Get Exclusive NordVPN deal here ➼ nordvpn.com/mentournow It's risk-free with Nord's 30-day money-back guarantee!

@ddlsmurf

Жыл бұрын

I'm really happy they sponsor you, but really, as an IT engineer, you are completely wrong about what nordvpn, or any vpn, does and doesn't do for you. There are many good reasons to use their services, making yourself safer is never one of them.

@MrCaiobrz

Жыл бұрын

Ugh Peter please stop accepting VPN sponsorships, its tarnishing. They are half-scams and we shouldn't promote them.

@marhawkman303

Жыл бұрын

Yo! Petter, I forget the name, but one of the lesser used designs for a passenger aircraft from back before jets were popular actually DID have a partial flying wing design. Due to the relatively low airspeed it actually wasn't a high sweep on the wings, but did in fact have passenger seating INSIDE the wings. One innovation they had in that design for safety, IIRC, was having the WINDOWS on the wing seating be an emergency exit. In practice it worked much like how the emergency exit is over the wing on a modern Boeing design, but passengers exiting that way needed to go into the wing structure. A modern swept version could have an eject able panel attached to the leading edge of the wing. 15:20 as you've probably guessed by now... this aircraft solved the pressure issue by.... It was a prop design, it couldn't fly at the altitude of a modern jet. Thus it never had a cruising altitude high enough to NEED a pressurized cabin.

@glike2

Жыл бұрын

Please cover oblique flying wings which are much more efficient than current supersonic commercial transports in development.

@bencze465

Жыл бұрын

Indeed they are borderline sketchy. If you think about it a VPN provider is also financially motivated to monitor people's connections - after all if people choose to use them they want to hide something. The only vpn you can trust is your own. I use one and it's great that the technology exist, but some of these advertisements are sketchy and/or subpar products (including manscape, ray con earbuds that seem to spend all their budget on sponsorships). I feel most sponsorships on youtube are sketcny, at least the ones that you see all the time...

As a structural engineer, I see the pressurization problem as one of the most challenging ones. Circular section can eliminate bending stress while blended wing-body or flying wings will have a lot of locations taking on bending stress which is much less efficient.

@joto4294

Жыл бұрын

I completely agree, being once an aerostructures engineer. I think the proven wing/ tube/ pylon mounted engine layout is the definitive shape of subsonic aircraft, just as ship design is fundamentally the same for over a century. The niche areas of supersonic or military are another matter. Safe air travel is a miracle, taken for granted.

@TheScotsalan

Жыл бұрын

@@joto4294 Yup. Mechanical engineer here, and I think too many developments for for shock effect only. Like the USS zumwalt. It was supposed to carry a new gun, to give ww2 era style capability, but the gun was cancelled cos the shells were a million a pop. Sure, lot of lessons learned from the zumwalt class, but thats the US military, with money to burn. 👍

@alexandernordstrom1617

Жыл бұрын

As a computer (i.e. fake) scientist, I agree. A series of tubes is not just the best design for the Internet, but for aircraft as well.

@TheScotsalan

Жыл бұрын

@@alexandernordstrom1617 How do tubes apply to the interweb ? I know nowt about interweb stuff.. but your comment hooked me 👍😂😂

@cabanford

Жыл бұрын

@@TheScotsalan hahaha 😂

I can see the benefit for private jets. Not the fuel savings, but the more practical shape of the cabin. A tube is good for carrying large amount of people efficiently and safely, but not if you want elbow room.

@toriless

Жыл бұрын

yep

You could have mentioned why swept wings are key to flying wing stability. Of course aircraft like the B2 also use split ailerons, but the swept wings also play a big role in natural yaw stability. As the aircraft yaws, the wing on the turn side will move "out of the way" and closer to the center of gravity, perpendicular to the airflow, while the other wing does the opposite. That way there is a torque applied to the aircraft, opposing the yawing moment. It should also be noted that flying wing designs were using swept wings long before they became common on aircraft, for the exact reason mentioned above.

One other advantage to the standard layout of modern aircraft is that they are easily upgradable. There's no need to redesign the wing if you want to have a longer fuselage (as could happen in a flying wing configuration), or if you want to use a different engine that needs to be embedded inside the sing as opposed to hanging in a nacelle under the wing. Changing to a more efficient wing design doesn't entail redesigning the entire aircraft. This sort of thing helps keep the cost of flying lower.

@lennoxbaumbach390

Жыл бұрын

There's atleast one potential design-approach for this problem: You split the entire wing-fuselage verticalle and longitudinally, so that you get a left and right section. Now you could widen this gap as required and fill it with that additional center section (remember, the fuselage creates lift by itself). After that, you would only really need to extend/adjust the nose- and tail-part of to align it closely with the original shape, so you can replicate/preserve the original aerodynamics without having to scrap the entire. This is ofc. a gross simplyfication and might glosses over a bunch of challenges bc plane design is highly complex and stringent, but I think this could be a good method without major drawbacks. Also, I'd ad that a BWB airliner would be surprisingly compact compared to a conventional plane with the same capacity.

@kngharv

Жыл бұрын

Yes! I can't wait to see Boeing slap GE9X on its 737 airframe and called it 737XXX with MCAS from hell... That is what we all want, isn't it?

@alexx86hater

Жыл бұрын

@@kngharv Well, hopefully Boeing learned their lesson and next time would not listen to the airlines that want to save pennies on the staff training but when things go south run to the competitor and blame Boeing for everything.

@iskierka8399

Жыл бұрын

@@lennoxbaumbach390 While this would be an effective way to increase passenger count and reuse most of the body, the nose and tail would likely still need redesigning, and it has one major flaw that lengthening a tube body also increases available emergency exits for evacuation requirements, while a wider body would not offer more doors and so increase the number of passengers who need to use each. As a result the evacuation requirements would need to be designed for the largest variant and built into the smallest from the start.

@JFrazer4303

Жыл бұрын

See the '70s patents by Int'l Husky for a lifting fuselage, similar to the Boeing model 754, or the earlier Burnelli planes. Tube and wing planes have been stretched all they can be. Stretching them means redesigning and strengthening the wing box and center fuselage, making stronger taller landing gear to allow for rotation angle. Extending their lifting fuselage sideways by a few lanes of cargo or aisles of passengers, only takes the L/D ratio upwards, and keeps everything else the same. Every few lanes you add an engine and another set of the same landing gear under it and nothing changes except compared to a "normal" plane you get more payload/range, onto a smaller runway.

There is one niche of civil aviation where flying wing designs have been quietly: Modern Hang Gliders! They are incredibly stable and efficient in their narrow operating band, and get away with it by discarding all the commercial requirements (a wide speed range and manageable CG range). I spent decades getting my kicks flying Hang Gliders while also flying "normal" airplanes commercially, and I have always been impressed by the impressive pitch and yaw stability of the modern, non-competitive hang glider. The Achilles heel of a commercial flying wing will probably always be it's knife-edge pitch stability and narrow CG range.

@toriless

Жыл бұрын

Actually modern planes are more like powered gliders, they can easily take a half hour to float down with no engines. You can even easily get them out of stall with flaps and only a 5% increase in power.

In addition to the issues with just pressurizing the irregular shape, I expect fatigue from the pressurization cycles would be a massive issue.

@Arturo-lapaz

Жыл бұрын

The aerodynamic parasite drag minimalization at mach > 0.86 to stay competitive requires area ruling and a long volumetric distribution, span is ok for low induced drag, but less important at high altitude flight, where the lower ambient temperature reqires higher mach to achieve comparable true air speed , TAS = mach × speed of sound ( ss ) ss proportional to sqrt (TempA) Conclusion is that the blended wing will cruise at noticeably lower TAS, important when confronted by strong headwinds. Affects ETOPS in a major way unless 3 or more engines are used, not very likely.

@JFrazer4303

Жыл бұрын

Older McD BWB studies disagree. They say it's a lighter, stronger, lower cost of construction and of continued operation. NASA agrees as does Boeing, Airbus, TsAGI and Russavia. Even if there's more structural weight (which they say is arguable) it's still a better plane over all.

Great content Petter. Really interesting video!

This is absolutely the best aviation channel, thanks to it's excellent host.

@MentourNow

Жыл бұрын

Thank you so much! 💕

Thanks. Blended wing planes seemed obviously better. But, your explanation of the tradeoffs, enabled me to see that it is not so easy. Excellent explanation of the issues.

@matsv201

Жыл бұрын

I would say there is a level of blend to the wing that is reasonable... and a level that might not be.really.. the wing is blended already to day.. just a tiny bit. Increase the blend 10 times... and you get a semi blended wing.

That was a good overview of BWB. About a decade ago, I listened to a talk by professor Ian Poll on the prospects for flying wings, and in answer to a question, he conceded that there is only a particular sweet spot for a flying wing design at about 300 seat capacity. Smaller aircraft would need a proportionally deeper mid section for the passenger cabin, so higher form drag would defeat the aerodynamic efficiency advantage; larger aircraft would present problems with excessive span. You mentioned folding tips that could possibly solve that. However, nature doesn't seem to have come up with a blended wing-body design, so I doubt we will do so. One other minor point, it's often the case that tailplanes push down, but not if the tailplane is a bit larger with respect to the wing, so that the neutral point is further aft. Also, the air pushing down on the tailplane may produce thrust rather than drag. If you think about the angle of downwash, typically half the angle of attack, then consider the direction of lift and drag on the tailplane relative to that flow, it is possible for the resultant vector to be forward of perpendicular to the free stream airflow. In most circumstances, the tailplane has a relatively insignificant effect on the total drag of an aeroplane.

@termitreter6545

Жыл бұрын

I'd say that feathers of many birds kinda form blended wings, and they change shapes too. The clear seperation of wing and body is more of an artificial thing of aircraft, likely for ease of construction and operation.

@PRH123

Жыл бұрын

Sounds like what you’re describing is a tandem wing design, there the “tail” is actually another wing, and so the center of lift is created by the 2 tandem wings…. I don’t think there has ever been a production tandem wing aircraft though…. there was the French “flying flea” but that was a kitplane…. Even with a tandem wing though, if the CG is not in the same spot as the center of lift in the MAC, you still have the need to achieve balance with one or the other wing…

@JMWflicks

Жыл бұрын

@@PRH123 no, I remember this surprised me when a senior aerodynamicist first mentioned it to me in the early 1980's. He cited as an example the Hawk trainer, which in aft CG conditions could have lift on the tailplane. It's quite well known. At the time some people were claiming in the aviation press that canard configurations had the advantage of removing the drag produced by download on the tailplane. I believe that some manufacturers presumed download on the tailplane and cambered it to minimise drag with download. That is commendable if trim always requires download, but not so good if a legitimate aft CG loading requires upload on the tailplane. If you're interested, and not so clued up on aircraft pitch stability, perhaps Google "tailplane volume ratio".

@PRH123

Жыл бұрын

@@JMWflicks seems to me now that I remember seeing one of the many blended wing concepts with a canard, i.e. a 3 surface airplane... Which is a sound concept, the Avanti is flying for decades now and Piagio claim reduced drag... but it's not such a breakthrough that anyone besides them wants to produce one... of course there have been many canard designs and their producers claim reduced drag from reducing the downforce needed for stability... They were probably right but again it wasn't superior enough to make all airplanes canards...

@JFrazer4303

Жыл бұрын

The Boeing model 754 and associated "Burnelli style" lifting fuselage body designs see a marked jump in efficiency and no changes to airport designs. A bird is very much a blended wing-body design. Even if the Boeing 754/Burnelli isn't blended at all, it's still got better L/D and payload/range.

That's the most comprehensive and compelling coverage of the few pros and many cons of flying wings and BWBs. This is teaching material for future projects engineers at Airbus or Boeing. Hats off to you and the team for the amount of research that went into the video.

So, what I get out of this is that unless there are major scientific advances (materials technology, engine design and efficiency, etc.), the shape of civilian carrier airplanes is not going to change for many many decades.

@MentourNow

Жыл бұрын

Exactly

@TheScotsalan

Жыл бұрын

I reckon some designs just work. Like the diamond frame of a bicycle. Sure, designers keep new ideas coming, but basically, the diamond frame cant be beaten for general use.

@Blex_040

Жыл бұрын

And even if they change, then airports you need to rebuild some gateways... and looking at the infamous BER Berlin Brandenburg Airport in Germany that started construction in 2006, was supposed to open in 2011, but due to massive delays opened in 2020 after 14 YEARS of construction, I wouldn't be surprised if it takes a decade until construction for a new gateway would finish. And then an airline would need to operate a route with two of those airports, deem it economically viable to use this new kind of aircraft and train its pilot on it. Yeah... my guess is, that it actually would take decades until we civilians could board such a plane. Unless saving are HUGE for the airlines, and they really really press forward with their money.

@lennoxbaumbach390

Жыл бұрын

@@Blex_040 BER was a failure bc, it was essentially a vanity project by the governing politicians of Berlin, who seemingly thought they could specify for and manage such an incredibly complex project, ...with predictable results ofc.

@KingofInterns

Жыл бұрын

The issue is control system redundancy. Flying wings are inherently efficient but also inherently unstable. This means you need to rely on computers to keep it safely and stably flying. Once robust redundant flight control systems can be designed and proven a flying wing will be possible for civilian airliners. Not too long now.

Always interesting to be reminded just how old so many aeronautical concepts are. I had forgotten about the 1930s aircraft. Even more incredible when you consider the first controlled, powered flight had only taken place a mere 30 years earlier at the time!

Sp mzny technical and phydics-related issues that had simply never occurred to me! I am so glad aeronautical engineering is a thing!

As a "BOEING" pilot myself, (and my older brother works at the Renton, Washington Plant) your Videos are something to look forward to. Sometimes, the general principles are forgotten when it comes to "basic construction"! I was always taught the "K.I.S.S. Method" (which I am sure that you are familiar with) if it works and is lucrative for the company/safety, make it happen...

@joto4294

Жыл бұрын

I was likewise taught the KISS principle, and in turn instilled it into my staff. Engineering is a scary business.

@effenbeezeetravel4474

Жыл бұрын

@arturoeugster7228

Жыл бұрын

Keep It Simple but Savy KISS very productive, leads to incredible innovation, this is true for young creative engineers. Try it!

@arturoeugster7228

Жыл бұрын

@@joto4294 how about keep it simple but savvy

As Boeing knows, sometimes designing a cargo plane can turn into the Queen of the Skies and prove very profitable.

I don't think I've ever heard or been told to open or made sure my window shade is open when taking off.

Hi Petter, I think most of us are very interested in your take on the Jan. 13 runway incursion at JFK when the AA pilot crossed a runway directly in front of the departing Delta plane, nearly causing what would have been the worst aviation nightmare in recent years. Can we expect that soon?

@toriless

Жыл бұрын

He is meticulous, it may take him a while for it to be ready.

In the 60's, as an "Air Explorer" (related to Boy Scouts of America) I completed ground school but because of a family move, I did not get to start out at the controls. Much later in life, a friend allowed me to briefly take control of a Beech Debonaire but I was so busy as a Special Prosecutor, for the state of Iowa, I never got to earn the opportunity to solo and be licensed. I have always regretted that. This is another fascinating offering from Petter.

The flying wing needs to be huge to have a suitable cabin height and would require a large passenger manifest to be practical. I don’t think flying wings will replace domestic flights, but have great potential for transcontinental cargo transport.

8:10 the first flying wing was built in 1908, and it had swept wings. And many variations of flying wing followed that one prior to WW1.

@neiloflongbeck5705

Жыл бұрын

Good old J W Dunne.

In addition to a lot of good points made here, flying wings can be intolerant of changes in C of G and also tend to be very pitchy. Could give problems with passengers and cargo loading.

@MentourNow

Жыл бұрын

Absolutely. Like I mentioned, stability is a real issue.

@ShaunieDale

Жыл бұрын

@@MentourNow I probably commented before you got to that bit of the programme. Keep up the excellent work Petter.

17:27 the C5 may be old but the engines have been replaced with high bypass cf-6 carients.

This format and the tremendous success of the secondary channel.. is beautifully validated by such capsules that you and your team make! The first 3½-4 minutes of this were just as relevant in forming the context! And then you gave a balanced picture of various aspects and summed it up by tying each point to the other... in a fluid manner. This presentation itself was an excellent blended wing presentation.😊

@Colaholiker

Жыл бұрын

The content here is orders of magnitude better than a lot of the stuff that is made for TV while TV productions are working on budgets that most KZreadrs could only dream of.

@MentourNow

Жыл бұрын

Aww, that’s really nice to hear! Thank you

@Colaholiker

Жыл бұрын

@@MentourNow You are very welcome. As an aviation enthusiast, I have been following your first channel for many years and this one since you started it. And I have never regretted it at all. Keep up the good work and Thank you so much!

@sailaab

Жыл бұрын

colaholiker6478 Yes! 100% agree. That is why.. although my life situation does not allow me to pitch in to buy merchandise or pay at Patreon.. I never skip the advertisements. I also share these🤍💙 productions👌🏽 with others of my ilk.

@sailaab

Жыл бұрын

colaholiker6478 Yes! 100% agree. That is why.. although my life situation does not allow me to pitch in to buy merchandise or pay at Patreon.. I never skip the advertisements. I also share these🤍💙 productions👌🏽 with others of my ilk.

This has been the airplane of the future for at least the last 20 years!

7:12 I love the 797. Making a subtle petition to Boeing are we? 🤣

An adjacent topic might be the laminar flow designs which promise incredible efficiencies albeit at a narrow speed and size range. Also, I have always thought canard designs have too often been overlooked. The front mounted stabilizer reduces drag by creating a lifting force while still being aerodynamically stable even in stall conditions.

747-8 FO here. Keep up the great content

If you fly 737 as well as you make videos you must be a hell of a pilot sir

@MentourNow

Жыл бұрын

Well, I try! 😂💕

Okay, now I'm really interested in how these designs would do as cargo aircraft. Passenger safety and comfort would no longer be an issue. Things like windows, pressurization, height of the cabin, emergency exits, and motion sickness from sitting far out from the roll axis wouldn't be a concern. Different variations may also not be needed, as efficiency vs cargo amount could be enough to make the aircraft very attractive as a fleet despite there only being one choice of capacity. I also imagine it would be easier to modify the cargo area of an airport to accommodate the untraditional aircraft shapes than it would be to modify the passenger terminal area.

I suspect that, if we see any major changes, it will be towards high-wing designs. Engines are getting bigger, so we need space for them. They are also getting quieter and sound insulation is slightly better too, so maybe it would be bearable for passengers.

@BennyGeserit

Жыл бұрын

Yes and high winged craft have wings narrow front to back at almost 90 degrees to fuselage which is the furthest from V wing integration as you can get. Much more like glider wings. Some new "eco" designs show similar long wings with brace supports like in small privately owned aircraft like Cesna 172's. An exception is the BAE 146.

@Hasdrubal_Barca

Жыл бұрын

The problem with high wings is that the wing spars and structure can be quite thick where they pass through the fuselage.. On a low wing, this interrupts the space where you would store cargo and maybe some of the fuel, but passes underneath the floor of the cabin. On a high wing, it interrupts the space where you would store carry-on luggage at best. Nobody would be happy with five rows of seats having to check all their small bags. Military planes with high wings don't bother with carry-on storage bins, and they prioritize a low floor to aid loading heavy palletized cargo or vehicles. If you did the same thing with an airliner, you might have to load cargo above the passengers. Small turboprops have a much thinner wing since the loads are so much less than say, a 767.

@solarissv777

Жыл бұрын

Maybe, with larger engines, we will see the return of tail engines configurations. Additional advantage would be the ability to have a shorter rudder (and thus less drag), as with traditional engine configuration, the rudder has to be extremely large to compensate for engine out situations (for newer langer engines, as they create plenty of drag, when turned off).

@gpaull2

Жыл бұрын

Another issue is that high wing planes with the main landing gear still attached to the wing have much longer gear, which transmits much more torque to the wing structure. The wing needs to be stronger to handle this (weight) in addition to the longer and heavier gear. If the gear is attached to the fuselage instead, then the fuse needs to be beefed up dramatically (weight). The beauty of the current low wing design is that the main gear, engine mounts and wings spars are all in the same general location, requiring less areas of the airframe that need to be beefed up.

@Hasdrubal_Barca

Жыл бұрын

@@piisfun All checked luggage and non palletized cargo is carried under the passenger floor. If you move the floor down ala C-17, you need to put the luggage and other cargo above the passengers. It could be done, but might need different luggage equipment at every airport the plane visits. Easier to put longer landing gear on new designs for more ground clearance, if the engine size is a concern.

One place I believe a bended/flying wing would work well is an aerial refueling tanker. The fuel is much denser than passengers and their surrounding air making volume/wing thickness a nonissue. Current tankers which are modified from passenger airliners are basically empty by volume even when on a full fuel load. Difficulties like emergency exits and pressurization are also not really problems. There’s also benefits to having a stealthy tanker as even if the enemy can see the fighters/bombers, if they can see a tanker refueling seemingly nothing, that could be a good early warning for them.

Concorde was basically a flying wing with a cigar in the middle (ok, put this in before she was mentioned ;)). I still think she was the most beautiful aircraft ever, with Comet as a close second.

regarding window seats, most flights I've been on lately, everyone keeps the window shades closed, and even get upset fi you open yours. Between cellphones and in-flight screens, they don't care about windows anymore.

@martinmckee5333

Жыл бұрын

That's sad. I rarely fly, but I still love being able to look out.

Happy User of Nord VPN for almost a year. It does make international travel connections easier for sure! Thanks!!

Overall vehicle level optimization is the best way to answer the question of BWB vs tube and wing, rather than personal opinion, or structural component level consideration, speaking as an aeronautical engineer with 20 years aerostructures, loads, dynamics, optimization.

People never mention a flying wing design means a much wider cabin, the problem with that is the passengers sitting further away from the centre of the cabin will have increased G-Forces when the aircraft rolls, normally won’t be much of an issue except for strong turbulence or strong wind landings, the further you sit on a wing from the centre the greater the G-Forces

@Pwj579

Жыл бұрын

Agreed

@melainekerfaou8418

Жыл бұрын

It's mentioned in the video. There's even a stock photo of someone with a barf bag. And I agree it's major. Not only does it make comfort in turbulence a serious issue, but it also puts constraints on roll authority even in fair weather conditions, especially roll acceleration: roll inputs will have to start and end very very progressively if we don't want coffee cups and passengers to fly.

@JFrazer4303

Жыл бұрын

And freight and military users don't care.

@sergiuc7684

Жыл бұрын

They could use those seats to train pilots/astronauts )

@toriless

Жыл бұрын

He talks about this, watch it again

I am very new to the channel but I really enjoyed this presentation on the design challenges of flying wings and blended wing aircraft. I thought your explanations were very clear and easy to follow. I have subscribed. Thank you.

Amazing analysis. I'd seen multiple takes on this and yours is the one that brings actual practical points up.

Great video. Love the way you explain it all

Thanks for bringing to light the many complications involved in the design and manufacture of viable alternatives to conventional proven airframes.

This video was a great perspective on the more practical considerations with the idea.

Coolest MN video yet! Love these!

Just give everyone an ejection seat, problem solved with emergency exits. 😂

@MentourNow

Жыл бұрын

Hahaha

@zottelhuehs6375

Жыл бұрын

Ejection seats aren't very safe. They are simply safer than remaining in a crashing plane. Spinal injuries are very common, deaths aren't unheard of. Newer models might not cause as many bad injuries, but the majority of users still suffer from some. Using an ejection seat is basically a guaranteed trip to the hospital even if only to make sure you didn't fracture something important that adrenaline is covering up. And that is with trained professionals, not civilians panicking and in risk of getting tangled or hitting each other

Another GREAT video. Very fun stuff. Keep the dirty side down and enjoy.

A great explanation of the difference and bennies of the blended wing vs. the flying wing. Well done!

A very interesting overview of different designs and their pro´s and con´s ! Thank you very much!

Nice clip. Thanks! 👍⭐😎

I wonder if cargo planes could be developed with blended wings to work out the bugs before trying to develop a passenger plane

@edwardwright8127

Жыл бұрын

The certification standards for cargo planes are the same as they are for passenger planes.

@earthsteward9

Жыл бұрын

@@edwardwright8127 yes it's just they don't have windows or need as many emergency exits so two of the issues with blended wings are resolved. If Lockheed Martin develops a cargo airplane based on a blended wing, it might be developed into a civilian version

@shrimpflea

Жыл бұрын

Maybe but how will having cargo planes solve the issue for passenger planes if they don't need to?

@YekouriGaming

Жыл бұрын

@@edwardwright8127 cargo planes like the ones for the military does not even need to pressurized since your metal cargo does not care about being a little cold and out of oxygen.

Many interesting designs. Thanks

My dad feel in love with the flying wing when he saw film of the first flying wing in the 50s and the pilot was able to turn and go in the opposite direction by tipping the plane on its tip and flipped it down in the opposite direction in a matter of seconds. I think dad was still in college as a rocket propulsion/aeronautical engineer at the time.

@toriless

Жыл бұрын

I saw a Stealth being test flown back in the 80's, if felt like spotting a UFO. It was claimed they were only tested elsewhere since they were not made here. Silent unlike all other planes.

Another great video!

The flying wing was Jack Northrop's lifelong dream, unfortunately it was just too far ahead its time. He did live long enough to see the development of the B-2, which no doubt gave him a great deal of satisfaction. It'll be interesting to see how civil aviation will evolve, thanks for the update! 👍👍

@edwardmyers8782

Жыл бұрын

Just to add a conspiracy maybe the govn't destroyed all of Northrop' s wings because Boeing was afraid the wing would end the classic configuration that Boeing depended on.

@chouseification

Жыл бұрын

@@edwardmyers8782 no - they simply weren't stable enough prior to fly by wire and computers making many minute adjustments to the control surfaces. Once that engineering challenge was achieved, the Stealth fighter and bomber came out in quick succession - both designs heavily needing that new gear. The main reason Boeing etc haven't moved to a new overall design - the gates at the airport... if they come out with a new design, adaptations have to happen at the gates to accept the new planes possibly even requiring more jetways per gate. Also, their current tooling works great with "cylinders of various lengths" between the short range and long range variants of the same plane, as they can add a few sections - going from short range to long range would require a lot more changes than just a few extra fuselage rings.

@h2835

Жыл бұрын

@@edwardmyers8782 When the B2 was being built the original test pilots for the original flying wings were still alive. When the B2 test pilots asked about any suggestions and advices for the test flights they only had one: "Do not stall it. Whatever you do, you must never stall it..." Reason for this: A flying wing is almost impossible to recover from an aerodynamic stall. For this reason a flying wing is never going to happen. Boeing had a concept for a flying wing at one time. It could house about 900 passangers. Problem was: Regulations require you to be able to deplane all passangers within a given time. And it was not possible for more than 600 passangers on a flying wing. So the concept was ditched.

@neiloflongbeck5705

Жыл бұрын

He was just channeling the thoughts of J W Dunne, the true pioneer of tailless aircraft.

Excellent review

Thanks Mentour, always interesting !

I love your work!

excellent. informative and fascinating

Man I love your videos You're not just some douche reading and Studying other video Online you're an actual pilot with experience Much respected that's why you're one of the best on KZread if not the best!

An excellent and comprehensive overview 👍

That was really interesting. The more I learn about aviation the more I want to be a part of it.

@MentourNow

Жыл бұрын

It’s a truly fascinating world

@Alexanderius

Жыл бұрын

@@MentourNow I am a software architect at an airline and I totally agree with that 😊

I'm seeing a lot of footage coming from my university here (TU Delft) and I can say that a lot of effort is going in to solving the issues for flying-wing designs. The researchers themselves also identify a lot of these issues and shortcomings, including that they would not (yet) replace airliners. The other major focus right now is transitioning to electric propulsion. I really hope we'll see more concepts taking flight and some of them becoming successful in advancing the aviation industry. I am sure you would be more than welcome to visit the Aerospace Engineering faculty Petter!

@MentourNow

Жыл бұрын

Oh, I would love that. I’m quite skeptical of electric aviation at any larger scale but I would love to hear what you say.

@matejlieskovsky9625

Жыл бұрын

@@MentourNow there is a growing push towards restricting short flights in the EU and promoting trains. Maybe electric aircraft can bypass some of these restrictions and compete with trains? I do like trains, but the Czech government is not building HSR. :-(

@WouterWeggelaar

Жыл бұрын

@@MentourNow I agree with that skepticism, it's going to take a long time and tons of R&D. but for shorter flights with smaller aircraft there's an electric future. If you want I can see if there's someone at the university you can talk to? I work in spacecraft design 🛰️, not on planes!

A friend engineer told me that the widows is a pin the a** for them because it's a point of weakness in the structure, and they would like to get rid of it, like in military aircraft

But can we all agree that these blended wing designs just _look_ extremely beautiful, elegant and futuristic? 😍

I love your videos, it engages the brain

Awesome video mentour! Interesting to think about the future of civilian aircraft!

I can't stop loving our old school fuselage type aircrafts so i hope these keep going forward for some time

@JFrazer4303

Жыл бұрын

"Loving" poor efficiency in unsafe planes... Ok but whatever. You do what you've got to do.

Excellent engineering rundown of all perks concerning flying wings! I think for large scale passenger airliners this will remain a dream, but not for freighters and cargo versions!

Given that so many research is being done into this at the moment, I am hopeful that in a decade we will know more if it is feasible or not. It's not just Boeing and Airbus, but also for example KLM that is looking at it.

I like these non-crash videos. Thanks. I guess if aircraft safety continues to improve, we will see more of them. A win-win situation! 😁

@wesss9353

Жыл бұрын

Need to watch Mentor Pilot crash video during a plane crash

@toriless

Жыл бұрын

I can not help but notice, in 1973, in 1996, in 2008, etc. They just do happen that often despite the thousands of daily flights. How many happen per year. You are safer flying than driving, I bet the accident ratio is much higher on the ground.

@falcon-ng6sd

Жыл бұрын

@@toriless I'm guessing you mean "DON'T happen that often"?

@YekouriGaming

Жыл бұрын

@@toriless In the last 13 years almost all accidents have been because of pilot error, it is why the 737 max incidents became such a gigantic scandal since there was a problem with the plane. The injures and deaths per distance travelled is the smallest for airplanes compared to all other modes of transportation. However the crash to death ratio is still amongst the highest, along with ships. So when there is an accident it is often tragic.

@mediocreman2

Жыл бұрын

Yeah this channel doesn't cover crashes.

Hi, Capt. Petter My favourite Royal Air Force military aircraft was the Avro Vulcan bomber, which saw its final combat service over the Falkland Islands. Sadly, it has now been retired from the service but was much loved by pilots and, at air shows, by the public. I mention it because I believe it was perhaps a precursor to the winged aircraft you have just been discussing. Most of the designs you showed have the form of Manta Rays. Is this deliberate? How would the movement and structure of Manta Rays give the nod to passenger aircraft. Or is it purely coincidental? I know the purpose of the B/V2 Stealth bombers is to be undetectable by radar for obvious operational purposes. Presumably, a passenger wing aircraft needs to be detectable at all times, especially if it is in trouble. Is the idea for wing aircraft to conserve fuel, increase passenger payload, expedite travel times, be a step into the future? I was unsure. At my age and my BP, I will not fly again in this life, but I am very enthusiastic about the future and what it has to offer, including the safety of aircrew and passengers. Thank you for your video this evening.

@JMWflicks

Жыл бұрын

One difference between manta rays and aircraft is that manta rays are sufficiently buoyant that they don't need lift. They flap their tips primarily for propulsion, but unlike aircraft, they can stay still in the water...

@angietunstall2555

Жыл бұрын

@JMWflicks Thank you. Your reply is greatly appreciated.

It's all about consumer confidence in my opinion, people have a standardised view of what an aircraft should look like

This video just unlocked a memory I have from the late 1960s or early 1970s. I remember an aircraft that was described as "so big it has to have folding wings" yet I cannot find anything about such an airliner now.

The tube and wings formula is so well rounded that anything that deviates from it seem like reinventing the wheel

Another great video! I would love to know your opinion about the "Flying V" that is being designed by the TU Delft and backed by KLM. It seems quitte different tha the designs shown in the video.

I wonder how flying wing design can cope with asymmetric thrust. If things go wrong in a military aircraft the pilots usually can eject.

The ironic irony of *bombers vs passenger* airliners, is bombs were granted *more safety mechanism payload* than humans, which makes the classic & late modern models. A great come back for passengers. Especially the super sonics seats vs device swap.

If possible can you make a video explaining why propeller airplanes have propellers in front of the aircraft whereas in a boat the propellers are found at the rear. Since both work by pushing the fluid behind in order to create thrust.

@MentourNow

Жыл бұрын

That’s a great idea..

Oh my. Mentour talking about the B-2 made me more happy than it should have. lol

I don't think a screen would make me comfortable at all! I love looking outside the window when flying.

That cockpit where you have to lie down looks absolutely terrifying

Blended wing lifting body airliners were all the futuristic rage in the 1980s until the passenger loading problems, lack of windows, engine maintenance issues, and possible pressurization problems threw a wet blanket over the whole idea. Funny how this idea keeps popping up.

The moment he brought up the "no window seat" thing, I was out. My rule is absolutely simple. if I can't get a window seat, I won't be flying. Period.

@shrimpflea

Жыл бұрын

Amen

@angeljamais8541

Жыл бұрын

Ditto

Thanks for another one, Petter! When I read the title and saw that there was no thumbnail, I excitedly thought, Hey, this is going to be about that long ago engineering marvel, THE flying wing. You know the one... that long 'uniwing'! I don't recall the maker, and I understand why it can't fly commercially (or hardly at all non-commercially either) but I loved the very idea of it as well as the creative thinking that brought us such an oddity. But, alas, that imagined video was not to be. In my excitement, I missed the 's' in wings in the title, which sent me down a mistaken path :-( I enjoyed this video nevertheless. As with so much of your work, it fueled my curiosity while still answering questions I've had about what my grandson has called 'bat planes' ever since the first B2 Stealth Bomber glided directly over his backyard swing-set.

There is another configuration which is more efficient than the current airliners. That is the canard where the tail is at the front so it lifts up for stability rather than "lift" down. The down lift has to be compesated by mode lift, and thus induced drag, in the main wings. The problem with the canard is the phugoid oscilation (porpoising). Up until now this has been a killer (remember the nausia) but with fly by computer it aught to be able to be overcome. Lifting tails with instability computers can work too but you don't have the natural stability to fall back on in an emergency. The Beach starship failed because they couldn't overcome the nausea problem but the Piagio Avanti semi canard worked well.

@fluffysheap

Жыл бұрын

It has nothing to do with oscillations. Canards aren't popular because they increase the takeoff and landing speed, which reduces the number of airports the aircraft can use. The Avanti is only a "half canard," it has both a canard and a traditional tail. The popularity of the Avanti - and it's not that popular - is mostly due to it having very little cabin noise due to the pusher prop.

@emmabird9745

Жыл бұрын

@@fluffysheap Hi fluffysheap, I think you are wrong as regards to canards and oscilations. As to take off run that is down to detail design. You are right that the Avanti is a half canard, but then I already said that. It is faster and uses less fuel than similar power conventional wing tail. That helps with popular. My point is that unlike flying wings canards can fit in existing airports and use less fuel than ordinary wing tail.

Thanks for adding some reality to discussions of future blended wing/body airliners. Just because a new idea looks different and cool doesn’t make it obviously better. You mentioned the vertical displacement issue with seat position in roll (premium seats in the center, cheaper seats farther outboard); another issue affecting everyone on board is gust sensitivity. The low wing loading caused by the larger wing area will make the airplane very sensitive to turbulence, creating an unpleasant ride in all but the smoothest conditions. There are so many issues with BWBs that lead to compromised solutions (lack of windows, egress following wheels-up landings, cargo storage, etc.). The final issue is likely to be cost, since trail-blazing in the tech world is rarely cheap. It’s still an open question whether manufacturing a high-tech composite airliner can be done at a profit - seats and fuel burn dictate the market worth of any airplane, not cool factor. For now, let the military users play around with the flying wing idea. Stuff like fuel (tankers), bombs (bombers), and cargo (transports) don’t complain about ride quality, and the low-observable characteristics of wing-type airplanes can increase mission survivability. When stealth becomes important for passenger aircraft, THEN we can possibly justify BWBs and HWBs. For now, tubes with wings will rule the skies for passenger flight. As one of my professors noted many decades ago, when asked why airplane designs hadn’t seen radical change, “It’s the same old air…”

What I read a few decades ago was that half the emergency exits would be on top, and fuel pumped between different tanks combined with small extrudeable panels top and bottom all over the craft would counter the movement of passengers inside the plane.

I think the biggest has to do with human physiology: there are people that are miserable even when 737 is yawing, just cannot imagine what would happen in a much wider configurations than 747 on a long distance. Kids would love it though...

@bcluett1697

Жыл бұрын

When the plane would bank you wouldn't just lose a phone or something to the next row over you might see it bounce the equivalent of a steep hill. Secure your goodies unless you want some angry fellow passengers. So there's that too. I'm guessing they would have to do a lot of yawing and long slow turns.

Regardless of material, you can't make the crossection very far of circular. They can be slightly oval, and many planes actually are, 5 to 10% is not really a problem.15% or even 20% would work with composite, anything more than that you will have problems. Also, any unstable design will most likely not be allowed. But there is a way to solve this. To half blend the wing into a somewhat oval fuselage is not hard. Also to have diffeent diameters is not really a problem. The solution to the diffrent version problem is actually pretty simple, Boeing have already solved it with the 747. The solution to the evacuation problem have also pretty much been solved. Have the wing really far back, have the engine hanging at the back of the wings, then ad canards. The make the fuselage slightly elliptical narrowing of at the tale. I'm I just guessing? Well.. no... this plane have already been designed.it was called the 7E7 and was to be renamed the 787... you might say.. well I seen the 787 and it looks nothing like that. Well.. correct. The realy version of the 7E7 was scaped and some of the parts, like the engine, part of the wing, composite and gears was saved and pushed over to the 787 project. What was supose to be the 787 is no know as the sonic cruiser. They did solve most, if not all of the problem. But the concept was deemed to risky.

Beam me up Scotty, Ah for that day to arrive. Well one things for sure, it's getting closer.

Very interesting video! Flying wings are sooo beautiful 🤩I hope to see one someday in a museum maybe

Awesome Video mentor now

You didn’t mention the drag penalty of the vertical stabilizer and rudder at cruise. Aerodynamic drag from the conventional vertical stabilizer is tremendous. That barn door size rudder is only necessary during low speed operation (landing and takeoff or, god forbid, spin recovery) and the rest of that vertical fin exists mainly to support the rudder. For cruise flight a much, much smaller airfoil is needed. If only it would retract.

back to the good old Enginnering conudrum 'Perfection is the enemy of good enough.

I love all your channels & flying Dutch girl as well. I’m not a pilot and I’m TERRIFIED of flying which is why I watch, I guess. Wish I could pick you as the pilot every time. ❤️

Canard designs have a lot of advantages without too many new problems.

you don't need a swept wing for pitch stability of flying wings, it requires the cg to be further forward and a reflexed wing section, the trailing edge of the wing then works much like the horizontal stabiliser of a conventional aircraft.

How about a blended wing with an engine above each with tip, and two more below the wing tips. Throttle differences between these four engines could provide pitch, and yaw inputs without rudder or horizontal stabilizers.

Great points about how a flying wing design could work with the existing infrastructure. Airports, maintenance facilities and manufacturing technologies have been optimized for existing designs and flying wing design would need to be obviously superior to offset all the changes needed to support infrastructure. Otherwise, the changes needed to switch to flying wing couldn't be re-payed in any reasonable timeframe. That would make total cost of ownership of the flying wing less economical in long run. I'd expect the overall tubular design to stay in production but the blending near the are where the wings are connected to fuselage will be probably streamlined a bit.

@kell7195

5 ай бұрын

They said the same when the A380 was proposed, the Airports that wanted to make money made the minor changes that were necessary, the world is now led by visonless accountants and hence the stagnation of everything. This will result in the future of all tubes being banned from the skys, dont like it, walk. It might actually pay to innovate but then again, probably not until this world dies, and that shouldn't be to far away, big changes coming whether the accountants like it or not.

@MikkoRantalainen

5 ай бұрын

@@kell7195 I hate the fact the bean counters are making the decisions, too, but never underestimate the inertia of the society at large. Many people are more conservative than they think and any kind of change (good or bad) is hard to accomplish fast.

Like everything in engineering, making one thing better usually exacerbates something else, which means you have to find a balance. I think the design at 16:27 actually could have some promise as it still shares some commonality with existing airliners (i.e. tube with wings except that the wings blend more). However I think aircraft manufacturers could experiment by incrementally blending the wing and the fuselage more with every design iteration and seeing what works instead of going all in. This approach would also give more time for aviation authorities to adapt.