Відео

The pressure vessel will be difficult. The heavy structure required to pressurize a contiguous oblong cabin may negate any efficiency advantages of your blended wing concept. An unpressurized tanker makes more sense.

Very cool

Amazing! - Please can you make a video of how this instrument works? Thank you 😊

Sweet!

там царь Тамар собственной персоны на подработке в кредо ?

Crazy! Great job🔥

Biggest honor!! Thanks for the best 4 years, UCI 💙💛

Ummmm… i can write “hello world” using a programming language 😅

Our work is very creative

Why not replace windows with big video screens so everyone gets big window seats..maybe live feed from outside sky

🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🍉🍉🍉

Some people are born smart and some are dumb sh-t s.

bro peaple are allergic to canards? the plane could have swep wings that run into the body, and just have canards and fuselage to generate lift in high speed... this would solve the problem of taking to much space in hangars, it could just swep the wing to position in the middle of the runway to takeoff, and the design with canard would have much higher max take of weight, its safer, the only problem is fuselage stress, but for a blended wing you would allready have to use more advanced material, composite carbon fiber of some king... now we are running to hibrid aircraft aswell, without the apu and with batterys, to start the engine, to every thing, and we could also put eletric motor in the wheels for the airplane to pick higher speeds quickly, also to use the electricit generated with the landing, and fill up the battery without needing to stay with the engines running to fill the batterys for the next flight.

At 6:19 you show an interior view with giant panoramic windows. In a pressurized non-circular fuselage?

It does a dis-service to the concept by tying it to revolutionary technology like hydrogen or radically advanced technology, when am immediate benefit is gained with contemporary technology. It's saying that the concept is held up on and dependent on the new technology maturing.

Going back, see Northrop's "Avion 1" X216-H. Among the best of its class in all criteria, and markedly faster than any others. Also V.J.Burnelli making lifting fuselage body planes. During the war, the Higgins-Bellanca 39-60 cargo plane, and a similar Boeing 360-362 bomber. Several similar things from the Germans like some tailed Arado 555 versions and Arado 470. A few Horten/Messerschmitt versions with tails or tailfins like the Ho-18 B2. Not to forget the Me-163 Komet, which despite the dubious propulsion, was an entirely successful flying machine, stemming from Lippisch work on "flying wing" design. Many other "flying wings" with tailfins made very good flying machines too. They tried and utterly failed to make entirely tail-less, failed with wing-tip fins, and when they put a proper fin on it, it worked very well. Arup, Cheranovsky, Fauvel, the Kharkov KhAI-3, others. More recently, the 1970 Sukhoi T4MS-200 bomber: same technology as the T-4 Sotka, but better range and payload than the Tupolev "Blackjack" which got built instead. Early 2000s patents by Dizdarevic "Tailed Flying Wings", and the 2016 Lock-Mart hybrid wing-body logistics plane, and the "Frigate Ecojet": multiples of payload and range because they generate substantial lift from the fuselage. Because they have a tail, entirely controllable and stable. The reason the McD blended wing body was never followed through, is because Boeing owns it, and refuses to build to any sort of lifting fuselage design. NASA had to get Cranfield to build the X-48 models because of the intransigent refusal of Boeing to carry it forward. Aerospace is cowardly and if Boeing isn't doing it, no one else will.

Not bad if can replace those airliners and safe flight. 1200 mph is good compared to our current airliners can flight at 600.

1. The puking for anyone sitting too far from the central axis. 2. Heavy. Pressure vessels are tubes for a reason. 3. Designing a certifiable passenger plane would be a challenge. Emergency evacuation would be difficult. Imagine evacuating a movie theater in 90 seconds. 4. Don't have an engine failure. 5. Mostly an aerodynamicist's dream. The concept has been around 30+ years. If the design could be built and operated economically, Airbus or Boeing would have done it already. Not so much demand for a super jumbo. 6. Look at the direction X-66A is going.

If it looks right, it probably is right! This design really _does_ look right!

there is a weakness in it in that objects or other things that can fly over the plane hit the engines -- i think

Masterpiece!

Are Boeing making this ?

It would be a nightmare for aircraft mechanics to replace or remove those engines above the wings or body. And I believe that the future will be container pods and aircraft supplied power and life support with self contained pods. This would involve the engines mounted on spars/engine mounted to the horizontal tails with the center fuselage to put the pod within. The positive aspect for this design would be quick turn around for pod insertion and removal, thus aircraft turn around. I believe that the future will be hydrogen powere with electric fan engines.

In 1963 at the extinct British aircraft construction company Handley Page Ltd., along with other research engineers, I was involved with such an aircraft that also was proposed to have laminar flow suction to reduce skin-friction drag and the result was for a design that was considerably cheaper to fly because its structure was more efficient and because its drag was much lower. These properties were similar to what is described in this video, and it is not much more suitable that our 60-years old ideas were for greater efficiency. This proposal was called HP117 but of course there was no commercial organization which was willing to escape from the tube and swept-wing layouts having outside mounted engines, commonly in use. Its past time to "think outside of the box".

Wing loading is very low, which makes turbulence worse for the passengers. Bumpy ride. Important to hold a Tanker steady too.

None of these guys are Gen-Z or Millennials - says it all really .....

Good luck with it!

So whats the glide ratio?

Politicians and the people in charge of everything do not want this kind of progress more progress more freedoms they don't want freedoms for you and I this is a proven technology it should have been here 30 years ago

the military version looks spot on. i could see them making the jump w/ the airlines coming on board once the design has been proven. time will tell, @ 71 i probably won't see it but good luck.

"I think it is a good aircraft professor, your on to something extraordinary. The fuel reduction, and new fuel(HYDROGEN) implementation is a plus. I think I'm going to have to call you? "The Sonic Man!" 👍 "You have my full credit." ✓

A gorgeous design concept ! Thanks, prof.

Are you sure that isn’t a UFO?

May the force be always with you Professor! 🇺🇲

Its the fusion concept for aircraft.... its been 5 years away for 40 years....... the ageless clickbait, holy grail of social media.....

Boeing isn't going anywhere if they keep losing parts off their planes during flights.

Americans again- patting themselves on the shoulder for … nothing Big lofty dreams - lots of blabla

This thick-fuselage BWB is the first non-retrofit tanker design to come along in over a generation. And it really does look like the natural & right design concept for a tanker.

How about passengers are not crammed into the damn thing like sardines?

What about the "flying-V" plane??

I have seen some plans and studies with model planes from the technical university Delft and KLM with a very similar setup some years ago. Nothing new.

With you all the way up until the liquid hydrogen. Any engine can burn LH to lower emissions but no one has solved the problem of producing it economically. LH is somewhat like fusion power generation, always just a decade away. I know that government money can be drained away for the LH promise to build the BWB though.

This looks Tremendous 👍🏻

Oh goody. No doors that will pop out?

Hydrogen is a stupid fuel

having the jet intakes over the top of wings provides lift even when not moving forwards...

Isn't that the same as laminar flow ,just like the s r seventy one

What about defending our southern border? We don't need this crap to 'defend' anyone. Another death machine that humanity doesn't need.

This is where we should be. This design would make a great B-52 replacement, KC135 replacement. The fuel capacity or internal bomb load would be fantastic. It would make a good passenger aircraft as well. This should have been done 20 years ago.

Kind of funny that the Horton brothers already recognized a lot of the advantages (albeit flying wings) in the early 1940s and were planning on building a bomber around this size. Jack Northrop was working on similar stuff in the late 40s, just funny it's only gaining traction 70 years later. Better late than never I suppose.