Boeing Phantom Works to Lead Research on X-48B Blended Wing Body Concept



HAMPTON, Va., May 04, 2006 -- In cooperation with NASA and the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, the Phantom Works organization of Boeing [NYSE: BA] is taking another step toward exploring and validating the structural, aerodynamic and operational advantages of a futuristic aircraft design called the blended wing body, or BWB.

Two high-fidelity, 21-foot wingspan prototypes of the BWB concept have been designed and produced for wind tunnel and flight testing this year. The Air Force has designated the vehicles as the "X-48B," based on its interest in the design's potential as a flexible, long-range, high-capacity military aircraft.

X-48B Ship No. 1 began wind tunnel testing on April 7 at the Langley Full-Scale Tunnel at NASA's Langley Research Center. When testing is completed in early May, it will be shipped to NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center in California to serve as a backup to Ship No. 2, which will be used for flight testing later this year. According to the team, both phases of testing are focused on learning more about the low-speed flight-control characteristics of the BWB concept.

"The X-48B prototypes have been dynamically scaled to represent a much larger aircraft and are being used to demonstrate that a BWB is as controllable and safe during takeoff, approach and landing as a conventional military transport airplane," said Norm Princen, Boeing Phantom Works chief engineer for the X-48B program.

The X-48B cooperative agreement by Boeing, NASA and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) culminates years of BWB research by NASA and Boeing. AFRL is interested in the concept for its potential future military applications.

"We believe the BWB concept has the potential to cost effectively fill many roles required by the Air Force, such as tanking, weapons carriage, and command and control," said Capt. Scott Bjorge, AFRL X-48B program manager. "This research is a great cooperative effort, and a major step in the development of the BWB. AFRL is inspired to be involved in this critical test program."

NASA also is committed to advancing the BWB concept. NASA and its partners have tested six different blended wing body models of various sizes over the last decade in four wind tunnels at the Langley Research Center.

"One big difference between this airplane and the traditional tube and wing aircraft is that -- instead of a conventional tail -- the blended wing body relies solely on multiple control surfaces on the wing for stability and control," said Dan Vicroy, NASA senior research engineer at the Langley Research Center. "What we want to do with this wind-tunnel test is to look at how these surfaces can be best used to maneuver the aircraft."

The two X-48B prototypes were built for Boeing Phantom Works by Cranfield Aerospace Ltd., in the United Kingdom in accordance with Boeing requirements and specifications. Made primarily of advanced lightweight composite materials, the prototypes weigh about 400 pounds each. Powered by three turbojet engines, they will be capable of flying up to 120 knots and 10,000 feet in altitude during flight testing.

Boeing also contracted with Cranfield Aerospace to provide the ground-control station, in which a pilot will remotely control the X-48B during flight research testing.

Why do you believe the machine is a UAV?

Thread title fixed.

tag

Metal rubber anyone?

UAV  Bomber?

Quoted: Metal rubber anyone?

Okay.  What do you know about the topic?

Quoted: Why do you believe the machine is a UAV?

Good point. A UAV wouldn't need a windshield for the cockpit area.

Quoted: Quoted: Why do you believe the machine is a UAV? Good point. A UAV wouldn't need a windshield for the cockpit area.

Maybe it's going to be piloted by the inflatable pilot from "Airplane!".....

It looks a LOT like the concept for the Blended Wing Airliner.

Quoted: Quoted: Metal rubber anyone? Okay.  What do you know about the topic?

nano technology

linky

The technology came from in Roswell.

Quoted: Why do you believe the machine is a UAV?

Doh! I don't know why I thought that, I must be smoking pot. Looks like I'll be editing the title.

Well, there are a bunch of UAV's in tow in that photo. Maybe it's a numbers thing. You see 4 UAV's vs 1 non-UAV in that image. So one's brain naturally thinks "UAV".

Quoted: Quoted: Metal rubber anyone? Okay.  What do you know about the topic?

Not much.  Read about it in PopSci several years ago and have been intrigued ever since.  Just wondering if metal rubber would be of use in this program.  Last I heard, LM has been tasked with exploring the uses of metal rubber.

Quoted: Well, there are a bunch of UAV's in tow in that photo. Maybe it's a numbers thing. You see 4 UAV's vs 1 non-UAV in that image. So one's brain naturally thinks "UAV".

Thanks, but the truth is I just had a stupid moment.

Quoted: It looks a LOT like the concept for the Blended Wing Airliner.

Well, that'll mean they get some of  the research data for both planes from one project.

Quoted: Quoted: It looks a LOT like the concept for the Blended Wing Airliner. Well, that'll mean they get some of  the research data for both planes from one project.

I was reading the local newspaper the other day and they were talking about the Tanker requirement.  In the same paper or another recent one there was a photo of the blended wing airliner concept and it occurred to me that it might make a good tanker (lots of internal volume).

Quoted: Quoted: Why do you believe the machine is a UAV? Good point. A UAV wouldn't need a windshield for the cockpit area.

The prototype they are referencing is most certainly a UAV:

Boeing also contracted with Cranfield Aerospace to provide the ground-control station, in which a pilot will remotely control the X-48B during flight research testing.

IBT "It's just a flying wing (its not even close) that thing was invented by the Nazis in the 40s."  

Dinky ass turbines for a "high-capacity" aircraft.

Boeing has flown a 17 foot wingspan remotely piloted BWB demonstrator in he past, they must be scaling it up very slowly.

www.boeing.com/ids/news/mdc/97-158.html

Blended-Wing-Body Sub-Scale Aircraft Demonstrates Flight Characteristics of New Design EL MIRAGE DRY LAKE, Calif., July 29, 1997 -- A new aircraft design concept called Blended-Wing-Body (BWB) was demonstrated here today with the flight of a sub-scale aircraft before a group of leaders from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), McDonnell Douglas (NYSE: MD) and Stanford University. The remotely piloted aircraft, with a 17-foot wingspan, was designed and built at Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif., to evaluate flight control laws and flying characteristics of the BWB concept, in which the forward body blends into the wing in a single structure. This concept allows a significant reduction in drag, lowers aircraft structural weight, enhances lift characteristics and allows an aircraft to operate more efficiently and at lower costs than a conventional design with a separate wing and fuselage. Those attending the demonstration included representatives from NASA, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Department of Defense, Stanford, General Electric, Pratt & Whitney, Honeywell, Boeing and McDonnell Douglas. The aircraft is a six percent scale version of a conceptual passenger or cargo aircraft with a 280-foot wingspan. In its passenger version, it would be able to carry 800 passengers more than 7,000 nautical miles. The cargo versions could carry 231,000 pounds of payload more than 7,000 nautical miles. The flight of this aircraft, a testbed primarily for flight controls, is another phase of BWB research that has been conducted since 1991 by a government-industry-academia team. This aircraft's on-board flight control computer automatically adjusts the trailing edge control surfaces, resulting in conventional flying qualities for this unconventional aircraft configuration. The current research contract with NASA Langley Research Center is for $2.3 million over a three-year period. Other members of the team are NASA Lewis Research Center, Stanford, University of Southern California in Los Angeles, University of Florida in Gainesville and Clark Atlanta University in Georgia. Dr. Robert Liebeck of McDonnell Douglas' Advanced Transport Aircraft Systems group in Long Beach, Calif., is the BWB program manager. The sub-scale aircraft was designed and built under the direction of Dr. Ben Tigner, a post-doctoral research affiliate at Stanford's Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, with the assistance of a number of graduate students. Pilot for the research flights is Bill Watson of Simi Valley, Calif., an experienced radio-controlled model pilot. A number of additional flights of the aircraft are planned to better understand the flight control characteristics and general flying qualities of the aircraft. Data obtained during the flights is transmitted to the ground and recorded in the aircraft and downloaded to a laptop computer for further analysis after each flight. In addition to this aircraft, other BWB research performed during 1997 included a wind-tunnel test at NASA Langley's National Transonic facility, where theoretical predictions were validated. Low-speed wind tunnel tests are planned for later this year, also at NASA Langley.

I still think of aircraft as needing to recover from a flat spin, and other unusual flight.  This just doesn't LOOK (to me) like it could do that kind of stuff.  But then maybe I'm an aeronautic Luddite.  

For example, the "fly-by-wire" computer control of an inherently unstable or "relaxed stability" aircraft (while technically accomplished) just doesn't seem right to me.  Not thinking of this particular craft in that respect.

Quoted: I still think of aircraft as needing to recover from a flat spin, and other unusual flight.  This just doesn't LOOK (to me) like it could do that kind of stuff.  But then maybe I'm an aeronautic Luddite.   For example, the "fly-by-wire" computer control of an inherently unstable or "relaxed stability" aircraft (while technically accomplished) just doesn't seem right to me.  Not thinking of this particular craft in that respect.

I'm not sure I'd want to see a FRED try to revocer from any type of spin.

Quoted: IBT "It's just a flying wing (its not even close) that thing was invented by the Nazis in the 40s."

They did!!

Quoted: I still think of aircraft as needing to recover from a flat spin, and other unusual flight.  This just doesn't LOOK (to me) like it could do that kind of stuff.  But then maybe I'm an aeronautic Luddite.   For example, the "fly-by-wire" computer control of an inherently unstable or "relaxed stability" aircraft (while technically accomplished) just doesn't seem right to me.  Not thinking of this particular craft in that respect.

All fly by wire aircraft are not inherently unstable.  Only fighters use that feature to enhance maneuverability.  The C-17 (and most other modern transport class aircraft) uses fly-by-wire as its primary flight control system, but can fly perfectly well in "Mechanical" mode too, with no computers.  There is no reason the BWB couldn't be dynamically stable, it dosen't use intentional vortex generators like the F-16 and F-18 do (Leading Edge Extensions) that make dynamic stability impossible.  

Quoted: Quoted: IBT "It's just a flying wing (its not even close) that thing was invented by the Nazis in the 40s."   They did!! www.indygear.com/props/images/Fwingb.jpg

Oh yeah, thats exactly the same thing.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: IBT "It's just a flying wing (its not even close) that thing was invented by the Nazis in the 40s."   They did!! Oh yeah, thats exactly the same thing.

Maybe time to switch to decaff Skippy your a little tense...

Looks like a fancy B-2.

This technology, along with replacing control surfaces with plasma emitters and making the wings be able to change shape in flight, the planes will start to look like friggin UFO's.

Quoted: Quoted: I still think of aircraft as needing to recover from a flat spin, and other unusual flight.  This just doesn't LOOK (to me) like it could do that kind of stuff.  But then maybe I'm an aeronautic Luddite.   For example, the "fly-by-wire" computer control of an inherently unstable or "relaxed stability" aircraft (while technically accomplished) just doesn't seem right to me.  Not thinking of this particular craft in that respect. All fly by wire aircraft are not inherently unstable.  Only fighters use that feature to enhance maneuverability.  The C-17 (and most other modern transport class aircraft) uses fly-by-wire as its primary flight control system, but can fly perfectly well in "Mechanical" mode too, with no computers.  There is no reason the BWB couldn't be dynamically stable, it dosen't use intentional vortex generators like the F-16 and F-18 do (Leading Edge Extensions) that make dynamic stability impossible.

Good point.  I was thinking of one of the recent planes where the article stated that the aerodynamics were such that it couldn't be controlled without a computer to make near-constant corrections.  Maybe it was the X-29.

The BWB makes me think of Battlestar Galactica for some reason...

Quoted: This technology, along with replacing control surfaces with plasma emitters and making the wings be able to change shape in flight, the planes will start to look like friggin UFO's.

Who's to say the UFOs we've seen thus far aren't all these crazy contraptions?

Quoted: Good point.  I was thinking of one of the recent planes where the article stated that the aerodynamics were such that it couldn't be controlled without a computer to make near-constant corrections.  Maybe it was the X-29.

Fair number of modern aircraft can't be flown without a computer.

Ok who photshopped the B1 and B2 together?

The thing that kills me is the Old Skool turbine engines on top!

Tell me they are just doing that to delay the imminent disclosure of the pulse wave detonation engines that will ultimately power it.

If they're going for weird shapes, then Boeing should just go ahead and build a Borg cube and scare the piss out of the bad guys.

It's got some problems for an airliner.

A tube is easy to pressurize.  A pancake shape or that shape is hard to pressurize.  Make it strong enough to have a large pressureized passenger cabin and it will weigh too much.  Make the weight light enough and it will not have the strength for pressizuration or will suffer fatigue failures from repeated pressureizations and depressureizations.

Not many passengers will have windows.  Lots of people like windows and TV monitors won't satisfy them.

Evacuation in smoke will be a nightmare.  Evacuation has to be possible in one minute.  That shape will make meeting that standard very difficult.

Flying wings have high angle of attack, AOA, at low speeds like for landing.  When the elevons deflect upward to pitch a flying wing up...the elevon deflection itself reduces the 'effective' AOA making even more elevon deflection needed...thus further reducing the 'effective' AOA to much less than the actual AOA as measured IF the elevons were in their neutral (cruise) position.  Flying wings may land at very high 'actual' angle of attack, this makes it very hard for the pilots to see and makes it easier for a flying wing to get into deep stall.  If the wing tip stalls it can be very difficult to bring down the nose because the portion of the wing that is behind the center of lift stops producing lift that tends to bring the nose down, while the wing root portion of the wing, that is ahead of the center of lift and thus tends to make the nose rise is still producing lift.  Tip stall happens because of spanwise airflow toward the tip on the bottom of the wing, curling over the wing tip and going into the lower pressure area on top of the wing...this kills off the lift at the wingtip.  The solution is to have a lot of washout on the outboard portion of the wing.  The tip area flys at a lower AOA than the inner portion of the wing.  But, the washout portion of the wing always flying at a lower AOA...produces less lift at cruise AOA than it would without washout.  This causes the wing to have to be larger or fly at an overall higher AOA than if it had no washout.  No free lunch here.   Make it safe and use more fuel and carry fewer pounds than if it had higher risk by not having washout.  A cranked arrow wing can avoid some of this as can winglets.  Wingfences help with the spanwise airflow problem too.  

On the other hand, that shape should have a low fuel burn per seat....if it didn't have to be pressurized.  The B2 avoids some of this by having a small pressure hull for the crew.  Small is always easier to pressurize.