Reply to thread

Message

HAHAHAHAHAHA.
I wouldn't be surprised if they keep going with their multidisciplinary FEM/unsteady RANS/ LES / CFD/ PIV/wind tunnel/adjoint method/insert-random-three-letter acronym analysis, they will find out the optimum real world design is...a tube and wing.

But seriously, i am not sold on the whole premise of the HWB. Just from first order considerations.
The tube and wing configuration has lots of wetted area but excellent stability. The BWB on the other hand has minimum wetted area but it's harder to get the cg range. So you say "let's combine the two!". Problem is, you inherit both the qualities and the flaws of the parent configurations. When i look at the HWB, i don't see less wetted area, and the non-circular pressure vessel is still there. So most of the overall benefits must come from the powerplant using very large bypass ratio, and large usage of composites, which you can still apply to tube and wing (well, not with engines under the wing) or BWB configurations.

Man, i am really cynical of late.

<blockquote data-quote="AeroFranz" data-source="post: 314601" data-attributes="member: 1541">HAHAHAHAHAHA. I wouldn't be surprised if they keep going with their multidisciplinary FEM/unsteady RANS/ LES / CFD/ PIV/wind tunnel/adjoint method/insert-random-three-letter acronym analysis, they will find out the optimum real world design is...a tube and wing. But seriously, i am not sold on the whole premise of the HWB. Just from first order considerations.The tube and wing configuration has lots of wetted area but excellent stability. The BWB on the other hand has minimum wetted area but it's harder to get the cg range. So you say &quot;let's combine the two!&quot;. Problem is, you inherit both the qualities and the flaws of the parent configurations. When i look at the HWB, i don't see less wetted area, and the non-circular pressure vessel is still there. So most of the overall benefits must come from the powerplant using very large bypass ratio, and large usage of composites, which you can still apply to tube and wing (well, not with engines under the wing) or BWB configurations. Man, i am really cynical of late. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite3" alt=":(" title="Frown&nbsp; &nbsp; :(" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":(" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="AeroFranz, post: 314601, member: 1541"] HAHAHAHAHAHA. I wouldn't be surprised if they keep going with their multidisciplinary FEM/unsteady RANS/ LES / CFD/ PIV/wind tunnel/adjoint method/insert-random-three-letter acronym analysis, they will find out the optimum real world design is...a tube and wing. But seriously, i am not sold on the whole premise of the HWB. Just from first order considerations. The tube and wing configuration has lots of wetted area but excellent stability. The BWB on the other hand has minimum wetted area but it's harder to get the cg range. So you say "let's combine the two!". Problem is, you inherit both the qualities and the flaws of the parent configurations. When i look at the HWB, i don't see less wetted area, and the non-circular pressure vessel is still there. So most of the overall benefits must come from the powerplant using very large bypass ratio, and large usage of composites, which you can still apply to tube and wing (well, not with engines under the wing) or BWB configurations. Man, i am really cynical of late. :( [/QUOTE]

Verification