See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/278784076

Development of blended wing body aircraft design

Conference Paper · January 2015

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3878.9840

CITATIONS READS

0 5,697

3 authors:

Oliverio Esteban Velázquez Salazar Julien Weiss

École de Technologie Supérieure Technische Universität Berlin
3 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS    65 PUBLICATIONS   213 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

François Morency
École de Technologie Supérieure
133 PUBLICATIONS   516 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Aircraft Ice Shedding View project

Low Power De-Icing Systems for Light Weight Helicopters View project

All content following this page was uploaded by François Morency on 20 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Development of blended wing body aircraft design
Oliverio Velázquez Salazar (a), Julien Weiss (a) and François Morency (a)
(a) Département de génie mécanique, École de Technologie Supérieure, oliverio.velazquez-salazar.1@ens.etsmtl.ca,
(514) 396-8699

Abstract

Given the expected more severe limitations by international aviation organizations [1, 2], the Blended
Wing Body (BWB) appeared as an up and coming aircraft design being developed around the globe for
the past decades. This article focuses on bibliographical research about key advantages of the BWB
aircraft concept in respect to conventional tube and wing (TAW) design and about limits and crucial
decision-making in the design of such aircrafts. Our goal with the current paper is to get an insight into
the current state of the art on BWB. This, in turn, allowed us to identify BWB's advantages and
limitations, to locate the current development centers for BWB, to establish cartography of the various
BWB projects existing worldwide and to devise correlations or tendencies for critical parameters from
the technical specifications of the existing BWB and TAW designs. In order to do so, we proceeded to
inquire scientific databases in order to acquire and filter data and research concerning the BWB
development over the past recent years. A statistical analysis allowed us to seize the development
tendencies of the design both in space and time. Following this analysis we proceeded to a dissection of
the main characteristics - pros and cons - of the BWB as well as a comparison between the BWB and the
TAW design from a weight performance point of view. Results, while unexpected, show that while the
BWB seems appropriate for ultra high capacity aircrafts (800+ PAX) and fairs well in the small capacity
sector (100-200 PAX), there's still place for progress concerning the high capacity (450 PAX) long range
(transatlantic) BWB.

Introduction

Blended Wing Body (BWB) aircrafts differ from usual commercial designs (tube and wings (TAW)) in
the idea that the main body of the aircraft could (and should) help in the lift effort of the whole structure.
This design derived from the flying wing appeared as an answer to NASA's 1988's prerogative to propose
a new revolutionary long range transport aircraft [3]. This concept, with more extensive lifting surface
and no tail is presented in Figure 1. Preliminary analysis shows that such a design should allow, for
increased lift, lesser stress in the wings and enhanced environmental performance from the extended
working surface allowing for less fuel consumption per passenger during a mission [3-5]. Furthermore,
due to the intuitive position of the engines on this configuration (over the fuselage), this design should
allow for less noise propagation in consideration to the ground observer, making this aircraft more
suitable for in-city airports [6].

In order to attain our goal of getting an insight into the current state of the art on BWB, a literature review
was necessary. This, in turn, will allow us to identify the expected BWB's pros and cons, its development
centers around the globe, the main BWB designs and their current performance against TAW designs.
The literature review, along with the bibliographical research and filtering methods are exposed in section
1. Statistical treatment on this literature review allowed us to identify the main actors of this innovative
aircraft design around the world.

1
Furthermore data-mining on obtained bibliography allowed us to identify documented advantages and
limitations of the BWB design (presented in section 2) as well as different BWB designs throughout the
past years. We used the obtained data to compare performance criteria in between these designs and more
"conventional" aircrafts at section 3.

Figure 1: BWB and TAW conceptual differences

1. Literature review

A literature review in librarian databases such as Compendex & Inspec, ProQuest, Web of Science and
Google Scholar helped us identify main research articles on the topic published in the last ten years.
Manufacturer's web sites and Frawley's International Directory of Civil Aircraft [7] were also helpful in
obtaining technical specifications for aircrafts.

1.1. Methodology

Our data acquisition and filtering methodology is presented in the following tables. While Table 1
proposes the main acquisition approach, the secondary method summarized in Table 2 concerns the
logical enlargement of our bibliography by using valuable articles found from previous research and
expanding towards associated articles. All these articles shall follow the guidelines given in steps 3, 4 and
6 of the primary methodology. The filtering method (Table 3) allows us to explain the main criteria used
to decide of the value and pertinence of an article.

2
Primary Acquisition Method: Database Direct Search
1 Find and choose meaningful keywords. In our case "Blended Wing Body" already gives pertinent
results per se.
2 Introduce our keywords in selected scientific databases. In practice, the database of choice is
Engineering Village (“Compendex & Inspec”) [8] since it references most sources of Aeronautical
research like the IEEE journals and conferences, the “Aerospace Research Central” (AIAA), “The
Royal Aeronautical Society” (The Aeronautical Journal), “Progress in Aerospace Sciences” and
more. Aside from this we will take a look at “ProQuest”, “Web of Science”, and “Google Scholar”.
3 Language filter. Due to our language limitations we only take into account articles in French,
English or Spanish. This is in order to ensure we understand what we read.
4 Define an article’s topical interest. Overall we’ll only consider articles from the past ten years.
However, when an article’s value is substantial we might make exceptions and keep them as relevant
such as we did with [3-5] for example.
5 In light of steps 3 to 4, assess how many pertinent articles we find in each database for each of our
keywords1.
6 Read and filter the articles depending on the value they have for our research2.
Table 1: Primary acquisition method

Secondary Acquisition Method: expansion

1 Backwards research. Use a valuable article and read through its referenced articles in order to find
the origin of certain concepts and propositions. Some concepts and ideas presented in an article are
usually skipped upon, leaving the reader the caution to read in the references articles the original
idea and presentation. An article that is cited many times usually constitutes a corner-stone of the
subject –Liebeck and Qin’s papers [3, 5] enter in this category.
2 Forwards research. Use a valuable article and look out for later articles where the results of our
original one were cited. This should allow us to see if there’s further development of a concept
developed in the original article, giving us access to the latest developments out there.
3 Cross-references and associations. Most databases propose “you might also be interested in”
functionalities. Carefully read the titles of “associated” articles proposed by scientific databases after
each research. They usually refer to a pertinent article on the same subject. Attention should be
pointed towards the pertinence of these articles in respect to our subject so that we don’t end far
away from it.
4 Peer pre-selection. Sometimes, when discussing our research, our peers can propose interesting
articles or authors they read about. This usually helps in expanding our bibliography.
Table 2: Secondary acquisition method

1
For this assessment we’ll use guidelines proposed in the filtering methods.
2
Ibid.
3
Filtering Method
1 Language filter: we apply the parameters stated in step 3 of our primary bibliographic acquisition
method.
2 Repetition: Sometimes, an error in indexing or a double entry may cause repetition of the article. For
obvious reasons, the article shall only be considered once.
3 Pertinence: Some articles may have our keywords but in a totally different context (like sea vehicles
or space vehicles, even cars). Others may use our main keyword subject as a pretext or as an
application example for a totally different research. We keep only the articles that touch our subject.
Furthermore, references concerning full conference proceedings are not taken into account since they
always lead to a conference paper already referenced in the original database.
4 Content: Some articles, while on the subject, are sometimes too raw or too simple. When this
happens the article shall be considered as part of the overall knowledge database but with lower
value than a fully developed article.
5 Availability: Last but not least, is availability. Availability is our capacity to acquire the papers we
seek. Some articles, while pertinent, are particularly expensive or difficult to find and those will be
unavailable for our work.
6 Type: When an author's work is available both in a journal and in a conference paper, we'll prefer the
journal article. Conference papers are useful for quick insights into current developments, but
journals are simply more complete and usually aboard extended research. If both papers are "readily
available" we'll prefer the journal one when possible. When only one version is available we'll take
that one.
Table 3: Filtering method

1.2. Statistics
Our current bibliography holds 260 entries, as depicted in Table 4. This bibliography was completed as
per described in the expansion acquisition method.

Books3 Thesis Website Report Other Conference4 Journal Total

23 19 3 4 1 123 87 260
Table 4: Bibliography classification

Overall we count for 210 articles (conferences and journals) and 19 thesis works whose distribution over
time is presented in Figure 2.

3
Books or book sections
4
17 papers are not available for us yet, but we estimated that the research they depicted was worth accounting for
and started procedures to acquire them.
4
 Figure 2: Distribution over time of main research papers on BWB

We can see a constant publication between 2002 and 2005 then a boom in 2006, followed by another one
in 2010 and a steady increase after 2012. 2012 seems to mark a new era for BWB research.

As for the origin of the papers Figure 3 and Table 5, show where most of the papers come from. It has to
be taken into account that sometimes a paper can have more than one origin since multiple institutions
may have cooperated in a project at the same time.

What can be concluded from this is that the main workgroups for the BWB are situated in the USA, the
UK, the Netherlands, Germany, Malaysia, China and Canada. There is spread interest here and there, but
most of the research is led by one of the aforementioned countries.

Figure 3: Development centers of the BWB research

5
 Country Articles Country Articles
USA 61 Canada 17
UK 24 Netherlands 17
Germany 23 Malaysia 17
China 19
Table 5: Main country distribution of the BWB research over the past 15 years

2. Overall Pros and Cons

Our newly established database allowed us to identify the main obstacles of the BWB architecture, mostly
related to airfoil selection and evolution along the aircraft, chosen materials, structural concerns, stability
issues, lift-to-drag ratio optimization, manufacturing and transonic phenomena. We present in this section
common characteristics of the BWB design.

Pros

• Enhanced lift-to-drag ratio (L/D). According to different sources, L/D could vary between 17 and
under 25 for a BWB [3, 4, 9] depending on the design. This is confirmed by Figure 4 presented
in section 3 where we show the given L/D estimations provided by the literature for each design.
Common L/D for TAW aircrafts ranges between 15 and 20 [10]. This implies a significant - up to
25% - increase not to be discarded.
• Weight efficiency. Fusing the wing structural weight with the cabin structural weight and
enhancing the volume-to-surface ratio allows for an inferior weight-per-passenger number [4]
which means BWB carries less weight per passenger than in a TAW design. If we add to that the
use of specially conceived lightweight structural composite materials the gains are more
impressive even while we have to account for the increase in structural mass due to non-
cylindrical fuselage. As an example, taking the MTOW as reference, the A380 [11] would have a
MTOW/PAX of 1.057 T/passenger while the current NASA's ERA design [6] only has 0.83
T/passenger.
• Weight and lift distribution. As presented in [3, 5], the BWB configuration allows for a more
homogeneous (and less concentrated) stress distribution along the wingspan.
• Noise reduction. BWB has an innate capability of shielding the ground user from engine noise
[12]. It's expected that mature BWB noise reduction technologies (shielding shape, propulsion
systems, landing gear, and others) will allow for between 4dB and 26.6 dB in estimated perceived
noise levels (EPNL) reduction in comparison to a current (2014) Boeing 787 or an Airbus A380
[6].

Cons

• Cabin structure. Contrary to common TAW configuration, the shape of a BWB doesn’t allow for
cylindrical pressure distribution around the cabin, thus creating bending moments on the skin of
the cabin [13]. In order to address these moments the structure of the cabin needs to be reinforced

6
 by adequate materials and shapes, thus augmenting the weight of the cabin. However new
configurations like the multi-bubble cabin [14] and new materials like the PRSEUS panels [15]
are in competition to show a viable solution for the cabin problem of the BWB.

• Cabin configuration. Due to the high thickness-to-chord ratio (t/c) needed in the center-body of
the BWB to hold the passenger cabin it's assumed that BWB could only be viable for large
aircrafts. A quick calculation shows this shouldn't necessarily be conclusive. Taking Liebeck's
BWB [3] as the equivalent BWB version of an Airbus A380, we created Table 6. This table
shows that the equivalent BWB for Bombardier's CRJ700NextGen and Learjet 70 present a lower
t/c than the one proposed in [3] (t/c = 17). Today some researchers are already working on the
development of regional transport BWB in Canada [16-18].

Furthermore, for any kind of BWB, the cabin floor will always have and inclination, even at
cruise flight because of the high blending between cabin and airfoil. The challenge is to flight in
an acceptable inclination for the passengers [4].

Fuselage
Equivalent Equivalent BWB
Aircraft Passengers Length diameter
BWB max height t/c
(m) (m) Chord (m) (%)
(m)
Liebeck’s BWB 800 49 44 7.48 17
Airbus A380 544 - 800 72.72 7.14 44 - -
CRJ700NextGen 78 32.3 2.7 19.59 2.7 13.785
Learjet 70 7 17.1 1.56 10.37 1.56 15.046
Table 6: Thickness to chord ratio of an equivalent BWB for regional aircraft

• Control Surfaces. The absence of empennage makes the reliability of control surfaces of extreme
importance. While possible to achieve, the handling of this aircraft demands a different approach
to commands since the same surfaces can be used for different control commands (roll and pitch,
trim and high-lift for example) [4]. To this day, research on control and stability is under
development [19].

• Stability. While possible to achieve, stability for a BWB is fragile and asks for active control and
global fuel management, actively reassigning CG positions adequately for safe flight [4].

• Empirical Data. The BWB being a new concept, very few data is available on real full-scale
previous similar airplanes (like flying wings). However this led to the development of flight
simulators like the X-48 which created raw data for flight control and stability [20]. Further
interest and research of BWB UAVs is under development (see [21-23] for some examples).

5
Center-body max t/c for an equivalent BWB for given real fuselage diameter with given equivalent aircraft length
6
Ibid.
7
3. BWB Designs

Our literature review allowed us to analyze different design configurations of the BWB. For the purpose
of this paper we shall compare the overall characteristics of BWB against TAW by using different
designs. From the TAW perspective, we shall use the Bombardier Learjet 70, Boeing 747-400, Boeing
787-8 and Airbus A380 (Data retrieved from manufacturer's sites and [7, 24]). From the BWB
perspective, we shall use NASA's BWB-800 [3], Boeing BWB-450 [3], TsAGI's Flying Wing (FW),
Integrated Wing Body (IWB) and Lifting Body [4], NASA ERA's Advanced Vehicle Concept [6], ACFA
2020's design [25], Cambridge-MIT's SAX-40 [12, 26], Greener by Design concept [27], MOB BWB
[28] and Reist's regional design [18]. All these designs have different payload and range characteristics
but their shape is conceptually the same. All the data wasn't available for all the designs (TAW and BWB)
so the graphs only compare the designs whose available data concerned said graph. The main data can be
found in Table 7 and Table 8. We present in the following figures a simple comparison between TAW
and BWB designs.
TsAGI

Boeing

TsAGI

TsAGI

TsAGI
Lifting
NASA
BWB-

BWB-
TAW

Body
IWB
FW
800

450

Range (km) 13700 13000 14353 13700 14167.8 13700

PAX (Standard) 750 800 478 750 750 750
MTOGW (T) 373.3 572
OEW (T) 187 301
Design Payload 88.8
(T)
Fuel Capacity (T) 97
Cruise Mach 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
L/D at Cruise 20.6 23 20.2 22.5 24.5 23
Total Thrust (kN) 822
ML/D (0.8M) 16.96 20.16 20 20.16
ML/D (0.85M) 17.51 17.2 19.125 20.825 19.55
ML/D (0.86) 17.458 17.974 20.468 18.748
ML/D (0.88) 17.072 19.36 16.368
ML/D (0.9M) 17.25
ML/D (0.95M) 16.2
Table 7: BWB and TAW Data (1)

8
 Regional
SAX-40
ACFA
NASA

MOB
BWB

BWB

Reist
ERA

GbD
2020
Range (km) 14816 13334 9260 12500 10668 926
PAX (Standard) 224 470 215 100
MTOGW (T) 186.970 401.6 150.85 430 371.3 49
OEW (T) 255 94.19 207 122.4 30
Design Payload 22.7 49.4 23.41 86 113
(T)
Fuel Capacity (T) 97.3 33.25 137 135.9
Cruise Mach 0.85 0.85 0.8 0.85 0.85 0.8
L/D at Cruise 24.2 25.125 16.82 17
Total Thrust (kN) 409 1064
ML/D (0.8M) 13.6
ML/D (0.85M) 20.57 20.1 14.297
Table 8: BWB Data (2)

The easiest figure to compare is the lift-to-drag ratio. As said in section 2, TAW's overall L/D ranges
between 15 and 20 while, as shown in Figure 4 created from available literature, most BWB designs
expect an L/D of between 17 and under 25.

Figure 4: BWB lift-to-drag ratio

A more interesting figure of merit that comes to mind is the mach lift-to-drag ratio (ML/D). Figure 5
indicates that most BWB are more efficient than the TsAGI TAW comparative model developed by
TsAGI (which is quite efficient for a TAW). We only used this single TAW model for this comparison
since L/D data is scarce on commercial models. Figure 5 serves as a mean to compare BWB designs in

9
between them and to show that, aerodynamically speaking they are promising compared to a TAW
design.

Figure 5: Mach times Lift/Drag as a function of Mach number

In order to get a common metric for comparison, we normalized the available data against the design
payload (specific payload MTOW [T/T], specific payload Thrust [kN/T], specific payload-range Fuel
capacity [T/km.T]) and against the passengers capacity (Specific passenger MTOW [T/PAX]).

Figure 6: Specific payload MTOW

10
What the metrics show in Figure 6 is that the BWB has an equal or better MTOW-to-payload ratio -
compared to a TAW - in either the "low" payload (around or less the 20 T payload) or the very high
payloads (around or higher than 60 T). The extreme optimization of current TAW designs makes it so that
the 30-60T payload range is, from the specific payload MTOW point of view, still in advantage of the
TAW for now.

Figure 7: Specific payload Thrust and specific payload-range Fuel Capacity

We can see the same tendency from the thrust-to-payload ratio in Figure 7. Using results from the
Bombardier Learjet 70 (1 ton payload), the Boeing 787 (43 tons payload) and the Airbus A380 (89 tons
payload) and comparing to the data available from NASA's ERA (23 tons payload) and BWB-800 (89
tons payload) as well as the ACFA 2020 design (49 tons payload) and considering these aircrafts were
designed for roughly the same cruise Mach number (Mach 0.85 except the Learjet 70 designed for Mach
0.81) we see from Figure 7 that the propulsion systems chosen in BWB deliver more power for the same
payload, which either means that the propulsion system is not optimized or that there's still too much
structural weight in the BWB designs. The BWB still needs some optimizing around the 20-60T range.
An interesting result comes from the specific payload-range Fuel Capacity curve in Figure 7. It indicates
that, even if the BWB is still not as efficient in the 20-60T payload range, it's close to the most optimized
TAWs. Plus, it gets better after the 60T threshold. This reinforces the idea that, right now, the BWB is
more appealing for long range ultra high capacity payload. The curves seem promising though and if we
could manage to further reduce redundant weights and increase material weight efficiency, the BWB
might be competitive for the 450 passengers transatlantic range mission and even short range low
capacity missions. Furthermore, it has to be taken into account that no real BWB exists already and most
fuel estimations were made with classic TAW design rules.

11
 Figure 8: Passenger efficiency of BWB designs

The last diagram in Figure 8 shows the estimated MTOW per passenger for current designs from the
passengers perspective. As an example, we can compare the Boeing 787 (242 passengers) with the SAX-
40 and NASA's ERA designs (215 and 224 passengers respectively). Figure 8 then shows that the BWB
versions are more efficient. The same happens when we compare an Airbus A380 (544 passengers) with
any BWB. From this perspective, the BWB is already on par or superior than some of its counterparts.
The reason for this discrepancy is that, currently, commercial TAW aircrafts are designed for
supplementary cargo/passenger payload while BWB is mainly designed for passenger-only payload. For
example, the A380 is usually considered in current literature as a 544 passenger aircraft [3]. If we were to
consider his full capacity (853 passengers), his specific passenger MTOW would drop from 1000+ T to
674T.

Conclusion

A literature review on the BWB was conducted in order to get an insight into the current state of the art
on the subject, to identify advantages, obstacles, development centers and opportunities. This review
showed that, even though obstacles are yet to be fully solved, the BWB's expected advantages outweigh
these obstacles, thus the BWB is currently being heavily focused as the answer for the next generation
2025 - 2050 new aircraft design. Furthermore, we managed to isolate the main BWB working groups
around the globe localized in the USA, the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, Malaysia, China and Canada.
We also did a quick comparison between BWB and TAW performance and this yielded in an unexpected
result for the 30T - 60T payload range where the TAW seems more weight efficient than the BWB as it
manages to carry more payload with same or less weight. This is overall promising since the BWB still
has a lot of optimizations to do and it might just present an interesting challenge for the coming years.
12
Last but not least, this study suggests that BWB technology for ultra high capacity aircrafts (60+ tons of
payload) should already have a better performance than current TAW aircrafts in that range. From the
same perspective, if we could manage to overcome fuel issues, the BWB should also be compatible for
regional transportation missions on par with - or better than - current TAW technology.

The authors would like to thank CONACYT for their funding and support towards this research.

References

[1] IATA, "The IATA Technology Roadmap Record," 2013.

[2] ICAO, "Le Monde du Transport Aérien 2013," 2013.
[3] R. H. Liebeck, "Design of the Blended Wing Body Subsonic Transport," Journal of Aircraft, vol. 41,
pp. 10-25, 2004.
[4] A. L. Bolsunovsky, N. P. Buzoverya, B. I. Gurevich, V. E. Denisov, A. I. Dunaevsky, L. M. Shkadov,
et al., "Flying wing—problems and decisions," Aircraft Design, vol. 4, pp. 193-219, 2001.
[5] N. Qin, A. Vavalle, A. Le Moigne, M. Laban, K. Hackett, and P. Weinerfelt, "Aerodynamic
considerations of blended wing body aircraft," Progress in Aerospace Sciences, vol. 40, pp. 321-
343, 2004.
[6] Y. Guo, C. L. Burley, and R. H. Thomas, "On noise assessment for blended wing body aircraft," in
52nd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting - AIAA Science and Technology Forum and Exposition,
SciTech 2014, January 13, 2014 - January 17, 2014, National Harbor, MD, United states, 2014.
[7] G. Frawley, The International Directory of Civil Aircraft 2003/2004: MBI Publishing Company,
2003.
[8] Engineering Village. Compendex & Inspec [Online]. Available:
http://www.engineeringvillage.com/
[9] G. J. Coleman, Jr., "Aircraft conceptual design - an adaptable parametric sizing methodology,"
3408916 Ph.D., The University of Texas at Arlington, Ann Arbor, 2010.
[10] E. Torenbeek, "Theory of Optimum Weight," in Advanced Aircraft Design, ed: John Wiley & Sons,
Ltd, 2013, pp. 229-259.
[11] Airbus. (2011, 28/04/2015). Airbus A380 Specs. Available:
http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/passengeraircraft/a380family/
[12] A. Diedrich, J. Hileman, D. Tan, K. Willcox, and Z. Spakovszky, "Multidisciplinary design and
optimization of the silent aircraft," in 44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting 2006, January 9,
2006 - January 12, 2006, Reno, NV, United states, 2006, pp. 16083-16097.
[13] V. Mukhopadhyay, J. Sobieszczanski-Sobieski, I. Kosaka, G. Quinn, and G. N. Vanderpaats,
"Analysis, Design, and Optimization of Noncylindrical Fuselage for Blended-Wing-Body Vehicle,"
Journal of Aircraft, vol. 41, pp. 925-930, 2004/07/01 2004.
[14] Z. van der Voet, F. J. J. M. M. Geuskens, T. J. Ahmed, B. N. van Eyben, and A. Beukers,
"Configuration of the Multibubble Pressure Cabin in Blended Wing Body Aircraft," Journal of
Aircraft, vol. 49, pp. 991-1007, 07/ 2012.
[15] A. Velicki and P. Thrash, "Blended wing body structural concept development," The Aeronautical
Journal, vol. 114, pp. 513-519, August 2010 2010.

13
 [16] T. Nara and M. Kanazaki, "Initial design and evaluation of a novel concept regional aircraft," in
2010 Asia-Pacific International Symposium on Aerospace Technology, APISAT 2010, September
13, 2010 - September 15, 2010, Xi'an, China, 2010, pp. 90-94.
[17] T. A. Reist and D. W. Zingg, "Aerodynamic Shape Optimization of a Blended-Wing-Body Regional
Transport for a Short Range Mission," in 31st AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 24 June
2013, Reston, VA, USA, 2013, pp. 188-201.
[18] T. A. Reist and D. W. Zingg, "Aerodynamically optimal regional aircraft concepts: Conventional
and blended wing-body designs," in 52nd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting - AIAA Science and
Technology Forum and Exposition, SciTech 2014, January 13, 2014 - January 17, 2014, National
Harbor, MD, United states, 2014.
[19] A. Wildschek, "Flight dynamics and control related challenges for design of a commercial
blended wing body aircraft," in AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference 2014 -
SciTech Forum and Exposition 2014, January 13, 2014 - January 17, 2014, National Harbor, MD,
United states, 2014, p. Lockheed Martin; AIRBUS; BOEING; DUNMORE.
[20] C. D. Regan, "In-flight stability analysis of the X-48B aircraft," in AIAA Atmospheric Flight
Mechanics Conference and Exhibit, August 18, 2008 - August 21, 2008, Honolulu, HI, United
states, 2008.
[21] D. J. Thompson, J. Feys, M. D. Filewich, S. Abdel-Magid, D. Dalli, and F. Goto, "The Design and
Construction of a Blended Wing Body UAV," in 49th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including
the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, 4-7 Jan. 2011, Reston, VA, USA, 2011, p. 11
pp.
[22] P. Marques, "Emerging Technologies in UAV Aerodynamics," International Journal of Unmanned
Systems Engineering, vol. 1, pp. 1-2, / 2013.
[23] J. Koster and G. Soin, "Hyperion - Three years of novel aircraft design," in 55th
AIAA/ASMe/ASCE/AHS/SC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference - SciTech
Forum and Exposition 2014, January 13, 2014 - January 17, 2014, National Harbor, MD, United
states, 2014, p. Lockheed Martin; AIRBUS; BOEING; DUNMORE.
[24] B. Mohr, D. Paulus, H. Baier, and M. Hornung, "Design of a 450-passenger blended wing body
aircraft for active control investigations," Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers,
Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering, vol. 226, pp. 1513-1522, December 1, 2012 2012.
[25] D. Paulus, T. Salmon, B. Mohr, C. Roessler, Ӧ. Petersson, F. Stroscher, et al., "Configuration
selection for a 450-passenger ultraefficient 2020 aircraft," in 4th European conference for
aerospace sciences, Saint Petersburg, Russia, 2011.
[26] J. I. Hileman, Z. S. Spakovszky, M. Drela, and M. A. Sargeant, "Airframe design for "Silent
Aircraft"," in 45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting 2007, January 8, 2007 - January 11, 2007,
Reno, NV, United states, 2007, pp. 5403-5417.
[27] Greener by Design, "The Technology Challenge 2003," 2003.
[28] A. Morris, P. Arendsen, G. LaRocca, M. Laban, R. Voss, and H. Hönlinger, "MOB-a European
project on multidisciplinary design optimisation," in 24th ICAS Congress, 2004.

14

View publication stats