Flying Wings, BWB, HWB or Lifting Bodies ? (Definitions)
- Thread starter jsport
- Start date
- Joined
- 1 May 2007
- Messages
- 2,537
- Reaction score
- 1,750
Okay, so, let's go again, from the top . . .
In 1988, NASA released a request for information on concepts for more economical airliner configurations. McDonnell Douglas responded with their Blended Wing Body design, or BWB, see :-
Boeing Developing Wing-Body Aircraft
Aerospace: The stingray-shaped plane, still at least a decade away, would be a first in commercial jets.
www.latimes.com
"Engineers at Phantom Works began drafting the flying-wing design in 1993 when they were given a $90,000 grant from NASA to look at alternative configurations to the tube-and-wing design that had become the industry’s standard for passenger airplanes.
Phantom Works at the time was under McDonnell Douglas Corp., which was later acquired by Boeing. NASA followed up with another $3-million grant. When Boeing acquired McDonnell in 1997, the company decided to continue the program."
See also,
Of Blended Wing-Bodies and Flying Wings | Symscape
When, in 2015, Lockheed Martin began investigating a response to the 'KC-Z' requirement, they realised that such an aircraft would require a rear loading ramp, which had proved difficult to apply to a BWB type configuration, so they adapted the existing BWB concepts by adding a conventional rear fuselage and T-tail. Lockheed named this the Hybrid Wing Body, or HWB, see here :-
Lockheed Moves Foward With Big Blended Wing Hybrid Transport Jet Design
Lockheed has had a busy month attempting to stake its claim to America’ staple military aerospace capabilities, unveiling their U-2 replacement concept. Now their large blended wing cargo hauling jet design, dubbed the Hybrid Wing Body, that has been in the works for over six years and aimed to...
foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com
"Now their large blended wing cargo hauling jet design, dubbed the Hybrid Wing Body, that has been in the works for over six years and aimed to be a great improvement in efficiency over existing U.S. Air Force transports, is moving forward in development.
The idea behind the concept is to take the pure blended wing concept and add a large T-tail, a rear ramp and massive fuel efficient turbofan engines mounted over aircraft’s upper trailing edge. Lockheed says this design will be able to take off in less than 6,500 feet and fly 3,685 miles while carrying a 220,000 pounds payload. This payload can include any of the outsized cargo now hauled by the C-5 Galaxy (also a Lockheed product), and it can supposedly do all this while burning an astonishing 70 percent less fuel than what C-17 would.
By keeping with a a conventional tail and rear ramp design, and keeping the jet within proportions of existing heavy cargo aircraft, an operational Hybrid Wing Body aircraft can still use existing infrastructure and many of the established operating concepts that have been in use for decades. This includes loading, unloading and making air drops via the aircraft’s rear ramp."
Now we get to the IMPORTANT part; when you invent something, YOU GET TO NAME IT!
Thus, when we say Blended Wing Body, we mean the McDD / Boeing concept, and likewise, when we say Hybrid Wing Body, we mean the Lockheed Martin concept.
Now, it may help you to make up your own definitions for things, but you can't expect others to stop using the accepted definitions, and start using yours, just because you prefer your own . . .
cheers,
Robin.
Last edited by a moderator:
djfawcett
With Enough Power, Anything Will Fly
- Joined
- 16 December 2012
- Messages
- 232
- Reaction score
- 291
I believe you will find that robunos post is the product of a previous debate on the blended winged body thread. I agree that the picture and somewhat offensive language attached was not necessary, but robunos argument is well formed and grounded - basically, "if you invented it, you can name it" - LOL. but more to the point, what was the purpose of jsport's post in the first place? It contributed absolutely nothing to the discussion other than to continue a issue first started on the aformentioned thread, and create further antagonism.
- Joined
- 1 May 2007
- Messages
- 2,537
- Reaction score
- 1,750
With hindsight, the picture I posted above did seem somewhat OTT, so I've deleted it. I apologise for any offence caused . . .
@djfawcett; thank you. It's not just that if you invented it, you can name it, but that throughout the Aerospace world, these terms have commonly understood and and accepted definitions. However, this is now the SECOND thread where Jsport has posted, attempting to impose his own definitions for these terms, on this Forum . . .
cheers,
Robin.
@djfawcett; thank you. It's not just that if you invented it, you can name it, but that throughout the Aerospace world, these terms have commonly understood and and accepted definitions. However, this is now the SECOND thread where Jsport has posted, attempting to impose his own definitions for these terms, on this Forum . . .
cheers,
Robin.
Last edited:
jsport
what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
- Joined
- 27 July 2011
- Messages
- 7,100
- Reaction score
- 4,823
Im not confused at all.
contractors dont get to change phyiscal reality. Wiki does get to change phyisical reality either. There is difference in blended wing which encompasses the whole craft and conformal body with wings that are not a symetrical continuation of the body like a blended wing,
You can beat me up all you want and maybe it Hybrid can be replaced as word but The two different fuselages DONT L:OOK THE SAME. A so called BWB that looks like a modified conformal tube and wing not a BWB in my book. Never will be. Sounds like "1984" like indocrination not to beleive what you see.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 6 November 2010
- Messages
- 4,633
- Reaction score
- 4,112
You write about the German Horton brothers of flying wing fame. In a thread about William Horton's wingless aircraft. The brothers were Walter and Reimar HortEn, with an E. That makes me wince. Your expositions about what makes a BWB and what makes an HWB make no sense to me. I am not saying you are confused, I am saying you are wrong. On both subjects.
@robunos: it is jsport offering his own unique view of what constitutes a BWB here and in the other thread.
@robunos: it is jsport offering his own unique view of what constitutes a BWB here and in the other thread.
jsport
what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
- Joined
- 27 July 2011
- Messages
- 7,100
- Reaction score
- 4,823
William Horton is the one who was beaten up and jailed at the behest of Howard Hughes .. An appropriate reference here to your piling on me again.
Look from the front of a Boeing or LM so called BWB transports, they have discernable wings, thin and apart the width of the body. The B-2 the B-21 are not flying wings because they are bulbous portions in the center but the wing is the craft. There are no asymetricial little wings sticking out like the transports. A squashed tube and wing w/ little wings attached. This is simply a phyisical reality.
- Joined
- 25 June 2014
- Messages
- 1,564
- Reaction score
- 1,483
For what it's worth I would describe the Horton designs as lifting bodies. Some have stub wings and there is certainly no blending about any of them.
I am unaware of any accepted definition of a hybrid wing-body, save as some manufacturers' marketing puff to mean their blended wing-body project (our Jsport has persistently declined to offer any authoritative source for the definition they claim).
I am unaware of any accepted definition of a hybrid wing-body, save as some manufacturers' marketing puff to mean their blended wing-body project (our Jsport has persistently declined to offer any authoritative source for the definition they claim).
jsport
what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
- Joined
- 27 July 2011
- Messages
- 7,100
- Reaction score
- 4,823
Only said the MD and LM transports (squished tube and wing) are not the same as the Flying Wings (Horton Brs, Jack Northrop etc)) nor the NG B-2 B-21 BWBs. Never referenced Bill Horton. Mentioned Hybrid may be a bad description. Thinkin contractors may want to convolute. Might be time for the community start acknowledging real differences in these designs.
- Joined
- 1 May 2007
- Messages
- 2,537
- Reaction score
- 1,750
I agree that there is no 'official' definition of a 'Hybrid Wing Body', however, if we see an image like this :-
(source: https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/lockheed-martins-hybrid-wing-body-future-airlifter)
we know that this is referred to as a 'Hybrid Wing Body', or 'HWB' and we don't go around making up our own names for it . . .
cheers,
Robin.
jsport
what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
- Joined
- 27 July 2011
- Messages
- 7,100
- Reaction score
- 4,823
Appears much closer to a BWB. Hybrid is most likely the compromised description the original old LM, Boeing, MD transport concepts until they finally improved the design closer to a genuine BWB. Someone convinced them to improve the design, proving the point. (pure BWB is best)
The word "hybrid" is both lazy and assures the previous non BWBs were some how acceptable.
No wants to remember the modified squished tube and wing original designs but the laxy name will remain to protect the guilty.
The word "hybrid" is both lazy and assures the previous non BWBs were some how acceptable.
No wants to remember the modified squished tube and wing original designs but the laxy name will remain to protect the guilty.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 25 June 2014
- Messages
- 1,564
- Reaction score
- 1,483
Which, with due respect, is exactly what you just did. If there is no authoritative distinction between BWB and HWB then you have made it up.
Historically the configuration has been variously described as blended wing, blended body, blended wing body and, apparently, hybrid wing body (add hyphens to taste throughout) and possibly others. It is a shame that the Flight archive is currently down for maintenance or I could source some examples.
Last edited:
Btw, This :
Is a TWB (Tadpole Wing Boby).
... oK , I add to the confusion... sorry.
Is a TWB (Tadpole Wing Boby).
... oK , I add to the confusion... sorry.
- Joined
- 1 May 2007
- Messages
- 2,537
- Reaction score
- 1,750
Except that I didn't ! The term 'Hybrid Wing Body' was coined by Lockheed Martin when (or before) they unveiled their concept in 2015. I'm just using the name it's creators gave to it. As I said in #6 above, "if you invented it, you can name it". LM invented it, so LM named it, and that's the name I use . . .
cheers,
Robin.
- Joined
- 1 May 2007
- Messages
- 2,537
- Reaction score
- 1,750
- Joined
- 25 June 2014
- Messages
- 1,564
- Reaction score
- 1,483
As I said, marketing puff. If LM want to call their BWB an HWB, they live in a free country. Because you see, LM did not invent it: the design, down to some detail, was far from new and had previously been described as a BWB. Perhaps you can point up where LM distinguish it technically from a BWB, thus proving that you did not make the distinction up yourself?
- Joined
- 1 May 2007
- Messages
- 2,537
- Reaction score
- 1,750
Well, now you have me at a disadvantage, I was unaware of this _particular_ configuration being in the public domain before it's announcement by Lockheed Martin.
As to how it differs from the Boeing (ex-McDD) 'BWB', I understand it to be that LM added a conventional style rear fuselage to the Boeing shape, to allow the use of a rear loading ramp, which is difficult to engineer in a tailless BWB. (See my links upthread) This ramp, is of course essential in the tactical airlifter role. However, adding a lengthened rear fuselage then demanded a separate tail assembly, which leads us to the final 'HWB' configuration.
Put another the way, the 'HWB' is a Hybrid, of a 'BWB', at the front, and a conventional airlifter, at the rear.
You're correct, it is just 'marketing puff', but it works . . . how many people say 'Hoover', when they mean vacuum cleaner. When asked what car they drive, who says 'an SUV', or 'just a city car' ? No, they say 'an Astra', or 'a Focus', or 'a Beemer', or 'a Jag' . . .
To return to original point of all this, there are names in common use to describe these types of aircraft. They may not be technically, or scientifically correct (unfortunately there's no equivalent of IUPAC for aerospace), but people understand what they represent. So, when someone comes along, attempting to unilaterally, and without any good reason, change these names, unfortunately it annoys me. The @tower of Babel' springs to mind . . .
cheers,
Robin
- Joined
- 25 June 2014
- Messages
- 1,564
- Reaction score
- 1,483
Yep. It is universally described as such and is emphatically not a BWB.
Types such as the McDonnell XP-67 and Rockwell B-1 are BWBs with a tail and have never been referred to as HWB. Where is the LM source for your speculation about their technical derivation of the term HWB? Without such a source, you are just contributing to the Babel mess. Fighting one pile of nonsense with another is not a good way forward.
djfawcett
With Enough Power, Anything Will Fly
- Joined
- 16 December 2012
- Messages
- 232
- Reaction score
- 291
To make the issue a little more convoluted, in November of 2003, Airboss Aviation Group developed a cargo aircraft concept for Stalwart Aviation and FEDEX that was very unique. It was referred to by both FEDEX and Airboss as a hybrid BWB. Below is one of many drawing that was in the presentation. Additionally, there was a turbofan version. Now am I the first guy to use hybrid BWB - LOL. Enjoy
Last edited:
D'oh ! Homer's plane !
djfawcett
With Enough Power, Anything Will Fly
- Joined
- 16 December 2012
- Messages
- 232
- Reaction score
- 291
I have to ask ..... who is Homer?????? - LOLOL
Homer Simpson :
And his famous car :
The Homer
"The Homer" (also known as "The Car Built for Homer") was an infamous concept car that yielded disastrous financial results for the company that produced it, Powell Motors. Powell Motors CEO Herb Powell believed the company needed to create "the type of car Americans really want, not the kind we...
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,565
- Reaction score
- 7,188
The ‘Flying-V,’ a Fuel-Efficient Alternative to Jumbo Jets, Flies for the First Time
A scaled version of the V-Wing made its first flight, showing that alternative designs could become long-distance aircraft of the future.
robbreport.com
Similar threads
-
McDonnell Douglas & Boeing BWB projects- Started by flateric
- Replies: 109
-
-
-
-
Last chance to subscribe to Aerospace Projects Review...- Started by Orionblamblam
- Replies: 4