by About 101 years after the world’s first aircraft “blended wing body” (before it immediately falls back onto the earth), a flood of large manufacturers design aircraft in the unique aerodynamic style. This week we gained a new look at how one of these planes could take shape.
The natilus aviation start has published reproduced images of its mixed wing body aircraft, a concept concept that would enable more spacious, driving dust and potentially cheaper flights.
Natilus is a startup based in San Diego, which was co -founded in 2016 by Aleksey Matyushev and Anatoly Starikov with the aircraft constructions. The models show a seat configuration in which three courses would walk through the aircraft, whereby futuristic stands on video conferences would be possible during flight.
The planes have theorized about the potential of a mixed wing body (BWB) for more than a century. But in recent years, flight manufacturers such as Airbus, Bombardier and Boeing-Sowie have a number of start-ups with a sharpened responsibility in reducing emissions and a number of start-ups explore the opportunities for mixed wings.
A revolutionary design
In simple words, a BWB aircraft does not have a clear dividing line between the main body and the wings, which are mixed together instead. The result is an aerodynamic form that enables a more fuel-efficient flight.
The mixed wing differs from the “flying wing”-the design-used for the B-2 bomber, in which the entire payload of an aircraft is used within the wing structure. But they are similar in that they are both weak.
The idea of the BWB was first thought of by the Russian inventor Nicolas Woyevodsky in the 1920s. The result of his designs was the Westland Dreadnought, a one -engine monoplane with a solid wing. Only one was built, and in May 1924 it fell in Yeovil, Somerset, in Maiden flight and seriously injured the test pilots.
Further prototypes were developed in the following decades, including designs by Vincent Burnelli, British manufacturer Miles and an long-distance interceptor aircraft called “Moonbat”. The latter was developed for the US air weapon, but its production was canceled after the prototype was destroyed by a motor fire.
Videopods and “Club seating places”
Over the decades, the BWB design was in advance of the “tube and wing” design that Boeing and Airbus took over. The fuel-efficient BWB aircraft is back on the table with the airlines under pressure to reach the NET zero goals by 2050 to 2050.
Natilus is one of the smaller companies in the mix. His horizon aircraft will have a range of 3,500 nautical miles with a capacity of up to 196 passengers. This brings this special BWB in a similar competitive area as Boeing 737-800, which has a capacity of 189 and a range of 2,500 to 3,850 nautical miles.
But it is the other numbers that will attract potential buyers. According to Natilus, the horizon reduces the operating costs by 50 percent and the aircraft is 25 percent lighter than conventional jets.
Natilus says: “The mixed wing body dealers exceed conventional tube and wing aircraft in the areas of efficiency, performance and environmental impacts, which leads to improved fleet processes and at the same time protects our planet for future generations.”
With a configuration of 196 passengers, the horizon would have space for 108 in the economy class (at 31 inches), 48 in Economy-Plus (34 inches) and 40 in the first class (38 inches). Natilus renderings show the potential for “video conference pods”, while there are also plans for “club seating places” configurations that enable the groups to assemble during longer flights.
Crucial for potential buyers, says Natilus, that the planes are designed so that they can use existing airport infrastructure. You will also use the same engines as conventional aircraft. In an interview with CNN 2024, co -founder Matyushev said that the plan was to put the horizon into service in early 2030. It seems that another manufacturer could beat her.
Ambitious competitors
The startup jetzero based in California has similar ambitions to Natilus. The company received the support of United Airlines, which launched 200 of the Z4 level of 250 people by 2030. In this size, the aircraft would be larger than the single-AIS-BOEND and the Airbus A320, but it is smaller than the division of Airbus A320, but it is a smaller grap that is on the market in a vital game in a vital-grap-aist-Asle-Asle-Asle-Asle-Asle-Asle-Asle-Assel-Assel-Comm to in the areas.
United Airlines’ company previously said that the width of the Z4 would create a “living room in the sky”. But it doesn’t just focus on the production of trading jets. Jetzero received another thrust when the US Air Force has concluded a contract of 235 million US dollars (£ 172 million) for a demonstrator plane. According to Frank Kendall, the US secretary of the Air Force, it was about “maintaining our advantage through China”. It could be that these military aircraft are first developed and pave the way for commercial jets in the future.
Other manufacturers are involved in the race. Jetzero was a NASA McDonnell Douglas project in the early nineties, which culminated in 1997 in a successful test flight of a 17-foot demonstrator (the co-founder of Jetzero, Mark Page, led this project). Boeing took over the designs after he smeared with McDonnell and created the unmanned X-48B and X48-C aircraft, which were tested more than 100 times. But in the end they were never put into service because other research initiatives had priority.
Airbus has unveiled plans for a BWB prototype called Maveric, which was presented at an air exhibition in Singapore in 2020. While Bombardier is the first business jet manufacturer to examine the potential of the blended wing design with its “Ecojet” project.
The advantages, analyzed
Although Boeing pauses its plans, the dream for mixed wings remains alive. Fuel efficiency is the main reason. Blended wing jets are considerably more efficient compared to tube-wing aircraft, since they can create more buoyancy when flying and less resistance. This means that the plane is cheaper and generated lower emissions.
“They offer significant fuel savings compared to conventional aircraft, at least theoretically, since they avoid all joints and fillets, generate the form resistance, or the loss of energy due to wind resistance,” says Pilot Brian Smith, who flies after a British freight flight company and previously flown with Ryanair, Emirates and Air.
There will be exciting bonuses from a passenger point. The interior would be wider and more spacious because the level is not structured by a long, thin tube. This could enable some groundbreaking configurations that are impossible in a tubular design. In view of the fact that the wider cabin design enables several courses, the boarding and wear and tear process for passengers would probably be much faster and more pleasant.
According to all reports, BWB aircraft could be quieter than conventional jets. Since you are more efficient, you can use smaller engines that create less noise. The location of the engines above the fuselage would also protect passengers from excessive noise. Natilus estimates that his planes would be around 40 percent calmer than tube wing aircraft.
And if the aircraft, as Natilus suggests, can deliver at 50 percent lower operating costs, this could also enable aircraft to evaluate aircraft more competitive than conventional tube and wing services.
Dilemmata and hurdles
But there are inevitably some BWB design storms. Due to the wider interior of the aircraft, fewer passengers have a window seat. There are also concerns that the evacuation of a mixed wing aircraft would be more difficult because fewer output doors are available.
Another challenge that the BWB aircraft face is is stability and control, possibly due to the lack of a traditional tail. To counteract this, designers may have to include demanding flight control systems. There are also technical challenges when managing the pressure recording in a non -cylindrical fuselage. It is generally assumed that the conventional tube -shaped design is better equipped for this.
And last but not least, the question is whether such a design would ever go through the supervisory authorities. Conventional pipe and wing aircraft, which are produced by manufacturers such as Airbus and Boeing and they have been building for more than half a century, have to meet strict requirements before they can fly. Sometimes these checks are so strict that they can lead to delays in delivery. With a unique design and a 100-year history, it can be assumed that there would be considerable regulatory hurdles in front of the BWB manufacturers before they can fly safely.
Brian Smith is optimistic that airlines could fly BWB aircraft in the near future: “If they can be enlarged and produced in sufficient large numbers and thus prove a level of security as conventional types, it is likely that they receive serious attention from airlines, both passenger and cargo,” he says.
“You will surely be computerized and maybe even be the avant -garde of pilotless aircraft, but you would be interesting to fly, and no self -respect would reject the opportunity to fly one. You will be too late for me, unfortunately, but I will be sure that I will see it in my life commercially.”
