How it might have looked the McDonnell Douglas Blended Wing Body Concept (BWB)
Search this blog
Subscribe by E-mail
Recent Entries
- EASA mandates PC-12 NG Apex fix
- Boeing breaks ground on second 787 line
- DARPA re-thinks aircraft acquisition and operations with Vulture
- Airbus Tianjin Plant
- Magnetic heat shield test vehicle
- Flight International Cover: 1-7 December
- Airbus A330-200F Touch-and-Go
- What's it like to do an air-to-air photo shoot?
- UAE-designed UAV almost ready to fly
- F-16 mission training centre simulators
Recent Comments
- Anonymous commented on Blended Wing Body Concept: THAT IS
- Laurence Tenney commented on Blended Wing Body Concept: Actually,
- n8mcd commented on Blended Wing Body Concept: I am a for
- Alex commented on Blended Wing Body Concept: As an aero
- zorg commented on Blended Wing Body Concept: @john pric
- John Price commented on Blended Wing Body Concept: Looks simi
Blended Wing Body Concept
Tags:
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Blended Wing Body Concept.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.flightglobal.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/27211
6 Comments
Leave a comment
Want a user picture? Get a Gravatar!
ADVERTISEMENT
Tag Cloud
- 787
- A320
- A330
- A340
- A380
- Air France
- Airbus
- Airbus A320
- Airbus A380
- aircraft
- AirSpace
- Avro
- BAe
- Boeing
- Boeing 737
- Boeing 747
- Boeing 787
- British Airways
- business aviation
- business jet
- C-17
- Cabin
- cabin interior
- Cockpit
- defence
- Douglas
- Emirates Airline
- Eurofighter Typhoon
- F-16
- F-22
- Farnborough Airshow
- fighter jet
- Fighting Falcon
- first flight
- general aviation
- Hawker
- Heathrow
- historical
- image of the day
- Image of the day
- Image Of The Day
- Image of the week
- Interior
- JSF
- KLM
- livery
- Lockheed
- Lockheed Martin
- military aircraft
- NASA
- Paris Air Show
- RAF
- Red Arrows
- Royal Air Force
- Typhoon
- UAV
- United States Air Force
- United States Navy
- USAF
- USN
Technorati
Categories
- Add category (1)
- Air Show (1)
- Aircraft (159)
- Airport (27)
- Anniversary (11)
- Business Jets (47)
- Civil (113)
- Cutaway (3)
- Design and innovation (24)
- Display team (19)
- Engines (15)
- Environment (3)
- Event (18)
- Flight International Cover (9)
- General aviation (23)
- Helicopters (31)
- Historical (124)
- IFE&C (3)
- Image of the Week (17)
- Military (220)
- Misc (30)
- Quirky (62)
- Space (29)
- Special Livery (8)
- Training (3)
- UAV (22)
- interior (3)
- light jet (11)
- safety (16)


on May 23, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply
Looks similar to something Aerospatiale (as was) showed at several Air Shows some years ago, as well as what Boeing's now letting people have peeps at ...
Is this the new "single path" among aircraft designers ???
Is so, what about passenger access and emergency exits ???
on May 26, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply
@john price: It's not that I think you're a low-grade moron or anything, but I'm guessing that aircraft designers actually do think about "passenger access" and "emergency exits" and even other stuff too!
Are you thinking they're going to roll up to the gate for the first flight and call the control tower to explain that they have to hoist the passengers through a window, one peep at a time? And maybe give each passenger a can opener so they can peel away the hull in case of emergency?
on June 18, 2008 2:19 AM | Reply
As an aeronautical engineer i am, i assure you we do think about passenger safety and access doors to the plane :)
on June 18, 2008 4:13 AM | Reply
I am a former Boeing engineer...
@ John Price: The BWB is *far* more fuel efficient than a conventional tubular aircraft fuselage. Almost the entire payload section of the plane develops lift, dramatically reducing take-off fuel consumption and thrust requirements.
The design also allows for greater passenger comfort and access to amenities, and with creative emergency access options, is no more difficult to evacuate than a conventional aircraft. In fact, the Airbus A380 'superjumbo' has had to beg off special consideration for emergency access due to the limitations of a tubular design on such a large scale. BWB's stable rectangular cross section allows egress thru the floor without compromising structural integrity, cargo space, fuel capacity, or perhaps most importantly, the passengers ability to evacuate the aircraft*.
*Floor based escape options in tubular fuselage compromise the aisle access, so that once the escape hatch is opened, some passengers are prevented from safely using either the aisle or the egress.
on May 12, 2009 11:01 PM | Reply
Actually, Boeing has long since "sewn up" most patentable and industry-secretable technology relating to lifting body and blended-wing designs quite some time ago and then has "sat" on it for at least 10 years because they BELIEVE (based upon NO test-marketing other than among their own not-particularly-innovative-of-late executives, the 747 excepted) that the admittedly EXCEEDINGLY limited direct passenger views out of any windows would render such an aircraft "unmarketable."
All of this despite
1. much lower takeoff speeds, greatly reducing takeoff noise, strains on engines, TYRES (viz. the ONLY Concorde crash!) and airframe,
2. despite GREAT advantages in fuel efficiency (~50% per aircraft weight mile, by some estimates, and Deity only knows what per passenger mile!!!),
3. despite at least arguably—based upon one test-piloted crash of a lifting-body design—MUCH greater passenger and crew crash survivability,
4. despite the fact that XXIst Century video technology could EASILY make virtually identical-to-Mark-1-Eyeball visibility in any direction available, at the push of a button, to every passenger on the high-definition screen that will already be in front of him or her, and
5. despite the fact that NOBODY disputes that it would, in any case, be a helluva CARGO design!
Boeing (Airbus, McDonnell Douglas??), are you listening?!?
[Oh I forgot, Boeing ate McDonnell Douglas a while back, dammit!]
on May 30, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply
THAT IS SO COOL