Northrop Grumman Commercial Flying Wing

[Steve Pace]

This is an interesting 2011 NASA program of which I've heard very little about. It looks like a white B-21. -SP

 

[SpudmanWP]

Based on cockpit window size... that thing is HUGE.

 

[sferrin]

Based on cockpit window size... that thing is HUGE.

It would almost have to be to have much outsized cargo volume. If those are GE90s how big would that make it? On second thought, those look bigger than GE90s.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

From https://www.aiaa.org/uploadedFiles/About-AIAA/Press-Room/Key_Speeches-Reports-and-Presentations/2012/Drake-Northrop-AVC-AIAA-GEPC2.pdf

Discussed in 2012 in topic NASA Environmentally Responsible Aviation (ERA) Project and in the NGB topic too.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Cockpit windows still seem a little small for that plane size.

 

[Steve Pace]

Based on cockpit window size... that thing is HUGE.

It would almost have to be to have much outsized cargo volume. If those are GE90s how big would that make it? On second thought, those look bigger than GE90s.

Four R-R RB211 engines or four 16,000 lbf GE TechX high bypass ration engines. -SP

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Actually the full size design needed 4 37,000-40,000 lb advanced high bypass next generation engines yet to be designed (based on ADVENT technologies). The 16,000lb TechX engines are for the 55% scale demonstrator.

 

[sferrin]

Those must be tiny windows.

 

[Avimimus]

Those must be tiny windows.

One would think that larger windows would be easy given the lack of stealth requirements... (btw. It is pretty neat to see what is basically a transport descendant of the B-2 technology conceptualised).

Any idea what the minimum airfield size would be?

 

[bobbymike]

From https://www.aiaa.org/uploadedFiles/About-AIAA/Press-Room/Key_Speeches-Reports-and-Presentations/2012/Drake-Northrop-AVC-AIAA-GEPC2.pdf

Discussed in 2012 in topic NASA Environmentally Responsible Aviation (ERA) Project and in the NGB topic too.

Arsenal plane extraordinaire

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Those must be tiny windows.

One would think that larger windows would be easy given the lack of stealth requirements... (btw. It is pretty neat to see what is basically a transport descendant of the B-2 technology conceptualised).

Any idea what the minimum airfield size would be?

6000ft takeoff run as opposed to 8000ft for the conventional version.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Those must be tiny windows.

One would think that larger windows would be easy given the lack of stealth requirements...

It needs synthetic vision for the passengers - I imagine the crew have it too and the windows are for emergency only.

 

[sferrin]

Those must be tiny windows.

One would think that larger windows would be easy given the lack of stealth requirements...

It needs synthetic vision for the passengers - I imagine the crew have it too and the windows are for emergency only.

I think it'd be neat to have an Occulus hooked up to a set of external cameras on the aircraft. Who needs a window? B)

 

[VTOLicious]

Wouldn't it be more practical to install the engines in nacelles without compromising aerodynamics too much?
BWB- and HWB-concepts seem to go this way.

...hmm, just noticed that the engines are located lateral of the CG. Balance is most probably the main reason for the buried installation.

Attached is some CGI of the proposed Subscale Test Vehicle. More info here: http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/blog/?p=336

BR Michael