4 ms·

Why do you keep thinking competition is what prevented blended wing bodies? Blended wing bodies make big trade offs that don't neatly fit with commercial flight

by tekla 3y ago

Why do you keep thinking competition is what prevented blended wing bodies? Blended wing bodies make big trade offs that don't neatly fit with commercial flight. The analysis of different lifting bodies is fairly fundamental aeronautical engineering work every student learns. There is no weird conspiracy here.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Why do you keep thinking competition is what prevented blended wing bodies? Never said as much. OP asked why all planes since the 70s look about the same. It’s because there isn’t a sustained budget for experimentation. > no weird conspiracy Never said as much. It’s not exactly groundbreaking for entrenched supplies to cease innovating and focus on extraction.
- tekla 3y ago
  > Never said as much. OP asked why all planes since the 70s look about the same. It’s because there isn’t a sustained budget for experimentation. Bullshit. There is tons of money for innovation, every single manufacturer is trying to squeeze 1-2% efficient improvements across the board. To say there is no funding for innovation is hilariously ignorant. > Never said as much. It’s not exactly groundbreaking for entrenched supplies to cease innovating and focus on extraction. Cool, can you show me what numbers you're looking at that even hint that these blended wing bodies are better than contemporary commercial designs?
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Bullshit. There is tons of money for innovation I heard almost the same out of a Lockheed executive about launch about a decade and a half ago. A dollar of R&D can travel differently at a cushy corporation than at one in competition. > can you show me what numbers you're looking at that even hint that these blended wing bodies are better No, I have never defended this design—I have no specs. A better question is why you’re so convinced this optimum is the global one.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Cool, can you show me what numbers you’re looking at that even hint that these blended wing bodies are better than contemporary commercial designs? Department of the Air Force Climate Action Plan, October 2022 [0] (p17) “For example, development of blended wing body aircraft could drive transformative changes, as this aircraft design increases aerodynamic efficiency by at least 30 percent over current Air Force tanker and mobility aircraft” [Note that Air Force tanker and mobility aircraft are similar to, and in some cases simply militarized versions of, commercial airliner or air transport designs.] The same report (p19) identifies development and testing of a full-scale blended wing prototype by FY27 as a Key Result of the Action Plan. [0] https://www.safie.hq.af.mil/Portals/78/documents/Climate/DAF%20CAP%20Dec%2023%20Mod.pdf?ver=eWS2AgUkpuQBFOlIbcIkew%3d%3d https://www.safie.hq.af.mil/Portals/78/documents/Climate/DAF... [PDF]
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > OP asked why all planes since the 70s look about the same. All commercial passenger airliners (and there are some exceptions there, but in different directions than blended-wing-body) look about the same, but not all airplanes do. > It’s because there isn’t a sustained budget for experimentation. No, its because there are various technical challenges with blended wing-body aircraft that have to be balanced against the reduced drag and resulting better fuel efficiency, such as structural challenges if you want continuous internal cabin space; access if you want to be able to evacuate them as efficiently as a tubular fuselage aircraft, etc. Some of those have had progress over the years (e.g., the structural ones) as material science has advanced. There are blended-wing-body designs (or the related but more extreme flying wing design) that have been produced, mostly as experimental or military aircraft (several US strategic bombers have been blended-wing-body or flying wing designs: the B-1 is a blended-wing-body (also with variable sweep wings), B-2 and B-21 are flying wing designs.)

by tekla 3y ago

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> Why do you keep thinking competition is what prevented blended wing bodies? Never said as much. OP asked why all planes since the 70s look about the same. It’s because there isn’t a sustained budget for experimentation. > no weird conspiracy Never said as much. It’s not exactly groundbreaking for entrenched supplies to cease innovating and focus on extraction.

tekla 3y ago
> Never said as much. OP asked why all planes since the 70s look about the same. It’s because there isn’t a sustained budget for experimentation. Bullshit. There is tons of money for innovation, every single manufacturer is trying to squeeze 1-2% efficient improvements across the board. To say there is no funding for innovation is hilariously ignorant. > Never said as much. It’s not exactly groundbreaking for entrenched supplies to cease innovating and focus on extraction. Cool, can you show me what numbers you're looking at that even hint that these blended wing bodies are better than contemporary commercial designs?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Bullshit. There is tons of money for innovation I heard almost the same out of a Lockheed executive about launch about a decade and a half ago. A dollar of R&D can travel differently at a cushy corporation than at one in competition. > can you show me what numbers you're looking at that even hint that these blended wing bodies are better No, I have never defended this design—I have no specs. A better question is why you’re so convinced this optimum is the global one.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Cool, can you show me what numbers you’re looking at that even hint that these blended wing bodies are better than contemporary commercial designs? Department of the Air Force Climate Action Plan, October 2022 [0] (p17) “For example, development of blended wing body aircraft could drive transformative changes, as this aircraft design increases aerodynamic efficiency by at least 30 percent over current Air Force tanker and mobility aircraft” [Note that Air Force tanker and mobility aircraft are similar to, and in some cases simply militarized versions of, commercial airliner or air transport designs.] The same report (p19) identifies development and testing of a full-scale blended wing prototype by FY27 as a Key Result of the Action Plan. [0] https://www.safie.hq.af.mil/Portals/78/documents/Climate/DAF%20CAP%20Dec%2023%20Mod.pdf?ver=eWS2AgUkpuQBFOlIbcIkew%3d%3d https://www.safie.hq.af.mil/Portals/78/documents/Climate/DAF... [PDF]
dragonwriter 3y ago
> OP asked why all planes since the 70s look about the same. All commercial passenger airliners (and there are some exceptions there, but in different directions than blended-wing-body) look about the same, but not all airplanes do. > It’s because there isn’t a sustained budget for experimentation. No, its because there are various technical challenges with blended wing-body aircraft that have to be balanced against the reduced drag and resulting better fuel efficiency, such as structural challenges if you want continuous internal cabin space; access if you want to be able to evacuate them as efficiently as a tubular fuselage aircraft, etc. Some of those have had progress over the years (e.g., the structural ones) as material science has advanced. There are blended-wing-body designs (or the related but more extreme flying wing design) that have been produced, mostly as experimental or military aircraft (several US strategic bombers have been blended-wing-body or flying wing designs: the B-1 is a blended-wing-body (also with variable sweep wings), B-2 and B-21 are flying wing designs.)