Angels on Heaven:
A Brief Look at the U.S. Navy’s
Blue Angels Air Demonstration Team

In the fall of 1946 the world looked to be at peace. The greatest conflict in the history of humanity, World War II, was over. United States servicemen were being re-deployed back home. Oversees troop levels were drastically reduced as the seeds of victory began to spread all over Europe and Asia. With the decommissioning of so many recruits, the U.S. Navy faced a growing dilemma in mid 1946. How could the Navy present a credible deterrence force against a possible aggressor, (Soviet Russia was now looming large in the East), and how could it persuade decision makers in Washington that it could provide the nation with a credible offensive capability in the future? Especially in the light of what the Navy saw as a growing conflict with the U.S. Army Air Force, soon to be the U.S. Air Force. Also in the minds of Navy aviation planners were the recent rapid advances in aviation technologies and tactics, and how to implement this new capability in it’s carrier-based aircraft. But the most pressing need for the Navy was the recruitment of new pilots. In the past, the Navy had a surplus of candidates to choose from, but due to the stunning success of the Army Air Forces and the reality of the new nuclear delivery environment, the Navy had been hard-pressed to find recruits with the same level of talent as during the War. New answers were needed. One idea floated and eventually implemented was the formation of an air demonstration team. A team that could demonstrate the Navy’s new hardware as well as the latest in aerial-combat tactics to new recruits in an effort to wow them.

The Navy had tried this option before. In 1928, they formed the Three Sea Hawks Aerial Team. Based on the West Coast, the team flew in popular air shows around the country during 1928-1930. They flew the Boeing F2B-1 biplane and were modestly successful. Then, in 1930, a pair of new teams were formed. The Three Gallant Souls of Flight Squadron 1B, flying the venerable Curtiss F6C-4 and the Three Flying Fish, also flying the F6C-4, began performing at airports mainly on the East Coast of the U.S. After a few years of performance, the teams were disbanded as the clouds of war loomed over Europe in late 1930s. In early 1946, and responding to a request by the Secretary of the Navy, the Office of the Chief of Information, headed by the Captain Roy Sempler, began drafting a discussion paper regarding the feasibility of forming a new team for air demonstrations, with the sole intention of presenting the Navy as an attractive and cutting-edge service. After many turns in the chain of command, the papers finally arrived at the desk of Rear Admiral Ralph Davison, commander of the Naval Air Advanced Training Command. He promptly moved the papers down the chain of command. The papers landed first in the office of Commander Hugh Winters who, after carefully studying it, forwarded it to Lieutenant Commander Roy M. Voris, Chief Flight Officer in the Instructors Advanced Training Unit; who promptly wrote that he “concur in advisability of establishing such a team”. Eventually these words reached Washington and the Secretary of the Navy; who instructed Voris to have a preliminary team ready to take the air by June 15th, 1946. Following this order, a team structure was formed. It was to be based at the Navy’s Training Command. There were two major reasons for the initial decision to base the team at Training Command. First and foremost, the original team was assembled in a “draw down” period. This refers to a period of time when the overall structure of the service force, its weapon assets as well as active personnel, are drawn down or reduced to base force structure. Because the Navy was in one of these periods when they ordered the team to be assembled, financial resources were scarce, and the service needed to find a command capable of assimilating this new structure relatively easily, thus the selection of Training Command. The other deciding factor was the aircraft the team would be flying, the F6F. Training Command had extensive experience in handling maintenance for the vaunted Hellcat. There’s another, less reported reason for the selection of TC. The Navy thought that with the introduction of this new air demonstration team it could boost the morale of young pilots, placing an added incentive to choose a naval aviation career and TC was where the recruits went to see actual flying maneuvers in those days. Now that the team was in the process of being formed, a commanding officer was needed. It was a no-brain decision for the Navy; Lieutenant Commander Voris was giving full command of the Navy’s newest asset, properly called the Navy Flight Exhibition Team.

The team’s first ground maintenance crew,
June 13th, 1946. (photo, via author)

Voris handpicked the team members. Each was rated the best of the best. C.W. Barber, R.M. Boudreaux, C.H. Casey, H.B. Hardee, C.C. Hicks, L.J. Johnson, W.L. Miller, L.R. Reid, W.E. Stanzeski, J.D. Turrentine, and T.P. Valentiner; were selected to comprise the first team. After selecting the team members, Voris next task was the selection of the team’s aircraft. Various models were tried. The first aircraft to be considered was the Grumman F4F Wildcat. After extensive research, Voris declined to use the F4F. The F4F possessed a long nose that could restrict forward visibility during inverted maneuvers, added to the perception that the Wildcat was underpowered, this ultimately doomed the aircraft’s chances of being selected. Another option evaluated was the F7F. But the F7F was deemed too big for acrobatic maneuvers. Ultimately, Voris did choose a Cat for the team, the Grumman F6F Hellcat. The selected F6F units were refurbishing platforms having undergone operational cycle refitting. The newly refurbish Hellcats were 33 ft 7 in in length with a height of 13 ft, 1 in. The wing area covered 334 sq ft. Maximum take-off weight was an impressive 15,413 lbs. The power plant installed in these modified Cats were the R2800-10W engine capable of generating 2000 hp. This power plant gave the Hellcat the ability to cruise at 168 miles per hour, with a top speed of just under 380 mph. The operational ceiling was established at 38,300 ft. After these changes, Voris when on to perform a set of minor modifications on the Hellcats, mostly stripping the plane of unnecessary systems such as oil tank armor, ammo boxes and the wing mounted guns, in an effort to make the aircraft lighter. Next on Voris list was the selection of the team’s color. The patriotic red, white and blue was quickly discarded because they represented the newly formed U.S. Air Force Thunderbirds Acrobatic Team; then Voris came back to his original idea of colors, the Navy’s long-time colors: blue and gold. He utilizes a softer shade of blue for the fuselage, mixed with gold or yellow paint to augment the aircraft’s accent. The markings, U.S. Navy logos and serial numbers, were painted in bright yellow.

Back in Washington, the office of the Secretary of the Navy seemed to have a double agenda in creating the team. As we have already seen, the primary force behind the creation of an air demonstration team was the necessity by the Navy to gather a bigger piece of the budgetary pie, especially since the Army Air Force was about to compete directly with the Navy for aircraft related appropriations in the defense budget. But there’s another reason that had floated since late 1947. The U.S. Navy, which saw itself as the senior service and the sole source for force projection, since it’s operational aircraft-carriers structure could deploy anywhere on the globe, did not want allow the Army to challenge that position. Never mind the reason for the creation, by the spring of 1946 the team was up and running. After several months of practicing, Dan Smith, Director for Training at the Navy’s Air Advanced Training Command, wanted take a closer look at the team abilities to perform – abilities highly advertised by Voris. After an afternoon practice run which included Smith at the controls of his own F6F, he was more than pleased with the results. A couple of days after the demonstration, Voris went into the air again, this time in front of Admiral Davison at the Naval Air Station in Jacksonville, FL. After a spectacular display of maneuvers and gun tactics which culminated in the simulated downing of a captured Japanese Zero fighter, Admiral Davison recommended to his superior, Admiral Wagner, that the team be given operational status as soon as possible. Wagner flew from Washington to personally observe a demonstration by Voris’s team. When the impressive but uneven show, (there was an incident relating to the parachute on the dummy Zero pilot), ended Admiral Wagner was so impressed that a recommendation to the Secretary of the Navy was promptly written and summited. Full approval for the team came a couple of weeks later from the Secretary.

Rare photo of the US Navy’s Flight Exhibition Team first performance on May 30th, 1946.
The Team is flying a Vee-Type formation. (photo, via author)

June 15th, 1946 saw the public birth of the team. On that day, Voris lead the team during a series of maneuvers and demonstrations in front of a packed house at the Southern Air Show and Exhibition on Craig Field, Jacksonville, FL. To open their first show, the team started by building up speed in a three plane “vee” formation over the runway and then took to the air with a loop. After the initial loop, the formation went into a Cuban eight, and then moved to a chandelle turn, and out that, to a vee roll. From that stunt, the formation moved to into a reverse echelon roll, out of that and into a left echelon roll, then, again into a chandelle turn. After all that turning, the team went out and destroyed the dummy Zero, blasting the fighter out of the air with a short burst of machine gun fire. Back on the ground, the aficionados were stunned. They had never seen the kind of aerial maneuvers they saw today. They were more than trilled, they were exited. They lined up in rows to watch the pilots climb out of their cockpits, and immediately went to them asking for autographs. The team had arrived. Just one more thing remained; a new, more catchy name was needed. ‘Flight Exhibition Team’ was not that glamourous, at least for Voris and the rest of the team members. Voris organized a naming contest around Training Command. The response was unexpected. Hundreds of ideas floated into Voris’s office. None of them wowed Voris or his staff that is, until a proposal came in from an unexpected quarter. Captain William “Bill” Ginter, Chief of Staff of the base commander, told Voris he had another name for consideration: The Blue Lancers. The name ran a bell inside Voris head, the more he thought about it, the more he enjoyed the sound of it. But again, fate interfered. During a trip to New York Voris was glancing at a column called Goings On About Town which focused on New York’s legendary night life. On the column were a list of famous nightclubs, one in particular raised Voris attention, a club called Blue Angels. As it was the case with the Blue Lancers, the name stuck on him.

Agonizing over the decision, Voris and the rest of the team traveled to Omaha, Nebraska for a scheduled appearance. At the preceding press conference, Voris stunned the audience when he enlisted the press help in making the final decision. As is the case with the media, past or present, they pushed the name they found most newsworthy. After the air show was over, the press touted the acrobatic performance with Blue Angel quotes. The Blue Angels had arrived!

- Raul Colon

More information:
Blue Angels Alumni
Blue Angels Official Website
Blue Angels.com

A Brief Look at the United States Airport Runway-Taxing Approach Information Guidelines for 2007

The United State Department of Transportation, via the Federal Aviation Administration, has set-up a series of guidelines for the regulation of the approach by aircraft to a complex airport environment. The FAA describes a complex airport environment as an airport facility of medium to high traffic volume; such as is the case with regional hubs or international airports. The FAA stressed on its 2007 Instrument Procedures Handbook the importance of pilots performing a detailed examination of the landing airport and it’s runway environment prior to the aircraft’s approach procedure. A detailed review of the runway distance, the turn-off taxiway, and the route of taxi to the selected parking area, are all important safety topics that need extensive briefing prior to landing. In addition to the current condition of the assigned runway, conditions such as the wetness of the pavement, the crossing wind patterns, and the possible contamination of the runway are all additional factors that the FAA recommends the pilot investigate prior to his or her approach.

The National Aeronautical Charting Office (NACO) has supplied pilots with detailed airport charts from 2000 to the present that include a runway sketch on each approach chart, to provide the pilot with vital airport information. In addition, the FAA has mandated that a full-page airport diagram be published on yearly basis. The diagram needs to include the latitude and longitude information required for the initial programming of the Flight Management Computer (FMC) on-board the aircraft. The included latitude/longitude grid will show the pilot the specific location of each parking area on the airport area for use in initializing the FMS system.

(photo, via author)

Pilots making approaches at complex airports, need to familiarize thewmselves with the complete airport environment – specifically its runway-taxiway configuration, prior to commencing an instrument approach. The possible combination of high taxi volume, poor weather patterns and the ground controller workload could make the pilot’s performance on the taxi-runway environment every bit as critical as his or her performance once airborne. These rules are designed for the safety of the pilot and the nearby ground personnel. The FAA guidelines clearly take this situation very seriously and so should the pilot.

- Raul Colon

More information:
National Aeronautical Charting Office

The Birth of the Seaplane!

The possibility of combining the ability to fly and the capacity of a marine vessel had been around even before the Wright Brothers flew their Flyer aircraft at Kitty Hawk, N.C. Serious experimentation on this concept began around 1897, but it was not until 1898 that the first attempt to fly a boat was made. Wilhelm Kress, an Austrian, began construction in 1898 on what would eventually be considered to be the first flying boat craft. It was a simple design. A tandem tri-plane frame fitted with two massive floats. Its power plant was a single Daimler 30hp engine, driving two broad propellers. The craft was first tested in October 1901 on a reservoir near Tullnerbach, Austria; it did not make it to the air. Problems with the floats and the aerodynamics of the fuselage doomed the aircraft. Undaunted, Kress pressed on with his ideas, and in 1903, was ready to make another attempt, but by this time the lack of interest on the project and his financial situation forced him to abandon the idea.

Experimentation with flying boats gained a renew interest with the news of the first ever powered controlled flight by the Wright Brothers in Kitty Hawk, NC. On the other side of the Atlantic, the Vosin Brothers, Charles and Gabriel; after receiving the news; promptly commenced work on their own flying boat design. Their hard work finally payoff when on June 6, 1905; Gabriel became the first man to take-off and land a plane on a body of water. Although the aircraft was used as a glider, which required an external power source to propel it into the air, the craft did prove the feasibility of the concept. The next aircraft design by the Vosin Brothers was destined to be a groundbreaker. Named the Bleriot III after the individual who requested the craft’s design and production; this new concept was made out of two wing structures in an ellipse form placed on tandems. The complete airframe floated on water by function of skids surrounded by sealed tubes. On a clear morning in May 1906, the Bleriot III was ready for the first of a series of tests intended to prove the aircraft’s airworthiness. In each test, the aircraft performed badly, leading the Brothers to suspend further collaboration with Bleriot on this particular project. Bleriot, unmoved by the Brother’s decision, tried himself to build a workable seaplane. In late 1906 he was ready for another set of trials, and again, the results were less than promising.

(photo, via author)

In the other side of the Atlantic, the United States military was quickly to recognize the potential of a sea-based plane. During the month of November 1908, an American aviation pioneer by the name of Glenn H. Curtiss performed an airframe modification to his already successful airplane, the June Bug. He removed the wheel undercarriage and replaced with a tandem of wooden floats covered by canvas. The new plane, named Loon, was first tested in late November 1908. Initial test results were somewhat promising. The Loon was able to lift itself from the water but with a relatively slow speed of 25mph; the Loon was not able to accelerate enough to gain air stability. The hydrodynamic drag caused by the massive floats was too much for the engine to propel the aircraft above that speed. Nevertheless, encourage by the test results on the Loon, Curtiss expanded his research. He followed the Loon with the modification of the Curtiss Model D for water duties. In this configuration, the Model D was fitted with a single canoe decked over with canvas. This configuration presented Curtiss with the same problems as before: hydrodynamic drag. But as with the Loon, the results were promising enough to encourage Curtiss to invest more resources on the project.

What history had in store next for Curtiss was truly groundbreaking. In early 1910, the U.S. Navy, after being refused by the Wright Brothers, asked the newly formed Curtiss Company to build an aircraft capable of taking-off from a platform installed on a warship. On November 14th, 1910, Eugene Ely, a Curtiss Company test pilot; successfully took-off from a provisional platform installed on the USS Birmingham near Hampton Roads, Virginia. A series of take-off flights followed, culminated with a successful landing of a Curtiss built plane on a provisional platform installed on the USS Pennsylvania in January 1911. However impressive these tests had been, the Navy’s top brass was not overly impressed. They focussed their attention on the development of an aircraft that could be launched and recovered by a battleship in times of conflict.

For the next phase of story of the development of the seaplane as a realistic alternative, one needs to look at a young French engineer. Henri Fabre, was born in Marseille in 1882 and since his early teen years he devoted his time in the study of aerodynamic forces. He experimented with kites and aircraft models to look at how aerodynamic characteristics of airframes and wings are affected by wind flow. He also studied the effects of hydrodynamic forces on a structure. Thus giving him an inside look at the forces that affect air travel. His first attempt at building a seaplane was a simple design. A conventional monoplane was modified to carry two floats mounted under the wing structure in a catamaran-type configuration. A small float was added to the tail section of the fuselage. The aircraft was powered by three Anzani engines capable of generating a 12hp each. They drove a single tractor propeller. The first series of test occurred in July 1908 and achieve little, if any, positive results. Reasons for the failure were never properly explained, but most aviation historians place the blame on the weight of the floats.

For his next design, Fabre chose a canard layout. On this configuration, the main wing structure was placed at the rear of the fuselage, with two small canard wings near the front. The idea behind the concept is simple. The canards, Fabre thought, would give the aircraft a long sought longitudinal stability. His first test of this new concept was performed on Christmas eve, 1909. The aircraft, powered by a single Anzani engine, took-off for a brief time, but ultimate fell hard to the water due to its underpowered characteristics. The relative short flight did show that the canard configuration could provide air control to the aircraft once airborne. Realizing that the aerodynamics was sound, Fabre promptly went out to find a more powerful engine to propel his new design. After searching hard for a power plant, a friend recommended to Fabre the Gnome’s Omega 7 cylinder rotary engine. The Omega was capable of generating 50 hp and its weight was a respectable 165 lb. With the engine now in hand, Fabre began the development of a new seaplane. As was in the case before, the new plane was centered on the canard wing configuration. What varied from previous designs was the massive wing area, now composing 258 sq ft. The Omega engine was installed at the end of the aft in the main frame. It was located in this area because Fabre calculated that a pusher-type system would better achieve the necessary lift-power ratio needed to propel the aircraft into a stable and controlled flight.

Testing on this new concept commenced in early March 1910. Immediately, taxing testing showed the aircraft’s sound aerodynamic characteristics. On the morning of March 11th, 1910 the Hydravion, the new name for the aircraft, was ready to take to the air for the first time. It was towed to the middle of the Etang de Berre. With nothing more that calm water surrounding the test site, the Omega engine was brought to life. Immediately, the aircraft responded to the Omega and the Hydravion achieved substantial speed in the water. After more taxi testing, the Hydroavion took to the air on that same day. In series of relative short flights, the Hydroavion once again demonstrated its ability to achieve flight status. Fabre continued his experiments into the spring of 1910. All successful flights, but on May 18th, 1910, with Fabre himself at the controls, the Hydroavion lost control and fell into the water from an altitude of approximately 130 ft. The crash did little to alter the course of the programme, the Hydroavion was recovered and repaired, but it did affect Fabre deeply, it is said that he never flew another aircraft after the incident.

(photo, via author)

Back in America, Glenn Curtiss was observing with interest the progress made by Fabre. He even took time to visit Fabre in late 1910. By this time, Curtiss had moved his winter flying operations to North Island in San Diego, CA. There, the weather was more conduits for sea-flight experimentation. After many months of research, Curtiss, now with the assistance of Lieutenant Ellyson, a brilliant U.S. Navy engineer that specialized in physics and mechanics; determined that the main obstacle to achieving flight status on a seaplane was the shape of the floats. They researched many forms of floats, eventually settling on a configuration first suggested by Fabre: the use of a flat bottom with a positive trim angle. On January 26th, 1911, after years of extensive research and development, Curtiss saw his dream come true when his new seaplane design, a bigger canoe configuration airframe fitted with the new floats; took to the air. The test result was more than promising; they inspired Curtiss to redouble his efforts. They did extensive modifications on the canoe frame as well as in the float configuration to make them flight operational.

Curtiss, now embolden by the test results, decided to call his old friend, Captain Charles F. Pond of the USS Pennsylvania. The same ship platform that Curtiss used for his ground breaking experiments; and asked him if he would mind that Curtiss made a ship call on the Pennsylvania, now anchored off San Diego Bay. Pond, who was at the time one of the few true advocates of naval aviation, was ecstatic about the possibility and gave Curtiss the go ahead order. On February 1911, Curtiss took-off from his base at North Island and proceeded to land at the side of the Pennsylvania. After arriving, the ship used its boat crane to lift up the aircraft to the deck, the same concept was used to put the plane back in the water. This amazing exercise performed by Curtiss was the first step in the operational development of the seaplane by the U.S. Navy. After the demonstration, Curtiss went on to develop several series of flying boats in 1912, some of them served in the Great War two years later. In France, Fabre recognized Curtiss’s achievements and promptly proclaimed him as the father of the operational seaplane. Fabre, sensing that there was not much new ground to break at that time, decided to abandon major experimentation with seaplanes. That did not mean that Fabre stopped completely his association with flying boats. He supplied floats pieces to many countries during the years up to the Great War, and during the conflict, he was placed in charge of the vaunted Saint Raphael Naval Aviation Depot.

The colorful story of the birth of the seaplane is actually the story of two dedicated and visionary men, Glenn Curtiss and Henri Fabre. The seaplane was born out of their collective dedication and vision. Their need to prove a new and untested concept improved our understanding of how aerodynamic forces affect a sea-based flying platform. We are indeed grateful for their compliments and contributions to the development of the airplane in an era dominated by skeptics and doubters. They truly gave birth to the seaplane.

- Raul Colon

More information:
The Pioneers: Henri Fabre (1882-1984)
Wikipedia: Glenn Curtiss
Glenn Curtiss, Father of Naval Aviation

A Brief Look at the Future Flying Wing Airliner

The Flying Wing aircraft configuration has been around since the early days of aviation. The flying wing is a fixed wing airframe capable of sustaining a controllable flight profile without the need of lifting systems such as canards or tail mechanism. Experimentation with flying wing designs began early in the 1920s. The configuration was championed by those who thought that it was the logical evolution of an airframe. As technology caught up with design, the flying wing concept would become the standard aircraft fuselage design, they thought. Many individuals experimented with flying wing configurations, most notable, the Horten Brothers in Germany and, who was to be called the father of the flying wing in the United States: Jack Northrop. Both the Horten brothers and Jack Northrop eventually managed by build an actual flying wing platform. The Horten’s effort was to be curtail by the cloud of war in Europe. The same cloud that gave birth to the first true expression of the flying wing concept: the YB-49.

Northrop YB-49 (photo, US Air Force)

An aircraft based on a flying wing airframe has always been believed to posses an increase in operational range, better speed to power ration, and more weight-lift capability compare to a conventional airframe design. These advantages were the reason the military was behind every major attempt to field a flying wing aircraft in modern times. There were many attempts to field a serviceable flying wing aircraft, and also many failures. That was until the YB-49 first took to the air. The YB-49 was the first truly serviceable winged aircraft. It posses the entire trait marks that engineers were looking for. Range, speed, power ratio and an enormous payload capacity. But what the YB-49 lacked, and would lead to the eventual cancellation of the project; was stability. The YB-49 lacked the ability to make sharp turns. It was also deficient in projecting a stable operational line for bombing runs. Deficiencies that with today’s computer power could be easy overcome. But in the 1950s, these facts made the aircraft impractical for military operations, thus the Air Force was forced to terminate the project. After the Air Force’s initial order for termination of the program, Jack Northrop and his top engineers tried to sell the YB-49, with its massive payload capabilities, to the civilian aviation community. He envisioned a fleet of commercial flying wing carriers traveling the country. He even made an Ad commercial relating the advantages of the commercial flying wing. It was to no avail. If the wing was not stable enough for experience Air Force pilots, it certainly could not perform at a civilian standard. This realization, for all practical matters, ended the brief life of the YB-49. It would be more than thirty years before another flying wing configuration would take to the air. But when it did, it was a spectacular sight, such as was the first time the YB-49 flew. The B-2 Stealth Bomber is the realization of years of experimentation, couple with unprecedented advances in technology, airframe design and avionics. These advances lead to the production of the finest expression of a flying wing configuration design. Could there be a commercial-type version of the B-2?

Boeing C-Wing concept (photo, Boeing)

In the mid 1970s a quiet research program was commenced by the Boeing Corporation with the objective of adapting a flying wing configuration design and develop it into a passenger-carry airframe. After an extensive period research and design experimentation; Boeing engineers came out with two main flying wing concepts for a passenger airliner. They unveiled them in January 1998. The first concept was the C-wing configuration. The C-wing concept is centered around a fuselage structure of tubular shape fitted with small horizontal winglets to be placed at the end of the vertical ones. The wings on the C-concept were designed to be swept at an angle of 35 degree, the same goes for the horizontal winglets. This fuselage configuration was adopted by the design team for its ability to reduce drag on the wings. The C-wing was design from its conception to disperse payload evenly throughout the airframe in order to reduce high amounts of lift. The airframe in a C-wing concept would be equip with a canard system to be utilized as a control mechanism in cruise flight conditions. The aircraft was conceived to be propelled by two forward and two aft turbojet engines. But, as it was the case with the first generation of flying wing platforms, the fuel consumption-to-performance ratio was in the negative. This fact alone will probably lead to the shut-down of the whole program. Sensing this problem, Boeing engineers also studied a modification to the original C-wing platform. In this alternative, the aircraft will be powered to the air by only three engines. Early design experimentation with this concept had indicated that the design would achieve a better aerodynamic profile than the one mounted with four engines. Still, this concept is not as promising as the newest Boeing pre-design mock-up.

Besides the C-wing concept, in 1998, Boeing unveiled the most far reaching flying wing platform concept in the history of civilian aviation: the Blended Wing Body Platform. The blended wing concept is the pinnacle of civilian aviation design and engineering prowess. The blended wing airframe is very similar in shape and control systems orientation to the amazing B-2 bomber. The concept is simple enough. The wing fuselage will also serve as an engine mounting platform, and again, like the B-2, the engine’s inlets will be absorbed by the wing’s frame. There considerations for a two engine configuration of the blended wing. Research has also demonstrated that a four engine version can perform equally successful. Control mechanisms for directional stability, such as flaps, will be house on small winglets at the end of each wing tip. The complete aircraft will be fly-by-wire, thus enhancing its flying stability and optimizing its avionics package. The operational profile for this amazing aircraft is ambitious. It is design to carry a load of eight hundred passengers and crew members to a distance of over 7,100 nautical miles. It will be fitted with all the comforts of the modern era. The aircraft will have state of the art galleries, lavatories, and a sound and video system. An improved row sitting system that will enable the passenger to roam around the “wing” on flight is on the design board. But maybe the most unique cabin feature of this concept, is the proposed forward view windows mounted along the curve of the wing. A concept first developed by Jack Northrop in the late 1950s. This feature will give the passenger the ability to see through the window at the “world below”. A view normally only experienced by the aircraft’s crew.

Boeing X-48B demonstrator (photo, Boeing)

Could Boeing or any other company find operating a flying wing concept aircraft profitable? Research and development data has shown that the time of the commercial flying wing has arrive. Technology, unlike before, is now on our side. The question is not so much as “if” and more as “when”. We don’t know when the time will come. But we certainly know that is far approaching. Approaching the visions of so many giants of aviation, approaching history. We are close, very close.

- Raul Colon

More information:
Northrop’s flying-wing airliner
Blended Wing Body – New Concept in Passenger Aircraft
NASA: Advanced Configurations for Very Large Subsonic Transport Airplanes
British help Boeing with Blended Wing