ince the end of WW II, evolving technologies have enabled military aircraft to attain supersonic

S speeds, extend ranges to cover the entire globe (with airborne refueling), and significantly im-
prove transport capacity.
Now a combination of advanced composite structures, full-authority fly-by-wire controls, and
high-bandwidth control actuators have matured to the point where a radical new airframe design is
about to begin prototype flight testing.
Designed by Boeing Phantom Works in Huntington Beach, Calif., and built to its specifications
by Cranfield Aerospace in England, the X-48B Blended Wing Body (BWB) Ship No. 1 completed a full
set of wind tunnel tests at NASA Langley’s Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate in mid-May. It
was then shipped to NASA Dryden at Edwards AFB, Calif., to serve as a backup to Ship No. 2, which
will be used for the actual flight tests beginning this fall and running through mid-2007.
The effort has been funded primarily by Boeing, with some money to support the flight test pro-
gram coming from the Air Force Research Lab (AFRL) at Wright Patterson AFB, Ohio. Dryden is pro-
viding facilities and support for the flight test under contract, as Langley did for the wind tunnel por-
tion of the prototype program.

Radical departure
The BWB design has some similarities to the Northrop Flying Wing of the late 1940s and the current
by J.R. Wilson B-2 stealth bomber, but is actually a radical departure from any previous airframe. It features a trian-
Contributing writer gular wing that blends smoothly into a wide, flat, tailless fuselage that extends forward. Three podded

28 AEROSPACE AMERICA/OCTOBER 2006 Copyright© 2006 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Flight test time for the
blended
wing body
The blended-wing body, although resembling the flying wing, differs dramatically from that earlier
design, with a wing that blends smoothly into a wide, flat, tailless fuselage. A small-scale prototype has
now completed wind tunnel tests, and a duplicate vehicle is on the verge of actual flight testing.
Encouraging results promise significant benefits in terms of speed, range, internal volume, and design
flexibility. The many potential roles envisioned for the full-sized version range from tanker to troop
transport to weapons platform—even carrier duty may not be out of the question.

engines are mounted above the trailing edge creased their confidence in the wind tunnel re-
back of the center body. sults, but has decreased the amount of preflight
“The real purpose of our flight vehicle is to work that will need to be done at Dryden.
test flight control issues. The B-2 has done that “The wind tunnel results are absolutely
as well, although it flies in a very controlled en- critical [to the flight test],” Dryden X-48B proj-
vironment,” Boeing X-48B chief engineer Nor- ect manager Gary Cosentino explains. “That is
man Princen tells Aerospace America. “We are a very large, complex database on the aerody-
expanding that to look at low-speed, high-an- namics of this vehicle and, even more impor-
gle-of-attack flight characteristics and to make tant, the control power of the various effectors.
this plane fly as well as any aircraft with a con- That database right now is being analyzed and
ventional tail, all the way up to and beyond stall.
“This airplane is entirely carbon fiber epoxy
composites, bagged and autoclaved to get the
weight down to the targets we had. We also en-
vision the same material systems—if not the
same construction techniques—would be used
on any follow-on aircraft. The weight and
strength benefits of carbon fiber are advanta-
geous, and the technologies are far enough
along for primary structures.”

Wind tunnel testing

The Langley wind tunnel tests were unusual in
that engineers were able to perform tests on an The X-48 has some similarities
actual flight vehicle; even though Ship No. 1 is to its forebears, the Northrop
Grumman Flying Wing [left] of
not currently scheduled to fly, it is identical to the 1940s and the current
Ship No. 2. Engineers say this has not only in- Northrop Grumman B-2 bomber.

AEROSPACE AMERICA/OCTOBER 2006 29

 derivatives calculated, which will feed directly
into the flight controls Boeing will develop and
eventually install in the aircraft.
“There are validation methods, calculation
methods, being used to go from the CAM [com-
puter-aided manufacturing] drawing of the ve-
hicle to predictions that are validated in the
wind tunnel, with that data then validated in
flight. So it is a natural progression of getting
smart on the specific flight characteristics of this
particular shape, learning how good our design
tools are, how clean our wind tunnel measure-
ments are, and how well we did in translating
those into flight control laws. This is exactly
what flight research is all about—going from
one end of the spectrum all the way to flight.”
Boeing also was pleased with the Langley
wind tunnel results, saying there were no sur-
prises to delay moving to the next step of flight
testing at Dryden. Even so, a lot of testing re-
mains to be done on the ground, including low-
and high-speed taxi, full system testing, and
validation of all flight control software in simu-
lation. But the success of the wind tunnel phase
is considered a major step forward.
“This is a unique opportunity to fly
something that has actually been in a
wind tunnel. That is sort of the Holy
Grail of the aerodynamicist—to
get all the sideslip data and so
forth, then make that same
shape fly.”
—Gary B. Cosentino, X-48B
project manager, NASA Dryden
High-quality data
Princen says the primary goals at Langley were
to verify Boeing’s predictions on aerodynamic
characteristics and build a good database for the
next phase.
“I’ve been very pleased with the data from
those tests. Number one, the quality of data, in
terms of measurements from the wind tunnel
and all our sensors, was better than we expected
to get. Looking at that data, we’ve determined
the aerodynamic characteristics aren’t very dif-
ferent from what we predicted, which is what
we wanted to see. So far, everything is lining up
very well with our predictions. The basic aerody-
namic characteristics are all as expected,” he says.
“Still, in some areas we will go back and
modify our database somewhat before we fly.
30 AEROSPACE AMERICA/OCTOBER 2006
There were no major surprises, but a few of the
control surfaces had more control effectiveness
than we thought, which is actually helpful.
That’s the kind of thing you find in these tests
before flying the aircraft.”
The wind tunnel phase was used to collect
three primary types of data, including the stan-
dard regular force of moment data collected
from any wind tunnel test.
“We are comparing that to our predictions
to make sure the airframe, as built, has charac-
teristics similar to what we predicted. We also
had two air data probes that will be used in flight
testing mounted on the airplane in the wind
tunnel,” Princen says. “We collected angle of at-
tack and angle of side slip and Pitot [airspeed]
and static pressures, which let you calculate al-
titude and airspeed. That data will be used to
come up with the calibrations for all those sen-
sors before flight test, which will save us from
having to devote some flight tests to making
those calibrations.
“The third class of data was control surface
inch moments, which are the aerodynamic mo-
ments the control surface sees. That is an im-
portant part of our research, in terms of looking
at what would be required for a follow-on full-
sized BWB. That helps you eventually with siz-
ing actuators, for example.”
Flight control and the “X” factor
At Dryden, the flight test program—expected to
begin late this month or in early November and
run through mid-2007—will be concerned pri-
marily with low-speed flight characteristics,
which will be tested in parallel with the flight
control system (FCS).
“We want to make sure the FCS keeps the
aircraft out of any bad situations—no departure
characteristics that are unexpected for the pilot
once you stall the aircraft, for example. That is
really a function of both aerodynamic charac-
teristics of the airframe itself and, even more
important, a properly working flight control
system,” Princen says, adding that the goal is to
prove the X-48B behaves just like a conven-
tional tailed transport.
“We don’t know what kind of flight pro-
ductivity we will get—that will be clearer once
we get into ground testing. But I suspect some-
where between a six- and nine-month program—
although I could get surprised, and it could go
quicker than that.”
Both prototypes may be used for follow-on
flight tests, although Boeing declined comment
on when that might happen.
“There are things we want to do with those
vehicles beyond what we already have planned,”
 “One big difference
Princen confirms. “We’re looking at the feasibil-
ity of those and what they will require. Our view between this airplane
is we have spent quite a few resources putting and the traditional tube-and-
these aircraft together and want to get the most
wing aircraft is that, instead of a
research we can out of them for that investment.”
Cosentino says he is looking forward to conventional tail, the blended
having an “X” plane to fly again at Dryden, even wing body relies solely on multiple
if it is an unmanned prototype. control surfaces on the wing for stability and control.”
“This is really a unique shape, and not
many people have experience in putting this —Dan Vicroy, senior research engineer,
NASA Langley
shape in the air,” he says. “It is a flying wing plus.
You have the large wing, but also the portion of Boeing, NASA, and AFRL are looking to the
the fuselage that extends forward. So it has a lot current prototype to help them understand the
more volume than a pure flying wing configu- aerodynamics of the unique BWB shape, its lim-
ration. It is really just what it says—take an air- itations, and how to fly safely within those lim-
craft fuselage and reshape it to blend in its. NASA, especially, is interested in BWB for
smoothly with the wing. Aerodynamically, it high-altitude vehicles that can operate quietly
acts like a flying wing, but planform-wise it in the approach and takeoff regimes. The X-48B
gives you a lot more volume.” design offers a low noise signature by shielding
the engines above the fuselage.
One airframe, many roles All three organizations are intrigued by two
Although the X-48B is almost entirely a Boeing- other benefits of the blended wing—significantly
funded, proprietary effort, both NASA and the expanded cargo volume and extended range
Air Force have long been interested in the con- compared to those of similar-sized aircraft, up
cept. “One of the big concerns of the Air Force to the Air Force’s largest transport, the C-5.
is efficiency, and doing things as cost-effectively “We’re looking at a broad range of applica-
as possible. The blended wing design is a possi- tions, not just limited to tankers and transports,
ble way to do that, and the X-48B is designed to but a multirole aircraft that also could serve as
be a spot-on representative of what the full- an airborne C4ISR [command, control, commu-
sized plane will be. So whatever it can do, pre- nications, computers, intelligence, and recon-
sumably, the larger plane can do,” says Lt. Scott naissance] or even a bomber variant, as well as
Van Hoogen, a member of the AFRL
team observing the X-48B for the Air
The blended wing offers signifi-
Force. cantly expanded cargo volume
“We’re looking at multirole, multi- and extended range.
configuration—tanker, cargo, possibly a
weapons platform. There also may be
some potential as a troop transport at
some point, but right now we are fo-
cusing more on the cargo/tanker side
of it,” he continues.
While NASA is in the role of con-
tract facilities provider for the proto-
type wind tunnel and flight tests, they
have a larger interest—and expect to
play a larger, more direct role—in any
future BWB development.
“You need to distinguish between
the larger BWB program and the spe-
cific X-48B test flight,” Cosentino ex-
plains. “The BWB has been a Boeing
and NASA Aeronautical Systems brain-
child for many years, with a goal of a
full-sized actual vehicle. What we want
to do this summer is a subset of that
larger program. I think NASA would
play an even greater role if it ever gets
to the level of manned flight test.”

AEROSPACE AMERICA/OCTOBER 2006 31


“We believe the BWB
concept has the potential
to cost-effectively fill many
roles required by the Air Force,
such as tanking, weapons carriage,
and command and control.”
—Capt. Scott Bjorge, X-48B program manager,
Air Force Research Lab
smaller versions that could be UAVs,” Princen
says. “There are a multitude of applications for
the technology.
“The current BWB design flies at the same
kind of 0.85 Mach conventional aircraft today
fly, but there is a potential to push that a little
higher without too many penalties. If you look
at the cross-sectional area distribution, it is very
much area ruled, which is a prerequisite for get-
ting the drag lower when you want to go to
higher Mach numbers. If the cross-sectional
area distribution along the length of the vehicle
has smooth curves, that helps with higher
speed drag. But we’ve only really scratched the
surface on that, and it hasn’t been pursued very
thoroughly.”
The BWB also offers the potential for ex-
tended range with its larger cargo capacity,
burning from 10% to 30% less fuel in computer-
simulated mission comparisons with current
USAF fleet aircraft.
“So far, all the studies we’ve done have fo-
cused on conventional engine technology,”
Princen adds. “If there eventually is a move to-
ward hydrogen-powered aircraft, however, there
is a consideration that this might be a platform
that would lend itself to that, especially due to
the extended internal volume capacity. But we
haven’t done any specific design studies on that.”
While the Navy is not part of the X-48B,
and the plane’s broad, triangular design might
seem ill-suited to carrier duty, he says this is not
outside the realm of possibility.
“The studies we’ve done show the BWB de-
sign is very flexible. Again, the main advantages
it brings to the table have to do with large inter-
nal volume compared to the size of the aircraft,
and better fuel efficiency,” notes Princen. “The
outboard wing panels of this airplane are fairly
conventional. We call it a BWB for a reason—
there is a central body and fairly conventional-
design outboard wings that are blended
smoothly together. So a wing fold mechanism
could be installed in the outboard wings.”
That versatility of application, increased
32 AEROSPACE AMERICA/OCTOBER 2006
capacity, and longer range also could provide
benefits to overall fleet operations, he adds.
“A mixed fleet using the same airframe as a
tanker, transport, bomber, and airborne plat-
form could let you get by with fewer airplanes to
do the same mission because of lower fuel burn.
You also would need fewer tankers to satisfy the
missions that you use for the conventional fleet
today,” Princen explains. “Getting the number
of pumps in the sky is a major issue that limits
the amount of operations that can be done.
“So one advantage this aircraft has is, if you
use BWB for certain missions, you don’t need as
many tankers to support those aircraft. On the
other side of the equation, the tankers we’ve
been looking at have multipoint refueling capa-
bility, so you could refuel more tactical aircraft.
We could have the ability to refuel two fighters
at once—not just Navy fighters with hose-
drogues, but USAF aircraft with hard-point re-
fueling. Any advanced tanker aircraft going into
service in the future would have to have both
capabilities.”
One thing Boeing says is not in the current
forecast is a repeat of the development of its
original commercial jetliner—the 707—half a
century ago. That aircraft first was developed
for the Air Force as a jet-powered air-refueling
tanker, then modified to carry passengers. Prin-
cen says Phantom Works will develop the tech-
nology to a point where it can be turned over to
Boeing Integrated Defense Systems for further
development in the military marketplace, but it
is not in the company’s current commercial
market forecast for the next 20 years.
The wind tunnel tests both validated Boe-
ing’s computer-generated flight control law pre-
dictions and revealed no significant problems in
moving to flight testing. However, taking the
BWB concept to a full-sized, manned platform
still has a number of major concerns to address
beyond the low-speed flight characteristics the
current program will examine and future high-
speed characteristics, some of which were part
of the wind tunnel tests.
New questions
The same wide, flat fuselage design that signifi-
cantly increases the BWB cargo capacity also
raises new questions never before addressed in
a pressurized aircraft.
“Normal pressure vessels tend to be round
tubes, because the stresses of pressurization are
more efficiently handled. If you start flattening
that out, you start to get significant bending
stresses in the flat sides. If you do that in metal,
it requires a lot of extra material, and the weight
goes up quite a bit,” Princen says.
 “If you look at the center of a BWB, it tends
to be wide and flat, so the kind of interior
arrangements we would like to put into that vol-
ume lend themselves to a flatter pressure vessel.
Not that it couldn’t be done with tubes, but that
would waste a considerable amount of space.
With composites and appropriate
structural designs, you can avoid a
major part of that weight penalty from
flattening the pressure vessel.”
Just when or if a BWB may actually enter
the military fleet, either as a manned multirole
platform or as a UAV, remains an open question.
“To take this shape and turn it into a full-
scale operational vehicle I think could be done,
using modern methods, in a fairly reasonable
time frame,” Cosentino predicts. “It is usually
the other systems (avionics, sensors, weapons)
that create the delays. So it depends on what
you want to do with the aircraft; how it is to be
used. The total integration package can vary a
lot, but as far as just the shape goes, blowing it
up into a larger scale, that’s not really a hard
job, although to build the shape at a certain
weight might be pushing the technology.”
“We’re looking at flat-sided pressure vessels
for the center body structure
and consider composite materials
to be an enabling technology to
allow that kind of structure to
be built.”
—Norman Princen, X-48B chief
engineer, Boeing Phantom Works
Future outlook
While Boeing wants to do quite a bit more work
on the flight control system and pressurized
chamber, the ultimate factor in how soon a BWB
might actually go into service is more depen-
dent on budgets and customer demand than on
technology.
“The earliest we see any vehicles would be
15-20 years in the future, depending on how
aggressively we pursue the technology,” Princen
says, but then adds a caveat: “If a customer
needed an aircraft with these characteristics, the
best-case scenario would be to have an opera-
tional vehicle in about 10 years.”

All Your Company’s Professional Training Issues…

SOLVED with AIAA Professional Development On-site Training

Learn from the greatest minds in the industry

Here your colleagues will learn from aerospace’s leading minds in engineering and science. It’s not just
theory! The focus is on practical applications taught by experienced practitioners.

Customize a course to meet your organization’s unique requirements

Any one of AIAA’s more than 70 courses can be built specifically to meet the training requirements of
today’s aerospace industry.

Save 30% in tuition costs!

Eliminate travel expenses, reduce staff time away from the office, all while providing a confidential forum
necessary for instructor-student dialog on sensitive proprietary applications.

Talk to your organization’s training officer today about the advantages of AIAA’s
Professional Development On-site Training. Call now 800/639-AIAA (2422).

06-0064

AEROSPACE AMERICA/OCTOBER 2006 33