The airforce want a demonstrator built of something like pic related apparently.
Do you think the blended wing type of aircraft could replace modern transports? Maybe even work as drone carriers?
Blended wing body military aircraft
The airforce want a demonstrator built of something like pic related apparently.
Do you think the blended wing type of aircraft could replace modern transports? Maybe even work as drone carriers?
The problem is the airports, not the aircraft
For passenger planes. The air force doesn't have to.
>problem is the airports
Why?
Blended wind bodies are super wide and don't fit in the existing infrastructure
This is solved by building biplane blended wings. Just make two smaller ones and stack them.
In commerical airports
wide airfields used by the airforce are different
also the air force could simply fund new infrastructure which risk-averse companies don't want to do
Hell, if anything, the air force could make the adoption of BWB more common if they build the infrastructure.
Obviously the military is going to fund it if they see that the returns are worth it. I was just saying why these designs don't work with the current setup we have
Yea but the OP wasn't even about that, it's about the military side of things which won't have the same base problem.
>because they are inefficient pieces of shit?
Research says they are objectively not anon.
>Obviously the military is going to fund it if they see that the returns are worth it.
the military is full of retards who fund the biggest crap
> people who studied the field for years and then worked in the field for decades while succesfully building real airplanes
why do those people build standard planes and not meme wings, think of that for a second, like they know they are shit
>Research says they are objectively not anon.
research on an RC plane
if they were efficient they would fly with smaller wings, why do they need bigger wings....
>research on an RC plane
that can fly at 200km/h
vs
>one autist with a brain smaller than a bird
Yeah, I think I know who to trust: It's NASA.
even Elon Tard showed NASA are a bunch of retards
>that can fly at 200km/h
still an RC plane
Do you think aerodynamics stop mattering because a robot is behind the plane, anon?
>why do those people build standard planes and not meme wings
because if you knew the first thing about airplane design you'd know the blended wing is not the best for each and every plane in existence you retard. Each wing type has it's pros and cons, there is ALWAYS a trade-off and 'le efficiency' is just one of TENS of parameters you consider when designing a wing, which you know nothing about, 0.
so meme wings are shit good you agree
now you're just trolling because you've been proven wrong by so many anons it's impossible you still think you're somehow right
Yeah. Blended wing just so happens to fit efficiency, noise and storage space pretty well all together. Making it well-fit for something like a tanker, or a transport aircraft, or a carrier.
It's not just US airports but foreign and potentially captured enemy ones. It's neat, but it's a solution looking for a problem right now.
there is no extra infrastructure. it's the same airplane but fat. all you have to do is keep the size in check. you can lower the wingspan with more meme wings like pic.
Would box wings be better than BWBs?
This fails to account for how much wings need to flex in flight.
>Blended wind bodies are super wide
advantage of meme wings is having bigger lift so you should need smaller wings
>Blended wind bodies are super wide
makes you think, why are they so wide, because they are inefficient pieces of shit?
Blended wings are very efficient, the opposite of the claim you actually made.
The reason only military aircraft have them is because they're highly unstable.
>this is the most efficient shape
No, that's one of the more efficient shapes which humans are capable of flying.
There is nothing wrong with the celera, it's an extremely good design. So good that it attracted the attention of the futurist moron crowds who usually latch onto CGI vaporware, so it got that reputation.
But it actually flies and Otto aviation are a serious outfit.
this is only an issue when you try to fit 747 sized plane into 737-sized gate, but those are civilian problems, not military
you can absolutely build blended wing plane with the same span as normal wing.
>retarded
like your mom?
Blended wings will give more lift from the body so the aircraft isn't dependent on large wings.
flying wings are a meme
the idea is they increase efficiency but in reality they have huge drag that decreases efficiency
most efficient wings are narrow, wide wings don't increase lift efficiently
there is a reason no flying animal looks like this
most efficient airplane design is a glider not this meme crap
Blended wings are not flying wings
also the B2/B21 already exist
Also the X-plane already proved it can be more efficient
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-48
To further prove a point, from NASA: https://www.nasa.gov/aeronautics/x-48b/
>Advantages of the blended wing-body concept include high fuel efficiency, low noise and a large payload volume for the size of the aircraft. Flight testing at NASA Dryden focused on the low-speed, low-altitude flight characteristics of the blended wing-body configuration, including engine-out control, stall characteristics and handling qualities. The short flight test program is intended to demonstrate that the novel design can be flown as safely as current transports having a traditional fuselage, wings, and tail configuration.
Simply superior.
Also the air force wanted to start building a demonstrator earlier this year.
you want the cross section of a plane to be as small as possible, that's why planes are made like long tubes, a huge flying wing has a huge cross section
>Blended wings are not flying wings
they are basically the same thing
>also the B2/B21 already exist
this is done for stealth
they are efficient at low speeds sure because you need much less power to keep the plane in air, the testing was done on a fucking RC model
but this isn't an issue for high speeds
>engines on top
seems goofy, this will greatly complicate maintenance.
it decreases drag so that's at least one good thing
and this guy looks just like a glider
That's an albatross, it basically is a glider. They can travel a thousand kilometers a day without even flapping their wings, just using dynamic soaring.
yes and do they look like meme wings? no
NASA are retards who just want more funding
I don't like Elon Fag but he showed what fucking retards work for NASA
Not an argument.
Do you think just shouting off random ad hominems at the organization will change the objective reality that it is a more efficient body?
Nevermind that you fail to account for what propulsion a bird uses anyway. A bird can't use thrusters, so obviously its body will have to look different than a BWB.
>most efficient airplane design is a glider not this meme crap
how many planes capable of M0,7+ with glider-like wings do you know? exactly, 0
>I'm smarter than NASA scientists!
you know nothing about aerodynamics except what some popsci youtube who also knows nothing told you, kiddo
>how many planes capable of M0,7+ with glider-like wings do you know? exactly, 0
all you do is bend the wings backwards if you want higher speeds
gliders are designed for maximum efficiency
they would be designed as meme wings if it was actually efficient
there's a reason why migrating birds that need to travel huge distances look like this and not like meme wings
NASA scientists are fucking retards, government institutions like that are full of autists who wouldn't get a normal job
You may not like it, but this is what peak performance looks like.
Beak performance
>le birds have it like this!
You don't actually think you're smarter than actual airplane designers from the industry, do you? With no education in this field? Just stop. These wings are great, IF your crusing speed in <M0.2.
We're talking about something completely different, and blended wing could be the answer. Not sure who's gonna build one tho, since it'll be extremely expensive to design, build and certify it.
>Boeing is much smarter than birds, they know what they're doi- ACK
Air force wants JetZero to build a demonstrator. They even got a contract for it. Slated for testing in 2027.
this is the most efficient shape, it's basically an albatross, it's not a meme wing
> airplane designers
think of it homosexuals, why did those experienced airplane designers not use meme wings for 100 years? because they are inefficient shit
you are the definition of dunning-kruger
you have no education, you have no knowledge, yet you think you're smarter than people who studied the field for years and then worked in the field for decades while succesfully building real airplanes. but you're smarter than those amateurs, right? If you see nothing wrong with this, seek professional help.
What the Dunning-Kruger Office of Aircraft Design here isn't telling us is that this this flying suppository has only achieved a speed of 251 mph. They hope they can get the top speed, not the slower cruising speed where it is most efficient, up to 400-450 some day. The cruising speed of a C17 is 520 mph.
>another Dunning-Kruger retard with muh speed
>The cruising speed of a C17 is 520 mph.
with 4 jet engines vs 1 propeller you retard
1 tiny propeller
>has only achieved a speed of 251 mph
4 giant jet engines
> The cruising speed of a C17 is 520 mph
Dunning-Kruger retard doesn't see the problem
>unmmmm sorry chud but what about the experts? ummm yikes that's what I thought
die die die die die die die
>number of planes 'the experts' built: all
>number of planes /k/ built: 0
yeah, I'm gonna stick with 'the experts' on this one m8
>number of planes 'the experts' built: all
so why do all those planes not look like pancakes retard?
>so why do all those planes not look like pancakes retard?
why would they? sounds like something a kindergartener would ask, yes, that's your level
>why were those experts building inefficient planes all this time?
because efficiency is just one thing in a long list of paramaters you consider when designing an airplane
efficiency is the main thing you consider when designing an airplane
stop coping
>he still doesn't understand the graph
Are you just pretending to be a retard or is a genuine diagnosis?
you don't understand the graph so stop coping
What graph? Send help pls
Do I have to argue with you to get answers??
>the graph shows a single shape is most efficient
>a tapered cylinder is the same as a sphere
You're literally the dumbest poster on /k/
Since you still haven't figured the graph out, it is showing that there is a speed that any given subsonic airframe has the lowest total drag. A slower plane's efficiency is more dependent on lift induced drag, and parasitic drag is less of a concern. Long thin wings reduce the induced drag, which moves the airspeed with the least drag lower. To move the most efficient airspeed higher, reducing surface area, and thus parasitic drag, reducing the surface area by using body generated lift and shorter/thicker wings counteracts the the extra induced drag of the less efficient shape.
The Blimp with glider wings design is probably efficient at slow speeds, which is why it has a pusher prop and not a turbofan.
>a tapered cylinder is the same as a sphere
no one said that you retard, it's a spherical shape retard that minimizes parasitic drag
you think you saw one graph and know everything there is to know, you don't even understand the graph, you just think you are smart because you saw it on wikipedia
Yes, a sphere has the lowest surface are for a given volume. A tapered cylinder, or prolate spheroid with pointed ends, does not. A sphere is not aerodynamic.
So did you not read
or do you not understand what it means.
>we designed this novel airplane to maximize efficiency
>it's top speed might be 450 mph one day
>the speed where it achieves maximum efficiency will be lower
>the Airforce is considering BWB aircraft for Airlift and Tanker duties
>Current Airlifters and Tankers have cruise speeds around 525 mph
The efficiency of any subsonic aircraft depends on total drag, which changes based on airspeed. Giving the Celara 500L more thrust will make it go faster, but make it less efficient, because it will have a lot of parasitic drag. The Airforce wants an efficient aircraft with a cruising speed, on par with current tankers and airlifters, which is why they are looking at BWB designs.
I know you're either actually stupid or just pretending to be "le epic trololololo", but there are other anons who can actual learn here.
why were those experts building inefficient planes all this time?
Birds are efficiently organically powered and ultralight relative to their size, needing primarily only to carry that mass and rarely anything else. Bicycling at a moderately high speed for an hour uses less than a small sandwich's worth of calories(~350). A bird can travel the same distance in 1/3rd the time on 1/20th the calories.
Pigeons can fly for 10 hours at 40-60mph and consume no more than 100 calories in a heavy activity day
Planes weigh tens of tons and need to accomplish human tasks.
They are totally incomparable.
I don't care about the retarded argument you guys are having. But You Aren't American, Post Guns
U-2 can exceed Mach 0.7
About birds: They are tiny compared to airliners and don't have jet engines. The comparison doesn't really work. Birds need to flap their wings and do other stuff too...
the javan cucumber seed is a flying wing.
It looks ok. I wonder if BWB could work as a seaplane. To me it's just a middle ground between conventional and flying wing design. Flying wing is theoretically the most efficient configuration, so this seems like a bit of a compromise but that's fine.
to be fair, we might have better technology, experience and tools to try something new now.
> About birds: They are tiny compared to airliners and don't have jet engines.
Source?
Birds aren't real maaaaan.
I’m still angry about flying pancakes never making it past the prototype stage.
>The only completed XF5U-1 proved to be so structurally solid that it had to be destroyed with a wrecking ball.
AAAAGH
>I am a huge
>I have no idea what wetted area is
>I have no idea what skin drag is
>I'm gonna keep talking about cross section
>I'm gonna keep talking about gliders
By this logic, the Provider is the most efficient transport ever because it was originally a glider.
Retards are dismissed.
what a retarded example that makes no sense
but can you do this?
wtf, it's as if it's head is fixed in place.
someone needs to edit in a gmod physics gun
>dive bombing B-2
kek
super angry b2
>glider
great 1 lb payload eh
You don't know what you're talking about.
>Blended wind bodies are super wide and don't fit in the existing infrastructure
BWBs can be made to any size. You are functionally retarded.
counterpoint: flying wings are pure sex
>Didn't post the superior Horten
Big gay
gay sex is still sex anon
none of the biggest flying animals that had to be highly efficient look like meme wings
makes you think
All living animals are slower in flight (aside from dive speed) than the X-48B (223km/h)
So your popsci is nonapplicable.
Give me a single animal that flies faster than the X plane.
the faster you fly homosexual the smaller your cross section has to be because the drag gets bigger
to fly faster homosexual all you need is bend the wings backwards
Not an argument. You do not have the science to prove it, NASA does however.
>pitot tube noses
even nazis knew meme wings are a piece of shit
not a blended wing
For the record this thing already has some blended wing characteristics and it flies pretty decently.
If the plane doesn't need to go fast, then there's no reason not to just use BWB.
that is not a blended wing at all that is a pretty standard plane
That’s what i was thinking. F-14 and SU-27 have pretty wide bodies that generate a lot of lift too.
meme wings are only more efficient in one situation, if you want to transport shitload of cargo, like so much cargo you have to put it on the wings
in situations where you would have to use 2 planes to transport it
only because plane sized are limited, it's only more efficient for the size you are allowed to build the plane
but overall it's not an efficient design for an airplane
it's just a size/cargo compromise
>but overall it's not an efficient design for an airplane
>because I said so, using only my superior knowledge pulled straight out of my ass, citing nobody, while ignoring actual scientist who've done the research
experienced airplane designers said so for 100 years retard
>still citing nobody
lmao
I'm citing airplane design for the last 100 years retard
it's known since ww2 someone would use it if it was actually more efficient
c'mon, link me one respectable source that agrees with you, it should't be that hard if it's so obvious, right?
meanwhile let's ignore all the actual scientist cited in this very thread who claim the opposite
>c'mon, link me one respectable source that agrees
airplane designers for 100 years seem to agree with me
you are a retard
so you can't find a single person from the industry who agress with you? sad
>y-you're a retard
And you don't have an argument. Prove literally anything you're saying is true.
>BWBgang
the air force
NASA
Boeing
Airbus
Startups like JetZero
>tubetards
some autist on PrepHole
airlines who don't want to build new airport infrastructure
It's easy to see who's got the upper hand here.
WW2 didn't even have stealth aircraft, guess it must mean they're useless. You've had us, Sprey...
literally nature said so for millions of years retard
>nature has turbofan propelled animals flying >M0.8
can I see them?
already explained the speed retard
>according to the air force
because they didn't build or thought of building lots of retarded things
not an argument
>it's not an efficient design for an airplane
according to the air force it is
https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/us-air-force-to-test-blended-wing-logistics-aircraft-by-2027/150501.article
Ooops, should've linked this instead.
https://www.safie.hq.af.mil/Portals/78/documents/Climate/DAF%20Climate%20Action%20Plan.pdf?ver=YcQAZsGM_Xom3DkNP_fL3g%3d%3d
>The department is also pursuing longer term initiatives that promise revolutionary advances in aircraft propulsion and design, as well as in development and use of alternative fuel sources. Agility Prime, an Air Force-led innovation program, is exploring the electrification of rotorcraft and small mobility aircraft to decrease fuel logistics risk and improve readiness. We are also collaborating with the Defense Innovation Unit, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and industry partners to accelerate prototyping of ultra-efficient aircraft designs for future tanker and mobility aircraft. 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 and enables dramatically greater fuel offload at range to ensure strike capabilities in a contested environment.
because making
>muh long tube with glider wings
with the same cargo volume would be less efficient, because the large, tube shaped body provides a ton of drag, which is why efficient gliders also minimize wetted area.
The wing roots are blended into the fuselage.
Eh... With blended wings the problem is and will keep being pressurization. Specifically, the horrendous fatigue life of such shape. I've seen designs that mitigate the issue, but in the end it's not worth it. After all blended wing isn't a new concept, nor a new development.
it looks cool
The design itself isn't efficient in terms of flying, it produces too much drag. It's the huge cargo space what makes it "efficient". When you take the amount of cargo it can carry, it negates the negatives.
>isn't efficient
>isn't aerodynamic
Retards. Reducing wetted area reduces parasitic drag, which is a more significant source of drag than lift induced drag at high subsonic speeds. BWB is the most efficient and aerodynamic design for that speed range.
why aren't airplanes built like a pancake?
Thank you for demonstrating the point you don't understand.
Which birds fly at high subsonic speeds?
>90% non lifting surface
>pusher prop
Slower than shit, but possibly efficient
the graph shows nothing, it only shows there's an optimal speed for a plane
>Thank you for demonstrating the point you don't understand.
why aren't airplanes built like a pancake?
>Which birds fly at high subsonic speeds?
who cares? aerodynamics still apply
>90% non lifting surface
doesn't matter it's about efficiency and drag not about lift
the graph even shows you don't want lift induced drag
that plane is designed to have minimal drag
>pusher prop
doesn't matter you don't turn that airplane into a pancake just because it's going faster
parasitic drag is caused by friction with air, a sphere like shape has the lowest surface so the lowest parasitic drag
>optimal speed for a plane
>he can't even read the graph, let alone understand the concept it's showing him
God damn, you get dumber with every reply.
>why aren't airplanes built like a pancake?
Because traditional plane shapes were designed to be stable first, prior to fly-by-wire. Flying Wings, BWBs, and lifting bodies are less stable, but current airport infrastructure is designed around traditional jet shapes. Also material science issues.
>who cares? aerodynamics still apply
Birds can change their shape as they fly, because different shapes are optimal at different speeds
>it's about efficiency and drag not about lift
>you don't want lift induced drag
>designed to have minimal drag
We're back to that graph you can't read and don't understand
>a sphere like shape has the lowest surface
That's not a sphere.
High altitude reduces the problem of parasitic drag slightly
>tfw bird strike @ 37,100 feet
so the plan is to fly only just faster than stall speed ?
Where are you getting that?
minimum drag velocity and minimum power velocity are not the same
Could someone explain this shape to me? I'm lost but find the pancake appealing.
spherical shape has less surface ares for the same volume, means less friction with air, less parasitic drag
>That's not a sphere.
a sphere like shape retard
Bayraktar isn't bwb
>spherical shape has less surface ares for the same volume, means less friction with air, less parasitic drag
Thanks but I don't trust those numbers. The drag is just what's on the front and not the sides right?
A shame, if the artist knew the basics about wing shapes the hart would have the quality for a real looking aircraft.
That's an engineering necessity.
>The drag is just what's on the front and not the sides right?
there are two types of drag
lift induced drag-coming from wings
parasitic drag-friction and body shape
friction exists everywhere the body touches air, a sphere reduces friction because it has lowest surface area
>t. Aerospace engineer
love comments from these retards who just say this but nothing worthwhile for the thread
you don't understand the graph
even the graph shows this shape is the most efficient
>says birds are highly efficient flyers
>it doesn't work because made up reasons
>who just say this but nothing worthwhile for the thread
I can point you to a great book, the Bible of aerodynamics if you will: Fundamental of Aerodynamics by John Anderson. Then once you understand that, you can study from Megson's Aircraft Structures for Engineering Students, which is a good starting point to piece together the various requirements that inform the final shape of an aircraft. If you lack any of the prerequisite knowledge, feel free to learn about math, physics, and general fluid dynamics on any textbook of your choice. Hope it was helpful.
>love comments from these retards who just say this but nothing worthwhile for the thread
imagine even attempting to explain anything to you retards, you'd just dismiss any actual information and reply with something like
and
if it's so efficient why aren't birds built like a pancake?
Are you gonna start spamming?
answer the questions
>BWB is the most efficient and aerodynamic design for that speed range.
the most efficient design would still be this
Making the plane fat means you can have more cargo for less material needed to build the plane, it make the plane lighter compared to how much cargo it can carry. The design is less aerodynamic but it's lighter, so it evens out.
What is it with these obnoxious know-it-all assholes lately?
Hi, welcome to PrepHole anon.
Here is your complementary (you).
theyve looked into it nobody whants to fly in a plane with no windows (comercially)
most passengers aren't even seated next to a window and many people just sleep through the flight, it wouldn't be a problem. people don't fly because they want to look out of a window.
yeah but this thread isn't about commerical planes
These days that's not really a big issue. An aircraft like in OP's pic could easily have a sort of passthrough system built in that just shows what exterior cameras see on screens in the cabin (along with other neat things). Basically COFFIN but supersized and no HUD elements or a much smaller scale version of the Vegas sphere. The aircraft would be extremely expensive anyways, why not just make it an extra fancy luxury airliner while you're at it? That sort of tech is probably going to become fairly commonplace before long. Worst case you could also just have unconventionally placed windows as well considering how much free surface area there'd be. Moon roof on a big flat airliner would come with some amazing stargazing opportunities for overnight flights.
Do you really need windows when you have a much wider view shown on most previously unused surfaces? Would you even want windows when the pilot starts a program that makes it look like you're traveling through space on a starship going from station to station?
>as you watch through the massive “window” screen a massive advert flies past
For tankers and freight? Sure, maybe even for low cost long haul passenger flights but I doubt that people will like that, even with the best resolution and graphics
We already have flying wings. What's the benefit of a blended wing?
More storage space with efficiency so they work for the big slow planes better
more cargo volume, flying wing only has so much space and it's annoying to do a rear cargo ramp
lmaoing at all the retards ITT who think they are smarter than government contracted scientists
>government contracted scientists
>not retards
>retard doesn't answer the questions
>Do you think the blended wing type of aircraft could replace modern transports? Maybe even work as drone carriers?
I mean, sure, yeah. Are they the best choice for doing those things? Dunno. Cylindrical tubes work pretty well. Boeing has done some design work on BWBs as replacements for passenger jets and the problems all seem to derive from too many people in one gigantic aircraft -- hard to load, hard to unload, hard to evacuate in a crash.
Bayraktar's TB-2 is a BWB and does a good job of bombing the shit out of Russians.
This thread has been painful to read.
t. Aerospace engineer
sweet, another
>"planned"
>"in development"
>"expected 2030"
US- military project
ITT: retard is convinced blended wings are bad because he saw an albatros once.
this is why we can't have nice things.
cope retard
Retards ITT have no influence over plane design processes. If you think blended wings cannot succeed unless laymen on /k/ are persuaded, then let me reassure you that this discussion doesn't actually matter and you don't need to be concerned about it.
who said i was concerned over it?
i was mocking someone.
most of my time on the internet is spent laughing at people i deem to be retards, like this fellow
>this is why we can't have nice things.
This seems to imply that you think the opinions of people in this thread will have an effect on the development of the 'nice things'.
>BWB designs don't work
>Onions-faced love for the most famous BWB design
Inb4 "oxcart isn't blended wing body because reasons and I don't want internet strangers to think i'm a dumbfuck"
"Oxcart" has chines for primitive stealth reasons. These chines give it the appearance of being a blended wing.
that is a delta wing homosexual and it's done for stealth as well
nothing about it is bwb
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/12782/why-are-there-no-blended-wing-passenger-airplanes-in-operation
All studies which so far showed an advantage for blended-wing bodies (BWB) were flawed.
The trick mostly used is to compare an existing airliner with a hypothetical BWB which uses equally hypothetical engines of improved efficiency, like what could be expected 20 years into the future. This masks the inefficiency of the BWB concept and makes the combination come out ahead.
The BWB will always have more surface area than a comparable conventional design. This translates into more friction drag and more skin mass, which more than offsets any advantage given by the bigger wing root (which helps to reduce wing spar mass). If you like real data, use the Avro Vulcan as an early BWB and compare it to its contemporaries. Note that design attempts for an airliner based on the Vulcan (type 722 Atlantic) went nowhere.
Why are these BWB studies published? The author gets more attention when he/she claims a "revolutionary breakthrough" than when he/she is more honest and admits that the concept is a dud. Even Boeing or Airbus like to publish BWB studies, so the public gets the impression they are ahead of the competition. It is sickening to read such academically dishonest studies - you need to spend time to dig to the bottom of the thing and to unravel the plot; however, once you have done this a few times, they all become alike. But compared to studies made 60 or 80 years ago, where the author factually lists what he did and why it didn't work out (which is the only way you can learn something), those modern studies are a waste of time.
He's desperately googling for anything to back up his retardation
>yes there is proof
>no you can't see it
>the companies who aren't actual making money of speculative designs are doing PR
Lol, lmao even.
>BWB will always have more surface area
Literally demonstrably false.
even the stupid graph
shows that having a big cross section is a bad thing
wow, a graph, im sure that's more reputable than NASA research and air force judgement
>continues to not understand the graph
I think this a legitimate sign of a sub 80 IQ.
>shows that having a big cross section is a bad thing
Do you mean surface/wetted area? And yes, it is a more significant source of total drag at high subsonic speeds, which is why BWB designs reduce the total surface area.
The graph is literally basic aerodynamics. The pseud just is unable to comprehend the concept it's showing him.
>Dude NASA and the air force are pseuds
So now you're samefagging pretending to argue against yourself?
even the graph shows that having a big cross section is bad, it's the main cause for parasitic drag
>Do you mean surface/wetted area?
wait you retard don't even know what a cross section is?
>The graph is literally basic aerodynamics
that shows the basics that a big cross section is bad
PrepHole isn't one guy retard
>cross section
Yes, that's a 2d slice of a 3d object. That actually has nothing to do with aerodynamics and isn't involved in anything on that graph.
>if I keep repeating the wrong word, I'll be right
I don't even know what the fuck you are doing right now.
>cross section
>That actually has nothing to do with aerodynamics and isn't involved in anything on that graph.
absolute retard doesn't even know his own stupid graph
>he misunderstood another concept
Frantic googling isn't really working out for you.
homosexual didn't even read the wiki page he got the graph from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_drag#Form_drag
>The general size and shape of the body are the most important factors in form drag; bodies with a larger presented cross-section will have a higher drag than thinner bodies; sleek ("streamlined") objects have lower form drag.
even the wiki tells you cigar shape is the better
you are not an engineer
Boeing will sue the shit out of or otherwise kill Jetzero before they can fulfill this contract. We will be stuck with narrow and widebody aircraft as long as Boeing exists, and since they own the US government, that's not going to happen anytime soon.
I'm sure the air force will tolerate that
this one dunning krueger autist's obsessive hate of flying wings/blended wings is pretty hilarious
shut up dunning krueger retard
aww he just heard that term for the first time this thread, and he's already copied it, way to go buddy!
The tube + wings has less parasitic drag because the cross section is smaller (has to displace less air flying through the air -> better for high speeds). The BWB has more because it is fat as all hell. However, the BWB's body acts more like wing, it's all lift-producing. There's no fuselage, making the design lighter for the same internal volume while having better lift-to-drag ratio because of greater wing-area for same weight and because fuselage does not effectively convert airflow to lift. Large wing leads to reduced wing loading which leads to less angle of attack which reduces induced drag.
Parasitic drag is caused by aircraft skin friction with air and various issues with the aerodynamic shape of the aircraft. It limits top speed.
Induced drag is basically the rearward component of a force vector created when airflow hits the wings. Airflow is deflected downwards, but the resulting force vector affecting the wings does not (usually) point directly up. It points somewhat away from the incoming airflow. The angle depends greatly on angle of attack. A 0 degree AoA would not produce lift nor induced drag. A 90 degree AoA would produce nothing but drag. The faster the plane flies, the lower the AoA required to maintain altitude.
>The tube + wings has less parasitic drag because the cross section is smaller (has to displace less air flying through the air -> better for high speeds).
Ah yes, look how small the cross sections of these tube + wing planes are compared to an enormous flying wing.
The relevant cross sections when looking at flow drags are the ones parallel to the direction of airflow, as seen in
>Ah yes, look how small the cross sections of these tube + wing planes are compared to an enormous flying wing.
Well, when you put it like that...
itssobig.jpg
Uh... what? By cross section I meant the aircraft's frontal area. For drag, it barely matters how long the fuselage is.
>frontal cross section
>For drag, it barely matters how long the fuselage is.
Then you fundamentally don't understand the concept, shape is much more significant for flow drag. The long tube shape of a traditional fuselage is all friction drag.
>but-but-but they're not all identical
Thats the point, retard. The B-2 carries more ordnance than the Bear or the Badger with a significantly smaller cross section and a higher cruising speed. It's almost like the shape is efficient.
>yo-y-you can't read the graph
Projection?
>The long tube shape of a traditional fuselage is all friction drag.
Tube fuselage or BWB, both are designed to be aerodynamic shapes. The vast majority of friction drag comes from the frontal area. For the same internal volume, a tube fuselage aircraft will always have less frontal area than a BWB.
I am not arguing that BWB is less aerodynamically efficient or inferior. I am just saying, that tube fuselage aircraft can fly faster.
>I am just saying, that tube fuselage aircraft can fly faster.
that's why the attractive bit about BWB isn't about using them on planes that are supposed to go really fast, only fast enough
With enough thrust, you can get a brick up to Mach 0.85, just with terrible efficiency.
To be fair that picture shows more the temperature field in supersonic flight, you can see the shock fronts. At that speed the temperature peaks are dominated by the non-isoentropic adiabatic heating, so you're probably losing a lot of resolution if your focus is skin friction.
...which is why a BWB would make for a lousy supersonic plane. But nobody wants to use it for that. M0.9 is more than enough, and M0.8 is perfectly acceptable.
Now, there is one serious downside to BWBs that hasn't been mentioned in this thread: the farther you put passengers from the centerline, the more discomfort they experience every time the plane banks. That (together with the airport parking issues) is a major issue for making BWB airliners. This is why the most interest has come from the USAF, which can use the area away from the centerline to carry cargo or fuel. It is no coincidence that many (most?) BWB concepts are tankers, or have tanker variants; such a plane would be limited by MTOW, rather than fuel tank volume.
>comparing completely different airplanes of different sizes and cargo capacity
you are a fucking retard
you are a retard who can't even read your own stupid graphs
shut up autist
>he said, slobbering and crying all over his keyboard because everyone kept mocking him
>a short burst of emotion and "S-SHUT UP!!!" was all he could muster in this frazzled state.
>later, when all the other anons had gone away, he would claim victory in solitude, nobody left to mock him for his outlandish fantasy, he would finally be at peace.
shut up autist
delicious, i can reply with anything but this guy has already gone into a mental fetal position so he'll only be able to reply with one thing. because he's not in a state where he can come up with more elaborate cope.
what you're seeing here is really more akin to a child sucking it's thumb because it has no other means by which to coddle itself.
shut up autist
bueno, feed me more tears.
you are the only one crying autist
>shut up!
>i-i said SHUT UP
>SHAD AAAAAWP NYOOO
>SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP
>STOP BULLYING ME IF YOU KEEP BULLYING ME IT MEANS YOU'RE CRYING!!!!
delicious, more crying please.
it's absolutely impressive of me that i brought this individual down to a kicking and screaming temper tantrum within like 2 posts.
Flying wings are a meme anyway
What's the point of an airplane you can't see? How's the pilot supposed to get in if the plane is cloaked huh?
this video shows how stupid these retards are
>tail is 25-35% wetted area
>that means removing the tail gives you 27% fuel efficiency
retard thinks that just because it's 25% area that it contributes 25% to the drag
the same as the retard ITT with his stupid graphs
also ignoring that even BWB planes have useless tails