Comments on: Are We Seeing the Next-Gen Bomber?

By: iTunes

iTunes — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 22:57:47 +0000

Very splendid

By: stephen russell

stephen russell — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 23:07:41 +0000

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.

By: Brian Whitehouse

Brian Whitehouse — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 12:35:59 +0000

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.

By: Arthur Dearinger

Arthur Dearinger — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 05:55:51 +0000

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

By: Rupturduck

Rupturduck — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 05:37:58 +0000

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.

By: ckm

ckm — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 13:57:03 +0000

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.

By: Jim

Jim — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 01:55:43 +0000

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.

By: Lawson

Lawson — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:02:09 +0000

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

By: Jim

Jim — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 04:27:56 +0000

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.

By: chippuler

chippuler — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:35:53 +0000

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