So Jow Forums, why aren't any of today's planes modeled like attached pic? I was feeling bored and decided to do some research on pic related (YB-49), and came across a 21 minute video from Northrop about the plane's functionality and advantage over the average passenger/cargo jet model.
So why aren't any modern passenger/cargo planed modeled after this one? It seems like it would a massive improvement compared to the planes we have today. Am I missing something?
>missing something
yep.
Wing designs like that one and the B2 are extremely difficult to do well due to the lack of significant vertical fins which help in stabilization. Current designs with the large tail fins and whatnot work better for stable flight, only real reason to go with the wing design was originally for stealth reasons as well as trying to find a more aerodynamic solution.
Ramjets and scramjets are memes for now, they end up violenty detonating mid-flight into a million pieces from the sheer velocity their propulsion system can accrue.
Not a very popular thing with passenger aircraft or any aircraft with humans onboard for that matter.
I've heard that the only reason why commercial jets have not changed their design is because the standard design is the cheapest design to produce. It's more important for companies to build it cheaper than better.
Also flying wings are a bit harder to control due to the abnormal design
Adding to this: hypersonic aircraft are best suited for missiles with nuclear warheads for maximum AA countermeasures avoidance. Such ICBM going above mach 6 or higher would be very very very hard to take down if not impossible.
The flying wing is inherently unstable apparently. If i remember correctly, the flying wing design requires a computerized stabilization system to keep it straight.
This is more of a /diy/ question. But two reasons:
1. Airlines and air forces began demanding pressurized cabins to allow for high-altitude flight, so that they could fly above bad weather and flak guns. The physics of air demands that shapes take a spherical or cylindrical shape to maximize the stress load of the aircraft's skin, so tubular designs won out.
2. Material constraints meant that it was difficult to build non-uniform vehicle designs that could be robust enough to withstand pressurization. Recently this isn't a problem for non-pressurized vehicles (UAVs) while a huge amount of research has gone into composite/polymer materials fabrication, which the F-35 and 787 are the first production aircraft to utilize. This is where talk about having the biggest pressurized autoclaves comes from, because they're used to vac-seal aircraft parts together.
Yes, because it lacks a horizontal stabilizer. This is why more recent flying wing designs are hybrid wing designs instead.
Whoever designed that image ought to be banned from using the word "advanced".
They are.
and passenger planes likely aren't designed like this purely because you couldn't fit enough seating in them without making the wingspan abhorrently large, or having 20 person rows with no window seats.
Because pressurization is needed for pax jets, and a tube is much more efficient weight wise than horizontally flattened oval or a bundle of joined tubes.
Also the flying wing is the aerodynamicist vision of an ideal aircraft, but isnt practical in most cases.
t. aero engineer
cuz the bottom of the plane needs to be even with the line of radar in order to bypass it, much not like your pic
Its more than that. The aerospace industry is very conservative while also being very cutting edge. The airline industry has an amazing safety record to the point where elevators are now more dangerous to travel in. Changing things up introduces lots of risk. There is also many economic factors beyond production cost at play, ie gates, maintenance crews, taxi ways, ect.
Flying wings can be designed to have positive longitudinal stability, but the drag cost is so great that you might as well have a normal tail then.
That is nothing compared to most air force marketing powerpoints. That is a handout for civilian consumption.
not to mention that in order to increase the number of passengers, wingspan would have to increase proportionally. I wonder how big a wing would be needed to carry the same passengers as an a380.
somewhere I have a paper on design studies for really large passenger jets in traditional and flying wing config. I think the authors were being a little cheeki because their largest designs were for 1700 passengers - titanic sized. I cant find this report now but the flying wing had a bit bigger span, but the main thing was a much thicker wing.
Its really swept wetted area that has a big impact on lift to drag ratio. For example the Avro Vulcan and B-14 had nearly the same L/D despite one being a flying wing and the other being a tube and wing of nearly the same size and weight. The thin wings you can get with a tube and wing really help.
Pic related is the future of airliner design and it will always be. It's more fuel efficient and that's the most important thing to consider when designing airliners. Control, pressurization, and materials aren't a problem. What really kills blended wing airliners is simple, we'd need completely different airport infrastructure to use them. Just getting people onto these things would require a whole new airport design.
No one is gonna put down the money to change our airports. Blended wing bodies are the future, and will always be.
Fuck forgot pic
>no windows
Would not fly on.
I thought that anyone on Jow Forums would be happy to use something designed without Windows :^)