Blended Wing Aircraft, Inc. / JetZero BWB Projects

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20230422_190614_Adobe Acrobat.jpg
    Screenshot_20230422_190614_Adobe Acrobat.jpg
    391.6 KB · Views: 450
  • Screenshot_20230422_192326_Adobe Acrobat.jpg
    Screenshot_20230422_192326_Adobe Acrobat.jpg
    760.9 KB · Views: 489
Last edited:

Attachments

  • 117663-c38ac304ffa85e94cb317ea3a4512f06.png
    117663-c38ac304ffa85e94cb317ea3a4512f06.png
    217.2 KB · Views: 377
  • screenshot-2023-05-04-at-12-28-59-pm-645407a856b8d.png
    screenshot-2023-05-04-at-12-28-59-pm-645407a856b8d.png
    545.8 KB · Views: 315
There's an update coming!

https://www.afa.org/events/air-space-warfighters-action-blended-wing-body-announcement
"Join us on August 16 at 3 p.m. EDT for a historic announcement on the next phase of the Blended Wing Body aircraft prototype project. This effort aims to mature BWB technology and demonstrate its capabilities, giving the Department of the Air Force and commercial industry more options for future air platforms."
 

Air & Space Warfighters in Action: An Announcement on the Blended Wing Body Aircraft Prototype Project​

Date & Time
Join us on August 16 at 3 p.m. EDT for a historic announcement on the next phase of the Blended Wing Body aircraft prototype project. This effort aims to mature BWB technology and demonstrate its capabilities, giving the Department of the Air Force and commercial industry more options for future air platforms.The Aug. 16 event will present the next exciting step in Air Force innovation, featuring:- The Honorable Frank Kendall, Secretary of the Air Force- Dr. Ravi Chaudhary, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Energy, Installations, and Environment- Maj. Gen. Albert G. Miller, Director of Strategy, Plans, Requirements, and Programs, Headquarters Air Mobility Command- Lt. Gen. Bruce “Orville” Wright, USAF (Ret.), President & CEO, Air & Space Forces Association
 
According to Steve Trimble, it's a 767-sized demonstrator to fly in 2027.
 
GeorgeA said:
According to Steve Trimble, it's a 767-sized demonstrator to fly in 2027.
Click to expand...
JetZero is the prime, Scaled Composites will fabricate, PW1000 propulsion. Unclear if the demonstrator will be full-size.

Unfortunate designator is XBW-1.
 

Attachments

  • 2023-08-16 XWB-1 01.jpg
    2023-08-16 XWB-1 01.jpg
    468 KB · Views: 302
GeorgeA said:
JetZero is the prime, Scaled Composites will fabricate, PW1000 propulsion. Unclear if the demonstrator will be full-size.

Unfortunate designator is XBW-1.
Click to expand...
If they're using PW1000s for power, that's full size or dang close to it. A pair of PW1000s makes it A320neo sized.
 
Boeing winning this AND the TTBW demonstrator would be a bit of a lift. NG/Scaled makes all the sense in the world for this kind of tech demonstrator.
 
So did Lockheed's sub scale demonstrator of their Hybrid Wing Body concept die? Or am I merging 2 seperate programs into one due to murky memory. What happened with that promised sub scale demonstrator from LM btw?
 
Scott Kenny said:
If they're using PW1000s for power, that's full size or dang close to it. A pair of PW1000s makes it A320neo sized.
Click to expand...
It's probably 20-30% heavier than the A320neo. JetZero maintains that the drag reductions possible with the BWB reduce the necessary installed power. The increased power loading would tend to increase takeoff distance unless the takeoff speed is is similarly reduced.
 
So some quick calcs assuming PW1000 x2

  • Thrust = 33klb x2 = 66klb
  • Thrust/Weight > 0.2 - 0.25 (lower value similar to B-2 but likely to need more thrust for a engine out case in a twin. 0.25 still a bit lower than tube and wing for lower drag. This value could easily be much higher if it is STOL)
  • Max Take-Off Mass = 66/0.25 = 264klb (120tons)
  • Empty mass fraction > 0.35-0.4 compared to other aircraft
  • Fuel fraction= 1 - empty mass fraction
  • Total fuel capacity = 78 to 72tons
So it's likely to have significantly less fuel offload than KC-46 at short ranges. Maybe at longer ranges it could have similar offload due to lower tanker fuel consumption. Say the design case is 50t offload at range = 28t tanker fuel burn, 30% lower tanker fuel burn than KC-46 stated hence KC-46 should use 40t instead of 28t. For KC-46 40t+50t = roughly KC-46 fuel capacity.

I mostly wonder whether the aircraft has a passenger cabin (pressurised in the demo?) or whether this is interchangeable with fuel tanks for this tanker.
 
red admiral said:
Maybe at longer ranges it could have similar offload due to lower tanker fuel consumption.
Click to expand...

That AvLeak story says the company projects the Z5 to carry twice the fuel (I assume this is give) as the KC-46 over a long-range mission. I can't square that with your numbers.
 
i don't know the criteria for X-designation. Any idea if it will get to be an X-plane?
 
TomS said:
That AvLeak story says the company projects the Z5 to carry twice the fuel (I assume this is give) as the KC-46 over a long-range mission. I can't square that with your numbers.
Click to expand...
This tech demonstrator might not match the specs JetZero has been promoting for a service-spec Z-5.
 
TomS said:
That AvLeak story says the company projects the Z5 to carry twice the fuel (I assume this is give) as the KC-46 over a long-range mission. I can't square that with your numbers.
Click to expand...
Maybe offload at really long range rather than total offload? It's not necessarily a realistic mission profile that's being quoted.
 
I wonder how Dzyne Technologies with their Ascent BWB projects, number of patents and Pryce as VP is connected to the JetZero storyline.
 
flateric said:
I wonder how Dzyne Technologies with their Ascent BWB projects, number of patents and Pryce as VP is connected to the JetZero storyline.
Click to expand...
Very closely connected. Check out the Steve Trimble article in Aviation Week. Seems like a lot of the Dzyne alumni ended up at JetZero.
 
stever_sl said:
XP-67 paved the way, but my post showing it was deleted. Alas!
Click to expand...
I can return it back, but then we gonna take the slippery road of 'the first one'. Why Moonbat and not Miles and, in fact, Woyevodsky back in 1919?
 
Last edited:
Still wonder if their patented BLI solution will work.
 
TomS said:
That AvLeak story says the company projects the Z5 to carry twice the fuel (I assume this is give) as the KC-46 over a long-range mission. I can't square that with your numbers.
Click to expand...
The prototype may be a half scale to 2/3 scale model or so. As said, it's got installed power of an A320neo, and final type is expected to be roughly the size of a 767. An A320neo is ~90klbs empty, while a KC-46 is ~180klbs empty. Of course, max takeoff weights are very differently scaled, A320neo is 175klbs, while the KC-46 is 415klbs MTOW.
 
taildragger said:
It's probably 20-30% heavier than the A320neo. JetZero maintains that the drag reductions possible with the BWB reduce the necessary installed power. The increased power loading would tend to increase takeoff distance unless the takeoff speed is is similarly reduced.
Click to expand...
Possibly acceptable for a tanker, not so acceptable for a transport. Especially not a STOL transport!
 
Scott Kenny said:
The prototype may be a half scale to 2/3 scale model or so. As said, it's got installed power of an A320neo, and final type is expected to be roughly the size of a 767. An A320neo is ~90klbs empty, while a KC-46 is ~180klbs empty. Of course, max takeoff weights are very differently scaled, A320neo is 175klbs, while the KC-46 is 415klbs MTOW.
Click to expand...
The JetZero press release says “full-scale prototype” in three places. Perhaps they mean external dimensions of the OML and wingspan, and not MTOW. P&W’s highest-thrust version of the GTF is the PW1133 used on the A321XLR, at 33,000 lbs. Combined, that’s just over half of the thrust of a KC-46, and would seem to be significantly underpowered for this mission. Something isn’t converging here.
 
GeorgeA said:
The JetZero press release says “full-scale prototype” in three places. Perhaps they mean external dimensions of the OML and wingspan, and not MTOW. P&W’s highest-thrust version of the GTF is the PW1133 used on the A321XLR, at 33,000 lbs. Combined, that’s just over half of the thrust of a KC-46, and would seem to be significantly underpowered for this mission. Something isn’t converging here.
Click to expand...
I'm reminded of the Vought V-173 prototype for the XF5U. Close to 90% the size of the XF5U, but about 1/8 the gross weight.

BWBs are supposed to have something like 30% less drag than a Tube plane the same size. Using KC46 as 100 for thrust and drag, the BWB should therefore have a thrust of about 54 and a drag of about 70, so thrust to drag ratio is .77 compared to the KC46...

Yeah, this seems significantly underpowered. It might not need KC46 engines, but it needs something bigger than a PW1000. Or it needs a third PW1000!

As to the fuel load for transfer, the A330MRTT (which has about the same fuel capacity as the KC46), can transfer 143000lbs at 1000nmi with 2 hours on station. I couldn't find a similar stat for the KC46, but I'm going to assume that it's close enough to the same as to make no difference.

I just don't see something the size of an A320neo hauling that much fuel.

It must be an OML full size and significantly under weight prototype.
 
Just remember, both the KC-46 and the A330MRTT only carry fuel in their wings and bellies... they retain their full airliner main passenger deck (which can also be used for cargo if the seats are removed) which can be loaded in addition to their max fuel load.

What if the BWB is supposed to be built in separate fuel-as-cargo-only and passenger/cargo-only versions?
That would give a much higher fuel weight to MTOW ratio.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BlackBat242 said:
Just remember, both the KC-46 and the A330MRTT only carry fuel in their wings and bellies... they retain their full airliner main passenger deck (which can also be used for cargo if the seats are removed) which can be loaded in addition to their max fuel load.

What if the BWB is supposed to be built in separate fuel-as-cargo-only and passenger/cargo-only versions?
That would give a much higher fuel weight to MTOW ratio.
Click to expand...
Could be. Kinda depends on just how big the cargo bay is intended to be. The big flat whale tail suggests a very wide cargo box.

But then the power to weight ratio gets a whole lot worse. Remember, we're talking about a plane carrying over 2x its empty weight in fuel for this job. A few planes do that, but not many!
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom