Blended Wing Aircraft, Inc. / JetZero BWB Projects

Thanks to Bananastan levels of procurment corruption can't make an old airliner based tanker work , BWB market might be far too small to justify the cost.
 
Last edited:
raptor82 said:

U.S. Air Force Office Pitches Engine Investment For Mid-Market Airliner | Aviation Week Network

The late-February request from the Air Force reflects a broader strategy to use government funds to seed investments in future commercial products.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
Click to expand...
PW2040 surely ain't a problem if they want this thing to be a military transport/tanker, but since their ultimate goal is MoM airliner, they'll surely find this to be a big help from MoD. It's also about time for a new RB211/PW2000 sized engine as well, though I'm not sure how things will pan out with the MoM airliner segment in the future.

Airbus with their NGSW being potentially powered with LEAP or UltraFan still doesn't seem to be interested directly competing in the segment. If anything, They'll bring a 321XLR replacement in the future. I'm not sure what Boeing wants these days ever since NMA fell dead on the water, but I think it seems for certain that there wouldn't be new MoM twin-aisle.

We'll see what JetZero could do in this segment, or if they could reach the point of military adoption in the first place, before any discussions concerning civil airliner variants.
 
Well, in impact and survival from such, generally speaking the passenger should have their BACK to the direction of travel. Facing forwards is a second best.

Sideways? Looks like a very efficient way of fracturing the C spine region. So at least they die quickly.

Would these BWB designs really have windows or the modern concept style of screens making the fuselage contiguous and ?stronger?

fine for tankers/cargo but unless they sort the layout, not so much for passengers.
 
DWG said:
The perennial problem of BWB airliner concepts.
Click to expand...

I would imagine that based on the superb safety record of the most recent widebody airliners to enter service, ( the 787 and A350 ) they might argue that the passenger evacuation standards in place can be relaxed a bit to accommodate this aircraft. Whether U.S. and European regulators would go for it is up for debate. The issue is that every so often you do have a one in a million accident like the JAL A350 hitting another plane on the runway where you actually do need to get people out as quickly as possible.
 
alberchico said:
I would imagine that based on the superb safety record of the most recent widebody airliners to enter service, ( the 787 and A350 ) they might argue that the passenger evacuation standards in place can be relaxed a bit to accommodate this aircraft. Whether U.S. and European regulators would go for it is up for debate. The issue is that every so often you do have a one in a million accident like the JAL A350 hitting another plane on the runway where you actually do need to get people out as quickly as possible.
Click to expand...
I think there are two issues there:
The first is that evac standards are based on elapsed time to get everyone off the aircraft. If you need to get them off, then the circumstances aren't going to give you a longer time to do that safely just because it's a 787 or A350. It's not an ETOPS-like equivalent where the increase in engine MTBF was so large that you could afford to rely on one engine for longer without increased risk over the previous generation.

The second is that you really don't want to change two major aspects of the aircraft - configuration and evac time - at the same time. Change one, demonstrate it's safe, then change the other. That's just good science.
 
Foo Fighter said:
Well, in impact and survival from such, generally speaking the passenger should have their BACK to the direction of travel. Facing forwards is a second best.

Sideways? Looks like a very efficient way of fracturing the C spine region. So at least they die quickly.
Click to expand...
I was parsing that as still seats facing forward.

Facing forward when you can see what is coming towards you is better for motion sickness. Not sure about when you cannot see what is coming.


Foo Fighter said:
Would these BWB designs really have windows or the modern concept style of screens making the fuselage contiguous and ?stronger?

fine for tankers/cargo but unless they sort the layout, not so much for passengers.
Click to expand...
Gotta be screens on the 4 compartments. First Class gets windows.
 
Facing backwards is better for impact, especially with respect to the 'C' spine regtion. Sideway into deceleration is a huge threat which is why F1 and other high performance car drivers have to have neck muscles developed especially to deal with lateral 'G' effects.

www.telegraph.co.uk

It's safer, so why don't plane seats face backwards?

Rear-facing seats and redesigned seatbelts could give passengers more protection, and improve survival rates in air accidents, an aviation expert has suggested.
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
 
alberchico said:
I would imagine that based on the superb safety record of the most recent widebody airliners to enter service, ( the 787 and A350 ) they might argue that the passenger evacuation standards in place can be relaxed a bit to accommodate this aircraft. Whether U.S. and European regulators would go for it is up for debate.
Click to expand...

This would have been a much easier sell a few years back, now it's political cryptonite. Not gonna happen.

It's not visible in that rendering, but I think there are possibly additional evac routes to the rear (there are "door" markings to the aft end of each cabin section). Each cabin section is short enough that evacuating each of them through their own exit should meet all requirements.
 
DWG said:
The first is that evac standards are based on elapsed time to get everyone off the aircraft.
Click to expand...
Don't need evacuation standards if you can shove them in an ejection compartment/ titanium bathtub and blow them out the back like a supply airdrop if something happens /s
 
Reddington777 said:
Don't need evacuation standards if you can shove them in an ejection compartment/ titanium bathtub and blow them out the back like a supply airdrop if something happens /s
Click to expand...
I know First Class is getting ridiculously over-featured, turning into private little pods, but this seems a little excessive even for First!
 
Tuna said:
It's not visible in that rendering, but I think there are possibly additional evac routes to the rear (there are "door" markings to the aft end of each cabin section). Each cabin section is short enough that evacuating each of them through their own exit should meet all requirements.
Click to expand...
I suspect you've got galley and toilets back there, but also it means multiple holes in the rear pressure bulkhead, and a minimum of 6 flight attendants (4 rear, 2 front port and starboard), where a 200-250 seater only needs 4-5. Plus I can see the FAA having problems with the rear flight attendants being out of sight of the passengers during the critical early seconds of the evac. You can't yell at them to leave their damn luggage behind if you can't see them.

But the biggest question in my mind is whether there would be sufficient space under the tail in the case of a gear-up landing.

And on top of that, the certification standard is 90s, with half the exits blocked, in the dark. I presume they'll insist on the worst case of three rear exits blocked, and I think it's entirely possible they'll insist on all four given the 'half the exits blocked' scenario presumes fire on one side and fire from the engines means the rear set of exits clearly has to be considered 'a side'. Which means funneling about 200 pax through one rear exit, including those from the opposite side of the aircraft, or sending all of them out the front exits. In the dark.

I think that's a problem.
 
Reddington777 said:
Don't need evacuation standards if you can shove them in an ejection compartment/ titanium bathtub and blow them out the back like a supply airdrop if something happens /s
Click to expand...
You are not talking about folk in their prime necesarily, the average punter for air fair is obese and barely able to get into their own way.
That sort of system would never be green lit for passenger service outside the military system.
 
Foo Fighter said:
You are not talking about folk in their prime necesarily, the average punter for air fair is obese and barely able to get into their own way.
That sort of system would never be green lit for passenger service outside the military system.
Click to expand...
Oh I said it in jest mostly because the absurdity of the layout in terms of evacuating passengers.

I do remember capsules like this being discussed somewhere though it was parachutes and werent just plopped out the back like I described haha.

Something crazy like attached
 

Attachments

  • oeLLn589QCg720j32F2lHW7OgSzqTJpvyuecZdu90wk.jpg
    oeLLn589QCg720j32F2lHW7OgSzqTJpvyuecZdu90wk.jpg
    55.5 KB · Views: 76
Last edited:
Reddington777 said:
Oh I said it in jest mostly because the absurdity of the layout in terms of evacuating passengers.

I do remember capsules like this being discussed somewhere though it was parachutes and werent just plopped out the back like I described haha.

Something crazy like attached
Click to expand...
Gotcha, there have been projects to parachute whole aircraft or just the passenger compartment, not certain any of them wouuld work ITRW and with 7x7/Airbus x etc.

Being somewhere to the right of Ghngis I wonder if we should not have restrictions on those who can fly, the cheap flight 'thing' has led to avaitaion being a mass transport system it was probably never intended to be. Human rights folk would be lining up with pitchforks etc tho'.

Also, backlashes across the world against the impact of tourism on the environment and folk who live (Or try to) anywhere on the destinations list.

A permanent solution, hoo nose tbh but, change is coming and when the reset occurs, electric and compartment parachutes might actually make sense.......

Stay well oput there in Lalalalala land.
 
The parachute stuff isn't a viable solution because they don't solve for the common case, which is a a fully fueled aircraft on the ground potentially starting to catch fire.

It's much more common for accident to force an evacuation before takeoff/after landing than it is to have a major problem in-flight. IIRC on the order of one precautionary evacuation every week. They are just not as big news as the in-flight accidents because the evacuation standards actually work and it's vanishingly rare for people to actually die.
 
Grabbing some interior images and diagrams that don't seem to be in this thread. These are May 2023

paxex.aero

JetZero seeks comfy cabins, fuel efficiency with blended wing design | PaxEx.Aero

The JetZero team believes it can deliver a truly revolutionary product, more spacious for passengers and more efficient for airlines. But, also, a notable lack of windows on board.
paxex.aero paxex.aero

1751909730557.png
Looking at this cabin layout and assuming exit doors at every cross-aisle, I don't actually think the egress requirement is that bad. No one has to cross more than six rows of seats forward or aft to get to a cross-aisle, and the cross-aisles are clear walkways, not obstructed like emergency exit rows. It does show six jump seats for FAs, and at 232 passengers, this layout needs at least five anyway. A straight two-class short-haul configuration probably needs six FAs, since it will easily push up over 250 pax. Probably tops out around 280 pax if you ditch the lay-flats for an upright premium product in the forward cabin.

Interior images of concepts by Factory Design. Nothing too far out here, honestly, aside from the possible screen rather than windows along the exterior walls. I suspect that won't happen because it can malfunction, while windows mostly can't (except the auto-dimming windows on the 787).

Note that the diagram shows the galley in the center triangle between the two aisles in the front section of the aircraft. The pics below don't seem to show that change.

runwaygirlnetwork.com

JetZero and Factorydesign unveil cabin concepts for BWB jet - Runway Girl

Because the JetZero blended wing body aircraft is effectively one huge wing, it provides greater internal volume in the cabin, offering new possibilities for the passenger experience.
runwaygirlnetwork.com runwaygirlnetwork.com

Looking forward from the back of Business/First Class
1751910265713.png

Looking across the aisle behind Business/First.

1751910311984.png

Looking forward in the main cabin
1751910237662.png

Looking aft in the main cabin.

1751910566073.png

And one more, from a different source, also looking aft from Business/First into the main cabin:
https://www.aircraftinteriorsintern...t-look-inside-jetzeros-blended-wing-body.html

1751911791645.png
 
TomS said:
Interior images of concepts by Factory Design. Nothing too far out here, honestly, aside from the possible screen rather than windows along the exterior walls. I suspect that won't happen because it can malfunction, while windows mostly can't (except the auto-dimming windows on the 787).
Click to expand...

I'm an idiot. Of course there can't be windows on the sides of the main cabin, because the wings are there.
 
TomS said:
I'm an idiot. Of course there can't be windows on the sides of the main cabin, because the wings are there.
Click to expand...
My dear Sir, you are most decidedly *not* an idiot. Because the wings would *contain* the cabin, there *can* be windows on both sides of the main cabin in a flying wing leading edge (and with *much* better views than in the current cigar tube arrangement), until aerodynamic devices such as slats come into play. Current conventional passenger class seat allocations would be thoroughly shuffled though...
 
Last edited:
martinbayer said:
There *can* be windows on both sides of the main cabin in a flying wing leading edge (and with *much* better views than in the current cigar tube arrangement), until aerodynamic devices such as slats come into play.
Click to expand...
Windows on the leading edge of a pressurised cabin… ? Bird Strike has to be considered… there’s a reason why the pilot’s windshield is a couple of inches thick laminated glass. It’s going to be exceptionally difficult to even make non see through pressurised lightweight structures meet the bird strike requirements.
 
Zoo Tycoon said:
Windows on the leading edge of a pressurised cabin… ? Bird Strike has to be considered… there’s a reason why the pilot’s windshield is a couple of inches thick laminated glass. It’s going to be exceptionally difficult to even make non see through pressurised lightweight structures meet the bird strike requirements.
Click to expand...
Now I'm not an advocate of stubbornly subsonic BWB designs by any stretch of the imagination (though aesthetics wise they kinda do look cute, don't they?), but as a bicontinental aerospace engineer, I'm all for exploring alternative configurations to identify the good, the bad, and the ugly, and assuming the B-2 cockpit is reasonably bird proof, there's a lot of engineering tradeoffs to be had....
 
Last edited:
Yeah the blended wing does look kinda sexy but it’s a concept that been around in the form proposed today since the early sixties. Yeah the minimum number of windows in the bird struck zone is pretty straightforward including the B2…. A bird strike into a pressurised shell is another level of problem… think a needle popping a party balloon.

Not that long ago, I was part of a BWB study (with the A Team) and the problems just kept coming. I watch JetZero with interest and wish em the best. Very novel idea to start this off as an A2A tanker BTW…. You don’t have to solve many of the PAX related problems.
 
I just don’t see people I see big beautiful hypersonic strike missiles lining the interior
 

Attachments

  • 88B320F6-4556-4454-B6E5-0490FD79B9D2.png
    88B320F6-4556-4454-B6E5-0490FD79B9D2.png
    1.5 MB · Views: 28
Zoo Tycoon said:
Yeah the blended wing does look kinda sexy but it’s a concept that been around in the form proposed today since the early sixties. Yeah the minimum number of windows in the bird struck zone is pretty straightforward including the B2…. A bird strike into a pressurised shell is another level of problem… think a needle popping a party balloon.

Not that long ago, I was part of a BWB study (with the A Team) and the problems just kept coming. I watch JetZero with interest and wish em the best. Very novel idea to start this off as an A2A tanker BTW…. You don’t have to solve many of the PAX related problems.
Click to expand...
What are your thoughts on the LM Hybrid Wing Body? Seems like they started on one thing and it evolved almost to a BWB.
2015AFA_BlendedWingRenderH.jpg

124881-7bdd7c58a8278bff15f7877d238a2d13.jpg
 
Sferrin said:
What are your thoughts on the LM Hybrid Wing Body? Seems like they started on one thing and it evolved almost to a BWB.
View attachment 795660

View attachment 795661
Click to expand...

IIRC, the white aircraft is a proposed subscale demonstrator for the full-sized grey one. The tail end is proportionally larger because there aren't subscale Humvees and tanks.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom