A Defense Tech reader threw this little story my way late yesterday. I’m not too up to speed on the X-48B program, but from NASA’s description, it looks as if this design could be incorporated into any future long-range bomber.
The idea that the blended-wing concept takes advantage of aerodynamic stability at trans-sonic speeds, low noise signatures and incorporates greater payloads than competing designs seems to say “bomber” to me.
NASA says…
One of the latest cutting-edge experimental aircraft, or X-Planes, the X-48B blended-wing body is a collaborative effort of the Boeing Co., NASA’s Fundamental Aeronautics Program, and the Air Force Research Laboratory. The 21-foot wingspan, 500-pound, remotely piloted plane is designed to demonstrate the viability of the blended wing shape. And demonstrate it has.
After completion of six flights, the X-48B team began a four-week maintenance and modification period during which removable leading edges with extended slats are being replaced with slatless leading edges in order to mimic a slats-retracted configuration. The change requires a software update to the flight control software. In addition, the team is removing and replacing all of the aircraft’s flight control actuators for maintenance purposes.
NASA is interested in the potential benefits of the aircraft — increased volume for carrying capacity, efficient aerodynamics for reduced fuel burn, and, possibly, significant reductions in noise due to propulsion integration options. In these initial flights, the principal focus is to validate prior research on the aerodynamic performance and controllability of the shape, including comparisons of flight test data with the extensive database gathered in the wind tunnels at NASA’s Langley Research Center in Virginia.
The Subsonic Fixed-Wing Project, part of NASA’s Fundamental Aeronautics Program, has long supported the development of the blended wing body concept. It has participated in numerous collaborations with Boeing, as well as several wind tunnel tests for different speed regimes. The team is focused on researching the low-speed characteristics of the design and expanding its flight envelope beyond the limits of current capabilities.
In addition to hosting the X-48B flight test and research activities, NASA Dryden is providing engineering and technical support — expertise garnered from years of operating cutting-edge air vehicles. NASA assists with the hardware and software validation and verification process, the integration and testing of the aircraft systems, and the pilot’s ground control station. NASA’s range group provides critical telemetry and command and control communications during the flight, while the flight operations group provides a T-34 chase aircraft and essential flight scheduling. Photo and video support complete the effort.
The composite-skinned, 8.5 percent scale vehicle can to fly up to 10,000 feet and 120 knots in its low-speed configuration. The aircraft is flown remotely from a ground control station by a pilot using conventional aircraft controls and instrumentation, while looking at a monitor fed by a forward-looking camera on the aircraft.
Up to 25 flights are planned to gather data in these low-speed flight regimes. Then, the X-48B may be used to test the aircraft’s low-noise and handling characteristics at transonic speeds.
Two X-48B research vehicles were built by Cranfield Aerospace Ltd., in England, in accordance with Boeing specifications. The vehicle that flew on July 20, known as Ship 2, was also used for ground and taxi testing. Ship 1, a duplicate, was used for the wind tunnel tests. Ship 1 is available for use as a backup during the flight test program.
(Gouge: BD)
– Christian
{ 38 comments… read them below or add one }
I don’t know about bomber I would think more like heavy lifter air logistics. Major lift, Fuel Efficiency, Quite, great low speed abilities aka short take off landing.
I think the next long range bomber is going to need some dash capability. A big fat blended wing just wont provide that. Not down playing the Loiter ability that is also a critical need but for the front line “opening days” strike we need long range, stealth, and dash ability or especially a super cruise ability like the F-22 would be a major force multiplier.
I don’t know how feasible that oblique concept is but the idea of a flying wing that can loiter like a big old school square wing then pivot into what basically would be a giant flat spear is very tempting. Reminds me of those old alien sightings of flying cigars that went from near hovering over the trees to flying so fast barely able to see.
Very much like the super cavetating 1950′s era torpedo (Iran through this out to the media dogs last year) we may determine that it does not have any value militarily. But what is exiting is that this kind of technology is public – today.
Just think about what will be coming out next. The “leak cycle” for technology is very interesting to follow.
Prediction: The next great military technology advancement will be FUEL.
Im hearing its a future look at the huge passenger airliner. Fill that fat guppy body with layers of decks etc. But useable for other concepts as you have noted.
Nice how they painted the little windows on it. Gives you some idea how big it is when they scale it up.
Range and payload are the biggies for a UAV bomber.Subsonic gives you stealthiness, so speed isn’t so important if lives aren’t at stake.
Alternatively, you can efficiently haul alot of passengers or cargo in a flying wing, but the view sucks.
FedEx of the future? maybe.
Me 2 cents…
Bombers seem to have entered into an interesting dichotomy. First, there’s the old standard of penetrating enemy airspace & delivering a strategic payload, such as the B-1 & B-2. Then you have the B-52, able to loiter over a battlefield for long periods of time (figure 8′s over Afghanistan), as well as deliver a heavy standoff package…. I wonder if a dirigible or an unmanned C-17 variant could take on the BUFFs role. These capabilities are then juxtaposed against long-range standoff weapons (ie. cruise missiles & ICBMs) and UCAVs. UCAVs do not endanger a pilot, but require the fuel & structure to return home. Standoff weapons need only the structure & fuel to reach a target, but don’t loiter or return home… for now… I think… maybe. :)
The next bomber is already here. It will probably be a used 767 bought off the discard lot and fitted out with bomb doors.
You wouldn’t send a bomber into the teeth of a sophisticated air defense system, you would use a stand off system like the BUFF. For other operations, cheap and off the shelf gets the job done. Do you really need $2 billion a copy to drop JDAM’s on tribesman or launch an ALCM?
Fighter-bombers blur the definition of “bomber”. The thrust to weight ratio of F-15s, -16s, and -18s has made them pretty good bomb trucks. Like Rix says, standoff weapons like PGM or UAVs blur things further. Increasingly, a “bomber” is more of a flying munitions dispenser — a multimission platform.
BWB platforms offer some advantages — range, speed, loiter, lower RCS, higher stealth. Might be better AESA platforms, too. But if all you need is to carry stuff to a standoff position, especially for LIC, the quick, cheap and dirty way would be to use something with a stern ramp, or chute, that’s already in inventory, or COTS.
hahahahaha!! this u.s aircraft looks like something from a TOY STORE!!!!! u.s and thier crapy aircraft
This could be an answer to the Russia’s fastest and biggest bomber Tupolev.I think the next long range bomber is going to need some dash capability. A big fat blended wing just wont provide that. Not down playing the Loiter ability that is also a critical need but for the front line “opening days” strike we need long range, stealth, and dash ability or especially a super cruise ability like the F-22 would be a major force multiplier.
The future should be to develop a Helitank an MBT that can fly to different locations, and can adapt its shape like a ‘Transformer’.
This is a concept aircraft for a future CARGO plane to replace the C-5 and the like.
i believe that the C-17 is actually the plane that was chosen to phase out the aging C-130 HERCULES, and C-131 fleets. I know that the Air Force has been looking into replacing the aging C-5 GALAXY transport, but i very strongly disagree with christian on the X-48B replacing it, simply due to the shape of the airframe. it won’t be able to safely distribute the weight of several M-1 abrams tanks through out the plane.
which will almost assured be a pre-requisite for the contract. however as far as replacing other planes such as the EWAC, which is what i believe to be a very possible option.
First and foremost, do NOT post a picture of an aircraft that is obviously noted as a model aircraft. No real aircraft sits on mud cracks that big in the middle of the MoJave desert. IF this is a mock-up to the real thing I just hope that it not as expensive as the B-1 was to maintain and operate. Good Luck.
I don’t know what you guys really mean when you say things like:
“First and foremost, do NOT post a picture of an aircraft that is obviously noted as a model aircraft.”
Or
“this u.s aircraft looks like something from a TOY STORE!!!!! u.s and thier crapy aircraft”
Did you even read the article? This is a model, a TEST model, in fact, from TFA:
The composite-skinned, 8.5 percent scale vehicle can to fly up to 10,000 feet and 120 knots in its low-speed configuration.
Note the 8.5% scale model. This is a test model, no full scale aircraft yest exists. So, the picture is fine.
Personnally I think this new bomber is money to someones pocket book! This will not be effective. This machine being unmann has no mind of it’s own. Which only control from miles away. I am sorry to say that it is a waste of money for the Govt. to spend and make. Of course let’s not leave out credit for the person & company that will gain the income from the tax payer’s money! It’s a expensive toy to play with!!
Jeff is obviously not familiar with the abilities and uses of the present unmanned aircraft. I have seen those things. There is no need for exposing personnel to danger when the mission can be carried out unmanned. I think that the unmanned aircraft are the future of the Air War. I wondered if an air-to-air one was possible but now believe that the JSF will be the last manned aircraft ( other than tankers and transports) ever built for our forces. Some civilian companies are interessted also. The only problem is fitting them into our present air traffic control system safely.
It always amazes me to read the “wit and wisdom” of some of those who have a burning need to place comments for the purpose of “sounding” intelligent, observant and omniscient… Your observations pertaining to mud-cracks, Toys, Excessive dollars committed to projects — Obviously, you don’t know what the Hell you’re talking about! Every comment you register just PROVES how ignorant you are… otherwise – there would exist some room for doubt. If you’re truly interested in the security of our nation — Keep your comments to yourself.
Chaps, how much money does it cost to train a modern pilot? How many can you afford to lose on a mission, let alone the cost of the aircraft? Of course this is money into someone’s pocket – that is the nature of capitalism (and war), but it makes sense to me to have 1 man fly 60 $1million aeroplanes than 1 man fly 1 x $60million dollar aeroplane. As Stalin said, “Quantity has a quality of its own”.
With modern sensors, mosr modern aeroplanes & even foot soldiers are becoming information platforms for their command heirarchy.
I would say that the biggest danger is that country leaders start to play wargames with troops on the ground – a truely vicarious Halo 3, rather than make policy decisions and leave it to the command to achieve their strategic aims, of course the high command is the next concern.
Cheers
A fleet of 100 or 1,000, or 10,000 UAV’s are all dependent on a few satellites. That’s the weak link in the UAV vs. manned aircraft issue.
Like all test-anything (be it car, plane, etc), first you have a drawing. Next step, a scale model (car manufacturers make a test car from clay before tooling to make anything). Next, test it in a wind tunnel (we’ve all seen the commercials). Next step, throw out the design if worthless, or even take parts of that design and incorporate it into a new design. I remember back in the 80′s the Army was looking at the Sgt York, a 2 barrel monstrosity that couldn’t hit the side of a barn from 2 feet away. Only a few were made for testing. Corporations do this all the time to get Government monies. It’s how everything is made.
With no comment to the originator of the flying body concept,Burnelli, was a man before his time..Nowdays all the aircraft companies claim ownership of the concept…..check out this website……OBTW Burnelli crafted his airplanes in the 20′s and 30′s…
http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/experts.htm
Bomber, transport, pax plane….I am more interested in how such a configuration (blended wing) can be pressurized. A “central” tube I can understand, but, pressurizing such an area as this presents many problems….don’t think it will fly (pun intended).
Brad, the C-131 was a Convair, twin piston. Think they canned them over 30 tears ago. -130′s still a’haulin because more fuel efficient and cheaper than C-17′s. The Gooney Bird (DC-3) of the future. They’ll be here another 50 yrs.
this will fly but i see to many problems with drag with the engines and handling but can be solved with canging the intake of the engine i only see this caring smart bombs a limted number of them and tomahawks not much more
the basic design is ok and it works in the wind tunnel you will have handleing problems cause by the airline engine concept i see very little stealth capabilitys the engine is again is still the downfall just brain storming i have an ideal to solve the 3 engines design i have seen this design about 15 years ago a magazine
The blended wing design if fine for the civial market in my opinon, the military should still stick to the concept that it is easier to modify a military aircraft for civial use that a civial aircraft for military use(in most cases, not all). This is certianly true of a Bomber, over the years various aircraft have been modified from civial aircraft for the bomber roll (the DC3/c47, Fokker FV111M, FK50, JU 52 etc) none of them acheived great success as they were compromises, numorious projects have been proposed over the years as well these include a bomber version of the VC10 a Missle platform from the BAC111 and the Boeing 747 as well as bomber versions of the old C141 Starlifter, nothing came of these with good cause, they were compromizes. a bomber version of this blended wing X48 or Boeing 767 will be a failure, these aircraft are not designed for teh abuse the Military will put them trough (look at what the KC135′s had to go through in Veitnam with the incorrect engines and the loads they had to deal with in those hot and humid conditions, i am not saying they did not cope but that it was risky).
As far as a tanker goes, i would be better for the Airforce to buy another 200 or so C17′s and devise a palleted removable refueling, the Air Force is already compaining that the C17 is using airframe hours faster than anticipated, this way you are getting two aircraft for the price of one, in the modern world of warfare airlift capasity cannot be understated. The C17 could theoreticaly hold 70 tons of fuel plus its internal capaisty, couple this with two underwing hose reel units and the aircraft can now support both the Navy / Marines and Air Force while moving the gear required to operate the aircraft transiting.
While there is a need for a replacement for the B52 i would put it forward that a completely new design is brought forward, not only is it taylored to the needs but it will also use the latest technologies not 30 year old civial technology in the case of the 767.
The blended wing design will go a long way to moving more people by air while cutting the costs and (for the eco freindies) reduce the carbon foot print of each person on the aircraft.
As far as the manned vers the unmanned argunment goes, each has its place, as modern air defence networks get more effective i would for see a need to use unmanned aircraft to clear the way for manned aircraft, unmanned aircraft rely on communication networks, saterlites and command and control structures each which can be jammed or destroyed (The Chinese have just demonstrated this in destroying one of there own saterlites with a Ballistic missile. I am sure that no General would want to send a unmanned Bomber on nuclear strike mission knowing that some computor hacker could take control of the plane!
As soon as we get past the perception that the human body is “holy” and start allowing the scientists to geneticlly alter pilots to handle greater G loadings, the sooner this debate will be over, we are going need this type of modification for space travel any how. I cannot see unmanned aircraft/ space craft being used for space combat, the speeds and the distances are to great while the time delays would greatly complicate the use of unmanned craft, can you just imagine trying to use an unmanned aircraft to “dogfight” some 10 or more millon miles from earth while trying to keep a real time link with it and trying to dodge space junk!
It is time people come to their senses, unmanned aircraft were extensivly used in Veitnam on attack missions, recon missions and various others while the proved successfull they did suffer at the hands of manned fighters, what would happen to the U.S.A.F.’s unmanned drones if they did not control the airspace ?
beautiful…really, now if we could just find ben ladin,,,and use it ,,i’ll even help pay for it,,,why so much new tech. lets see can if find ben ladin,,since we cannot find one human being i personally could get a chief’s ass if this can fly or not. Im still wantin that cave dwellin murder,,,
Burnelli flew his flying wing concept back in the thirties and even carried a passengers’ Ford automobile inside of it. The Horten brotheres of Germany’s attempt of a fast effivient bomber proved the flying wing was the way to go and the B-2 is another proven concept. More internal (stealthy) load over greater distances plus a high stealth factor. It’s the way to go for both military and the civilian people movers.
I have a few Japanese aviation magazines (Koko Fan) that show the Japanese aircraft factories building mockup airframes that resemble the C-17 in 1969. Last time I checked it was 2007 and the C-130 is still flying missions. Granted the new C-130 come with the laminated fiberglas propeller blades and they can’t fly in rain with out the propeller coming apart. But that is progress the airplane designers tell the guliable public. The USAF phased out the C-141 with little fanfare and nobody was the wiser.
This certainly won’t be the last word on blended wings for civilian use, but here’s a tidbit you may not know already:
Boeing has been test marketing this concept for civilian airliner applications, and the response of potential passengers has been overwhelmingly negative? Why? No windows! Even passengers who don’t sit next to the window needed to be able to see outside occasionally.
Don’t add the C-5 waste of tax payers money to this mix. The Boeing 747 was and still is vastly superior to the C-5. How many million/billons of taxpayers dollars were wasted trying to duplicate the performance and weight carrying capacity to the POS C-5 to equal the 747. Granted the citizens of Georgia working at the factory for the C-5 brought a lot of real estate that was largely peanut farms in 1968
There is still a lot of R&D for the “blended wing” reference PAX use. Seating, aisle format, and most importantly, “no one has figured out how to pressurize this configuration”. It cannot be done with present technology. A military or cargo version, yes, but passengers throughout “wing”. Think “round”. Y’all need to brush up on Aircraft Pressurization 101.
Georgia Peanut Farmer.
We have a long way to go to replace the versitlability of the B-52 that can be configuered for almost any weapons system , with the range and durability proven for years
Blended Wing? At this point in time, only applicable to bombers and fighters. No commercial use….we haven’t figured out how to pressurize “oblong” tubes, nor, cargo, (the Abrams’ still have to ride in center for CG/physical requirements).
As UAV, high altitude, nonpressurized weapons delivery system….IDEAL.
Popular Mechanics was wrong about future.
Regarding a bomber configuration, let’s not pre-suppose that aentire blended-wing fuselage must be pressurized, at least not to the degree that is normal for a passenger plane. Presurazation might be provided only to some form of a crew capsule. Also, using a type of pressure suit is feasible, though probably not desired by an aircrew.
The X-48B at this point, is nothing more than a very sophisticated toy. It is 8.5% scale, people. That is like parking a 747 in your garage. OK, maybe I am being a little facetious.
Point of fact, different airframes are designed for different purposes. They cannot always be reconfigured for missions different from those which they were designed for. The B-52 was designed to haul around nukes, when they were massive, heavy, free-fall weapons. The B-52 could be modified for conventional weapons, with re-engineering. But I do not think anyone ever entertained the notion of using B-52s to transport armored vehicles around the world.
By the same notion, the 747 family have proven very good at what they were designed for. They were not designed for ROLO (roll-on / roll-off) of vehicles under the vehicle’s own power in austere settings, ie without cargo handling facilities. Something that the C-5 and other military cargo aircraft are optimized for. There is no matter of modification, that would permit a passenger aircraft to carry an armored vehicle.
Could the X-48B lead to practical aircraft? Yes, it is possible. But how many NASA research aircraft, even those that are full-scale, ever lead to a production aircraft? These are essentially research programs, to gather data on specific flight characteristics. Knowledge derived from these programs, may often be incorporated into future designs, military or civilian.
Becoming of miltary age in the late 70′s early 80′s. Being a member of the military was not an option (down sizing). Albeit, of a miltary family all the same.
Deterents, are what we need. If the United States can produce a product that will make another think twice about undemocratic behaviour and save lives. Let’s do it.
Now, that we are making it known.
We (the United States) will take the war to them. Is good.
But, According to the last reports I have read. An arms race is in the near future.
I want what all parents of the world want, “A safe play field for my childern.” If it takes the threat of WMD, so be it. A great man, former President Ronald Reagan, and his dislike for mutually assured destruction is a path I would like to follow.
Then comes the word we all dislike… “but, what if…”
MAY OUR LEADERS BE WISE…. amen
The design look familar. It is in fact similar to Boeing next generation 300+ passenger airliners to replace the 747. I guess the only different is the payload.
Can be next Tanker & Commercial Jet liner.
Blended Wing body.
Jack Northrop would be pleased.
Maybe fly @ 800 mph vs 747 speeds.
More cargo alone, replace the C5B??
C5A?
Now doubledeck the wing alone for cargo.
DHL, FedEx, UPS.
Very splendid