane can turn into the Queen of the Skies and prove very profitable.
17:27 the C5 may be old but the engines have been replaced with high bypass cf-6 carients.
regarding window seats, most flights I've been on lately, everyone keeps the window shades closed, and even get upset fi you open yours. Between cellphones and in-flight screens, they don't care about windows anymore.
That's sad. I rarely fly, but I still love being able to look out.
One place I believe a bended/flying wing would work well is an aerial refueling tanker. The fuel is much denser than passengers and their surrounding air making volume/wing thickness a nonissue. Current tankers which are modified from passenger airliners are basically empty by volume even when on a full fuel load. Difficulties like emergency exits and pressurization are also not really problems. There’s also benefits to having a stealthy tanker as even if the enemy can see the fighters/bombers, if they can see a tanker refueling seemingly nothing, that could be a good early warning for them.
Overall vehicle level optimization is the best way to answer the question of BWB vs tube and wing, rather than personal opinion, or structural component level consideration, speaking as an aeronautical engineer with 20 years aerostructures, loads, dynamics, optimization.
I'm seeing a lot of footage coming from my university here (TU Delft) and I can say that a lot of effort is going in to solving the issues for flying-wing designs. The researchers themselves also identify a lot of these issues and shortcomings, including that they would not (yet) replace airliners.
The other major focus right now is transitioning to electric propulsion.
I really hope we'll see more concepts taking flight and some of them becoming successful in advancing the aviation industry. I am sure you would be more than welcome to visit the Aerospace Engineering faculty Petter!
Oh, I would love that.
I’m quite skeptical of electric aviation at any larger scale but I would love to hear what you say.
@@MentourNow there is a growing push towards restricting short flights in the EU and promoting trains. Maybe electric aircraft can bypass some of these restrictions and compete with trains? I do like trains, but the Czech government is not building HSR. :-(
@@MentourNow I agree with that skepticism, it's going to take a long time and tons of R&D. but for shorter flights with smaller aircraft there's an electric future. If you want I can see if there's someone at the university you can talk to? I work in spacecraft design 🛰️, not on planes!
My dad feel in love with the flying wing when he saw film of the first flying wing in the 50s and the pilot was able to turn and go in the opposite direction by tipping the plane on its tip and flipped it down in the opposite direction in a matter of seconds. I think dad was still in college as a rocket propulsion/aeronautical engineer at the time.
I saw a Stealth being test flown back in the 80's, if felt like spotting a UFO. It was claimed they were only tested elsewhere since they were not made here. Silent unlike all other planes.
Concorde was basically a flying wing with a cigar in the middle (ok, put this in before she was mentioned ;)). I still think she was the most beautiful aircraft ever, with Comet as a close second.
Okay, now I'm really interested in how these designs would do as cargo aircraft. Passenger safety and comfort would no longer be an issue. Things like windows, pressurization, height of the cabin, emergency exits, and motion sickness from sitting far out from the roll axis wouldn't be a concern. Different variations may also not be needed, as efficiency vs cargo amount could be enough to make the aircraft very attractive as a fleet despite there only being one choice of capacity. I also imagine it would be easier to modify the cargo area of an airport to accommodate the untraditional aircraft shapes than it would be to modify the passenger terminal area.
Happy User of Nord VPN for almost a year. It does make international travel connections easier for sure! Thanks!!
I wonder if cargo planes could be developed with blended wings to work out the bugs before trying to develop a passenger plane
The certification standards for cargo planes are the same as they are for passenger planes.
@@edwardwright8127 yes it's just they don't have windows or need as many emergency exits so two of the issues with blended wings are resolved. If Lockheed Martin develops a cargo airplane based on a blended wing, it might be developed into a civilian version
Maybe but how will having cargo planes solve the issue for passenger planes if they don't need to?
@@edwardwright8127 cargo planes like the ones for the military does not even need to pressurized since your metal cargo does not care about being a little cold and out of oxygen.
Amazing analysis. I'd seen multiple takes on this and yours is the one that brings actual practical points up.
Just give everyone an ejection seat, problem solved with emergency exits. 😂
Hahaha
Ejection seats aren't very safe. They are simply safer than remaining in a crashing plane. Spinal injuries are very common, deaths aren't unheard of. Newer models might not cause as many bad injuries, but the majority of users still suffer from some. Using an ejection seat is basically a guaranteed trip to the hospital even if only to make sure you didn't fracture something important that adrenaline is covering up. And that is with trained professionals, not civilians panicking and in risk of getting tangled or hitting each other
If you fly 737 as well as you make videos you must be a hell of a pilot sir
Well, I try! 😂💕
Thanks for bringing to light the many complications involved in the design and manufacture of viable alternatives to conventional proven airframes.
7:12 I love the 797. Making a subtle petition to Boeing are we? 🤣
If possible can you make a video explaining why propeller airplanes have propellers in front of the aircraft whereas in a boat the propellers are found at the rear.
Since both work by pushing the fluid behind in order to create thrust.
That’s a great idea..
Another GREAT video. Very fun stuff. Keep the dirty side down and enjoy.
I like these non-crash videos. Thanks. I guess if aircraft safety continues to improve, we will see more of them. A win-win situation! 😁
Need to watch Mentor Pilot crash video during a plane crash
I can not help but notice, in 1973, in 1996, in 2008, etc. They just do happen that often despite the thousands of daily flights. How many happen per year. You are safer flying than driving, I bet the accident ratio is much higher on the ground.
@@toriless I'm guessing you mean "DON'T happen that often"?
@@toriless In the last 13 years almost all accidents have been because of pilot error, it is why the 737 max incidents became such a gigantic scandal since there was a problem with the plane.
The injures and deaths per distance travelled is the smallest for airplanes compared to all other modes of transportation. However the crash to death ratio is still amongst the highest, along with ships. So when there is an accident it is often tragic.
Yeah this channel doesn't cover crashes.
Excellent engineering rundown of all perks concerning flying wings! I think for large scale passenger airliners this will remain a dream, but not for freighters and cargo versions!
Hi, Capt. Petter
My favourite Royal Air Force military aircraft was the Avro Vulcan bomber, which saw its final combat service over the Falkland Islands. Sadly, it has now been retired from the service but was much loved by pilots and, at air shows, by the public. I mention it because I believe it was perhaps a precursor to the winged aircraft you have just been discussing. Most of the designs you showed have the form of Manta Rays. Is this deliberate? How would the movement and structure of Manta Rays give the nod to passenger aircraft. Or is it purely coincidental? I know the purpose of the B/V2 Stealth bombers is to be undetectable by radar for obvious operational purposes. Presumably, a passenger wing aircraft needs to be detectable at all times, especially if it is in trouble.
Is the idea for wing aircraft to conserve fuel, increase passenger payload, expedite travel times, be a step into the future? I was unsure.
At my age and my BP, I will not fly again in this life, but I am very enthusiastic about the future and what it has to offer, including the safety of aircrew and passengers.
Thank you for your video this evening.
One difference between manta rays and aircraft is that manta rays are sufficiently buoyant that they don't need lift. They flap their tips primarily for propulsion, but unlike aircraft, they can stay still in the water...
@JMWflicks Thank you. Your reply is greatly appreciated.
A friend engineer told me that the widows is a pin the a** for them because it's a point of weakness in the structure, and they would like to get rid of it, like in military aircraft
747-8 FO here. Keep up the great content
Given that so many research is being done into this at the moment, I am hopeful that in a decade we will know more if it is feasible or not. It's not just Boeing and Airbus, but also for example KLM that is looking at it.
I am very new to the channel but I really enjoyed this presentation on the design challenges of flying wings and blended wing aircraft. I thought your explanations were very clear and easy to follow. I have subscribed. Thank you.
That was really interesting. The more I learn about aviation the more I want to be a part of it.
It’s a truly fascinating world
@@MentourNow I am a software architect at an airline and I totally agree with that 😊
This video was a great perspective on the more practical considerations with the idea.
There is another configuration which is more efficient than the current airliners. That is the canard where the tail is at the front so it lifts up for stability rather than "lift" down. The down lift has to be compesated by mode lift, and thus induced drag, in the main wings.
The problem with the canard is the phugoid oscilation (porpoising). Up until now this has been a killer (remember the nausia) but with fly by computer it aught to be able to be overcome.
Lifting tails with instability computers can work too but you don't have the natural stability to fall back on in an emergency.
The Beach starship failed because they couldn't overcome the nausea problem but the Piagio Avanti semi canard worked well.
It has nothing to do with oscillations. Canards aren't popular because they increase the takeoff and landing speed, which reduces the number of airports the aircraft can use.
The Avanti is only a "half canard," it has both a canard and a traditional tail. The popularity of the Avanti - and it's not that popular - is mostly due to it having very little cabin noise due to the pusher prop.
@@fluffysheap Hi fluffysheap, I think you are wrong as regards to canards and oscilations. As to take off run that is down to detail design. You are right that the Avanti is a half canard, but then I already said that. It is faster and uses less fuel than similar power conventional wing tail. That helps with popular.
My point is that unlike flying wings canards can fit in existing airports and use less fuel than ordinary wing tail.
The flying wing was Jack Northrop's lifelong dream, unfortunately it was just too far ahead its time. He did live long enough to see the development of the B-2, which no doubt gave him a great deal of satisfaction.
It'll be interesting to see how civil aviation will evolve, thanks for the update! 👍👍
Just to add a conspiracy maybe the govn't destroyed all of Northrop' s wings because Boeing was afraid the wing would end the classic configuration that Boeing depended on.
@@edwardmyers8782 no - they simply weren't stable enough prior to fly by wire and computers making many minute adjustments to the control surfaces. Once that engineering challenge was achieved, the Stealth fighter and bomber came out in quick succession - both designs heavily needing that new gear.
The main reason Boeing etc haven't moved to a new overall design - the gates at the airport... if they come out with a new design, adaptations have to happen at the gates to accept the new planes possibly even requiring more jetways per gate. Also, their current tooling works great with "cylinders of various lengths" between the short range and long range variants of the same plane, as they can add a few sections - going from short range to long range would require a lot more changes than just a few extra fuselage rings.
@@edwardmyers8782 When the B2 was being built the original test pilots for the original flying wings were still alive. When the B2 test pilots asked about any suggestions and advices for the test flights they only had one: "Do not stall it. Whatever you do, you must never stall it..."
Reason for this: A flying wing is almost impossible to recover from an aerodynamic stall. For this reason a flying wing is never going to happen. Boeing had a concept for a flying wing at one time. It could house about 900 passangers. Problem was: Regulations require you to be able to deplane all passangers within a given time. And it was not possible for more than 600 passangers on a flying wing. So the concept was ditched.
He was just channeling the thoughts of J W Dunne, the true pioneer of tailless aircraft.
you don't need a swept wing for pitch stability of flying wings, it requires the cg to be further forward and a reflexed wing section, the trailing edge of the wing then works much like the horizontal stabiliser of a conventional aircraft.
This has been the airplane of the future for at least the last 20 years!
You didn’t mention the drag penalty of the vertical stabilizer and rudder at cruise. Aerodynamic drag from the conventional vertical stabilizer is tremendous. That barn door size rudder is only necessary during low speed operation (landing and takeoff or, god forbid, spin recovery) and the rest of that vertical fin exists mainly to support the rudder. For cruise flight a much, much smaller airfoil is needed. If only it would retract.
I can't stop loving our old school fuselage type aircrafts so i hope these keep going forward for some time
"Loving" poor efficiency in unsafe planes...
Ok but whatever. You do what you've got to do.
Thanks for another one, Petter! When I read the title and saw that there was no thumbnail, I excitedly thought, Hey, this is going to be about that long ago engineering marvel, THE flying wing. You know the one... that long 'uniwing'! I don't recall the maker, and I understand why it can't fly commercially (or hardly at all non-commercially either) but I loved the very idea of it as well as the creative thinking that brought us such an oddity. But, alas, that imagined video was not to be. In my excitement, I missed the 's' in wings in the title, which sent me down a mistaken path :-(
I enjoyed this video nevertheless. As with so much of your work, it fueled my curiosity while still answering questions I've had about what my grandson has called 'bat planes' ever since the first B2 Stealth Bomber glided directly over his backyard swing-set.
A large flying-wing aircraft with passenger-pods hung unter the wing could be even more modular in production and be compatible with current airport designs while still minimizing drag. Hanging the pods from the wing would not need a large bulky structure like traditional wing-fuselage-connections do.
What I read a few decades ago was that half the emergency exits would be on top, and fuel pumped between different tanks combined with small extrudeable panels top and bottom all over the craft would counter the movement of passengers inside the plane.
Another great video! I would love to know your opinion about the "Flying V" that is being designed by the TU Delft and backed by KLM. It seems quitte different tha the designs shown in the video.
But can we all agree that these blended wing designs just _look_ extremely beautiful, elegant and futuristic? 😍
I wonder how flying wing design can cope with asymmetric thrust. If things go wrong in a military aircraft the pilots usually can eject.
This video just unlocked a memory I have from the late 1960s or early 1970s. I remember an aircraft that was described as "so big it has to have folding wings" yet I cannot find anything about such an airliner now.
The tube and wings formula is so well rounded that anything that deviates from it seem like reinventing the wheel
TBH: differences in entrance placement could be even solved on ground, by some adjustable devices connecting airport to aircraft. They are somewhat adjustable even now, so... we alrady have something to build on.
My guess is that a startup will someday build the new standard shape for an airplane. From my experience, it is very hard to convince a manager to scrap the old stuff and start clean slate with a new product. The risk is high and the benefit is not guaranteed. When you just improve your old design, the risk is a lot smaller and the benefit is more predictable. Even if you integrate some leading edge technologies, you generally try to adapt it to your old design and not touch more things than necessary. However, changing the body shape to a flying-wing or blended-wing is nothing that you could integrate into your existing products at Airbus or Boeing. It's something completely new. A startup on the other hand, doesn't have an old product to build on. They start at zero and have to design everything from scratch anyways, so there are no compromises necessary to accommodate old technology into a new body.
It’s not that personnel at Boeing and Airbus have personality problems that prevents them from accommodating progress, both of those companies are at the leading edge of aviation development in many areas, because they have to compete with each other, and the other up and coming competitors such as Embraer. They and their customers have a keen and thorough understanding of the market and risks which makes them cautious, when they should be cautious.
Airliners are not consumer products, no airline will buy an airliner from a startup. An airliner purchase is a decades long relationship that aside from the aircraft involves maintenance, engineering support, training, spare parts, and hard time commitments from the manufacturer that are backed up with contractual penalties.
To buy an aircraft from a startup that could disappear tomorrow is not a risk that any airline can take. Just one wrong purchasing decision of that kind could bankrupt the company immediately, they wouldn’t have a second chance.
Where do you think some startup would get the money from? Who would ever invest in their product or buy their product? Even in the car business it's almost impossible for startups to get a new concept running. And cars aren't million dollar vehicles in a that highly regulated environment.
@@miskatonic6210 But there are startups in the aircraft industry, so apparently it is possible to get funding.
@@PRH123 That also has been said about Airbus, when they joined the market.
@@fr89k what was said about Airbus…?
The ironic irony of *bombers vs passenger* airliners, is bombs were granted *more safety mechanism payload* than humans, which makes the classic & late modern models. A great come back for passengers. Especially the super sonics seats vs device swap.
It's all about consumer confidence in my opinion, people have a standardised view of what an aircraft should look like
C-5 has 80 seats on the top level and 2 windows on each side. You also sit facing backwards. Of 3 trips I made from Japan to US, it was the fastest.
Oh my. Mentour talking about the B-2 made me more happy than it should have. lol
The ho229 was also Prototype build and was more advanced than the Northrop Design. I saw you bringing Up in the Video so IT would be worth mentioning
Excellent review
You missed another advantage of the standard design, and that is that each row is consistent, so that every thing can use the same components. The seat assemblies of generally two three or four seats, and the overhead bins, and a lot of flexibility in seat pitch. If go to a funny fuselage, basically each change in seat arrangement would require a completely new interior design. Also the baggage pallets used in the baggage area could not standardized either, and how to load them would be a lot more of an issue since a single door where pallets are slide in and then slide into position would not work
How about a blended wing with an engine above each with tip, and two more below the wing tips. Throttle differences between these four engines could provide pitch, and yaw inputs without rudder or horizontal stabilizers.
As a mechanic inspecting at through flights, as well as deicing a wing with a 30 foot depth front to back would be challenging if not impossible.
The reason they didnt show the wing is that you can get a rough idea of its compbat design by the control surfaces on the wing. Also the angles in the back can be used to see how stealthy it is. I understand none of this but watch Ward Carrolls B21 video and some aviators go over it
Yes! There is plenty of room behind the 2 crew seats on the B2 for at least 4 passengers.
That cockpit where you have to lie down looks absolutely terrifying
Like everything in engineering, making one thing better usually exacerbates something else, which means you have to find a balance.
I think the design at 16:27 actually could have some promise as it still shares some commonality with existing airliners (i.e. tube with wings except that the wings blend more). However I think aircraft manufacturers could experiment by incrementally blending the wing and the fuselage more with every design iteration and seeing what works instead of going all in. This approach would also give more time for aviation authorities to adapt.
Very interesting video! Flying wings are sooo beautiful 🤩I hope to see one someday in a museum maybe
I don't think a screen would make me comfortable at all! I love looking outside the window when flying.
Blended wing lifting body airliners were all the futuristic rage in the 1980s until the passenger loading problems, lack of windows, engine maintenance issues, and possible pressurization problems threw a wet blanket over the whole idea. Funny how this idea keeps popping up.
It's more likely new airliners and cargo planes will follow lifting body designs like the LM X-33. Makes way more sense for an aircraft that requires internal volume.
Nice clip. Thanks! 👍⭐😎
A very interesting overview of different designs and their pro´s and con´s ! Thank you very much!
Anyone notice how so many of the blended wing designs resemble stingrays?
Nature has a way of setting examples which man can learn from. The Fluid Mechanics are different in that rays use their wings as their propulsion system, but their wings are also shaped to maximize their efficiency traveling when simply gliding.
A great explanation of the difference and bennies of the blended wing vs. the flying wing. Well done!
Thanks for adding some reality to discussions of future blended wing/body airliners. Just because a new idea looks different and cool doesn’t make it obviously better. You mentioned the vertical displacement issue with seat position in roll (premium seats in the center, cheaper seats farther outboard); another issue affecting everyone on board is gust sensitivity. The low wing loading caused by the larger wing area will make the airplane very sensitive to turbulence, creating an unpleasant ride in all but the smoothest conditions. There are so many issues with BWBs that lead to compromised solutions (lack of windows, egress following wheels-up landings, cargo storage, etc.). The final issue is likely to be cost, since trail-blazing in the tech world is rarely cheap. It’s still an open question whether manufacturing a high-tech composite airliner can be done at a profit - seats and fuel burn dictate the market worth of any airplane, not cool factor.
For now, let the military users play around with the flying wing idea. Stuff like fuel (tankers), bombs (bombers), and cargo (transports) don’t complain about ride quality, and the low-observable characteristics of wing-type airplanes can increase mission survivability. When stealth becomes important for passenger aircraft, THEN we can possibly justify BWBs and HWBs. For now, tubes with wings will rule the skies for passenger flight. As one of my professors noted many decades ago, when asked why airplane designs hadn’t seen radical change, “It’s the same old air…”
Great video. Love the way you explain it all
Great points about how a flying wing design could work with the existing infrastructure. Airports, maintenance facilities and manufacturing technologies have been optimized for existing designs and flying wing design would need to be obviously superior to offset all the changes needed to support infrastructure. Otherwise, the changes needed to switch to flying wing couldn't be re-payed in any reasonable timeframe. That would make total cost of ownership of the flying wing less economical in long run.
I'd expect the overall tubular design to stay in production but the blending near the are where the wings are connected to fuselage will be probably streamlined a bit.
They said the same when the A380 was proposed, the Airports that wanted to make money made the minor changes that were necessary, the world is now led by visonless accountants and hence the stagnation of everything.
This will result in the future of all tubes being banned from the skys, dont like it, walk.
It might actually pay to innovate but then again, probably not until this world dies, and that shouldn't be to far away, big changes coming whether the accountants like it or not.
@@kell7195 I hate the fact the bean counters are making the decisions, too, but never underestimate the inertia of the society at large. Many people are more conservative than they think and any kind of change (good or bad) is hard to accomplish fast.
The moment he brought up the "no window seat" thing, I was out. My rule is absolutely simple. if I can't get a window seat, I won't be flying. Period.
Amen
Ditto
I wouldn't care so much about not having a window but I may very well care if I'm far enough off the centerline of roll. Good video, thanks for sharing.
Aside from the pressurization problem, the biggest issue is that the cabin shape is awkward for passengers. It doesn't necessarily matter that much for normal boarding, but emergency exits are very far from the passengers in the middle. It is hard to meet the safety requirements because of this.
The passengers in the middle are also very far from the windows. This might not matter as much as it used to, but I don't think it would be popular. Of course with most airliners being set up as cattle class these days, passenger comfort is the very lowest priority on the list.
For freight, the shape is also awkward. How do you access a pallet of cargo in the middle of the plane? It would have to have onboard cargo handling equipment.
Bombardier is developing some of these designs? It is interesting because as engines change so do designs. The spoke and hub model for airports may be a relic already as smaller commercial planes 30-50 seaters leaving regional smaller landing strips may bring Bombardier back into commercial aviation outside niche markets like so-called business jets. Bombardier, even though it proved its metal designing the C Series, created two avenues for regional flying. CRJs and Turboprop Q400's. As they continue to be design innovators in a scaled back version of themselves (vs. being producers), their future will likely be pushing more towards air taxi concepts than with say inducted fan engines than a concept like with CRJs with high bypass turbofans. What happened to Bombardier in terms of protectionist levies placed on C Series sales speaks volumes for any relative upstart manufacturer of aviation products. Multinational companies with large public military procurement revenue can influence competition globally to stifle, and in some cases destroy, competition. Countries like Canada who badly need the United States as sales market can risk market opportunity reduction if they push forward with successful competing products with "too big to fail" American giants. An economic imperialism of commerce, if you will, is ignored at one's peril. This delicate balance puts the concept of "free trade" at considerable risk.
I love your work!
Many interesting designs. Thanks
One of the limitations of commercial passenger aircraft as far as efficiency is concerned is coffins corner, where the Mach limit of the aircraft approaches the stall IAS. In most commercial aircraft at maximum altitude the lower limit of IAS is in the 150 to 220 knt range, and this limits the maximum altitude. Another limitation is engine efficiency at high altitude and low IAS.
An aircraft with a more efficient wing and larger wing aspect can cruise at a lower IAS which means they can potentially fly at a higher altitude were the air is thinner, less drag for any given mach speed. So potentially you could have an aircraft with a ceiling at 42,000 ft replaced by an aircraft at 50,000 ft. Another benefit of flying at higher altitude is you can nudge up the mach limit a couple of percent.
This is theory, of course, there may be practical limits in attitude control that ultimately limit the cruise IAS.
One of the future problems in the aircraft industry is going to be the transition from aliphatic hydrocarbons (d~0.8 kg/liter) to renewable fuels like hydrogen (0.15 kg/liter of heavily compressed gas). Hyodrogen takes up considerably more volume than Jet Fuel does for the same amount of energy. The wing-body aircraft design allows for thicker wings and more storage space for compressed gases. Although hydrogen produces much more power per kilogram, its insufficently to compensate for increases in volume required. Unlike cars which can bassically use efficient fuel cells to compensate for the lower energy per unit volume, jet aircraft need to produces the equivalent of 100,000s of kilowatts of power in a fairly small volume, so direct combustion within a gas turbine is going to be the most likely candidate, which means your are not going to get the efficiencies on might get in a fuel cell. Accordingly the aircraft will need larger wing and fuselage volume to store the gas.
If aircraft continue with the current design into the era of hydrogen use, they may find themselves limited to routes half the current distances.