JetZero’s Futuristic Blended Wing Jetliner Cleared for Test Flights
2024 ж. 27 Нау.
18 901 Рет қаралды
JetZero’s blended wing body demonstrator aircraft has received an airworthiness certification from the Federal Aviation Administration.
This scaled down Pathfinder demonstrator aircraft features a 7 meter wingspan which is 12.5% the size of the full aircraft.
#JetZero #Aircraft #Plane
Extra Legroom: More seats: 😁
From my observations, "progress" in airline travel always means less legroom. 😛
Us airlines will cram more seats together so that passengers have to eat their knees
Don’t get it twisted, this is just so they can charge you more! 😅
If you stalled that thing, it looks like both engines would face air starvation and flame out...the airflow being blocked out by the fuselage body itself. Airplanes do hit rough air, you know.
all those days, years, decades when we knew we had to keep inlets out of the boundary layer, and now this. But the root and inner wing create a vortex for enough air to keep them fed at extreme angles of attack. dunno about "deep" stall though. I'll ask Mark if my assumptions are true - he was our aero guy for a while and my prof.
The reason production airliner haven't changed planform is THEY WORK. Flat fuselages are impossible to pressurize, fuselage mounted engines are succeptable to airflow disruption , compressor stall and ice ingestion. They are also difficult to inspect and maintain between flights. Emergency exits are problematic, and window seats are scarce. 50 percent fuel reduction? Doubt it.
Just wanted to let you know, NASA pressure tested a full-size section for a BWB using the PRSEUS composite in 2015. They pressurized it to explosive failure. It far surpassed their expectations and can be made even lighter for a non-circular aircraft body, pressurized at altitude.
@@The1Pope Indeed. And here we are 9 years later, NASA still hasn't got their moon rocket working, and we are still enjoying the many design benefits of the cylindrical fuselage! New is not always better Mr Pope. Gotta wonder if NASA will soon be squandering tax money on flat propellent tanks for Artemis! Just think of all the benefits!
Wery good aırcraft
To the moon 🌚
I remember seeing flying wings being tested in the 1950s. If they weren’t viable then why would they be now.
because it was the 1950s Dave. jfc lad use your loaf
Thunderbird 2
Looks similar to thr Arado E. 555. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arado_E.555
Does anyone really want to be ~60 feet from the centerline in a turn? NO. That is one of the reasons, among others, this concept has been rejected for passenger travel by airlines and manufacturers. Edit. Up to 80 feet from the centerline
If the flight ticket price is cheaper, I would fly on it. 😊
They configure the seats in the middle.
@@jamesdellaneve9005 Not according to all the design renderings I've seen of the interiors I've. The renderings include windows along the leading edge of the wing. I've never seen any description of an interior with the seats only running down the center of the plane. Considering how short the fuselage is with reference to conventional airliners that would be a lot fewer seats so not enough revenue to justify the cost.
@@JustaPilot1 Mark’s been working on this for 25 years. I’ve seen all kinds of configurations of it. They started working on this in McDonnelll Douglas Long Beach. They’ve worked out all of the major design issues. Now, they need to starting building and flying.
@@jamesdellaneve9005 Please present the interior designs "they" have settled on because I have not seen anything placing the passengers on the centerline only and I've been following this since the first published stories about it. The stories come and go and only RC and wind tunnel models have been presented. What's it been? 2 or more decades? There's no doubt the increased efficiency and fuel savings this design presents but I just don't see it as a passenger carrier for the reasons started. This would make a good cargo aircraft. Again the aircraft is very short-coupled leaving little room for passengers which means little commercial viability for passenger air travel. The per-seat price needed to make it commercially viable would keep the airlines away from it. Then there are the major changes to airport infrastructure needed to accommodate the airframe configuration.
Hydrogen… let’s name the new plane the Hindenburg 😂
Not easy or cheap to get a window seat
It's about time this concept is being built by JetZero and Northrop Grumman. It'll be great for the military but it's way too expensive and unstable for the passenger airline and air cargo industry. There is another. See patent D984,353. Simpler, cheaper to produce and stable, this design is much more practical. The BWB is great as a larger, military transport with stealth capability. The airline/cargo industry can't afford and doesn't need this complexity, instability or impracticality for smaller airframes. See research on the LFC (Lifting Fuselage Configuration) by Reist/University of Toronto.
If there was a prize for an aircraft uglier than an A380 this would win it.
What makes other planes so much less ugly?
I personally like the look of the A380. Depending on the wind direction we see one up to twice a day. I also find the sound restful.
Have you ever heard of the concept of form follows function? And if I want to make perfect use of the space of an airplane while at the same time achieving good aerodynamics, the result is a circular shape. That's why most passenger airplanes are circular or almost circular. Knowledge is power my friend. Unfortunately, you're not far off with that