It's time for science fiction. The 2nd of 3 radical aerospace design concepts we'll focus on, let's look at the Blended Wing-Body (BWB) aircraft, and Boundary Layer Ingestion.
Pegasus or White Elephant? Read on.
Efficiency. It's the pursuit of the impossible, of perfection. Closer and closer to zero we get, by narrower & narrower margins, to kiss the surface of infinity.
And that's what we will need in the decades to come. So, the blended wing...
Compared to conventional airframes, the blended wing-body allows a near perfect elliptical lift distribution, a far more even weight distribution and a profile that more nearly matches the area rule: So, reduced induced drag, reduced weight and reduced wave drag in one.
In 1998 the AIAA published a concept for a long range blended wing design to the scale of the A380 Superjumbo. A monster, 280ft wide with two decks carrying up to 800 passengers 7000 miles, it was modelled to have a fuel burn 30% lower than a conventional Superjumbo aircraft.
But that extreme scale is a narrow niche, which is why the A380 itself was a commercial failure. The biggest target for BWB aircraft is the crucial small-medium range market, sub 2000km and competing with 737s and A320s.
The trouble is that at these shorter ranges, the fuel efficiency benefit for the BWB collapses down to 10%-15% over conventional aircraft: Not sufficient to withstand massive airframe development risk.
So what do we do to prevent it being relegated to a long range niche only?
Remember that simpler Truss Braced designs, if allowed extra wingspan, can manage a 7%-10% benefit, plus dovetail with transonic Natural Laminar Flow (NLF) wings, unlike BWBs. All of this stacks the odds against short/ medium range BWBs, except...
Firstly, the vast internal volume of the BWB makes it a good candidate for novel, clean but volume intensive fuels such as hydrogen, if the market moves that way.
Secondly, BWB designs are an excellent platform for novel engine integration, allowing Boundary Layer Ingestion (BLI).
What is BLI?
BLI uses a carefully placed engine to suck boundary layer air, reducing engine ram drag and energising the upstream boundary layer simultaneously. A carefully chosen body/ engine combination reduces drag by another 5%-10%.
But blended wing/ body BLI is not well understood.
For example in this simulation a poorly positioned engine's backwash is causing flow separation over the rear of the aerofoil, with significant drag and control implications.
NASA investigated BWB BLI in 2000, but recently ONERA did the same on the small-medium range scale using powerful CFD optimizers: First they took their A320 scale BWB linked below and further cruise optimized it, raising L/D another 6%...
Then before investigating BLI, trim optimization was needed: Since the BWB body functions as a main wing, it needs to be at a slight angle of attack during cruise. Optimizing this for cruise means smaller elevon trim settings.
Static pitch stability was also confirmed.
Four engine integration concepts were studied: Two wing mounts, one with a large S duct, one rear mount and one rectangular nacelle. All are close to the wing: When ducting impinges cabin space, you are restrained: Moving the engine up creates the induced separation issue shown.
Development and extreme care is needed in positioning: Corner separation in 1 is resolved in 2, but compromises with a large S duct. 3 is cleanest of all but compromises on structure and takeoff/ landing rotation.
All must allow for induced vibration in the engine fan stage.
So the setup has promise and huge efficiency potential, even for small/ medium range and within a 36m span limit, but much needs to be addressed: Low maintenance engine integration and integration of high lift devices is one challenge.
Optimal non cylindrical pressurised fuselage sections are another, but CFRPs have so thoroughly replaced Aluminium already in airframes that this, at least, is a smaller challenge than it once was. Still, the optimal setup remains unknown.
The biggest stumbling block is probably risk appetite for the big airframers: Why risk developing something so revolutionary and difficult? Planes are hard enough already, and a truss-braced high AR wing with an efficient high bypass engine gets you partway with less risk.
Personally, I think fuel choice will be the decider: High volume non-kerosene fuels like hydrogen would open the door to the BWB. It needs a step change of that magnitude.
Nobody knows what a low carbon economy looks like, but in aviation at least it might look like this.
Publications used for the thread are shown. Hope you enjoyed this!
Our 3rd and final entry for novel high efficiency concepts will be Distributed Hybrid Propulsion. Stay tuned...
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There are approximately 14.6 million working-age people with STEM degrees in the United States, plus arrivals from outside. There are 29 million in the EU & UK.
But this is a sideshow to the real action in the East…
I used Grok Expert to create a series of estimates for STEM educated populations across the world, excluding social sciences, then used population data to predict changes over time. I analysed USA, China, EU+UK, India, Russia & Japan.
Let's get into it…
USA!
14.6 million.
A low volume of engineers at about 3.7-5.6 million (depending on definition) is powerfully made up for in the sciences, particularly biology & biomedical (2.9 million) and computer science & IT (4.1 million).
It's the greatest story never told: It's the story of how a frugal county in the North of England invented the modern world.
Put on a flat cap and call up the whippet, because this is a thread about my home county, and the inventions that came out of Yorkshire!
Steel!
Benjamin Huntsman invented high homogeneity crucible steel in Sheffield in the 1740s, firing with coke to fully melt the steel and homogenise the carbon content.
This became used… everywhere, and supercharged the ongoing industrial revolution.
Steam trains.
Steam locomotion had been in development for some decades by 1812, but arguably the world's first commercially successful steam locomotive was Matthew Murray's Salamanca. To him, we owe speed.
A liquid rocket boost stage needs to pump fuel and cryogenic oxidiser to the combustion chamber at a rate that beggars belief: The 33 engines on the boost stage of SpaceX's monstrous ‘Superheavy’ booster each chew through about 700 kg of propellant every second. Put all those engines together and the flow rate of liquid fuel & oxygen would be sufficient to empty an Olympic swimming pool in under 2 minutes, if you could find an Olympic swimming pool for cryogenic propellant.
Can you think of any conventional lightweight pump that can do this? Me neither. You need something special…
The turbopump comprises a typically-axial turbine powered by hot, pressurised gas flow that powers centrifugal compressor pumps that pump the colossal quantities of propellant required and pressurize it to, potentially, hundreds of standard atmospheres.
It's a handy, lightweight way to provide pumping power, but it does require that you have a source of hot, high-pressure gas to work with.
Now, where would you find that in a rocket engine?
Indeed. In order to burn fuel, we must pump it. In order to pump it, we may have to burn some of it.
Um…
The Gas Generator Cycle.
A small quantity of the pressurised fuel & oxidiser flows are tapped, brought to a small combustor, vaporised, ignited then expanded through a turbine that powers the fuel and oxygen compressor cycles.
Inevitably the gas generator can't run with a completely nominal fuel:oxy mix, as it would get so hot that it would melt the turbine blades, so typically a gas generator will trade off some efficiency and run fuel rich to power the turbopumps.
-Why not oxy rich? Because fuel has a higher specific heat at constant pressure (Cp) and so you need less mass flow through the gas generator if it's fuel rich than oxy rich, meaning more useful propellant goes to the main combustor & nozzle that moves the rocket.
So the upside of a gas generator cycle is relative simplicity and robustness, which is why it's used on the most reliable rocket motors around, the SpaceX Merlin. The downside is that you trade away efficiency by throwing away some of your propellant, meaning that the tyranny of the Tsiolkowsky rocket equation will kick you where the sun don't shine.
Staged combustion attempts to address this, by taking either a fuel rich or oxy rich preburner, operating at a much higher flow volume than a standard gas generator, and routing the hot gases that leave the turbine straight to the combustion chamber so that they're not lost. This not only increases the average propellant exhaust velocity (since none of it is lost) and therefore efficiency, but also allows a lower average temperature in the preburner and turbine, since there's a higher volume throughput instead.
On the flipside you must deal with hugely increased engineering complexity, an increased potential for feedback control problems between the different parts of the engine, and also a much higher pressure preburner, since it will still need to deliver high working pressures to the combustion chamber after the losses of the turbine and injectors.
The Soviets got there first, and some of their genius manifested in the Russian RD180 oxy-rich staged combustion engine, which was bought by the Americans and used in Atlas rockets for many years. Its unique oxy-rich staged combustion cycle was efficient but not without drawbacks, as high temperature gaseous oxygen is brutal to exposed metal surfaces, demanding an enamel coating on many parts of the engine.
Last month Rolls-Royce won the UK's small modular reactor competition to develop and build SMRs in the UK. It could be a new dawn for nuclear power.
But who else was in the competition, what was special about each design, and which is your favourite?
An SMR thread…
What's an SMR?
A small modular reactor is a way of beating the brutally high capital costs of building nuclear power: By simplifying assembly (modularity) and minimising subsystem size so almost all of it is factory built you harvest industrial learner effects and low costs.
Boiling water vs pressurised water reactors.
All designs in this list are either PWRs or BWRs, the most common reactor styles today. I've a thread on the basics if you need it, but otherwise on with the show!
In April on a mountain in Chile the Vera Rubin observatory gathered first light, and this telescope will be world-changing! -Not because it can see the furthest… but because it can see the fastest!
The Vera Rubin telescope thread! The value of speed, and unique technology…
Who was Vera Rubin?
She first hypothesized the existence of dark matter, by observing that the rotation speed of the edge of the galaxy did not drop off with radius from the centre as much as it should. The search for dark matter, and other things, will drive this telescope…
Does it see a long way?
Yes, but it’s not optimized for that: The battle of the big mirrors is won by the Extremely Large Telescope which, yes, is meant to see a long way. Vera Rubin is not that big, but that doesn’t matter because it has a different and maybe better mission.
Rotating detonation engines: Riding the shockwave!
A technology that could revolutionise aviation, powering engines with endlessly rotating supersonic shockwaves. It could bring us hypersonic flight, super high efficiency and more.
The detonation engine thread…
Almost all jet engines use deflagration based combustion, not detonation, but while fuel efficiency has been improving for decades, we're well into the phase of decreasing returns and need some game-changing technologies.
One is the rotating detonation engine (RDE).
To understand the appeal of RDEs, you need to know that there are two forms of combustion cycle: Constant pressure, where volume expands with temperature, and constant volume, where pressure goes up instead.
Most jet engines use constant pressure. RDEs use constant volume.