Northrop Grumman thinks we all will be flying in oversized B-2 bombers by the year 2025. Who am I to say no to that? Bring them on!
Their design was unveiled last week at the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics Sciences Meeting in Nashville. It’s the answer to a proposal by NASA, who asked Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman to design the aeroplane of the year 2025.
NASA was going to analyse all the options, choose the best and build a “model”. I say a “model” because, while smaller than the final plane, it would have had the size of a Boeing 737! Unfortunately, budget cuts have put these plans on hold.
Northrop Grumman is also proposing a similar design as a cargo plane for the United States Air Force. [DEW Line]
Boomzzilla
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 2:32 PMAr’nt flying wing style planes inheritly unstable?
Splintex
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 2:34 PMSo are all the modern fighter jets, that’s what all those computers are for I thought.
Jaezass
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 2:43 PMCorrect, most modern fighter and in particular the flying wings are inherently unstable, hence the computers to do what humans can not. The instability is what gives them there maneuverability!
Barry
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 3:09 PMModern day fighters and the flying wing are unstable.
Computers are used to make corrections during flight that enables them to stay on course, without these computers and fly by wire, these aircrafts are unflyable. The reason why the fighter jets of today are unstable is because they become more agile in the sky and quicker to move. build a frame that can support the high g froces and a computer to help stable the aircraft and you have a winner
JonBOY
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 3:43 PMyeah the benefits of a the traditional plane shape with a fuselage, wings and tailplane are that in the event that power/trust is lost the plane can still glide and remain stable whilst doing so.
I’m not sure that the ‘flying wing’ shape could ever be adopted to carry precious human lives unless the plane could still glide effectively in the event of a loss of thrust.
That said……if a jetliner finds itself in a situation where it needs to glide then everybody on board is probably still doomed anyway!
JonBOY
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 3:43 PM….also no window seat? :(
Ozoneocean
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 2:40 PMThe obvious argument against something like this, indeed, the EXTREMELY obvious argument, is the huge amount of room they’d take up at any airport.
Every airport and probably even all the runways would have to be massively redesigned to accommodate these flying wings.
So I can’t really see them taking off, so to speak.
LucasF
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 9:21 PMThink laterally man! I think they could use the space just as efficiently (which is not very) as they do with current aircraft, on the proviso that passengers could disembark to the terminal via the wing tip. ;-}
John in Brisbane
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 11:16 PMNah for any given number of people or amount of cargo a flying wing is actually much more space-efficient. A flying wing that can carry the same 20,000 (ish) kg of ppl and cargo that a 737-800 does would take up much less room on the apron and could be significantly more fuel efficient. They might have to be a double decker or some weird split level arrangement to make best use of their internal volume.
Jaezass
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 2:45 PMBeyond 2000 had a story on this back in the eighties, saying that they were the future! Now thirty odd years on and they’re still talking about it. Don’t hold yer breath! :)
Andrew
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 3:06 PMIm guessing there won’t be many windows, unless they are going to give you a view of the inside of the engines alongside you. Another thing, with the engines RIGHT THERE next to the passenger cabin, it will be bloody noisy!
John in Brisbane
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 11:19 PMI believe that that has been the main issue – getting ppl to accept a lack of windows. Now that LCDs etc are cheap I guess there would be fake lcd windows. The engines can be insulated easily enough though I’d say – they’d probably sit in little tunnels isolated from the rest of the airframe.
Gordy
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 3:36 PMWould a tail-less aircraft like this be more fuel efficient (ie less drag, etc)?
JonBOY
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 3:46 PMyep, anything protruding the plane that has to cut through the air contributes to drag, including the elevators and rudder. So by eliminating the tailplane the flying wing shape should be more fuel efficient.
And when you see them overhead you don’t know if it’s going to drop bombs or bags of peanuts :P
Ozoneocean
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 4:30 PMOr frozen crap?