Boeing working on BWB freighter

I was unable to get a decent link from the US Patent web site, but if you enter in that number, you will get the full patent and you will be able to view the drawings.

It is more than a collections of words.

I also think that any structural issues can be overcomed. If a tube and wing design was so perfect, I would see more birds that look like fish.

If you take a good look at any bird, you will see that it is shaped more like a blended wing aircraft, not a tube and wing aircraft. The only exception is the long neck for some birds, but that is so they can get fish.

There was a group of people who did not think that flight was possible, they were wrong. There was a group of people that thought jet engines were to dangerous, and loud and would never work, they were wrong. I love when traditionalists who think the tube and wing design is the best we will ever get, because in time, they will be proven worng. The data has been proven time and time again, and it is only a matter of time before we see tube and wing aircraft get replaced with blended wing aircraft.

Originally posted by MrKnight
I also think that any structural issues can be overcomed. If a tube and wing design was so perfect, I would see more birds that look like fish.

If you take a good look at any bird, you will see that it is shaped more like a blended wing aircraft, not a tube and wing aircraft. The only exception is the long neck for some birds, but that is so they can get fish.

How many birds do you know fly at 30,000ft?

Originally posted by MrKnight
There was a group of people who did not think that flight was possible, they were wrong. There was a group of people that thought jet engines were to dangerous, and loud and would never work, they were wrong. I love when traditionalists who think the tube and wing design is the best we will ever get, because in time, they will be proven worng. The data has been proven time and time again, and it is only a matter of time before we see tube and wing aircraft get replaced with blended wing aircraft.

I can guarantee you right now that a full BWB will not be used for the small stuff - it doesn't work.

It will be a ultra-wide fuselage that generates lift at take-off/landing. There was a Russian concept called the Dauphin (Dolphin) that took this approach nothing came of it though.

Alot of the guys that went through uni with me worked on the Dolphin,
here is a link to one of the pages. Some of us worked on a clean-sheet lifting fuselage (with wings) design and had to do the trade-off studies versus BWBs, conventional layouts and others.

Swans and geese regularly fly over 25,000 feet can can fly over 30,000

Originally posted by Nacnud
Swans and geese regularly fly over 25,000 feet can can fly over 30,000

And what internal pressure do you reckon they are "running" at?


edit: need two lines


Uhh, I don't suppose none of you have studied thin walled structures before no?

Simply put, there are massive compromises (in weight) moving away from the cylinder with semi-spherical endcaps.

[edit on 26/5/07 by kilcoo316]

Of course it didn't work, I do not see any center support structures in the "Dolphin". If you are going to have a centerbody span that distance, you will need some additional support.

Similar problem were discovered in building construction, and as man made larger buidings, he developed a novel concept called a "coulmn" if you have been in any large room of a modern building you may have seen a few. These are generally structural members that extend from the floor to the celing, and provides structural support across wide spans.

Other structure supports can be used which were developed for large ships, and are used on large aircraft today. They are known as "bulkheads". "A bulkhead is an upright wall within the hull of a ship. Bulkheads in a ship serve several purposes: They increase the structural rigidity of the vessel, divide functional areas into rooms and create watertight compartments that can contain water in the case of a hull breach or other leak."

The use of bulkheads and column supports can be used to stregthen any large area spans and provide the support needed.

I can guarantee you right now that a full BWB will not be used for the small stuff - it doesn't work.

If anything, a BWB will be developed on a small scale first. The forces on a wide span is much less over a smaller distance. Modern material and construction methods with the use of additional support member such as a "column" or "bulkhead" can be used to support the center structure of that wide body. It is also more cost effective to develop technology on a smaller scale.

If a BWB doesn't work, then why do you think Boeing is spending millions and millions on development? Maybe they like to waste money, or maybe they know something you don't.

Another BWB Update:

BWB Article
SEATTLE -- Even as it develops its new 787, there are rumblings Boeing has something even bigger in the pipeline.

The aviation industry Web site Leeham.Net is reporting that two customers, possibly FedEx and UPS, are talking with Boeing about a freighter version of what's called the Blended Wing Body, a highly efficient flying wing design.

Boeing has been doing low-level studies for years on the plane, which could carry even more than the huge, but conventionally shaped Airbus A-380.

Six years ago, we showed you artists' conceptions and pictures of a scale model test of the concept -- a joint project with NASA and Stanford University.

Neither Boeing nor its customers have yet committed to go ahead with the project.

The Leeham.net Link

When they say 'talking about' a BWB freighter, it means just that. Not that they are about to launch one with orders, only that tyhey are speaking in the broadest terms about what the operators would expect from such an aircraft IF it were launched and how Boeing might propose to deliver that requirement. It like when the airlines were talking to BAC about an SST in the late 1950's, thats the sort of stage they are at. One which might result in a working aircraft, or might as easily result in everyone agreeing it was a nice idea but one that needs to be put away for a future date, as so often happens. Remember that airlines were also talking to Boeing about the Sonic Cruiser, but in the end decided not to go with it.

I was wondering who started the BWB idea off, either Boeing or Airbus, no not originally, that was the Penaud Monoplane of 1876, I mean the current incarnation so I went looking through my Janes collection and found an interesting entry in the 1998-9 edition under the heading 'UHCA/VLCT' in the international section.

This stood for 'Ultra High Capacity Airliner/Very Large Commercial Transport' and was the subject of an MoU signed in 1993 by BOTH companies plus the separate manufacturers from the UK, France, Germany, Spain and Japan and centred upon the aBoeing and Airbus BWB designs plus a stretched 747 plus Airbus proposed A3XX.

It is worthwhile noting that from this study only the A380 has emerged as an actual aeroplane programme, although Boeing have also launched a smaller stretch of the 747 incorporating 787 technology as well. Neither of the BWB designs has yet progressed beyond wind tunnel and model flying despite the grandiose claims being made for them. If the airlines were that keen we might have seen something substantial in the 14 years since this programme began, especially as an airliner takes about four years on average from drawing board to service.

[edit on 7-6-2007 by waynos]

Originally posted by waynos
I went looking through my Janes collection and found an interesting entry in the 1998-9 edition under the heading 'UHCA/VLCT' in the international section.

This stood for 'Ultra High Capacity Airliner/Very Large Commercial Transport' and was the subject of an MoU signed in 1993 by BOTH companies plus the separate manufacturers from the UK, France, Germany, Spain and Japan and centred upon the aBoeing and Airbus BWB designs plus a stretched 747 plus Airbus proposed A3XX.

It is worthwhile noting that from this study only the A380 has emerged as an actual aeroplane programme.

If the airlines were that keen we might have seen something substantial in the 14 years since this programme began, especially as an airliner takes about four years on average from drawing board to service.

[edit on 7-6-2007 by waynos]

You do realize that your "Four Year From Paper To Service" point is defeated by the paper you talk about just before that, right? Need I remind you that the A380 is still not in service, and is several years behind schedule, and billions over budget? it has hardly "proven" to be viable, and by your omission, it is 14 years in development, not the four you proclaim.

I am willing to bet that a commercial freighter bwb wiil be in service in the next 6-10 years. amd it will be more cost effective and trun a profit before the A380, if it ever does.

If the A380 was so great, and so "viable" then why did it get dumped by FedEx and UPS? A BWB freighter will be much better freighter option than an A380. A A380 can not even take traditional ISo container like proposed BWB frighter can. With the expansion of the global market, the international transportation of ISO containers will be very important.

You do realize that your "Four Year From Paper To Service" point is defeated by the paper you talk about just before that, right? Need I remind you that the A380 is still not in service, and is several years behind schedule, and billions over budget? it has hardly "proven" to be viable, and by your omission, it is 14 years in development, not the four you proclaim.

No, not really. I said 'on average' for airliners, which is entirely correct (many are actually much less as they use proven technology).

Neither was I claiming that the BWB ought to be in service, clearly such a programme would demand years of development and proving to the operators (A380 is a good example of this, as is the 787 and even Concorde if we are talking all new concepts). As you yourself quoted me, I merely said 'something substantial' which I would consider to be either a flying prototype or a set date for a full size prototype to fly, not too much to ask. The fact we have neither but are still flying small scale models is a sign not thqat the copncept is bad, but that commercial operators are not prepared to risk it.

The only hope I see for a BWB project in the nearish future is a military backed programme akin to the KC-135 which made the 707 not only acceptable, but proven and desirable in the civil market too.

Also, why did you put 'proven' in quotation marks, I never said any such thing. Only that it had resulted in an actual aeroplane, which surely even you cannot deny.

I am willing to bet that a commercial freighter bwb wiil be in service in the next 6-10 years.

I am willing to bet that it wont, now, who will hold the bet for us? £100?

it will be more cost effective and trun a profit before the A380, if it ever does.

It would have to be, or there would be no point pursuing it, obviously. Because of the problems they have I am doubtful that Airbus will ever 'trun' a profit on the A380, but its operators certainly will.

If the A380 was so great, and so "viable" then why did it get dumped by FedEx and UPS?

Because they don't carry passengers and the freighter will not be available in the required timeframe due to Airbus concentrating on sorting out what is clearly the bread and butter model. If it is so awful why have both operators said they will return to the A380F when Airbus is ready to go ahead with it?

The A380 would make for the largest freighter on the market (based on current competition). Where Airbus falls down, in my opinion, is that they did not offer it with a swing nose (like the 747 has). Maybe they will address this next time round, for without it I can't see a point in making the A380F at all.

This plane really got me interested in engineering and got me started on designing my own small scale planes that I fly, well the ones that can fly. I saw a documentary about it a few years ago and by the way the people in charge of the project were talking it sounded like they were going to dump this project because of the problems with carying people. I didnt think that they were still tinkering with this aircraft. Very glad to see it is still around.

I agree that the first BWB will be a projet similar to the 707, and be co-developed for the military and with at least one commercial customer.

Given the size of the X-48B and the success of the test flights this summer, I would suspect that a manned demo model will be the next step.
X-48B Test Flight

Also considering the wide use and success of the 1950's designed C-130 and need for a replacement freighter, that Beoing and the military might be moving in that direction.

I do not think it will take nearly as long to develop a BWB due to the simplicity of the design. The fact that a BWB averages 20-30% less part to build that

Here is a great article as to why I doubt that the A380 will ever make a profit:
Airbus A380 - Big Mistake For A Big Airplane?

reply to post by MrKnight

Given the size of the X-48B and the success of the test flights this summer, I would suspect that a manned demo model will be the next step.

Yes, that would be entirely logical and I agree. Where I think we disagree is that you appear to be of the opinion that that this is a step, whereas I think it is a leap. The reason I say this this is because there *has* to be a customer at the end of it all, nobody is going to launch a full scale BWB as a private venture. The only possible customer is the USAF. No civil operator will stick its neck out that far, they cannot afford to. That is why I say that the USAF must prove the finished aeroplane itself in service (not the concept - everyone knows that it it is aerodynamically more efficient, it is the operational and logistical aspects that remain to be seen) before a civil operator will touch it. The Govt will always pick up the tab for the air force, a civil operator risks going out of business if its customers flee in the direction of the nearest 747F or 777F operator.

I do not think it will take nearly as long to develop a BWB due to the simplicity of the design.

It is externally simple, but as I said the operational and logistical aspects need to be developed (not to mention the proving of the structural aspect to even get a certificate at all - look at the 787 and that is a 'normal' shape) The concept is so radical that even if launched tomorrow you would not see one in USAF service before 2020, and civil service would take longer than that. Not because it is complex, but because it is entirely new and rushing something entirely new into service is foolish.

Here is a great article as to why I doubt that the A380 will ever make a profit:

Now that BA has chosen it a few more airlines will be encouraged, the bias of that article is plain to see as it bangs about the 747-8 winning new customers but completely fails to mention that that the only passenger carrier to choose it is Lufthansa and the A380 is not currently offered as a freighter - quite pertinent facts in any direct comparison.

Also, I agree. Now that the break even figure has risen to 420 it will take Airbus a very long time, if ever, to reach it. But so what? The plane exists, has successfully negotiated its development programme and is poised for delivery to Singapore Airlines. Do you think that SIA, BA and all the rest would willingly choose a bad aeroplane? What is the pertinence of Airbus making a profit on it or not to a discussion about whether a BWB will appear?

Originally posted by MrKnight
I do not think it will take nearly as long to develop a BWB due to the simplicity of the design. The fact that a BWB averages 20-30% less part to build that

I'm getting sick of repeat this to you - but that is absolute BS.

- The structural considerations of pressurizing a highly non-cylindrical body will have to be worked through. The reliability of the structure will also have to be guaranteed, which leads on to...

- A whole raft of certification procedures will have to be though of, never mind actually verified and then the test techniques established.

- Airports will have to adapt to handle BWBs, after all, its not as if you can pull the nose in beside the skywalk can you?

- Evacs will require alot of thought - the number of doors compared to the number of passengers drops markedly with a BWB in comparison to a conventional cigar.




Aerodynamically, BWBs are great... from EVERY other aspect of aircraft designing/manufacturing/operating/maintaining they are a nightmare.

Originally posted by kilcoo316
- The structural considerations of pressurizing a highly non-cylindrical body will have to be worked through. The reliability of the structure will also have to be guaranteed, which leads on to...

- A whole raft of certification procedures will have to be though of, never mind actually verified and then the test techniques established.

- Airports will have to adapt to handle BWBs, after all, its not as if you can pull the nose in beside the skywalk can you?

- Evacs will require alot of thought - the number of doors compared to the number of passengers drops markedly with a BWB in comparison to a conventional cigar.

First off most of your complaints have nothing to do with a freighter aircraft. A freighter does not have to use a skyway, and has no passengers to evaucate.

Also, if you have been reading, I have been talking about a smaller BWB, which will not have great spans for the type of structural problems you talk about. Even then, by using bulkheads and column supports this too can be solved on a larger scale. They do the same things for large ships.

Even if we were talking about a large passenger BWB, Phantom Works has simulated evacuations, and have met all FAA requirements. The aft end can allow for large exits. The BWB will also have forward, side and top side exits. Evacuation is not a problem.

Even the proposed 800 passenger aircraft has a wing span similar to a 747 and the forward nose and entry door can use used at any airport as the skywalk can adjust ot meet with the BWB.

All aircraft have to go through certification, and it will take no longer than the 787 or A380. It is just a matter of showing the FAA and inspector how your aircraft works.

I do realize that some people will hate, and not believe untill you see....which I find odd because it is people like you and your attitude that thought man would never fly, and that the jet engine was BS. I would hate to think where avialtion would be if everyone always doubted even in the face of substantial evolution. It is much simpler to point out why something will not work, than to provide solution so that it will work.

Here are some helpful links to explain most of your concerns:
Above Top Secret: X-48B Test Flight Thread
Dr. Liebeck Seminar
How Stuff Works: BWB
X-48B Aricle & Links
Boeing "Rib" Patent (See US Patent Web Site For Full Patent)

Did I mention that Boeing current airs a commercial that shows the BWB?
Pick the "IDS" Video

[edit on 4-10-2007 by MrKnight]

Originally posted by MrKnight
If the A380 was so great, and so "viable" then why did it get dumped by FedEx and UPS?

Fedex dumped the A380 because it needed immediate uplift, and could not afford the EBIT hit of a 777 freighter order and the outstanding A380F order, so they cancelled the latter. Fedex have stated since then that they would probably reorder the A380F at a later date when Airbus reoffer it in the future.

UPS dumped the A380F because Airbus postponed the A380F program by 5 years and allowed UPS to cancel with no penalty, and in the same vein as Fedex have said they will probably reorder when the A380F is reoffered.

reply to post by MrKnight

First off most of your complaints have nothing to do with a freighter aircraft. A freighter does not have to use a skyway, and has no passengers to evaucate.

But a commercial freighter is not a viable project on its own. Every big jet freighter in widespread service is a conversion of a passenger aircraft. Civil freighters with their roots in a military programme represent a very tiny fraction of the global fleet. The reason for this is that airlines like to keep maintainence costs and complexities to a minimum by having as few different models in service as possible ie 747-400 and 747F, A330-200 and A330F etc etc. So even if the BWB-F did appear it would be likely to be no more commonplace in the civil market than the Short Belfast or An 124. Would Boeing take that risk?

Also, if you have been reading, I have been talking about a smaller BWB, which will not have great spans for the type of structural problems you talk about. Even then, by using bulkheads and column supports this too can be solved on a larger scale. They do the same things for large ships.

And what impact would all these bulkheads and columns have on the aircrafts empty weight I wonder? Your comparison with large ships is an unfortunate one. A structurally heavy BWB would be much less attractive to an operator than a normal flying tube.

Even if we were talking about a large passenger BWB, Phantom Works has simulated evacuations,

How have they done this to the FAA's satisfaction when no airframe exists? The FAA and CAA do not accept computer models, they have to see it done for real so you cannot categorically say that it is not a problem.

Even the proposed 800 passenger aircraft has a wing span similar to a 747 and the forward nose and entry door can use used at any airport as the skywalk can adjust ot meet with the BWB.

No, as they stand they cannot. They would need replacing with new multi-articulated skywalks - and these are the same (US) airports that everyone confidently predicts will not make the necessary adjustments to accommodate the A380 are they? So whats the difference?

All aircraft have to go through certification, and it will take no longer than the 787 or A380. It is just a matter of showing the FAA and inspector how your aircraft works.

Have you any basis for this other than wishful thinking? Its not just about how the plane works, its about convincing the authorities that a completely new and untried type of design is reliable and safe - that takes time.

I do realize that some people will hate, and not believe untill you see

What, like your mocking position with the A380 you mean? Double standards?

.which I find odd

You said it.

And just in case you missed it, I am not saying the BWB idea is crap, I am saying that civil operators are highly resistant to anything that strays too far from what they know will work for them in turning a profit, the shadow of Concorde may well loom large over the BWB here because we all know it was a bold concept, and exciting, but in hindsight it is obvious that it was never going to be the norm - the airlines might just be feeling the same might be said of the BWB in 20 years and they don't want to be the ones who get their fingers burned.

reply to post by waynos


I do agree with Waynos on some of his points here. What? no hell has not frozen over ?????

The BWB as a new design unless the US government is willing to pony up for it as the notational KC-X will not be all that viable unless it has a comercial partner. Way too many things to sort out from the passanger version etc before you even can begin talking about using it for passanger service. No company freight or otherwise is going to want to risk owning the BetaMax of aircraft (if you are soooo young you do not know what a betamax is then I recoment wiki) Companies will not willing take on risk period when other alternatives are open

Where Waynos and I dissagree is ont he freighter version. I think Boeing will sell the -8 freighter is spite of a lack of orders for the PAX version. Even if it never gets one and I maintain the -8 PAX version is solely designed to chip away at those carriers who need a bit more than a -400 but not the whole A380. Those orders will take away from Airbus, and add some to the 747 line. If they sell some its a bonus but the freighter is the focus.

Emirates to be fair canceled its order but converted them to PAX models. and UPS and FedEx also to be fair would not have faced penalties for cancellation because of the revised delivery schedules. The wiring issue that has sence been resolved diverted alot of resources slowing other projects.

The 747F has inherent advantages over the A380 beyond size the most noteworth is the hinged nose. It allows oversize cargo and can speed loading times if used. The A380 has its capacity as its main advantage.

In regards to the 10 year old engines on the A380, yes they are not the Trent 1000 or the GeNX, but they are still an efficent design and can be improved upon once in service.

Where Waynos and I dissagree is ont he freighter version.

Actually I'm not that sure we do fred, unless I have previously voiced an opinion which I have since changed that is.

Despite the many changes involved, the 747-8 is still a 747 in the airlines eyes, but a much better one. With so many 747's in the world it is a no brainer that the freight version, at least, will sell and I have already said in this thread that Airbus needs to address the nose access issue if the A380F is ever to reappear, I have my doubts that it ever will. I think that this version, like the twin engined version, will just be put away and quietly forgotten over time and the 747-8F already has this market all to itself.

Originally posted by MrKnight
First off most of your complaints have nothing to do with a freighter aircraft. A freighter does not have to use a skyway, and has no passengers to evaucate.

True, now point out how many unique freighter designs there are flying today.

Originally posted by MrKnight
Also, if you have been reading, I have been talking about a smaller BWB, which will not have great spans for the type of structural problems you talk about. Even then, by using bulkheads and column supports this too can be solved on a larger scale. They do the same things for large ships.

The problem scales. The span is irrelevant as the stringer thickness has to reduce accordingly.

There is also the problem of usable interior volume - I've already stated that a classical BWB does not work on a small scale.

A lifting fuselage type may work, indeed, from stuff I've done in the past, it does work... kinda. The passenger version had no advantage over contemporary cigar designs, but the freighter version allowed for use of large LD3 & LD6 containers, so a company like fedex or DHL can use them on the spoke of a network without having to switch containers.

Originally posted by MrKnight
Even if we were talking about a large passenger BWB, Phantom Works has simulated evacuations, and have met all FAA requirements. Evacuation is not a problem.

Originally posted by MrKnight
Even the proposed 800 passenger aircraft has a wing span similar to a 747 and the forward nose and entry door can use used at any airport as the skywalk can adjust ot meet with the BWB.

Not if it cannot wrap onto the fuselage it can't (because the other wing will be hitting the terminal.

Originally posted by MrKnight
All aircraft have to go through certification, and it will take no longer than the 787 or A380. It is just a matter of showing the FAA and inspector how your aircraft works.

And I thought the earlier evacuation comment was ridiculous.

Don't take my word for it - go ask someone else that works in the industry, "how big a deal will it be to certify a BWB?"

Then maybe you'll realise it is not so straightforward.

Originally posted by MrKnight
I do realize that some people will hate, and not believe untill you see....which I find odd because it is people like you and your attitude that thought man would never fly, and that the jet engine was BS. I would hate to think where avialtion would be if everyone always doubted even in the face of substantial evolution. It is much simpler to point out why something will not work, than to provide solution so that it will work.

No. Some people know with a little experience what works and what is still out of reach


BWBs may happen eventually (if a more revolutionary technology doesn't appear on the scene first), but not in the near future.


[edit on 5/10/07 by kilcoo316]

Originally posted by waynos

I have already said in this thread that Airbus needs to address the nose access issue if the A380F is ever to reappear, I have my doubts that it ever will.

I will disagree with this - the vast majority of cargo aircraft out there are not nose loading, and the A380F is not designed to handle the bulk loads that would require a nose door as the floor loading (amount of weight the floor can handle) is less than the 747F anyway.

747BCF does not have a nose, nor do any of the other 747 conversions, the MD-11 and DC-10 conversions don't, the 767F (conversion or new) doesn't, the 777F doesn't, the A330F won't, the A320F won't, the A340F won't (yes, theres a program under development).

If there is anything holding the A380F back, it is the floor loading and not the lack of a nose