Groundbreaking ‘blended-wing’ demonstrator plane cleared to fly

[Astronuc]

A seismic shake-up is about to take place. An entirely new aircraft shape has been cleared to take off into California skies. At the end of last month, Long Beach-based JetZero announced that Pathfinder, its 1:8 scale “blended wing body” demonstrator plane, has been granted an FAA Airworthiness certificate and test flights are imminent.

As the industry desperately looks for ways to reduce carbon emissions, it faces a somewhat tougher challenge than other sectors precisely because its core technologies have proven so hard to move away from. It’s a ripe time to innovate.

https://news.yahoo.com/lifestyle/jetzero-groundbreaking-blended-wing-demonstrator-095758254.html

It occurred to me that the flying wing concept has been successfully demonstrated by Northrop-Grumman, and one could certainly build a scaled craft to test a concept.

Both Boeing and Airbus are tinkering with the idea, and JetZero’s new milestone brings it a little closer to its ambitious goal of putting into service a blended wing aircraft as soon as 2030.

“We feel very strongly about a path to zero emissions in big jets, and the blended wing airframe can deliver 50% lower fuel burn and emissions,” Tom O’Leary, co-founder and CEO of JetZero, told CNN in August 2023. “That is a staggering leap forward in comparison to what the industry is used to.”

 

[berkeman]

https://news.yahoo.com/lifestyle/jetzero-groundbreaking-blended-wing-demonstrator-095758254.html

 

[FactChecker]

It occurred to me that the flying wing concept has been successfully demonstrated by Northrop-Grumman, and one could certainly build a scaled craft to test a concept.

IMO, Northrop-Grumman's flying wing is a lot harder than the blended wing in the OP because the flying-wing has no vertical control surface at all. Lateral control is more complicated. Some military airplanes have had lifting bodies for a while. I think that the OP is more about commercial use of a blended wing than about the blended wing itself.

 

[DaveC426913]

Too soon to invest my life savings?

 

[Flyboy]

… I will be very curious about how they handle emergency evacuations from that fuselage.

 

[berkeman]

… I will be very curious about how they handle emergency evacuations from that fuselage.

The skylights have explosive bolts...

 

[DaveC426913]

Is this a bad time for a Boeing quip?

 

[russ_watters]

IMO, Northrop-Grumman's flying wing is a lot harder than the blended wing in the OP because the flying-wing has no vertical control surface at all. Lateral control is more complicated. Some military airplanes have had lifting bodies for a while. I think that the OP is more about commercial use of a blended wing than about the blended wing itself.

Yeah, on many military planes if you lose your computer-assist you pretty much just immediately eject. I don't think that will.....um....fly on a commercial plane.

 

[Vanadium 50]

That press release was...um...sufficiently rich in organic material that it could itself be used as a renewable fuel.

First, the problem with carbon emissions has been solved: the rich jet off to Davos where they lecture the rest of us to cut our carbon.

Fundamentally, the issue is that aircraft are controlled by forces other than just lift and thrust, You want to steer the plane, and you introduce "inefficiencies", which simply means energy used to steer the plane rather than propel the plane.

"But wait!" you say. "We can control this with a computer", It's been tried, with e,g, the 737max and MCAS. Experience shows this is easier said than done.

Don't get me wrong - this may well be a good idea and an excellent plane. But the text cries out "If you can't do hypersonic, at least do hype."

 

[Vanadium 50]

you pretty much just immediately eject. I don't think that will.....um....fly on a commercial plane.

Had someone been sitting next to the door plug on the Alaska flight, that's pretty much what would have happened.

 

[phinds]

… I will be very curious about how they handle emergency evacuations from that fuselage.

They get Boeing to design the doors.

 

[FactChecker]

"But wait!" you say. "We can control this with a computer", It's been tried, with e,g, the 737max and MCAS. Experience shows this is easier said than done.

We better not open that can of worms. There were so many fundamental control law design violations there that I am sure the important decisions were made by management, not CLAW engineers. That was not a difficult problem for a properly designed flight control. My understanding is that the basic flaws have been corrected, but I do not know that for sure.

 

[russ_watters]

We better not open that can of worms.

Well that's a mean thing to call the passengers in the fuselage....near a pull-tab door plug.

Anyway, MCAS sucked but wasn't even really needed to make the plane flyable. It just would have had weird handling in some parts of the envelope without it. For a flying wing like a B-2 or even an F-16 or F-117 (probably others), the computer control is required otherwise the plane is completely unflyable.

That said, manual/direct control did not save Air France 447 from a really bad pilot.