New Design - Worthwhile or Expensive Boondoogle?

[TheLastWord]

Air Force Awards a Start-Up Company $235 Million to Build an Example of a Sleek New Plane

The U.S. Air Force is throwing its support behind a program to develop a sleek, futuristic-looking jet that could provide greater range and efficiency for military tankers and cargo planes.

www.military.com

 

[Owen Lucas]

Would be nice to see one flying in the future, something very different from todays designs. 2027 for a prototype seems pretty fast.

 

[TheLastWord]

The rest of the article in case you can't see it all. Note the last 2 sentences:


Most large airplanes are tubes with wings and a tail section attached. Blended-wing planes are designed with the body and wings being one piece. The result is a sleek, futuristic-looking aircraft with less aerodynamic drag than a conventional plane of the same size.

JetZero officials argue that traditional planes are running out of ways to improve fuel efficiency, and, with fuel prices likely to rise, an entirely new design is needed to reduce fuel consumption and emissions.

The Air Force, the Pentagon’s Defense Innovation Unit and NASA are working on the project. JetZero has a partner in defense contractor Northrop Grumman.

The idea of a blended-wing body is not new. Boeing built and tested reduced-scale samples of its X-48. Lockheed Martin has tested a Hybrid Wing Body design in wind tunnels. The Air Force said technology advancements in materials and manufacturing have made the production of larger-scale demonstrators possible.

At a briefing Wednesday, officials said the JetZero demonstrator could determine whether a blended-wing body could be used in future refueling tankers and cargo planes for the Air Force. They said passenger and cargo airlines could also benefit if the design adds seating or cargo space and reduces fuel costs.

“The commercial industry is thirsty for solutions that aren't so thirsty for fuel,” said Tom O'Leary, the CEO and co-founder of JetZero, which is based in Los Angles.

O'Leary acknowledged that the Air Force award will not be enough to cover the development and production of even a single full-scale prototype, but he gave few details on the company's funding.

“While our total funding is not public, we will be having private investment and partners contributing to that,” he said.

 

[97prizm]

Here's what really gets me. Supposedly a company a few years ago was able to manufacture a skin or coating that reduced fuel consumption by 1.1 million a year or so. Unless it's more time consuming to produce or whatnot It should be full force into certification and production.

 

[Cujet]

Back at ERAU, various students and teaching engineers regularly perform these same wind tunnel experiments. The idea that a tube is somehow a high drag item is incorrect, as the Cd numbers show. Also the idea that there is somehow "a lot" to be gained by unique shapes is also generally incorrect.

A high aspect ratio wing (think glider, 787 etc) is the generally accepted way to achieve the lowest operational drag profile for a given amount of lift. Making a wide, thick fuselage to generate lift, is not an efficient way, in much the same way as a wide chord wing is high lift and high drag.

I chose this picture as it depicts an obvious nose up attitude. Picture where the air hits the radome, and where that same flow ends up, the path around the fuselage. The shape the air flows around is not what people think it is. When flying in rain, the drops clearly move along the windows heading up as they move aft. The shape the airflow follows, not surprisingly, is that of a teardrop.

 

[Cujet]

We have worked through all of this before. Wings require thrust (HP) to create lift. And real work must be performed by powerful engines.

Put another way, 1HP is defined as lifting 550 pounds of weight, 1 foot in one second.

It is no different with a plane. A wing optimized for generating lift at the lowest drag (high aspect ratio, thin/long wing) will always be best. Lifting, say, 300,000 pounds to 14,000 feet via a wing requires the very same work to be performed as a 300,000 pound truck climbing to the top of Pikes Peak.

The idea that the drag of an airliner is somehow the major factor, is not the right way to view it. First and foremost, the work to climb to 35,000-40,000 feet must be performed. The thin air at altitude reduces drag by an order of magnitude, and enables modern, low drag airplanes to operate very efficiently. Again, we are very well optimized today. The opportunity to reduce induced drag exists, (which can be 80% of total drag) and again, wingspan is the key.

 

[Cujet]

We spent 120 years getting here. The best we've ever been able to do. Lift over drag in the mid 50 to 1 ratio. Notice the shapes and wing designs that work so well.

 

[BusyLittleShop]

Before I decide can I yank it and bank it???

 

[Astro14]

Would be nice to see one flying in the future, something very different from todays designs. 2027 for a prototype seems pretty fast.

Don’t hold your breath. There’s not enough efficiency gain to justify the costs.

Part of how this airplane makes its efficiency is the increase in wing length.

So, while it looks cool, but compared with a 767, it has about another 40 feet of wingspan for the same weight aircraft. That means it’s not gonna fit at a regular gate at a regular airport.

It also means at the Air Force is going to need more ramp space for the same amount of cargo capacity or tanker capacity.

The passenger version? People are already calling it the vomit comet.

Some of the seats would have to be very far from the aircraft center line. So, any turn, any slight change in bank, causes those seats to rise and fall several times more than a seat in a current airliner. Even a widebody.

The window seat, with rises and drops of 30+ feet, during normal maneuvering, may end up being the least desirable.

Fewer window seats overall isn’t gonna do much for a ticket sales either.

The Aviation Week article on with this military.com article was based, and the editor is one Ward “Mooch”
Carroll, was long on promise, and short on commitment.

Most of this is based on the interview with the CEO of the company, and one Air Force General, who is interested. I can see it making a viable tanker.

But passenger airplane? That’s a long way off.

 

[Boomer]

I heard Exxon bought and destroyed a patent that allowed water to be burned in jet engines! It's true. I saw it in the National Enquirer!

 

[UG_Passat]

JetZero does have a partnership with Northrop Grumman, which to the USAF, should reduce some risk.

 

[y_p_w]

Didn't Northrup already do something like this before I was born?

 

[PimTac]

The Navy had the same idea. It didn’t work out well for them.

 

[E365]

Kinda similar topic: I see Boeing/NASA just started work on an ex-Delta MD-90 and converting it to the X-66A.

“In short order Boeing will begin modifications to a McDonnell Douglas MD-90 to test the Transonic Truss-Braced Wing (TTBW) configuration as part of NASA’s Sustainable Flight Demonstrator project.”

Boeing X-66A Mods Begin to Create the Truss-Braced Wing Aircraft - FLYING Magazine

Boeing will soon begin modifications to a MD-90 as part of NASA's Sustainable Flight Demonstrator project.

www.flyingmag.com

This:

Will become this:

Older concept

 

[Cujet]

The tail of a conventional plane always creates a downward force, adding to the wing's load. By eliminating the tail, and using a canard, or via a flying wing design, we can have just lifting surfaces, for a small, but not insignificant, increase in efficiency.

Canards have their own set of limitations, mostly centered around the compromises necessary to achieve a forward wing stall before the main wing. Flying wings and Fly by Wire are a good match, as they can be difficult to manage otherwise.