Lockheed Martin Skunk Works Hybrid Wing Body (HWB)

I think we were both referring to the distributed propulsion version. The inboard engines would be pretty close to the fuselage and aligned with the trailing edge. With the overwing installation there should be no issue.
 
Model of the Lockheed Martin Hybrid Wing Body (HWB) demonstrator on display at the AIAA SciTech Forum and Exposition 2017.

Source:
https://twitter.com/TheWoracle/status/819211718576443395
 

Attachments

  • C15st0sWgAABaLj.jpg
    C15st0sWgAABaLj.jpg
    121.8 KB · Views: 881
Model of the Lockheed Martin Hybrid Wing Body (HWB) stealth tanker on display at the AIAA SciTech Forum and Exposition 2017.

Source:
https://twitter.com/TheWoracle/status/819211171442081792
https://twitter.com/TheWoracle/status/819210345659174912
http://rebrn.com/re/lockheed-martins-stealthy-tanker-concept-3086827/
 

Attachments

  • C15sN-NWEAQ94oU.jpg large.jpeg
    C15sN-NWEAQ94oU.jpg large.jpeg
    159.8 KB · Views: 854
  • C15rd4TWQAA5sbH.jpg large.jpeg
    C15rd4TWQAA5sbH.jpg large.jpeg
    117 KB · Views: 836
  • T8wb2tl.jpg
    T8wb2tl.jpg
    974.8 KB · Views: 274
Quote to solve that long-standing misunderstanding:

"NASA has to have a public, "non-proprietary" design to work on. Hence the "HWB" designs that mirror Boeing's propriety BWB, but are not quite the same (also NASA's "Generic Transport Model", which is basically a public-domain 757).
The Langley low-boom design is a non-proprietary equivalent to Gulfstream's X-54A, so the results of any analyses NASA does can be published to all."
- CammNut
 
Source:
https://twitter.com/laraseligman/status/836569210247593984
 

Attachments

  • C5wXQxfVAAA6130.jpg large.jpeg
    C5wXQxfVAAA6130.jpg large.jpeg
    55.4 KB · Views: 179
"Hybrid Wing Body Emerges As Potential C-130 Successor"
Feb 28, 2017
Guy Norris | Aviation Week & Space Technology

Source:
http://aviationweek.com/technology/hybrid-wing-body-emerges-potential-c-130-successor

Although the search for more efficient strategic airlift, including air refueling capability, provided the initial impetus for the HWB, the recently completed analysis points to the potential for a broader family of variously sized span loader aircraft. The result “has a lot of people at Lockheed pretty excited,” says Skunk Works HWB aerodynamics lead Andrew Wick. “Because we retaining an essentially traditional cargo shell, the configuration is pretty scalable.”

Under a NASA contract Lockheed Martin looked at scaling down the current strategic airlifter-size HWB to Boeing 757 or C-130 size. “We were able to retain a lot of the same advantages at the smaller scale and design what would be basically be a C-130 replacement that has a 98% improvement in aerodynamic efficiency. That is almost twice the aerodynamic efficiency of the C-130 and 20% better than the 757,” says Wick. Results indicate that “when you couple that with the 757 mission you get a vehicle with almost twice the payload and yet is the same size as the C-130,” he adds.

The configuration is targeted at next-generation airlifters, aerial tankers and commercial bulk-cargo freighters. “Of the three, probably the most exciting is the tanker,” says Wick. “For the first time ever we have a mobility aircraft with better aerodynamic efficiency than the current tankers. That means we have the ability to have one aircraft do both roles.” Given these advantages, Wick adds, “I can say the next Lockheed transport is going to be HWB.”

Structural analysis of the HWB and the over-wing-nacelle has also alleviated concerns that the innovative engine-mounting concept could be prone to flutter—a potentially serious design drawback. Overall analysis of the structural layout and a finite element model developed for the HWB showed that the “structure is reasonable . . . and the aerodynamic design resulting from the RCEE optimization effort is a feasible configuration,” says Lockheed Martin aerodynamic staff engineer Jason Action.
 

Attachments

  • TECH-HWB_3_LockheedMartin.jpg
    TECH-HWB_3_LockheedMartin.jpg
    25.1 KB · Views: 146
I've included the HWB in the latest issue of US Transport Projects (#7). I have high confidence that both the configuration and the dimensions are accurate, coming from a CAD diagram of a wind tunnel model.
USTP #07 available here: http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/blog/?p=2956
 

Attachments

  • ustp07-HWB.jpg
    ustp07-HWB.jpg
    101 KB · Views: 337
Kevin Renner said:
Maybe its time to fund some sub scale 25%-50% flight demonstrators

How about funding the Stealth Tanker? Since that is my favorite plane of the two.
 
Current LM HWB STV configuration
 

Attachments

  • LM RCEE HWB STV - AIAA Aviation forum - June 2017.jpg
    LM RCEE HWB STV - AIAA Aviation forum - June 2017.jpg
    324 KB · Views: 762
It keeps getting more and more like a regular aircraft. :p Pretty soon we'll be looking at a Fokker 614 and calling it an HWB.
 
Well that's the X-plane demonstrator, not the operational vehicle. Ease of manufacture to facilitate flight testing is probably one of the key design criteria.
 
A conventional tail to allow continuity with existing loading practices and equipment is Lockheed's point with this design and they'll want to trial that. There's a minimum size to the rear ramp, unless you only load pedal cars and tricycles on to it, so a subscale demonstrator is going to have different proportions from a large aircraft.
 
Source:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/news/a28253/lockheed-martin-skunk-works-video-75th-anniversary/
 

Attachments

  • gallery-1505765213-screen-shot-2017-09-18-at-81451-am.jpg
    gallery-1505765213-screen-shot-2017-09-18-at-81451-am.jpg
    85.4 KB · Views: 677
sferrin said:
It keeps getting more and more like a regular aircraft. :p Pretty soon we'll be looking at a Fokker 614 and calling it an HWB.

HAHAHAHAHAHA.
I wouldn't be surprised if they keep going with their multidisciplinary FEM/unsteady RANS/ LES / CFD/ PIV/wind tunnel/adjoint method/insert-random-three-letter acronym analysis, they will find out the optimum real world design is...a tube and wing.

But seriously, i am not sold on the whole premise of the HWB. Just from first order considerations.
The tube and wing configuration has lots of wetted area but excellent stability. The BWB on the other hand has minimum wetted area but it's harder to get the cg range. So you say "let's combine the two!". Problem is, you inherit both the qualities and the flaws of the parent configurations. When i look at the HWB, i don't see less wetted area, and the non-circular pressure vessel is still there. So most of the overall benefits must come from the powerplant using very large bypass ratio, and large usage of composites, which you can still apply to tube and wing (well, not with engines under the wing) or BWB configurations.

Man, i am really cynical of late. :(
 
Powered Low Speed Testing of the Hybrid Wing Body

https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2017-0100
 

Attachments

  • HWB-004.png
    HWB-004.png
    3.4 MB · Views: 496
  • HWB-006.png
    HWB-006.png
    1.6 MB · Views: 388
  • HWB-008.png
    HWB-008.png
    706.9 KB · Views: 344
  • HWB-009.png
    HWB-009.png
    1.8 MB · Views: 143
  • HWB-010.png
    HWB-010.png
    1.5 MB · Views: 178
sferrin said:
yasotay said:
sferrin said:
yasotay said:
Weight of the gear associated with the raised nose may not make its way onto an already astronomically expensive aircraft.
Why astronomically expensive? It's not a stealth aircraft.
That is what the USAF Inc. told their primary customer last time they asked.

What? The USAF has customers? They told them it wasn't a stealth aircraft? They told them it would be expensive? Who is the customer and who is "USAF Inc."?

The United States Army is the primary customer.
 
@AeroFranz:
HWB function like more or less like an augmentor. It's all the airframe that works in symbiose to reach a better level of efficiency. The difficulty comes with the propulsive system and airflow distorsion at certain flight regime (low speed is one). Hence the model with representative bolted-on slats and flaps.

Boeing has already worked hard that flight domain.

For a century designer have mostly decoupled the airframe and its propulsive means. Stepping firmly into the futute is to get that right... from low speed to high speed.

(Woaw got straped in gradiloquence. Sorry if that sounded pedentic).
 
Not to repeat what's been said already but...They should be calling it SWBB for -Slightly Wing Body Blended...Really is moving away from the large blended Body area wing with the engines on top (close together) and way aft. The older concept could put a 3rd engine where the T-tail is now. The engines are getting further apart and lower on the aircraft. Looks more like an conventional aircraft with enhanced blending.
 

Attachments

  • BWB.png
    BWB.png
    199.8 KB · Views: 149
  • xconcept.jpg
    xconcept.jpg
    54.7 KB · Views: 147
  • 2015AFA_BlendedWingRenderG.jpg
    2015AFA_BlendedWingRenderG.jpg
    114.5 KB · Views: 171
Looks like they're still relying on the old Beech refueling pods ...
 
Back
Top Bottom