7 ms·

Wow. The criticisms I've seen about using flying-wing designs for passenger aircraft (planes that look like the B-2 bomber), are often focused on how bad the bo

Wow. The criticisms I've seen about using flying-wing designs for passenger aircraft (planes that look like the B-2 bomber), are often focused on how bad the boarding process is for the movie theater seating they require. This design looks like it eliminates the seating problem pretty well. Flying wings have been known to be more efficient for a long time; logistics problems are the devil in the details.

satellitec4t 7y ago
I thought the problem was they are more difficult to fly, less stable.
- mcguire 7y ago
  My understanding is that the YB-35 flying wings had difficulties with stability along the Y axis, part of the reason they weren't suitable as bombers (for dumb bombs).
zymhan 7y ago
> Flying wings have been known to be more efficient for a long time Source needed
- walrus01 7y ago
  In the UAV world, the longest endurance loiter time fixed wing craft are either relatively slow and with long, straight wings (the 30 hour version of the rq-9, or the global hawk), or are flying wings...
  - zymhan 7y ago
    Sure, but those are not features you want in a cargo or passenger aircraft. The Global Hawk has a wingspan over 50% as long as an A350, yet it weighs 1/10th as much. There is no comparison.
    - SECProto 7y ago
      > The Global Hawk has a wingspan over 50% as long as an A350, yet it weighs 1/10th as much. There is no comparison. I agree that there is no comparison - in the sense that the two cannot be compared that way. For example: A childhood toy of mine (a compressed-air plane) needs a wingspan 1% as long as an A350, yet it only weighs 1/1,000,000th as much - and can still only stay airborne for 30 seconds! This discussion [1] on the different most-aerodynamic plane shapes is fairly interesting, and certainly doesn't confirm the person above who claimed that a flying wing is the most aerodynamic shape. [1] https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/17119/what-is-theoretically-the-most-efficient-shape-for-an-aircraft-assuming-you-d https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/17119/what-is-t...
    - ummonk 7y ago
      Well, given that mass would scale as square of wingspan that is only 2.5x as bad.
    - usrusr 7y ago
      > Sure, but those are not features you want in a cargo or passenger aircraft Depends on the use case: for a feeder aircraft (regional to international airport) load, range and speed isn't terribly important, but fuel economy still is, for economical reasons (and for ecological reasons, which translate into economical by making the tickets an easier sell to a climate-aware population). In well developed regions, the main draw of feeder planes over ground transportation is not travel speed, but the convenience and piece of mind of checking in at your home airport. Since a lot of regional (or effectively regional) airports are wildly overbuilt in hopes of attracting bigger connections there could be a market for a plane that fills the available width with a modern high aspect ratio wing to max out efficiency for small loads. If new aircraft designs weren't prohibitively expensive or fuel would be much more expensive this kind of plane would exist. Basically, put the wing of a Global Hawk on an ERJ-145.
- Atiim 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-48 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-48 Note 1: Boeing once toyed with a blended wing-body, a sort of flying wing, to produce dramatically better aerodynamics and fuel efficiency. Passengers would have sat in a wide cabin, rather like a small amphitheater. But tests with a mock-up produced such a negative reaction that the company dropped the technology, except for military refueling aircraft.
  - zymhan 7y ago
    That link provides nothing to backup the previous claim.
  - toast0 7y ago
    Unfortunately the source of that note, an article in the Economist from 2006, doesn't indicate when they tested. Standards and expectations of airline passenger comfort have degraded significantly over the years, so it might be reasonable to retest. Although, I found an article from 2018 [1], quoting a Boeing VP of Product Development and Future Airplane Development, which basically says a blended wing design for commercial passenger aviation is unlikely because the required minimum height for passenger loading implies a minimum width that is quite large, and may not be very compatible with existing airports. [1] https://leehamnews.com/2018/04/03/dont-look-for-commercial-bwb-airplane-any-time-soon-says-boeings-future-airplanes-head/ https://leehamnews.com/2018/04/03/dont-look-for-commercial-b...
- nabla9 7y ago
  Lift to drag ratio. Aerodynamically the wetted area that generates drag without lift is undesirable. You need a wing generate lift, but everything else is there for something else like stability, handling, payload etc. In conventional "tailplane" configuration the fuselage and tail are just providing drag and almost no lift (tail has little wings 'upside down' generating negative lift and trim drag). If you have canard or some more exotic wing configuration you can have all wings generating lift but there is still drag from the body. In clean flying wing, there is nothing else except the lift producing wing.
  - holoduke 7y ago
    Not entirely true. In a flying wing there is constant flap adjustment needed to counter balance a CG (center gravity) offset. The amount of counter drag is higher than a narrow winged tailplane. Obtaining a correct CG is therefore also more crucial. With variations in passengers and other load this will be a challenge.
  - usrusr 7y ago
    But thick, deep wings are not exactly known as the very definition of aerodynamic efficiency either. Are we sure that a sleek long tube added to a well-designed wing can be beaten by a wing that is full of compromise to accommodate seating?
    - nabla9 7y ago
      It's the thickness-to-chord ratio that matters, not absolute thickness. Swept wing in the Flying-V is clever way to get a optimal thickness-to-chord while keeping the total surface area in check.
  - FabHK 7y ago
    Concerning the horizontal stabiliser providing negative lift: it's possible and frequently so, but not necessary for stable flight. (If I understand correctly, what is required is that its angle of attack is lower than the one of the main wing, or equivalently (if the wings have the same shape) its wing loading.) See section 6.1 here, for example: http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/aoastab.html#sec-basic-stability http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/aoastab.html#sec-basic-stability
pwinnski 7y ago
Where are you seeing information about the seating in this design?
- goobynight 7y ago
  I don't think there is a spec, but looking at an image of a b-2 versus the image in the article should give you an idea to start with.
- georgeam 7y ago
  See youtube https://youtu.be/MvekG31FbJM?t=9 https://youtu.be/MvekG31FbJM?t=9 for an artists conception of the seating layout.
  - brianbreslin 7y ago
    was that video 100% auto-generated? sounded like a robotic voice.
    - ForHackernews 7y ago
      Youtube is fully of spammy auto-generated videos reading press releases and other nonsense.
      - walshemj 7y ago
        Yes I pray for the day when google algorithms detect this crap and deindex those.
  - atourgates 7y ago
    Looks like the plane loses a good chunk of its window seats, and another good chunk are just looking at the other half of the plane. Not that these are deal breakers, but it's generally safe to assume that at least economy passenger experiences are going to get worse, not better.
  - megous 7y ago
Shivetya 7y ago
Yet the image provided is the most radical representation I have seen of the "flying wing". This is two fuselages in V by initial look. I would still think that you could simply provide a screen for the interior passengers to have a view out, from the opposite side of the aircraft. People have done just fine in the center rows of jumbos so I am not sure that the negative impact is high as imagined. The thought experiment to play with is, swap out windows for computer displays, still with the air gap seen on some planes, but not for all windows and see what transpires.
- mattlondon 7y ago
  Not sure if there is "reason" for forward facing seats (perhaps crash safety? If so, why not put them all backwards since that is safest?) I could imagine seats facing "outwards", with a corridor along the windows. Kinda like a cinema but the screen is replaced by a row of windows. This way no one gets to "hog" the window seat (apart from the front row, and even then others can still see the windows on their walk along the corridors to the toilets etc). Bonus points for raised stadium-style seating with storage lockers under the rows at the back.
  - rocqua 7y ago
    I'd guess the G-forces of take off would be quite uncomfortable if seated backwards facing. You'd be pressed into the seat belt rather than into the seat.
    - mdorazio 7y ago
      Are takeoff G-forces actually higher than braking G-forces at landing? I think they're probably comparable given the speeds and runway lengths are similar, so you would just be swapping the seatbelt discomfort from the end of the flight to the beginning. You could also probably make the seats pivot slightly to counteract the plane's angle of attack causing discomfort.
      - Consultant32452 7y ago
PaulHoule 7y ago
Yep, Boeing has talked about a Blended-Wing-Body airliner but it turns out passengers don't want to ride in the middle of such a monster. The flying-V solves that.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
afterburner 7y ago
Eliminates the seating problem by... eliminating the problem seats. I mean you could have done that without changing the plane's shape. 20% less fuel is huge, that's the real plus.

satellitec4t 7y ago

I thought the problem was they are more difficult to fly, less stable.

mcguire 7y ago
My understanding is that the YB-35 flying wings had difficulties with stability along the Y axis, part of the reason they weren't suitable as bombers (for dumb bombs).

zymhan 7y ago

> Flying wings have been known to be more efficient for a long time Source needed

walrus01 7y ago
In the UAV world, the longest endurance loiter time fixed wing craft are either relatively slow and with long, straight wings (the 30 hour version of the rq-9, or the global hawk), or are flying wings...
- zymhan 7y ago
  Sure, but those are not features you want in a cargo or passenger aircraft. The Global Hawk has a wingspan over 50% as long as an A350, yet it weighs 1/10th as much. There is no comparison.
  - SECProto 7y ago
    > The Global Hawk has a wingspan over 50% as long as an A350, yet it weighs 1/10th as much. There is no comparison. I agree that there is no comparison - in the sense that the two cannot be compared that way. For example: A childhood toy of mine (a compressed-air plane) needs a wingspan 1% as long as an A350, yet it only weighs 1/1,000,000th as much - and can still only stay airborne for 30 seconds! This discussion [1] on the different most-aerodynamic plane shapes is fairly interesting, and certainly doesn't confirm the person above who claimed that a flying wing is the most aerodynamic shape. [1] https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/17119/what-is-theoretically-the-most-efficient-shape-for-an-aircraft-assuming-you-d https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/17119/what-is-t...
  - ummonk 7y ago
    Well, given that mass would scale as square of wingspan that is only 2.5x as bad.
  - usrusr 7y ago
    > Sure, but those are not features you want in a cargo or passenger aircraft Depends on the use case: for a feeder aircraft (regional to international airport) load, range and speed isn't terribly important, but fuel economy still is, for economical reasons (and for ecological reasons, which translate into economical by making the tickets an easier sell to a climate-aware population). In well developed regions, the main draw of feeder planes over ground transportation is not travel speed, but the convenience and piece of mind of checking in at your home airport. Since a lot of regional (or effectively regional) airports are wildly overbuilt in hopes of attracting bigger connections there could be a market for a plane that fills the available width with a modern high aspect ratio wing to max out efficiency for small loads. If new aircraft designs weren't prohibitively expensive or fuel would be much more expensive this kind of plane would exist. Basically, put the wing of a Global Hawk on an ERJ-145.
Atiim 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-48 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-48 Note 1: Boeing once toyed with a blended wing-body, a sort of flying wing, to produce dramatically better aerodynamics and fuel efficiency. Passengers would have sat in a wide cabin, rather like a small amphitheater. But tests with a mock-up produced such a negative reaction that the company dropped the technology, except for military refueling aircraft.
- zymhan 7y ago
  That link provides nothing to backup the previous claim.
- toast0 7y ago
  Unfortunately the source of that note, an article in the Economist from 2006, doesn't indicate when they tested. Standards and expectations of airline passenger comfort have degraded significantly over the years, so it might be reasonable to retest. Although, I found an article from 2018 [1], quoting a Boeing VP of Product Development and Future Airplane Development, which basically says a blended wing design for commercial passenger aviation is unlikely because the required minimum height for passenger loading implies a minimum width that is quite large, and may not be very compatible with existing airports. [1] https://leehamnews.com/2018/04/03/dont-look-for-commercial-bwb-airplane-any-time-soon-says-boeings-future-airplanes-head/ https://leehamnews.com/2018/04/03/dont-look-for-commercial-b...
nabla9 7y ago
Lift to drag ratio. Aerodynamically the wetted area that generates drag without lift is undesirable. You need a wing generate lift, but everything else is there for something else like stability, handling, payload etc. In conventional "tailplane" configuration the fuselage and tail are just providing drag and almost no lift (tail has little wings 'upside down' generating negative lift and trim drag). If you have canard or some more exotic wing configuration you can have all wings generating lift but there is still drag from the body. In clean flying wing, there is nothing else except the lift producing wing.
- holoduke 7y ago
  Not entirely true. In a flying wing there is constant flap adjustment needed to counter balance a CG (center gravity) offset. The amount of counter drag is higher than a narrow winged tailplane. Obtaining a correct CG is therefore also more crucial. With variations in passengers and other load this will be a challenge.
- usrusr 7y ago
  But thick, deep wings are not exactly known as the very definition of aerodynamic efficiency either. Are we sure that a sleek long tube added to a well-designed wing can be beaten by a wing that is full of compromise to accommodate seating?
  - nabla9 7y ago
    It's the thickness-to-chord ratio that matters, not absolute thickness. Swept wing in the Flying-V is clever way to get a optimal thickness-to-chord while keeping the total surface area in check.
- FabHK 7y ago
  Concerning the horizontal stabiliser providing negative lift: it's possible and frequently so, but not necessary for stable flight. (If I understand correctly, what is required is that its angle of attack is lower than the one of the main wing, or equivalently (if the wings have the same shape) its wing loading.) See section 6.1 here, for example: http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/aoastab.html#sec-basic-stability http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/aoastab.html#sec-basic-stability

pwinnski 7y ago

Where are you seeing information about the seating in this design?

goobynight 7y ago
I don't think there is a spec, but looking at an image of a b-2 versus the image in the article should give you an idea to start with.
georgeam 7y ago
See youtube https://youtu.be/MvekG31FbJM?t=9 https://youtu.be/MvekG31FbJM?t=9 for an artists conception of the seating layout.
- brianbreslin 7y ago
  was that video 100% auto-generated? sounded like a robotic voice.
  - ForHackernews 7y ago
    Youtube is fully of spammy auto-generated videos reading press releases and other nonsense.
    - walshemj 7y ago
      Yes I pray for the day when google algorithms detect this crap and deindex those.
- atourgates 7y ago
  Looks like the plane loses a good chunk of its window seats, and another good chunk are just looking at the other half of the plane. Not that these are deal breakers, but it's generally safe to assume that at least economy passenger experiences are going to get worse, not better.
- megous 7y ago

Shivetya 7y ago

Yet the image provided is the most radical representation I have seen of the "flying wing". This is two fuselages in V by initial look. I would still think that you could simply provide a screen for the interior passengers to have a view out, from the opposite side of the aircraft. People have done just fine in the center rows of jumbos so I am not sure that the negative impact is high as imagined. The thought experiment to play with is, swap out windows for computer displays, still with the air gap seen on some planes, but not for all windows and see what transpires.

mattlondon 7y ago
Not sure if there is "reason" for forward facing seats (perhaps crash safety? If so, why not put them all backwards since that is safest?) I could imagine seats facing "outwards", with a corridor along the windows. Kinda like a cinema but the screen is replaced by a row of windows. This way no one gets to "hog" the window seat (apart from the front row, and even then others can still see the windows on their walk along the corridors to the toilets etc). Bonus points for raised stadium-style seating with storage lockers under the rows at the back.
- rocqua 7y ago
  I'd guess the G-forces of take off would be quite uncomfortable if seated backwards facing. You'd be pressed into the seat belt rather than into the seat.
  - mdorazio 7y ago
    Are takeoff G-forces actually higher than braking G-forces at landing? I think they're probably comparable given the speeds and runway lengths are similar, so you would just be swapping the seatbelt discomfort from the end of the flight to the beginning. You could also probably make the seats pivot slightly to counteract the plane's angle of attack causing discomfort.
    - Consultant32452 7y ago

PaulHoule 7y ago

Yep, Boeing has talked about a Blended-Wing-Body airliner but it turns out passengers don't want to ride in the middle of such a monster. The flying-V solves that.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

afterburner 7y ago

Eliminates the seating problem by... eliminating the problem seats. I mean you could have done that without changing the plane's shape. 20% less fuel is huge, that's the real plus.