57

Conceptual design of a medium size flying wing

R Martı́nez-Val
, E Pérez, P Alfaro, and J Pérez
Departamento de Vehı́culos Aeroespaciales, ETSI Aeronáuticos, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

The manuscript was received on 2 February 2006 and was accepted after revision for publication on 25 July 2006.

DOI: 10.1243/09544100JAERO90

Abstract: Flying wings are one of the most promising concepts regarding the ever-increasing air
traffic demand. Furthermore, they help improving economic efficiency and are environmentally
friendly, both in terms of emissions and noise. In the first place, the paper deals about the initial
design of a medium size C-type flying wing, of the 300-seat class, showing that the aircraft is
operationally efficient, and can beat conventional airplanes of similar capacity. It specifically
exhibits some considerable gains in field and cruise performances. Second, the paper addresses
the potential of some emerging technologies, such as laminar flow control, vectored thrust, and
active stability, which provide additional improvements and allow the simplification of the orig-
inal configuration to a U-type arrangement. A preliminary assessment of emergency evacuation
is included.

Keywords: flying wing, conceptual design, performances, emergency evacuation

1 INTRODUCTION aft-mounted empennage and pod-mounted engines

Most air traffic forecasts predict a remarkable increase
over the next two decades, in spite of the serious
downturn after the year 2000 crisis and the terrorist
attack of 11 September 2001. The overall revenue
passenger-kilometre figure goes up at a pace slightly
above 5 per cent, as in references [1] to [3], remark-
ably over the world economic growth. Needless to
say, the predicted traffic growth varies from region
to region, with the USA at the bottom and North
East Asia – Pacific Rim at the top. Freight traffic is
forecast to increase at even higher rates, also requir-
ing a noticeable number of new airplanes as well as
the conversion of ageing airliners. However, this tre-
mendous demand of around 20 000 new airplanes
will have to cope with the continued pressure to
achieve significant reductions in both direct operat-
ing cost and environmental impact.
Commercial aviation has been mainly based over
the last 50 years on what is currently called the conven-
tional layout. This is characterized by a slender fuse-
lage mated to a high aspect ratio wing, with


Corresponding author: Departamento de Vehı́culos Aeroespa-
ciales, ETSI Aeronáuticos, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid,
Plaza del Cardenal Cisneros 3, Madrid 28040, Spain. email:
rodrigo.martinezval@upm.es
under the wing [4]. A variant with engines attached to
the rear fuselage was also developed during the 1950s
and it is still broadly used in business and regional
jets. However, it seems that this primary configuration
is approaching an asymptote around the size of A380 in
its productivity and capacity characteristics [5, 6].
The ever-changing market and technology scen-
ario lead the process of designing new airplanes.
And the major questions are, as usual [7]: What
does the market need? What design fits better in
the long-term scenario? And, what level of technol-
ogy improvement or new research is required?
Within this framework, one of the most promising
configurations is the flying wing in its different con-
cepts: blended-wing body, C-wing, tail-less aircraft,
etc. It may provide significant fuel savings and,
hence, a lower level of pollution. Moreover, the
engines are located above the wing and the aircraft
does not need high-lift devices in low speed con-
figuration, which results in a quieter airplane. This
explains the great deal of activity carried out by the
aircraft industry and numerous researchers through-
out the world to perform conceptual design-level
studies, to address the problems and challenges
posed by this layout [8 –13]. Most of the papers
deal with very high capacity aircraft, up to 1000 pas-
sengers, but forecasts are very promising for medium
capacity airliners too.

JAERO90 # IMechE 2007 Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part G: J. Aerospace Engineering
Downloaded from pig.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on June 27, 2015
58 R Martı́nez-Val, E Pérez, P Alfaro, and J Pérez
Taking into account all this information and the
idea that a medium size flying wing would pose
fewer or lower level problems than a gigantic 1000-
seat aircraft, two precedent papers [14, 15] demon-
strated the technical feasibility and operational
efficiency of a 300-seat flying wing in a C-layout.
The results were greatly encouraging in terms of effi-
ciency and productivity, as well as regarding airport
compatibility.
The present research work points towards confirm-
ing that relevant emerging technologies [laminar flow
control (LFC), vectored thrust, and active stability] are
very well matched to this type of aircraft, and may
provide additional improvements. A preliminary
assessment of emergency evacuation is also included.
2 THE C-FLYING WING CONFIGURATION
The conceptual design of a C-type flying wing is
summarized in this section. The initial specifica-
tions of the aircraft correspond to a common
long-range mission: 10 000 km with a full passenger
load (300 passengers, or 28 500 kg) at M ¼ 0.8. This
mission covers many interesting routes between
Europe and the US, West US coast to Far East,
etc. The selected Mach number, 0.8, is not opti-
mized but simply a representative of the common
practice in conceptual design of high subsonic air-
planes [9, 16].
Straight leading and trailing edges, and a nose
bullet in the apex to accommodate the cockpit with
adequate visibility are the basic planform, depicted
in Fig. 1. The overall layout belongs to the C-wing
type, which exhibits the minimum induced drag
among a large group of alternatives [9]. It goes with-
out saying that the 80 m wing span limit of ICAO F
category [17] has been respected.
In a payload-driven design, the cabin arrangement
(around 1 m2 per passenger in a three-class seating
Fig. 1 Two view sketch of the C-flying wing, showing
the internal arrangement
Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part G: J. Aerospace Engineering
Downloaded from pig.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on June 27, 2015
and cabin ceiling higher than 1.85 m) is of maximum
relevance. The cabin surface is linked to wing geome-
try in equation (1)
Scab
¼ f (wing planform, inner arrangement,
S
spar location, A, l, t=c, . . . ) (1)
where Scab is the cabin area, S wing gross area, A
aspect ratio, l taper ratio, and t/c relative thickness
of airfoil. By definition, the influence of the wing-
span, b, is given in equation (2)
b2
S¼ (2)
A
To select the wing aspect ratio, taper ratio, and
relative thickness, three criteria were used: proper
aerodynamic performance; minimum maximum
take-off weight (MTOW, Wto); and maximum area
per passenger, for comfort and emergency evacua-
tion reasons. Thus, for a given wingspan (within the
80 m limit) the cabin area increases noticeably on
reducing the aspect ratio. Figure 2 shows the com-
bined effect of aspect and taper ratios, which dra-
matically restrict available values for such variables.
On the other hand, in a pure flying wing with straight
leading and trailing edges and constant airfoil type,
the wetted area, the dominant term in aerodynamic
drag, is related to the internal volume and wing fea-
tures as

2=3
Wetted area 1=3 t
/ A (3)
(Volume)2=3 c
which again leads the design in favour of low A and
high t/c. However, if the aspect ratio diminishes too
much, or the relative thickness becomes too large,
the aerodynamic performances deteriorate quickly.
Slightly aft loaded, 17 per cent thick airfoil sections
are used in the outer part of the wing in agreement
Fig. 2 Cabin area fraction of gross wing area, in terms
of wing aspect ratio for taper ratio l ¼ 0.1
(upper line), 0.11, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25, and 0.3
JAERO90 # IMechE 2007
 Conceptual design of a medium size flying wing 59

with findings reported in the literature [8, 9, 11].

However, for trimming purposes, an upward rear
curvature is used in the central part [10], approxi-
mately corresponding to the passenger cabin. The
transition between both types of airfoils occurs
along the freighthold. The airfoil-relative thickness
is kept constant at 17 per cent over all wingspan,
and the spars always run at 11 and 67 per cent of
the chord for structural compatibility. The airfoil
thickness in the outer wing looks a bit too high, but
it is required for structural reasons since the wing
tip area must withstand the loads of ailerons and ver-
tical stabilizers. The overall arrangement results in a
CLmax ¼ 1:5 at low speeds.
From an aerodynamic viewpoint, such uncommon
wing depth is admissible as shown in equation (4) of
reference [18]

t
¼ (0:90  0:1CLcr )  (Mcr þ 0:02) cos0:5 L (4)
c
Fig. 3 Cabin arrangement in a three-class layout,
where t/c is the relative wing thickness, CLcr the air- showing the number of seats in each section.
plane cruise lift coefficient, L the c/4 swept angle, The outer bays are symmetrical. L and G
and Mcr the cruise Mach number, assumed to be indicate lavatory and galley, respectively. A
2 cents below the drag rise Mach number. indicates cabin assistant folding seat
Structurally, the wing itself is arranged as a dual
entity: an unconventional inner wing with pressur-
services is very efficient and improves emergency
ized torque box between the spars, for passenger
evacuation. In this conceptual design the maximum
cabins and holds; and an outer wing with fairly con-
foreseen capacity is 330 passengers, at 76 – 79 cm
ventional architecture, including fuel tanks outboard
pitch, consistent with current regulations for three
of the cargo holds. The structural solution adopted
pairs of type A exits [21] and goes down to 237
for the inner wing is a vaulted double-skin ribbed
seats in a three-class arrangement, corresponding
shell layout, which is superior to a reinforced thin
to 0.97 m2 per passenger. First class and business tra-
semi-monocoque shell, for weight saving, load diffu-
vellers occupy the central bays to benefit from
sion and fail-safe features [19, 20].
improved comfort levels, although recent investi-
A third spar, external to the torque box, is located
gations indicate that unpleasant accelerations
behind the rear spar to create adequate spaces for
could be counterbalanced by smoothed manoeuvres
landing gear, APU and other equipment, and to
and multimedia equipment [22].
attach elevons that run over a part of the trailing
In conventional designs, the maximum wing load-
edge. In this initial design, the nacelles were
ing and thrust over weight ratio are selected according
mounted over the wing attached to the second and
to four common criteria [18, 23, 24]: mid-point cruise
third spars, and, also, to two main ribs. From the
capability, take-off field length, second segment climb
safety viewpoint, this arrangement provides import-
angle, and approach speed. In the present case, the
ant advantages since it impedes the impact of
wing area is already known since it has been deter-
uncontained engine debris on essential items.
mined as part of the cabin sizing process, and a first
As shown in Fig. 3, the passenger cabin is formed
estimation of MTOW is also available. Hence, the
by a set of six parallel bays, separated by wing ribs.
maximum wing loading is Wto/S ¼ 250 Pa. The afore-
The bays, of generous narrow body transverse
mentioned criteria are used here to obtain the thrust
dimension, are connected by slanted corridors in
over weight ratio and field performances.
the spanwise direction at the front and rear. Two
The estimation of main weights is as follows. By
symmetrical couples of type A doors are located on
definition, the MTOW to perform the mission is
the sides of the front corridor, through the front
spar and leading edge, and another symmetrical
pair is located at the rear, through the second spar MTOW ¼ OEW þ PL þ TF þ RF (5)
and trailing edge. All galleys, toilets, and wardrobes
are located at the rear of the cabin for aesthetic and where OEW is the operating empty weight, obtained
operational reasons. This arrangement of exits and from an empirical correlation between OEW and

JAERO90 # IMechE 2007 Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part G: J. Aerospace Engineering
Downloaded from pig.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on June 27, 2015
60 R Martı́nez-Val, E Pérez, P Alfaro, and J Pérez

MTOW and wing size, analogous to the procedure

described in reference [23] for OEW, MTOW, and
fuselage size; PL stands for payload; TF represents
the fuel burnt during the flight; and RF the reserve
fuel. Both this last named and the consumption in
take-off, climb, descent, and landing are considered
as known fractions of actual weight in each phase
[24]. The fuel burnt in cruise, Wfcr, is computed
using the Breguet range equation

Wi Fig. 4 Matching of wing loading and cruise conditions

R ¼ K Ln (6)
Wi  Wfcr
where g is 1.4, and pcr and Mcr are the pressure and
with Mach number at cruise conditions, respectively.
Equations (9) and (10) can be rearranged as
V L
K ¼ (7)
cj D
2 Wcr =S 2 Wcr =S
pcr ¼ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (11)
g CLcr Mcr
2 g Mcr
2 bCD0 pAw
where R is the range, V the cruise speed, cj the
specific fuel consumption, L/D the average lift over
drag ratio in cruise, and Wi the initial weight. With ordinary Mach number, lower CD0 and much
An uncommon characteristic of the flying wing lower wing loading than in conventional airliners,
studied is that the cruise capability is required at the flying wing must fly at a higher altitude (as indi-
subsequent steps between 41 000 and 45 000 ft, cated in Fig. 4) to benefit from its intrinsic design
higher than conventional airliners. features.
This fact deserves some explanation. Let us first A suitable design value for thrust over weight ratio
assume a parabolic drag polar is Tto =Wto ¼ 0:25, which includes allowance for the
thrust lapse from static take-off to high subsonic,
CL2 high altitude cruise conditions. As indicated earlier
CD ¼ CD0 þ (8)
pAw this C-wing concept does not require high-lift
devices, because of its low wing loading. The result-
where CD and CL are the drag and lift coefficients, ing main features of the flying wing, taking into
respectively, CD0 the non-lift dependent term of account all specifications, constraints, and trade-
aerodynamic drag, A stands for aspect ratio, and w offs, are summarized in Table 1.
is a parameter, which incorporates the effects of The centre of gravity(g) of the empty flying wing is
both the vortex and viscous induced drag. The wing- at 32 per cent of the mean aerodynamic chord. Most
tip effect of the C-layout is evaluated as a 30 per cent conditions fall within a 28 –34 per cent range, much
direct reduction of the vortex induced drag [9, 25]. shorter than that of conventional aircraft [23, 27]
The trimming drag is assumed negligible.
On the other hand, the lift coefficient for maximum Table 1 Main features of the C-flying wing
range must be [26]
Variable Value
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
CLcr ¼ bCD0 pAw (9) Overall length 46 m
Overall width 77 m
Height above ground 16 m
where b is a parameter related to the Mach number Wing area 893 m2
dependence of the specific fuel consumption. For Wing span 75 m
Aspect ratio 6.3
current high bypass ratio turbofans it is about 0.6. Taper ratio 0.11
This results in CLcr around 0.5 for conventional airli- c/4 sweep angle 308
ners and 0.3 for flying wings. Cabin area 230 m2
Three-class capacity 237 pax
In flight, the aircraft is always in dynamic equili- Cargo hold volume 72 m3
brium. Therefore, in cruise, lift must balance Maximum take-off weight 205 200 kg
weight which is expressed as Operating empty weight 108 600 kg
Maximum payload 35 000 kg
Maximum fuel weight 75 600 kg
g Thrust to weight ratio at take-off 0.25
Wcr ¼ L ¼ 2C
(10) Maximum wing loading 2250 Pa
2pcr Mcr Lcr S

Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part G: J. Aerospace Engineering JAERO90 # IMechE 2007
Downloaded from pig.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on June 27, 2015
 Conceptual design of a medium size flying wing
consistent with the location of the aerodynamic
centre, estimated to be at 32 per cent in cruise [12].
Vertical and horizontal stabilizers have been incor-
porated in the design to form a C-type layout, but
with moderately low sizes. The presence of a hori-
zontal tail was considered appropriate regarding
the trimming of the aircraft and to improve its stab-
ility and control characteristics. Therefore, half-span
horizontal stabilizers are fitted at the extreme of each
vertical tail, pointing towards the plane of symmetry
(Fig. 1). This solution is rather heavy, since the
concentrated loads from the tailplanes have to be
carried through vertical fin and wing tip, which are
relatively small.
The engine, sized following the aforementioned
requirements, is a high bypass ratio turbofan like
the PW4000, RR Trent, or GE90, rubberized to
Tto ¼ 256 KN.
Climb and cruise performances have been calcu-
lated as a function of weight, Mach number, and alti-
tude. Just after take-off, the maximum vertical speed
is 19 m/s (3700 ft/min). The service ceiling at
0.95 Wto is above 45 000 ft at M ¼ 0.8. The aircraft
takes a bit more than 30 min to climb up to an initial
cruise altitude of 41 000 ft, travelling some 300 km,
and burning fuel equivalent to 0.025 Wto. Since
flying, wing aerodynamics also benefits from the
very high Reynolds number and the relatively low
wetted area, cruise lift over drag ratio is 23.4, in
good agreement with the values claimed in other
studies [8, 11, 12].
Field performances are estimated with energy-
based methods [24]. The take-off field length is as
short as 1860 m without requiring high-lift devices,
whereas the landing field length is 1320 m.
A three-step cruise (common of this type of studies
[16]) at 41 000, 43 000, and 45 000 ft satisfies the
initial range specification of 10 000 km with 300 pas-
sengers (i.e. 28 500 kg). The fuel efficiency for this
route is 19.8 g/pax.km; the same value reported by
other authors for larger blended-wing-body aircraft
[8, 12].
Regarding the flight mechanics of this novel con-
figuration, the stick fixed positive static margin in
cruise is between 4 and 10 per cent of the mean
aerodynamic chord, which is assumed adequate,
perhaps a bit too high [18, 23]. The short period,
phugoid, and Dutch roll modes have been investi-
gated in cruise conditions at 0.85 MTOW, M ¼ 0.8,
and h ¼ 45000 ft. For the short period mode, the
undamped natural frequency is vs ¼ 1.01 rad/s and
damping ratio zs ¼ 0.46, which are acceptable
values [23, 28]. For the phugoid mode, the damping
ratio is zp ¼ 0.056, which is again acceptable [18].
Finally, for the Dutch roll, the frequency is
vd ¼ 0.55 rad/s with zd ¼ 0.065. According to mili-
tary standards, for class III aircraft and category B
JAERO90 # IMechE 2007
Downloaded from pig.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on June 27, 2015
61
flying conditions (cruise), this corresponds to level 2
of reference [29], which means minor deficiencies.
Consequently, the dynamic response of the aircraft
would benefit from a stability augmentation system.
A comparison of performances and operation has
been carried out against two modern twins of rela-
tively similar capacity: A330-200 and B777-200.
These two airplanes are similar in size, but the
flying wing is much smaller both in length and
height, although wider in span.
No major differences are found in airport terminal
operations, provided that the rear doors of the flying
wing are used for cabin cleaning, and galley and
toilet servicing. In this situation passenger services,
cargo/baggage handling, and airplane servicing can
be done simultaneously with the usual overlap of
activities. Interestingly, the loading and unloading
of passengers in airport piers requires fingers posi-
tioned at about 5 m above the ground for the two
wide bodies, but only with a narrow body height of
around 3 m for the flying wing. On the other hand,
the doors of cargo compartments are at a similar
height, around 2.5 –3 m, in the three cases.
It is in field and cruise performance, where the
flying wing better exhibits its great potential. With
unmatched take-off (1860 m) and landing (1320 m)
field lengths, the C-wing requires only narrow
body-length runways compared with larger,
although moderate, values for the A330 and B777;
typically of the order of 2300 and 1600 m, respect-
ively. Fuel efficiency, expressed in terms of total
fuel burnt per passenger-kilometre is 19.8 g/pax.km
for the flying wing, and 21.5 and 23.5 g/pax.km for
the A330 and B777, respectively.
3 EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
The C-type flying wing may efficiently benefit from
some emerging technologies, which can further
improve its outstanding performances. Specifically,
the technologies considered in the present section
are LFC, vectored thrust, and active stability.
As indicated earlier, the flying wing has a fairly low
wing loading of the order of 2000 Pa in cruise. This
means low-lift coefficients, with typical section
values of Cl ¼ 0.3. This implies a moderate accelera-
tion over the upper surface and, thence, a mild devel-
opment of the boundary layer. Although the wing
chord is rather long, the adverse pressure gradient
is very weak, so LFC is easily achievable by means
of boundary layer suction [30 – 32]. The selected
structural arrangement of a vaulted double-skin
shell is well suited to the LFC. The outer skin does
not need to be as strong as in conventional aircraft
and, on the other hand, the space between the
pressurized inner shell and the outer skin can
Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part G: J. Aerospace Engineering
62 R Martı́nez-Val, E Pérez, P Alfaro, and J Pérez
accommodate the required equipment for managing
the boundary layer. This occurs along the pressur-
ized part of the torque box as well as in the leading
edge and up to the third spar; that is almost 85 per
cent of the chord over around 35 per cent of the
wing area. The parasitic drag coefficient diminishes
in accordance to the decrease in friction coefficient
due to laminarization and the relative wetted area
under its influence, as expressed in equation (12)
Sl S  Sl
cfw ¼ 1:328Re 0:5 þ 0:5( log Re)2:58
S S
where cfw is the average friction coefficient over the
exposed area, Re is the Reynolds number based on
the mean chord, Sl the wing area with laminar
boundary layer, and S the wing surface. In the present
case, with about 35 per cent of the wing area laminar-
ized, the friction coefficient diminishes by 31 per
cent. The weights of the suction equipment and
that of the structural reinforcement required by
drills and slots are estimated to be about 0.015 Wto.
In the baseline design (Fig. 1) the jet engines were
mounted in pods over the wing near the trailing edge,
with large separation between pod and upper sur-
face, as in the DC-10 or MD-11 airplanes. This
location poses some problems when trimming the
aircraft, for the engine thrust produces a noticeable
nose-down pitching moment. Also, it makes difficult
inspection and maintenance. Hence, in an attempt
to compensate for these drawbacks and to amelio-
rate the engine –wing integration, a semi-submerged
solution shown in Fig. 5 was adopted. The upper sur-
face is channelled and faired to guide air into the
nacelle. This arrangement produces a decrease in
drag coefficient and an increase in total pressure
recovery [33, 34]. Needless to say, the modifications
of upper wing geometry only occur between the cor-
responding main ribs, about 3.7 m in width in each
side of the airplane. With this layout, the line of
thrust is very little off-set with respect to the cg
height, thus cancelling out the aforementioned trim-
ming problems in the C-type aircraft.
However, regarding the engines, the main advan-
tage considered here is vectored thrust capability
(VTC). This technology is already available for mili-
tary engines [35]. Should this technology be intro-
duced in civil airplanes with current technology
Fig. 5 Sketch of wing section and engine relative
position
Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part G: J. Aerospace Engineering
Downloaded from pig.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on June 27, 2015
Fig. 6 Planform view sketch of the U-flying wing. The
(12)
dotted line indicates the mean aerodynamic
chord
level of military engines, the thrust vector could
aim anywhere within a cone of 288 half angle
around the ordinary thrust line. During take-off, the
VTC generates the same pitching moment than a
deflection of about 108 of flaperons along the trailing
edge. Being close to the plane of symmetry, the
engines are less useful for roll manoeuvres.
Modern flight control systems provide active stab-
ility whenever they operate without failure. In order
to take full advantage of the concept, the flight con-
trol architecture must be designed with an adequate
backup system [36]. Moreover, in the case of a long-
haul aircraft, the cg may travel substantially if no
provision is taken to counteract such effect. In the
flying wing under consideration, the main fuel
tanks are located about mid-wingspan, just outer
the cargo holds, with an additional small tank
below the fore part of the cabin, near the nose land-
ing gear. Since the total volume is more than enough
to carry out the mission, the cg can always be set at
the appropriate location.
Consequently, the trimming and control provided
by fuel tank policy, the vectored thrust, and the
active stability system are more than enough to elim-
inate the need of a horizontal tailplane. This results in
a lighter and more efficient aircraft. Figure 6 depicts
the planform view of this new U-type layout, which
may be compared to the upper view of Fig. 1.
4 THE U-FLYING WING CONFIGURATION
This simplified and more integrated U arrangement,
equipped with the LFC, vectored thrust, and
enhanced active stability, exhibits various advantages:
(a) better performance, because of its lower drag;
(b) efficient longitudinal control;
(c) decreased maintenance cost, for more accessible
engines and suppression of complex; horizontal
tails;
(d) considerable take-off weight savings.
JAERO90 # IMechE 2007
 Conceptual design of a medium size flying wing
Coming back to the first item, the improvement in
specific range is remarkable: around 30 per cent at
the same altitude. Moreover, since the drag
decreases, the aircraft can be flown higher. Instead
of a 41 000, 43 000, and 45 000 ft three-step cruise
of the C-type, a 45 000 and 47 000 ft two segments
can be done, thus contributing to an additional
increment in range or decrease in MTOW. Otherwise,
flying higher diminishes the gust loads and dirt
deposition, but at the expense of a 0.002 Wto weight
penalty for the higher pressurization loads due to
increasing the ceiling from 47 000 – 50 000 ft.
To define the payload range diagram some
assumptions have been made. Firstly, the cruise
phase consists of two steps at 45 000 and 47 000 ft.
Second, to be conservative, it was assumed that the
LFC equipment fails during the last 3 h of flight, ana-
logous to what is required in ETOPS conditions [37,
38], thus forcing to add some extra fuel allowances
for the aerodynamic deterioration. Third, the pre-
and post-cruise phases are accounted for as fractions
of the current weight [24]. Fourth, the airplane
weights are downsized to agree with the original mis-
sion specification: that is 10 000 km with
PL ¼ 28500 kg. The final values for MTOW, OEW,
and trip fuel for the C-wing with conventional tech-
nology and the U-wing with LFC is summarized in
Table 2, showing 15 per cent reduction in gross
weight, 10 per cent in empty weight, and more than
30 per cent in the amount of fuel burnt.
Figure 7 shows the payload-range diagrams corre-
sponding to three cases: (a) the original C-type air-
craft; (b) the U-layout with LFC and the same
mission specification; and (c) the U-wing with the
same MTOW as the original C-wing. The resulting
fuel efficiency is 14.6 g/pax.km, or 1.82 l/
pax.100 km, fairly lower than the figure claimed as
astounding for the A380 [6] and comparable to the
consumption of efficient cars at much a lower speed.
Some attention has also been paid to field
performance, mainly for the possibility of using
either vectored thrust or elevons for pitch control.
Landing is carried out in conventional way, except
for the absence of high-lift devices, resulting in
SLFL ¼ 1350 m. Take-off requires further comments.
The rotation of jet transports takes place typically
Table 2 MTOW, OEW, and fuel efficiency for C- and U-type
flying wings, and conventional competitors
MTOW OEW Fuel efficiency
(kg) (kg) (g/pax.km)
C-flying wing 205 200 108 000 19.8
U-flying wing with LFC 175 000 97 200 14.6
A330-200 230 000 119 600 21.5
B777-200 247 200 139 000 23.5
JAERO90 # IMechE 2007
Downloaded from pig.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on June 27, 2015
63
Fig. 7 Payload-range diagrams corresponding to the
original C-type aircraft, the U-layout with LFC
(thick line), and U-layout with LFC and the
original MTOW (dashed line)
at around 1.15 Vsto (Vsto being the stall speed in
take-off configuration) to allow reaching a 1.2 Vsto
at the end of the manoeuvre. However, in the U
wing this would imply a too high angle of attack,
uncomfortable attitude, and long landing gear legs.
Increasing the rotation speed to about 1.25 Vsto and
safety speed up to 1.3 Vsto only shifts the take-off
field length to 1930 m, which is still a reasonable
value, while decreasing the fuselage angle by
almost 28.
5 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF EMERGENCY
EVACUATION
A key point addressed in this research work is emer-
gency evacuation. In this respect, it must be recalled
that any aircraft have to fulfill appropriate require-
ments; i.e. American FAR rules [21] or its European
equivalent [39]. In practical terms the crucial aspects
are: the size and location of exits, the average and
maximum distance from seat to exit in distinct scen-
arios, and the homogeneity of passenger flow through
the various exits [40]. According to the cabin area, the
maximum number of passengers is close to 330,
which requires 3 type A exits on each side of the air-
plane. In the arrangement depicted in Fig. 3, in each
side of the fuselage there are two main doors through
the leading edge in the front part of two of the
bays and one exit at the rear in the inner bay. The
leading edge doors will require specific equipment
and structural reinforcement; but behave, otherwise,
similar to common fuselage doors.
Figure 8 shows the suitable evacuation routes and
the connections among various areas. The innermost
bay has no front door since the leading edge there is
distorted by the nose bullet cockpit. According to
current rules, only half of the exits can be used in
the 90 s trials. Several scenarios have been analysed.
The worst results correspond to the case where the
usable exits are the two front doors on one side of
Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part G: J. Aerospace Engineering
64 R Martı́nez-Val, E Pérez, P Alfaro, and J Pérez

symmetry, the situation would improve, but this

arrangement has not been addressed in depth.

6 CONCLUSIONS

The flying wing is one of the most promising and effi-

Fig. 8 Evacuation paths and exits in the flying wing in
the all tourist layout
the plane of symmetry, and the rear one on the other
side. Table 3 summarizes the results of the evacua-
tion analysis in this condition and shows a fairly
unbalanced situation. In this case the average dis-
tances are acceptable, but the maximum distance
appears rather long in the rear exit. Moreover, the
outermost front door seems to be empty in compari-
son to others, but in a real trial some of the passen-
gers approaching the inner front door would escape
through the nearby empty one for there would be
no queue most of the time. These results closely
resemble those of airplanes with slightly higher
capacity, like A340-300, DC10-30, or L1011-200.
Therefore, the flying wing configuration exhibits cer-
tain penalty for the extra wide cabin layout, but with-
out representing any noticeable problem in terms of
passenger flowrate. If the inner front door, in the
mid-bay, could be moved closer to the plane of
cient configurations to cope with the increasing air
traffic demand and related environmental issues.
Not only very large but even medium size flying
wings, similar in passenger capacity to common
wide bodies, exhibit a remarkable improvement
with respect to conventional airplanes in field and
cruise performance, as well as in emissions and
noise. Moreover, the flying wing configuration may
better exploit emerging technologies such as LFC,
vectored thrust, or active stability, increasing even
more the aforementioned advantages. Some draw-
backs on the passenger acceptance side may be
counterbalanced with smoothed manoeuvres and
imaginative interiors and systems. Emergency eva-
cuation issues are of the same level of difficulty
than that of currently flying wide bodies. Apart
from the analysed technologies, other potential
gains could come from an intensive use of compo-
sites, aeroelastic tailoring in primary structure, adap-
tive wings, or ultra-high bypass ratio engines.
The present paper shows that C-and U-flying wing
layouts exhibit important advantages over conven-
tional competitors. The U arrangement is lighter
(for the absence of half a T tailplane at the wing
tip), but requires the VTC which is not yet available
in civil aviation.
On the other hand, the inner architecture of the
flying wing can be modified to become the basis of
a family [11, 12, 41]. Thus, varying the number of
bays and chord length of the cabin, plus some lead-
ing and trailing edge alterations would allow to
easily accommodate up to 500 seats in one floor.
Taking into account the highly positive results shown
in this research, this new, potential paradigm of com-
mercial aviation could enter into service within the
next decade. Future availability of the LFC and VTC
technologies would result in a highly improved
second generation, much more efficient aircraft.

Table 3 Evacuation results in the worst condition: two ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

front doors on one side and rear exit in opposite
side A preliminary version of this paper was presented in
the 24th ICAS Congress, held in Yokohama, Japan, in
Number of Average Maximum August 2004 [15]. The authors acknowledge the per-
evacuees distance (m) distance (m)
mission of ICAS organization to prepare a journal
Outer front door 54 5.3 8.9 version. The present paper was finished while one
Inner front door 132 6.3 10.3 of the authors (R. M-V) was on sabbatical leave at
Rear exit 138 10.7 18.5
Toulouse, France, hosted at SupAero, with financial

Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part G: J. Aerospace Engineering JAERO90 # IMechE 2007
Downloaded from pig.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on June 27, 2015
 Conceptual design of a medium size flying wing
support of the Spanish Ministry of Education and
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid.
16
REFERENCES 17
1 Long-term forecast of air traffic 2004 – 2025. Eurocon- 18
trol, Brussels (B), 2005.
2 Global market forecast 2004 – 2023. Airbus, Blagnac (F),
2005. 19
3 Current market outlook 2004. Boeing Commercial Air-
planes, Seattle (USA), 2004.
4 Anderson, J. D. The airplane: a history of its technology,
2002 (AIAA, Reston, VA, USA). 20
5 Martı́nez-Val, R., Pérez, E., Muñoz, T., and Cuerno, C.
Design constraints in the payload-range diagram of
ultrahigh capacity transport airplanes. J. Aircr., 1994,
31(6), 1268 –1272.
6 Vigneron, Y. Commercial aircraft for the 21st Century –
A380 and beyond. AIAA/ICAS International Air and
Space Symposium and Exposition, Dayton, OH, USA, 21
2003, AIAA paper 2003 – 2886.
7 Strohmayer, A. and Schmitt, D. Scenario based aircraft
design evaluation. In Proceedings of 22nd ICAS
Congress, Harrogate, UK, September 2000, CD-ROM, 22
paper 5102.
8 Denisov, V. E., Bolsunovsky, A. L., Buzoverya, N. P.,
Gurevich, B. I., and Shkadov, L. M. Conceptual 23
design for passenger airplane of very large passenger
capacity in the flying wing layout. In Proceedings of
20th ICAS Congress, Sorrento, Italy, September 1996, 24
vol. II, pp. 1305 – 1311.
9 McMasters, J. H. and Kroo, I. M. Advanced configur-
ations for very large transport airplanes. Aircraft Des., 25
1998, 1(4), 217 – 242.
10 Mialon, B., Fol, T., and Bonnaud, C. Aerodynamic
optimization of subsonic flying wing configurations. 26
20th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, St
Louis, MO, USA, 2002, AIAA paper 2002 – 2931.
11 Liebeck, R. H. Design of the blended-wing-body sub- 27
sonic transport. J. Aircr., 2004, 41, 10 – 25.
12 Bolsunovski, A. L., Buzoverya, N. P., Gurevich, B. I., 28
Denisov, V. E., and Sonin, O. V. Flying wing – problems
and decisions. In Lecture Series Course on Innovative
configurations and advanced concepts for future civil
aircraft (Eds E. Torenbeek and H. Deconinck), 2005, 29
paper no. 9 (Von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics,
Rhode-Saint-Genese (B)). 30
13 Martinez-Val, R. and Perez, E. Medium size flying
wings. In Lecture Series Course on Innovative configur- 31
ations and advanced concepts for future civil aircraft
(Eds E. Torenbeek and H. Deconinck), 2005, paper no. 32
8 (Von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics, Rhode-
Saint-Genese (B)). 33
14 Martı́nez-Val, R. and Schoep, E. Flying wing versus
conventional transport airplane: the 300 seat case. 34
In Proceedings of 22nd ICAS Congress, Harrogate,
UK, September 2000, CD-ROM, paper 113.
15 Martinez-Val, R., Martinez Cabeza, J. A., and Perez, E.
Flying wing and emerging technologies: an efficient 35
matching. In Proceedings of 24th ICAS Congress,
JAERO90 # IMechE 2007
Downloaded from pig.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on June 27, 2015
65
Yokohama, Japan, August – September 2004, CD-ROM,
paper 1.3.2.
Isikveren, A. T. Identifying economically optimal flight
techniques of transport aircraft. J. Aircr., 2002, 39(45),
528 – 544.
Annex 14. Part 1 Aerodromes, 2003, International Civil
Aviation Organisation, Montreal (CND).
Howe, D. Aircraft conceptual design synthesis, 2000, pp.
118 – 127, 315, and 317. (Professional Engineering
Publishing, London, UK).
Mukhopadhyay, V. Structural concept study of non-
circular fuselage configuration. AIAA/SAE World Avia-
tion Congress, Los Angeles, USA, October 1996, paper
WAC-67.
Rodrı́guez, C., Martı́nez-Val, R., and Gutiérrez, L.
Structural weight estimation of a flying wing with a
pressurized torque box. In Proceedings of 4th Inter-
national Seminar on Recent research and design
progress in aeronautical engineering and its influence
on education, Warsaw, Poland, Part 1, November
2000, pp. 177 – 182.
Part 25. Airworthiness Standards: transport category
airplanes. Code of federal regulations. Title 14. Aero-
nautics and space. Office of the General Register,
Washington, DC, USA, 1995.
Wittmann, R. Passenger acceptance of BWB configur-
ations. In Proceedings of 24th ICAS Congress,
Yokohama, Japan, CD-ROM, August 2004, paper 1.3.3.
Torenbeek, E. Synthesis of subsonic airplane design,
1982, pp. 145 – 148, 309, and 318 – 320 (Delft University
Press, Delft).
Roskam, J. Airplane design. Part I. Preliminary sizing of
airplanes, 1985, pp. 98 (Roskam Aviation, Ottawa, KA,
USA).
McCormick, B. W. Aerodynamics, aeronautics and
flight mechanics, 2nd edition, 1995 (John Wiley &
Sons, New York).
Martı́nez-Val, R. and Pérez, E. Optimum cruise lift
coefficient in initial design of jet aircraft. J. Aircr.,
1992, 29, 712 – 714.
Roskam, J. Airplane design. Part 5. Component weight
estimation, 1985 (Roskam Aviation, Ottawa, KA, USA).
Roskam, J. Airplane Design. Part 7. Determination
of stability, control and performance characteristics:
FAR and military requirements, 1988, p. 293 (Roskam
Aviation, Ottawa, KA, USA).
Pamadi, B. N. Performance, stability, dynamics and
control of airplanes, 1998 (AIAA, Reston, VA, USA).
Joslin, R. D. Aircraft laminar flow control. Annu. Rev.
Fluid Mech., 1998, 30, 1 – 29.
Bewley, T. R. Flow control: new challenges for a new
renaissance. Prog. Aerosp. Sci., 2001, 37, 21 – 58.
Gad-el-Hak, M. Flow control: the future. J. Aircr., 2001,
38, 402– 418.
Seddon, J. and Goldsmith, E. L. Intake aerodynamics,
2nd Edition, 1999 (Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK).
Taskinoglu, E. S. and Knight, D. Numerical analysis of
submerged inlets. 20th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics
Conference, St Louis, MO, USA, 2002, AIAA paper
2002 – 3147.
Martı́nez Cabeza, J. A. La tobera vectorial de ITP. Revista
de Aeronáutica y Astronáutica, 1998, 676, 697–701.
Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part G: J. Aerospace Engineering
66 R Martı́nez-Val, E Pérez, P Alfaro, and J Pérez

36 Sauvinet, F. Longitudinal active stability: key issues CLcr cruise lift coefficient
for future large transport aircraft. In Proceedings of D aerodynamic drag
22nd ICAS Congress, Harrogate, UK, September 2000, K range parameter, defined in equation (7)
CD-ROM, paper 4101. L aerodynamic lift
37 JAR-OPS 1. Commercial air transportation (aero-
M Mach number
planes). Amendment 9. European Aviation Safety
Mcr cruise Mach number
Agency, 2005.
38 Martı́nez-Val, R. and Pérez, E. Extended range oper- MTOW maximum take-off weight
ations of two and three turbofan engined airplanes. OEW operating empty weight
J. Aircr., 1993, 30, 382 – 386. pcr pressure at cruise altitude in standard
39 Certification specifications for large aeroplanes CS-25. atmosphere
Amendment 1. European Aviation Safety Agency, 2005. PL payload
40 Martı́nez-Val, R. and Hedo, J. M. Analysis of evacua- R range
tion strategies for design and certification of transport Re Reynolds number
airplanes. J. Aircr., 2000, 37(3), 440 – 447. RF reserve fuel
41 Willcox, K. and Wakayama, S. Simultaneous optimiz- S wing area
ation of a multiple-aircraft family. J. Aircr., 2003,
Scab cabin area
40(4), 616– 622.
Sl wing area with laminar boundary layer
t/c relative thickness of wing section
TF trip fuel
APPENDIX Tto maximum static thrust at take-off
V cruise speed
Wcr cruise weight
Notation
Wfcr fuel used during the cruise phase
A wing aspect ratio Wi cruise initial weight
b wingspan Wto maximum take-off weight
cj specific fuel consumption in cruise
cfw average friction coefficient over exposed b parameter appearing in equation (9)
area g specific heats ratio, equal to 1.4 in air
CD drag coefficient l wing taper ratio
CD0 non-lift dependent term in the drag L quarter chord swept angle
polar w parameter in the lift dependent term of
CL lift coefficient the drag polar [equation (8)]

Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part G: J. Aerospace Engineering JAERO90 # IMechE 2007
Downloaded from pig.sagepub.com at The University of Iowa Libraries on June 27, 2015