In addition to possessing significant logistical and environmental benefits, BWB aircraft are absolutely beautiful! I so admire and commend you for developing this extraordinary concept, Dr. Liebeck!
BWB aircraft also have a very high internal volume for their surface area, which means they are great for cargo. They look beautiful too, so would be a big gain all round to the aviation world.
What a great professional to have on the staff- this generation of aero engineers gave us commercially viable and reliable jet transport together with space flight to the moon and shuttle- to inspire the next generation to take risks and create rather than go into finance and accountancy! We need as many guys like this to pass down their experience quick! I did my Aero degree in the UK in the late 80’s, poor time for any inspiration, most of my class went into finance or oil industries!
@@theotherandrew5540 Agree with that, if you don't have the support there isn't much you can do except find another profession. But what isn't right in many instances is the curriculum they force teachers to teach with even when the teachers disagree with it. Then, it is time to move on.
@@thomastessier4529 Having been a teacher for most of my life, I think the entire curriculum should be thrown out and we (society) should start right from the beginning and ask how can we best support children to develop their own potential.
I taught for 13 years. Poor pay. It was a hardship financially. I loved teaching but hate poverty. Get real. Teachers should be paid a real living wage. No body can afford to raise children or even own a home on today’s salaries.
For over 30 years I feel I have seen many BWB designs on paper in books and magazines; and I feel like it's about time someone builds an actual flying prototype .
Stumbled onto this video, watched all the way through and thought that would be an interesting person to know, his enthusiasm for sharing his knowledge to students was evident. The quote about engineers and scientist alone was worth watching the video!
I recall an episode of Beyond 2000 on the Discovery Channel showing this identical concept being "right around the corner," back when I was in middle school or so. And now, 30+ years later... I'll believe it when I see it, is the point of all that.
Unfortunately it gets twisted into thinking that only that which is known in use is "good looking". "My grand-pappy didn't make planes like this and my pappy didn't either, so neither will I". Boeing hates lifting fuselage body designs and has said that they will never use it. So nobody else will.
the military version looks spot on. i could see them making the jump w/ the airlines coming on board once the design has been proven. time will tell, @ 71 i probably won't see it but good luck.
Wow great professor, so now raptors can run with this technology for more than 50hrs also with high payload to carry and fuel tanks to refill and also with lesser numbers in Air flying, for home land safety many countries will look for these - ultimate
gorgeous. long overdue. Is there any reason BWB couldn't be fitted or wouldn't work with the new CFM Rise engine? do those technologies make sense together? might it be... too efficient? 🤔😁
This is where we should be. This design would make a great B-52 replacement, KC135 replacement. The fuel capacity or internal bomb load would be fantastic. It would make a good passenger aircraft as well. This should have been done 20 years ago.
This thick-fuselage BWB is the first non-retrofit tanker design to come along in over a generation. And it really does look like the natural & right design concept for a tanker.
Kind of funny that the Horton brothers already recognized a lot of the advantages (albeit flying wings) in the early 1940s and were planning on building a bomber around this size. Jack Northrop was working on similar stuff in the late 40s, just funny it's only gaining traction 70 years later. Better late than never I suppose.
What is the actual efficiency difference between you configuration presented here, and a more simple cropped delta lifting body? Assuming the following features: 56 degree leading edge sweep, 14 percent of chord with straight tips, aspect ratio of 2.0, center third of the cross section increased in height (but fully blended with wing) to accommodate payload and fuel, vertical fins as tip sails or a center fin (whichever is most efficient). Is it correct to assume it could get away with no high lift devices, using only the vortex flow of the delta plan form, for the high lift needed for takeoff and landing? With sufficient wing area for runways >2 km, can it still have 0.75 to 0.85 mach cruise, and still have better fuel economy than current airliners? Are the wings beyond the main delta shape of your plan form primarily for stability and control?
Humans learned a LOT in the 20th century. And a part of what we learned was that hydrogen REALLY sucks as a fuel, unless you happen to be outside the Earth's atmosphere. And we learned that liquid hydrogen is about 100 times worse than the gas. End of story.
I think what would be really exciting would be to combine the advancements of design of propellors and wing design following the pattern of a humpback wale to further reduce air drag - there are many youtube videos covering such topics.
The major problem with BWB designs is the pressurization stresses on the fuselage housing the passengers. Current design uses tubular fuselages for the equal pressure exerted on the perfectly round pressure tube. Non-round pressure tubes exert much higher forces on flatter parts of a roughly rectangular fuselage. This design would have to use much thicker and thereby heavier materials. Perhaps the BWB could be designed to fly at a lower altitude requiring much less pressurization relative to outside air pressure. Fly a plane at 15,000 ft and pressurize to equivalent of 8,000 ft. Yes there is more drag/friction from flying lower in denser air, but there is also denser air for engine combustion, raising compression ratios in the turbine section, and lower weight design for the aircraft overall, increasing efficiency in these ways
@@NeroontheGoon and yet they haven’t made any although composites have been used for decades. The F-15 uses composites, a plane designed in the 1960’s. It’s also unnecessary as we don’t need it. When you understand geologic history, you know the carbon warming theory is a hoax. BWB planes would be prohibitively expensive negating efficiency gains.
"I think it is a good aircraft professor, your on to something extraordinary. The fuel reduction, and new fuel(HYDROGEN) implementation is a plus. I think I'm going to have to call you? "The Sonic Man!" 👍 "You have my full credit." ✓
Going back, see Northrop's "Avion 1" X216-H. Among the best of its class in all criteria, and markedly faster than any others. Also V.J.Burnelli making lifting fuselage body planes. During the war, the Higgins-Bellanca 39-60 cargo plane, and a similar Boeing 360-362 bomber. Several similar things from the Germans like some tailed Arado 555 versions and Arado 470. A few Horten/Messerschmitt versions with tails or tailfins like the Ho-18 B2. Not to forget the Me-163 Komet, which despite the dubious propulsion, was an entirely successful flying machine, stemming from Lippisch work on "flying wing" design. Many other "flying wings" with tailfins made very good flying machines too. They tried and utterly failed to make entirely tail-less, failed with wing-tip fins, and when they put a proper fin on it, it worked very well. Arup, Cheranovsky, Fauvel, the Kharkov KhAI-3, others. More recently, the 1970 Sukhoi T4MS-200 bomber: same technology as the T-4 Sotka, but better range and payload than the Tupolev "Blackjack" which got built instead. Early 2000s patents by Dizdarevic "Tailed Flying Wings", and the 2016 Lock-Mart hybrid wing-body logistics plane, and the "Frigate Ecojet": multiples of payload and range because they generate substantial lift from the fuselage. Because they have a tail, entirely controllable and stable. The reason the McD blended wing body was never followed through, is because Boeing owns it, and refuses to build to any sort of lifting fuselage design. NASA had to get Cranfield to build the X-48 models because of the intransigent refusal of Boeing to carry it forward. Aerospace is cowardly and if Boeing isn't doing it, no one else will.
In 1963 at the extinct British aircraft construction company Handley Page Ltd., along with other research engineers, I was involved with such an aircraft that also was proposed to have laminar flow suction to reduce skin-friction drag and the result was for a design that was considerably cheaper to fly because its structure was more efficient and because its drag was much lower. These properties were similar to what is described in this video, and it is not much more suitable that our 60-years old ideas were for greater efficiency. This proposal was called HP117 but of course there was no commercial organization which was willing to escape from the tube and swept-wing layouts having outside mounted engines, commonly in use. Its past time to "think outside of the box".
I have seen some plans and studies with model planes from the technical university Delft and KLM with a very similar setup some years ago. Nothing new.
1. The puking for anyone sitting too far from the central axis. 2. Heavy. Pressure vessels are tubes for a reason. 3. Designing a certifiable passenger plane would be a challenge. Emergency evacuation would be difficult. Imagine evacuating a movie theater in 90 seconds. 4. Don't have an engine failure. 5. Mostly an aerodynamicist's dream. The concept has been around 30+ years. If the design could be built and operated economically, Airbus or Boeing would have done it already. Not so much demand for a super jumbo. 6. Look at the direction X-66A is going.
If this is the future of subsonic jet transports why have Boeing and NASA committed a billion dollars to the trussed wing research project. It is obvious why the a blended wing design would be great for a tanker aircraft.
Biggest issue is geometry. Passengers need surface area to exit the plane in a timely manner. Cargo needs specific dimensions to fit that are sometimes better offered by a taller cylindrical fuselage. A tanker has none of these issues. Its crew is small and its cargo is liquid. It can be any shape you want.
The pressure vessel will be difficult. The heavy structure required to pressurize a contiguous oblong cabin may negate any efficiency advantages of your blended wing concept. An unpressurized tanker makes more sense.
It would be great to have a different mass transit plane configuration and experience from the present design, HOWEVER” the total failure of the airlines pre and post flight experience we “all suffer” on every part of this process needs to be radically changed. Unless you have a private jet.
bro peaple are allergic to canards? the plane could have swep wings that run into the body, and just have canards and fuselage to generate lift in high speed... this would solve the problem of taking to much space in hangars, it could just swep the wing to position in the middle of the runway to takeoff, and the design with canard would have much higher max take of weight, its safer, the only problem is fuselage stress, but for a blended wing you would allready have to use more advanced material, composite carbon fiber of some king... now we are running to hibrid aircraft aswell, without the apu and with batterys, to start the engine, to every thing, and we could also put eletric motor in the wheels for the airplane to pick higher speeds quickly, also to use the electricit generated with the landing, and fill up the battery without needing to stay with the engines running to fill the batterys for the next flight.
It would be a nightmare for aircraft mechanics to replace or remove those engines above the wings or body. And I believe that the future will be container pods and aircraft supplied power and life support with self contained pods. This would involve the engines mounted on spars/engine mounted to the horizontal tails with the center fuselage to put the pod within. The positive aspect for this design would be quick turn around for pod insertion and removal, thus aircraft turn around. I believe that the future will be hydrogen powere with electric fan engines.
The use of technology from advanced research obtained by researchers from a area not attached to today’s technology but from back working other’s information from the early 1950 to 1970
@@UCIEngineering Currently, Jet Zero has a contract to build a BWB, NASA funded MacDonald Douglas to design one of the first BWBs, originally. Boeing will most likely not be awarded a contract to build the BWB if their performance continues to decline, unless there is a lot of money that changes hands behind the scenes. We have a corrupt system that will, eventually destroy itself, if runaway capitalism is not better regulated. Robert mentioned that he worked for Boeing for many years. MacDonald Douglas merged with Boeing on Aug. 1st, 1997. That is why I mentioned Boeing in my comment. You are out of your league.
@@UCIEngineering Robert mentioned that he worked for MacDonald Douglas which merged with Boeing on Aug. 1st, l997. He has worked for Boeing for many years. Boeing is a good example of runaway capitalism. It needs enough regulation to prevent the money that changes hands behind the scenes. He speaks from a history as a Boeing employee. JetZero currently has a contract but there is no guarantee that they will end up building the BWB. Boeing, unfortunately, is politically involved, so it remains to be seen whether or not they are awarded or they buy their next contract.
With you all the way up until the liquid hydrogen. Any engine can burn LH to lower emissions but no one has solved the problem of producing it economically. LH is somewhat like fusion power generation, always just a decade away. I know that government money can be drained away for the LH promise to build the BWB though.
It does a dis-service to the concept by tying it to revolutionary technology like hydrogen or radically advanced technology, when am immediate benefit is gained with contemporary technology. It's saying that the concept is held up on and dependent on the new technology maturing.
“They” need this airplane. Which “they”? It looks like an amazing advance for commercial flight, but don’t prioritise the military. Everywhere the US gets involved, the situation gets worse.
Because no one civil aviation will invest to standards that plane in production, that why they use military budgets to standards production, after they use in production for civil aviation
What the US of A NEEDS to do is protect its own borders and start rebuilding its infrastructure. Bridges, highways, high speed rail, ports and locks etc. America is a mess and yet the war mongers want 5 trillion a year.
Commentary is slow and hard to listen to; I had to stop watching the video. The content may contain valuable information, but the presenter was as boring as watching grass grow.
Robert Liebeck is a highly respected octogenerian professor who was actually answering interview questions in this video so that's why his dynamic is not quite the same a TV presenter
In addition to possessing significant logistical and environmental benefits, BWB aircraft are absolutely beautiful! I so admire and commend you for developing this extraordinary concept, Dr. Liebeck!
May the force be always with you Professor! 🇺🇲
BWB aircraft also have a very high internal volume for their surface area, which means they are great for cargo. They look beautiful too, so would be a big gain all round to the aviation world.
What a great professional to have on the staff- this generation of aero engineers gave us commercially viable and reliable jet transport together with space flight to the moon and shuttle- to inspire the next generation to take risks and create rather than go into finance and accountancy! We need as many guys like this to pass down their experience quick! I did my Aero degree in the UK in the late 80’s, poor time for any inspiration, most of my class went into finance or oil industries!
I saw this, or eerily similar designs, in Popular Science magazine back in the 70s.
Hopefully, it will FINALLY be built and flown!
Yes!
Teachers that love what they do is exactly what our education system needs, not those only looking for a paycheck and benefits.
But one needs fair and reasonable support to do that. You can’t eat love-of-the-job.
@@theotherandrew5540 Agree with that, if you don't have the support there isn't much you can do except find another profession. But what isn't right in many instances is the curriculum they force teachers to teach with even when the teachers disagree with it. Then, it is time to move on.
@@thomastessier4529 Having been a teacher for most of my life, I think the entire curriculum should be thrown out and we (society) should start right from the beginning and ask how can we best support children to develop their own potential.
I taught for 13 years. Poor pay. It was a hardship financially. I loved teaching but hate poverty. Get real. Teachers should be paid a real living wage. No body can afford to raise children or even own a home on today’s salaries.
For over 30 years I feel I have seen many BWB designs on paper in books and magazines; and I feel like it's about time someone builds an actual flying prototype .
Look at the flying-V plane
Stumbled onto this video, watched all the way through and thought that would be an interesting person to know, his enthusiasm for sharing his knowledge to students was evident. The quote about engineers and scientist alone was worth watching the video!
I recall an episode of Beyond 2000 on the Discovery Channel showing this identical concept being "right around the corner," back when I was in middle school or so. And now, 30+ years later...
I'll believe it when I see it, is the point of all that.
This is why the saying “If it looks good, it will fly good.” from Bill Lear comes from. It look awesome! Congrats.
And Geoffrey DeHavilland said, "When the weight of the paperwork equals the weight if the airplane it will fly."
Unfortunately it gets twisted into thinking that only that which is known in use is "good looking".
"My grand-pappy didn't make planes like this and my pappy didn't either, so neither will I".
Boeing hates lifting fuselage body designs and has said that they will never use it.
So nobody else will.
A gorgeous design concept ! Thanks, prof.
the military version looks spot on. i could see them making the jump w/ the airlines coming on board once the design has been proven. time will tell, @ 71 i probably won't see it but good luck.
Can't wait for the day I get to fly in one of those.
I think that concept is a future base of aviation , for local line Ekip concepts is better standard
That’s not an airplane; it doesn’t have a tail.
That’s an aircraft 😂
Looking forward to seeing it.
Wow great professor, so now raptors can run with this technology for more than 50hrs also with high payload to carry and fuel tanks to refill and also with lesser numbers in Air flying, for home land safety many countries will look for these - ultimate
This looks Tremendous 👍🏻
Good luck with it!
If you change the playback speed to 1.5, this is a much more watchable video.
He's still infinitely sharper and more articulate than the senile zucchini currently in the white house.
Quintessential educator. Inspiring!
gorgeous. long overdue. Is there any reason BWB couldn't be fitted or wouldn't work with the new CFM Rise engine? do those technologies make sense together? might it be... too efficient? 🤔😁
You would think if were coming in 2027, a working mockup would be built by now so 2027 is too optimistic.
This is where we should be. This design would make a great B-52 replacement, KC135 replacement. The fuel capacity or internal bomb load would be fantastic. It would make a good passenger aircraft as well. This should have been done 20 years ago.
The stock footage video at 2:34 looks like an F-22, not F-35 being discussed. Is there really no public domain video of F-35 refueling?
Yea that is an f22- but somethings off about it idk
This thick-fuselage BWB is the first non-retrofit tanker design to come along in over a generation.
And it really does look like the natural & right design concept for a tanker.
Codesigner of blended wing technology hu? Pretty sure Reimar and Walter Horten would have something to say about that.
Kind of funny that the Horton brothers already recognized a lot of the advantages (albeit flying wings) in the early 1940s and were planning on building a bomber around this size. Jack Northrop was working on similar stuff in the late 40s, just funny it's only gaining traction 70 years later. Better late than never I suppose.
And the cost. So much higher than a traditional design. Also issues with providing a pressurized cabin that is not a cylinder.
What is the actual efficiency difference between you configuration presented here, and a more simple cropped delta lifting body? Assuming the following features: 56 degree leading edge sweep, 14 percent of chord with straight tips, aspect ratio of 2.0, center third of the cross section increased in height (but fully blended with wing) to accommodate payload and fuel, vertical fins as tip sails or a center fin (whichever is most efficient). Is it correct to assume it could get away with no high lift devices, using only the vortex flow of the delta plan form, for the high lift needed for takeoff and landing? With sufficient wing area for runways >2 km, can it still have 0.75 to 0.85 mach cruise, and still have better fuel economy than current airliners? Are the wings beyond the main delta shape of your plan form primarily for stability and control?
Humans learned a LOT in the 20th century.
And a part of what we learned was that hydrogen REALLY sucks as a fuel, unless you happen to be outside the Earth's atmosphere.
And we learned that liquid hydrogen is about 100 times worse than the gas.
End of story.
If it looks right, it probably is right!
This design really _does_ look right!
It looks great, doesn't it?
I think what would be really exciting would be to combine the advancements of design of propellors and wing design following the pattern of a humpback wale to further reduce air drag - there are many youtube videos covering such topics.
So whats the glide ratio?
The major problem with BWB designs is the pressurization stresses on the fuselage housing the passengers.
Current design uses tubular fuselages for the equal pressure exerted on the perfectly round pressure tube. Non-round pressure tubes exert much higher forces on flatter parts of a roughly rectangular fuselage.
This design would have to use much thicker and thereby heavier materials.
Perhaps the BWB could be designed to fly at a lower altitude requiring much less pressurization relative to outside air pressure.
Fly a plane at 15,000 ft and pressurize to equivalent of 8,000 ft. Yes there is more drag/friction from flying lower in denser air, but there is also denser air for engine combustion, raising compression ratios in the turbine section, and lower weight design for the aircraft overall, increasing efficiency in these ways
Composite structure kinda negates your argument.
@@NeroontheGoon and yet they haven’t made any although composites have been used for decades. The F-15 uses composites, a plane designed in the 1960’s. It’s also unnecessary as we don’t need it. When you understand geologic history, you know the carbon warming theory is a hoax. BWB planes would be prohibitively expensive negating efficiency gains.
Composite materials 🙄
@@kalenooc4938 Really, ya really want to go there?
@@NeroontheGoon Doesn't solve the problem as you can use composite with round fuselage and have weight savings.
A bit like Boeing's abandoned Sonic Cruiser design. Hope it gets to fly!
What about the "flying-V" plane??
"I think it is a good aircraft professor, your on to something extraordinary. The fuel reduction, and new fuel(HYDROGEN) implementation is a plus. I think I'm going to have to call you? "The Sonic Man!" 👍
"You have my full credit." ✓
having the jet intakes over the top of wings provides lift even when not moving forwards...
Looks very similar to the design airbus has been working on for a number of years.
I can't help but think a BWB version could also serve as a conventional heavy bomber with a lower RCS than a B-52, but not as complex as a B-21 Raider
I like looking forward to the future
A liter of jet fuel has more hydrogen than a liter of hydrogen. Also, try to evacuate in 90 seconds using half of the exits.
Going back, see Northrop's "Avion 1" X216-H.
Among the best of its class in all criteria, and markedly faster than any others.
Also V.J.Burnelli making lifting fuselage body planes.
During the war, the Higgins-Bellanca 39-60 cargo plane, and a similar Boeing 360-362 bomber.
Several similar things from the Germans like some tailed Arado 555 versions and Arado 470. A few Horten/Messerschmitt versions with tails or tailfins like the Ho-18 B2.
Not to forget the Me-163 Komet, which despite the dubious propulsion, was an entirely successful flying machine, stemming from Lippisch work on "flying wing" design.
Many other "flying wings" with tailfins made very good flying machines too. They tried and utterly failed to make entirely tail-less, failed with wing-tip fins, and when they put a proper fin on it, it worked very well. Arup, Cheranovsky, Fauvel, the Kharkov KhAI-3, others.
More recently, the 1970 Sukhoi T4MS-200 bomber: same technology as the T-4 Sotka, but better range and payload than the Tupolev "Blackjack" which got built instead.
Early 2000s patents by Dizdarevic "Tailed Flying Wings", and the 2016 Lock-Mart hybrid wing-body logistics plane, and the "Frigate Ecojet": multiples of payload and range because they generate substantial lift from the fuselage. Because they have a tail, entirely controllable and stable.
The reason the McD blended wing body was never followed through, is because Boeing owns it, and refuses to build to any sort of lifting fuselage design. NASA had to get Cranfield to build the X-48 models because of the intransigent refusal of Boeing to carry it forward.
Aerospace is cowardly and if Boeing isn't doing it, no one else will.
Masterpiece!
Yes!
In 1963 at the extinct British aircraft construction company Handley Page Ltd., along with other research engineers, I was involved with such an aircraft that also was proposed to have laminar flow suction to reduce skin-friction drag and the result was for a design that was considerably cheaper to fly because its structure was more efficient and because its drag was much lower. These properties were similar to what is described in this video, and it is not much more suitable that our 60-years old ideas were for greater efficiency. This proposal was called HP117 but of course there was no commercial organization which was willing to escape from the tube and swept-wing layouts having outside mounted engines, commonly in use. Its past time to "think outside of the box".
Isn't that the same as laminar flow ,just like the s r seventy one
I have seen some plans and studies with model planes from the technical university Delft and KLM with a very similar setup some years ago. Nothing new.
Look up in Google the "flying V plane"
1. The puking for anyone sitting too far from the central axis.
2. Heavy. Pressure vessels are tubes for a reason.
3. Designing a certifiable passenger plane would be a challenge. Emergency evacuation would be difficult. Imagine evacuating a movie theater in 90 seconds.
4. Don't have an engine failure.
5. Mostly an aerodynamicist's dream. The concept has been around 30+ years. If the design could be built and operated economically, Airbus or Boeing would have done it already. Not so much demand for a super jumbo.
6. Look at the direction X-66A is going.
At 6:19 you show an interior view with giant panoramic windows. In a pressurized non-circular fuselage?
Not bad if can replace those airliners and safe flight. 1200 mph is good compared to our current airliners can flight at 600.
If this is the future of subsonic jet transports why have Boeing and NASA committed a billion dollars to the trussed wing research project.
It is obvious why the a blended wing design would be great for a tanker aircraft.
Biggest issue is geometry. Passengers need surface area to exit the plane in a timely manner. Cargo needs specific dimensions to fit that are sometimes better offered by a taller cylindrical fuselage.
A tanker has none of these issues. Its crew is small and its cargo is liquid. It can be any shape you want.
The pressure vessel will be difficult. The heavy structure required to pressurize a contiguous oblong cabin may negate any efficiency advantages of your blended wing concept. An unpressurized tanker makes more sense.
It would be great to have a different mass transit plane configuration and experience from the present design, HOWEVER” the total failure of the airlines pre and post flight experience we “all suffer” on every part of this process needs to be radically changed. Unless you have a private jet.
Very cool
bro peaple are allergic to canards? the plane could have swep wings that run into the body, and just have canards and fuselage to generate lift in high speed... this would solve the problem of taking to much space in hangars, it could just swep the wing to position in the middle of the runway to takeoff, and the design with canard would have much higher max take of weight, its safer, the only problem is fuselage stress, but for a blended wing you would allready have to use more advanced material, composite carbon fiber of some king... now we are running to hibrid aircraft aswell, without the apu and with batterys, to start the engine, to every thing, and we could also put eletric motor in the wheels for the airplane to pick higher speeds quickly, also to use the electricit generated with the landing, and fill up the battery without needing to stay with the engines running to fill the batterys for the next flight.
Looks like sea gull.
Its the fusion concept for aircraft.... its been 5 years away for 40 years....... the ageless clickbait, holy grail of social media.....
It would be a nightmare for aircraft mechanics to replace or remove those engines above the wings or body.
And I believe that the future will be container pods and aircraft supplied power and life support with self contained pods.
This would involve the engines mounted on spars/engine mounted to the horizontal tails with the center fuselage to put the pod within.
The positive aspect for this design would be quick turn around for pod insertion and removal, thus aircraft turn around.
I believe that the future will be hydrogen powere with electric fan engines.
Wing loading is very low, which makes turbulence worse for the passengers. Bumpy ride. Important to hold a Tanker steady too.
Sudden up drafts and down drafts will injur anyone inside and make it too dangerous unless it flies very fast.
Yeah and I’ve got a bridge in Baltimore I”lol sell to you cheap 😂
Need to run at X2 to get normal speed.
The use of technology from advanced research obtained by researchers from a area not attached to today’s technology but from back working other’s information from the early 1950 to 1970
there is a weakness in it in that objects or other things that can fly over the plane hit the engines -- i think
Why not replace windows with big video screens so everyone gets big window seats..maybe live feed from outside sky
😃😃😃😃
“We may need to defend them” by showing them our specific type of democracy…
How about passengers are not crammed into the damn thing like sardines?
A seemingly Never fading Fantasy.
It's Almost a Century old concept.
Seen many of these flying? Nor will you.
Boeing isn't going anywhere if they keep losing parts off their planes during flights.
Actually Jet Zero is making the BWB
@@UCIEngineering Currently, Jet Zero has a contract to build a BWB, NASA funded MacDonald Douglas to design one of the first BWBs, originally. Boeing will most likely not be awarded a contract to build the BWB if their performance continues to decline, unless there is a lot of money that changes hands behind the scenes. We have a corrupt system that will, eventually destroy itself, if runaway capitalism is not better regulated. Robert mentioned that he worked for Boeing for many years. MacDonald Douglas merged with Boeing on Aug. 1st, 1997. That is why I mentioned Boeing in my comment. You are out of your league.
@@UCIEngineering Robert mentioned that he worked for MacDonald Douglas which merged with Boeing on Aug. 1st, l997. He has worked for Boeing for many years. Boeing is a good example of runaway capitalism. It needs enough regulation to prevent the money that changes hands behind the scenes. He speaks from a history as a Boeing employee. JetZero currently has a contract but there is no guarantee that they will end up building the BWB. Boeing, unfortunately, is politically involved, so it remains to be seen whether or not they are awarded or they buy their next contract.
там царь Тамар собственной персоны на подработке в кредо ?
Oh goody. No doors that will pop out?
With you all the way up until the liquid hydrogen. Any engine can burn LH to lower emissions but no one has solved the problem of producing it economically. LH is somewhat like fusion power generation, always just a decade away. I know that government money can be drained away for the LH promise to build the BWB though.
Boeing’s BWB never came to fruition.
At least it’s not an EV🥳
Are Boeing making this ?
Jet Zero is making this plane
@@UCIEngineering Phew !! S'good news.
2027,,,,,not a chance. Probably not even in2037.
It does a dis-service to the concept by tying it to revolutionary technology like hydrogen or radically advanced technology, when am immediate benefit is gained with contemporary technology.
It's saying that the concept is held up on and dependent on the new technology maturing.
“They” need this airplane. Which “they”? It looks like an amazing advance for commercial flight, but don’t prioritise the military. Everywhere the US gets involved, the situation gets worse.
Haven't seen the "NGAD" have you? Just ridiculous how the most ignorant are ALWAYS the one's to open their fat mouths first.
Because no one civil aviation will invest to standards that plane in production, that why they use military budgets to standards production, after they use in production for civil aviation
@@boriskaru Справедливый комментарий.
There are lots of unhappy people with the actions of the US. They should stay home more and leave them alone.
Hydrogen is a stupid fuel
What the US of A NEEDS to do is protect its own borders and start rebuilding its infrastructure. Bridges, highways, high speed rail, ports and locks etc. America is a mess and yet the war mongers want 5 trillion a year.
Protecting our Boarders is Racist… that’s not very nice…. Now I’m sad😂
Ah Boeing
BWB is a lot like Fusion power. It will be here in ten years. 😴
None of these guys are Gen-Z or Millennials - says it all really .....
What are you even trying to say?
Americans again- patting themselves on the shoulder for … nothing
Big lofty dreams - lots of blabla
Commentary is slow and hard to listen to; I had to stop watching the video.
The content may contain valuable information, but the presenter was as boring as watching grass grow.
Robert Liebeck is a highly respected octogenerian professor who was actually answering interview questions in this video so that's why his dynamic is not quite the same a TV presenter
This thing has a lot of vital drawbacks. At least it is not suitable for passenger planes.
Are you sure that isn’t a UFO?