Mar 022012
Here are images of the NG concept of the flying wing jetliner designed for the NASA “Environmentally Responsible Aviation” program. Cruise for this design is about Mach 0.82 at 36,000 feet, for a nominal range of 8,000 n.m. Fuel burn was assumed to be 41.5% reduce from a 1998 baseline.
So, how does this compare with the proposed airliner version of the B-49 “wing”? What I’ve seen on that one looks like a classy ride.
I am not sure, but my sense is that a flying wing transport has a greater wingspan per payload than a standard aircraft. This could cause a real hassle parking it. Also, how do you hook up those tube thingys to load and unload passengers? With current designs you can adjust passenger capacity by simply adjusting fuselage length. Is N/G just trying to figure out a way to somehow amortize the cost of the B-2 development?
Big deal. An enlarged Northrop YB-49, thanks to bigger, more efficient engines than the -49’s eight Allison J35s, and improved airfoil and doubled wing area, and materials improved in the last 60 years. Jack Northrop’s performance was better and at least as promising. Check it out in my just-published 95% non-fiction novel, mined from the records: “Goodbye Beautiful Wing”, by Terrence O’Neill.
Big deal. An enlarged Northrop YB-49, thanks to bigger, more efficient engines than the -49’s eight Allison J35s, and improved airfoil and doubled wing area, and materials improved in the last 60 years. Jack Northrop’s performance was better and at least as promising. Check it out in my just-published 95% non-fiction novel, mined from the records: “Goodbye Beautiful Wing”, by Terrence O’Neill.
Windows?
Nope.