Boeing working on BWB freighter

From your own source on the MQ-9:


Weight: 4,900 pounds (2,223 kilograms) empty
Maximum takeoff weight: 10,500 pounds (4,760 kilograms)
Fuel Capacity: 4,000 pounds (602 gallons)
Payload: 3,750 pounds (1,701 kilograms)


There is no "extra" room. If anything they have to cut back on fuel to acheve the 3,750.

10,500 (max take-off) - 4,900 (empty weight) = 5,600
5,600 - 3,750 (payload) = 1,850 left for fuel
or
5,600 - 4,000 (max fuel) = 1,600 left for payload

How Stuff Works: B-2

Nice quote: "This flying wing design is much more efficient than a conventional plane. Instead of separate wings supporting all the weight of the fuselage, the entire craft works to generate lift. Eliminating the tail and fuselage also reduces drag -- the total force of air resistance acting on the plane."

A B-2 is medium sized BWB, and I would say it is quiet effective. Remember it is designed for stealth, not maximized payload and range.

Originally posted by MrKnight
If you noticed, I provide the links for my number on the X-47 B

If you hadn't noticed, the data on the X-47B is actually immaterial. I used the stats on the X-47A for a very good reason. The X-47B has not even left the ground! It has not undergone weapons testing, and I think taxi trials have not even taken place yet! See the following.

"Despite being only a few feet thick, its maximum payload will be 4,500 pounds and it will carry 8 Small Diameter Bombs, Boeing's newest near-precision 250-pound weapon. This revolutionary combat vehicle will fly at 40,000 feet with a mission radius of 1,300 nautical miles."

From your own quote. Note the bolded word (or words, if you prefer to address them that way). It WILL have all of this stuff. Why "will"? Because the aircraft is still under development. It is not yet even sure if these specifications are true! Again, see the following.

X-47B UCAS

Program Overview:
The X-47B will be a transformational, carrier-capable, multi-mission, unmanned combat air vehicle. Strike fighter-sized, it is a survivable, long range, high endurance and persistent platform capable of a variety of missions including Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance, and Time Sensitive Targeting/Strike.

From the Northrop Grumman website. Again with the "will". The aircraft's current stats are not verified. Your presentation of them as full-fledged facts are immaterial. What you do have in your power is the definition of the X-47A's capabilities.

U.S. Navy Awards $635.8 Million UCAS-D Contract to Northrop Grumman-Led X-47 Team

Northrop Grumman will build for the Navy two air vehicles and conduct technology maturation activities. The first air vehicle is scheduled to fly in late 2009 and will begin a series of detailed flight envelope and land-based carrier integration and qualification events beginning in 2010. The first at-sea carrier landings are planned for late 2011 with follow-on analysis and program completion by 2013.

Also direct from Northrop Grumman. You can't argue with stats that are not confirmed.


[edit on 10/19/2007 by Darkpr0]

reply to post by MrKnight


For someone who looks at BWB's all the time it appears you don't know what one actually is. The B-2 is not a BWB, it is a flying wing. They might look the same to someone who does not know very much about either, but they are different.

reply to post by waynos


It that so....

The upper "body" section of the B-2 is what makes it a BWB. A flying wing is two wings joined to make what is called a "pure" flying wing.

The B-2 is a low wing, with a round body on the upper surface that is "blended" into the wing. Hence "Blended Wing Body" or BWB.

I did not come up with this NASA did. You can take your misconception of a flying wing and BWB to them:

The basic concept for a blended wing body was first developed decades ago and variations of it have been used in the famous B-2 bomber (a blended wing) and the lesser-known YB-49 (a pure flying wing from the 1940’s).

This quote is from NASA: NASA BWB Article

Then again I knew this because I look at BWB's "all the time".

Oh, while you’re at it, notify Wikipedia also. They seem to also consider the B-2 a BWB.
Wikipedia- Blended Wing Body (BWB)

Flying Wing (pure)


No Center Body

BWB - Center Body that is "Blended" into the wings.



That center body bump is what makes the B-2 a BWB. This is needed to have enough volume to make a BWB useful.

You will find ass loads of sites that talk about the B-2 as a "flying wing" but that is because they are trying to relate it to early Jack Northrop designs which were pure flying wings and is the only thing they can compare them too. In actuality they are incorrect, as the B-2 used the flying wing concept, but utilized the body to have enough internal space for pilots and payload.

Heck, you can also find ass loads of X-48B and Boeing BWB articles that call that design a "flying wing". I mostly associate this incorrect nomenclature to old timers that have not updated their terminology.

reply to post by Darkpr0


"You can't argue with stats that are not confirmed."

I'll take that as you concceing your previous point by changing the topic. Yes you are correct, and it is not "confirmed".

Taking data from test flights of the smaller design and calculating the capabilities of a larger aircraft is something that is beyond what man can do. Foolish me to think that they could "project" performance. That never happends in engineering we just slap stuff together and hope it works.

reply to post by MrKnight

It that so....

Yes.

The upper "body" section of the B-2 is what makes it a BWB.

No it does not.

A flying wing is two wings joined to make what is called a "pure" flying wing.

Like the B-2, yes,unlike a BWB because *it has a body section BLENDED into the middle of it* with separate wings mounted either side, hence the name. Look again at your own B-2 image mr aerospace engineer.

That center body bump is what makes the B-2 a BWB. This is needed to have enough volume to make a BWB useful.

No it doesn't, look at the picture. The B-2 has two engine bays and a central nacelle mounted in the top surface of the wing, absolutely NOT a separate central body section. it is the very fact that it is a 'centre body hump' and NOT a separate centre fuselage that means it cannot be a BWB. The B-2 is not a BWB because it doesn't need to be one, it does not require the large internal volume which is what drives the desire to develop a working BWB (againm, look at the images you yourself posted to see the difference, they are not just 'bigger', they are fundamentally different.

You will find ass loads of sites that talk about the B-2 as a "flying wing" but that is because they are trying to relate it to early Jack Northrop designs which were pure flying wings and is the only thing they can compare them too. In actuality they are incorrect, as the B-2 used the flying wing concept, but utilized the body to have enough internal space for pilots and payload.

I have spent many a post on here demonstrating why the B-2 is NOT derived from the B-49 in any way other than basic concept, but it very much is a flying wing.

Heck, you can also find ass loads of X-48B and Boeing BWB articles that call that design a "flying wing". I mostly associate this incorrect nomenclature to old timers that have not updated their terminology.

And you would be right because the X-48 and BWB are not flying wings by definition, even if they do resemble the planform. To what I wonder, should I ascribe your inability to tell the difference between the B-2 and a BWB?

All the images you have posted CLEARLY show a large separate section - the 'body' - which is blended into slender wings mounted at either side. Any image of the B-2, including the one immediately above from yourself, shows the design of the B-2 to be a continuous flying wing with nacelles, which incidentally is exactly how they did it with the B-49 and its relatives as well.

Look at the head on views, the B-2 has three slight bulges where the engines and crew & payload are located but a continuous leading edge, in the surrounding area of these nacelles the B-2 is basically flat. It is so obvious that only a point hunting troll could continue to deny it, look.









[edit on 21-10-2007 by waynos]

Taking data from test flights of the smaller design and calculating the capabilities of a larger aircraft is something that is beyond what man can do. Foolish me to think that they could "project" performance. That never happends in engineering we just slap stuff together and hope it works.

The point is that all that data is, as of yet, speculation. Speculating and calling it evidence is not a proper way to present facts. In this forum we are concerned with presenting facts. I have argued my limbs off about PAK-FA and Su-35 BM, discussing what they can do, but it has occurred to me that nobody cares because the "facts" I present are actually "speculation". No matter how many people say "This aircraft will have X" or "The aircraft will be able to do Y", the total amount of evidence they have provided you with is only worth what it actually is: A couple vibrations in the air. If you dislike the concept of having to give real, documented evidence in order to prove a point rather than pointing out what people say something can do (noting that they also have no documented proof for their claim) then chances are this is going to degenerate into a discussion of us saying "You are wrong because of X", and you telling us that you don't believe us.

I'll take that as you concceing your previous point by changing the topic. Yes you are correct, and it is not "confirmed".

Not confirmed, not evidence. End of story. If you're using speculation to base your judgment of something, the words "In my opinion" seem friendly.

reply to post by waynos


Funny....you neglected to mention that NASA calles the B-2 a BWB. I guess they don't know what they are talking about either. The term BWB refers to a "Blended Wing Body" the body is a center section, the wings are wings. The B-2 has a body and wing, and they are blended together. It is not much more complicated that that.

Does the B-2 have a body? Yes Does a B-2 have wings? Yes Are the two "blended" together, so as not to have a standard tube and wing desing? YES

Does a Flying Wing have a Body? No
Then it is not a BWB.

Yes, it is just that simple.
"In some ways, the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber is a design which falls between classic flying wing concepts and the BWB concept. It is usually classified as a flying wing, however, as the protruding body sections are not much larger than the underlying wing shape structure."

NASA - "The basic concept for a blended wing body was first developed decades ago and variations of it have been used in the famous B-2 bomber (a blended wing)"

Like I stated, you can argue your OPINION, but I am just quoting NASA. You believe that the B-2 is not a BWB but, it is a BWB. I am just quoting NASA. Take your argument to them.

reply to post by Darkpr0


Fine, change the argument into a discussion about semantics rather than omitting that a BWB is more efficient by design, and has more useful interior volume at any size. Now that you realize that your beliefs were proven wrong, it is far easier to change the topic into a new discussion to save face that you are correct. The fact that the UAV that I pointed to as an example is still in development does not change the fact that a BWB technology is more efficient and have more volume at any scale.

If I remember corectly, I was being told that a BWB would not work on a "small" scale. So I show how it would be more efficent by providing an example. That is why is it being designed and developed. Then I am told that it would work on a large and small scale but not a "medium" scale. So I then provide an example of a similar aircraft that is a medium aircraft and considered a BWB by NASA.

Now I am debating if a B-2 is a BWB when it clearly is based on the same technology. As I have stated the B-2 is designed for stealth, but the use of a BWB design is what allows it to keep stealth profile, but have good payload and range capabilities. If a BWB of a similar sized were designed, it would still be more efficient and have more volume / payload capabilities than a traditional aircraft that is medium in size.

Originally posted by MrKnight
Fine, change the argument into a discussion about semantics rather than omitting that a BWB is more efficient by design, and has more useful interior volume at any size. Now that you realize that your beliefs were proven wrong, it is far easier to change the topic into a new discussion to save face that you are correct. The fact that the UAV that I pointed to as an example is still in development does not change the fact that a BWB technology is more efficient and have more volume at any scale.

How can I not change the subject to point out that the evidence you are trying to use is invalid? How, also, can I not end up changing the subject when you argue with that point by saying that because I'm pointing out that you're wrong, you are therefore right? How, finally, does speculation, no matter the source, merit an induction into the Book of Facts merely by being said?

So I then provide an example of a similar aircraft that is a medium aircraft and considered a BWB by NASA.

And then said:

Remember it is designed for stealth, not maximized payload and range.

So, then, an aircraft not designed for max payload or range is a BWB is what you are arguing, since BWB's are for stealth. Does that rather contradict what you've been saying all along?


[edit on 10/21/2007 by Darkpr0]

[edit on 10/21/2007 by Darkpr0]

reply to post by MrKnight

but I am just quoting NASA.

Are you? The first link is wikipedia, the second lot of highlighted text which you label 'NASA' doesn't go anywhere.

even so, your wiki quote says 'in some ways' and 'falls between' does it not? How does that prove you are right? If anything it says that the B-2 is neither one thing or the other, in fact it is a flying wing.

Its a shame that wiki is such a terrible choice for supporting ones position as the wiki entry for flying wings, featuring the B-2, states A flying wing also lacks a fuselage, though it may have one or more rudimentary 'pods' or 'nacelles' barely extending from the wing itself. In this layout, most of the payload is transported inside the main wing, Like I said, shame its on wiki.


Even if I accept your NASA quote as genuine (I have to give the benefit of the doubt if it goes nowhere) it says it is a variation of the basic concept

Not an actual example of the concept, you understand, but a variation of it. ie they took an element of the BWB idea and incorporated it into a flying wing.

Interestingly enough I went onto Northrop Grumman's own official website, I did two searches and this is what I got, try it yourself if you like:

example 1

Results for: bwb

No results were found for your search.
Try changing some of the words in your query.

example 2

Results for: flying wing

1708 results found, top 500 sorted by relevance

NORTHROP GRUMMAN

But what would Northrop-Grumman know that you don't?

You are clearly grasping at straws by throwing vague, open ended quotes around so shall we stop wasting each others time?

EDIT, I did a search for the NASA item, easily done of course, and it was only when I read the page I realised how much you are misrepresenting what they said, shame Mr Knight. I quote;

Like the B-2, the BWB design uses composite materials that are stronger and lighter than conventional metal construction.

and.......

The BWB also has several control surfaces on the trailing edge, like the B-2, instead of the conventional tail assembly.

NASA

So now we know what the 'elements' are, and that NASA says the the B-2 is 'like' a BWB, not actually one as you are claiming.

I'm amazed you can't see the fundamental difference between a B-2 and this and then try to claim you are some sort of professional aerospace engineer



[edit on 21-10-2007 by waynos]

Originally posted by MrKnight
Fine, change the argument into a discussion about semantics rather than omitting that a BWB is more efficient by design, and has more useful interior volume at any size.

I'm starting to get sick of you throwing out this same BS.


A BWB does NOT have a more useful interior volume at ANY size.


A BWB has NOT been proven to be more efficient by design (at least until the pressure cabin problem has been sorted with acceptable increases in structural weight.

So waynos just so I understand this following quote

As I have stated the B-2 is designed for stealth, but the use of a BWB design is what allows it to keep stealth profile, but have good payload and range capabilities. If a BWB of a similar sized were designed, it would still be more efficient and have more volume / payload capabilities than a traditional aircraft that is medium in size.

is what you are saying is false?

Because if that is the case you are correct the B-2 is a flying wing first and formost. But are you saying the the BWB design wouldn't use some of the same tech for flight controls and the like? I think the thing here you can compare it some what to a talk I had with a friend. The B-2 is not the same as the Avro Vulcan but they have similar shapes the BWB design was used in the Vulcan though mind you its not a 100% pure BWB design. For comparison though I think its safe to say the BWB design that is so prevalent right now falls detween the B-2 and the Vulcan you could say it even looks like the end result of a bit of hanky panky between the two. lol

I was going to mention the Vulcan a couple of posts back but I thought things were already complicated enough


The difference between a BWB and a flying wing is not how the controls are laid out, or anything like that, its the fundamental principle behind the design ie can you achieve your aim by adding a few bulges to a flying wing or do you need to insert a whole body section into the middle and blend it into the wings on either side (assuming you have already decided on this type of layout of course).

Please forgive the simplistic description, was not entirely for your benefit, you see

reply to post by waynos


Some times simplistic is best though eh? The differences can be very simple ie bulges vs the mid section. If needed I will start creating some simple diagrames but I dont think we are there yet are we..... hmmm.

X-48B Test Flight Posted by NASA

reply to post by MrKnight


Cool video knight though I must say the Soundtrack is a bit over used lol
Out of interest do you know if the mockups undercarriage is retractable?

The landing gear on the X-48B do not retract. They are out the whole time. The leading edge slats are also extended.

From what I have read the Phantom Works team should be close to modifying the slats to be in for the next batch of test flights.