Inside the revolutionary jet design that aims to change air travel forever

By Greg Dickinson
July 10, 2025 — 5.00am

Some 101 years after the world’s first “blended-wing body” aircraft took flight (before promptly crashing back down to earth), a flurry of major manufacturers are designing planes in the unique aerodynamic style. This week, we gained a fresh look into how one of these planes might take shape.

The aviation start-up Natilus has published rendered images of its blended-wing body aircraft, a design concept which would allow for more spacious, fuel-efficient and potentially cheaper flights.

The Horizon aircraft will have a range of 3500 nautical miles (6482 kilometres) with a capacity of up to 196 passengers.

Natilus is a San Diego-based startup, co-founded in 2016 by aircraft design engineers Aleksey Matyushev and Anatoly Starikov. The mock-ups show a seating configuration that would see three aisles running through the plane, with futuristic booths allowing for in-flight video conferencing.

Aviators have theorised over the potential for a blended-wing body (BWB) jet for more than a century. But in recent years, with a sharpened onus on lowering emissions, airline manufacturers including Airbus, Bombardier and Boeing – plus a suite of start-ups – have begun exploring options for blended-wing designs.

A revolutionary design
In simple terms, a BWB aircraft has no clear dividing line between the main body and the wings, which are instead smoothly blended together. The result is an aerodynamic shape, which allows for a more fuel-efficient flight.

The blended wing differs from the “flying wing” – the design used for the B-2 Bomber – which sees an aircraft’s entire payload within the wing structure. But they are similar, in that they are both tailless.

The idea of the BWB was first dreamt up in the 1920s by Russian inventor Nicolas Woyevodsky. The result of his designs was the Westland Dreadnought, a single-engined fixed-winged monoplane. Only one was built, and it crashed on its maiden flight in Yeovil, Somerset, in May 1924, badly injuring the test pilot in the process.

Other prototypes were developed in the decades that followed, including designs by Vincent Burnelli, British manufacturer Miles, and a long-range interceptor aircraft called the “Moonbat”. The latter was designed for the US Air Force, but its production was cancelled after the prototype was destroyed by an engine fire.

Video pods and ‘club seating’
As the decades passed, the BWB design was sidelined in preference of the “tube and wing” design which Boeing and Airbus have adopted. But now, with airlines under pressure to meet net zero targets by 2050, the fuel-efficient BWB aircraft is back on the table.

Natilus is one of the smaller firms in the mix. Its Horizon aircraft will have a range of 3500 nautical miles (6482 kilometres) with a capacity of up to 196 passengers. This puts this particular BWB in a similar playing field to the Boeing 737-800, which has a capacity of 189 seats and a range of 2500 to 3850 nautical miles (4630 to 7130 kilometres).

But it is the other numbers that will catch the attention of prospective buyers. According to Natilus, the Horizon will reduce operating costs by 50 per cent, and the aircraft is 25 per cent lighter than conventional jets.

Natilus says: “Blended-wing bodyaircraft outperform traditional tube-and-wing aircraft in the areas of efficiency, performance, and environmental impact, resulting in improved fleet operations while protecting our planet for future generations.”

At a configuration of 196 passengers, the Horizon would have space for 108 in economy class (at 31-inch pitch), 48 in economy-plus (34 inches or 86cm) and 40 in first class (38 inches or 97cm). Natilus renderings show the potential for “video conference pods”, while there are also plans for “club seating” configurations which would allow groups to sit together during longer flights.

Crucially for prospective buyers, Natilus says its planes are being designed in a way that they can use existing airport infrastructure, plus they will use the same engines as conventional aircraft. In a 2024 interview with CNN, co-founder Matyushev said the plan is for the Horizon to go into service in the early 2030s. It appears that another manufacturer might beat them to it.

Ambitious competitors

California-based startup JetZero has similar ambitions to Natilus. The firm has received the backing of United Airlines, which has pre-ordered 200 of its 250-passenger Z4 plane (which is, as yet, uncertified), which it hopes to launch by 2030. At this size, the aircraft would be bigger than the single-aisle Boeing 737 and Airbus A320, but smaller than their twin-aisle designs, allowing it to fill a vital gap in the market.

The managing director of United Airlines’s Venture has previously said the Z4’s width would create a “living room in the sky”. But it is not only focusing on producing commercial jets. JetZero received a further boost when the US Air Force put in a $US235 million ($A360 million) contract for a demonstrator aircraft. This, according to Frank Kendall, the US secretary of the air force, was all about “maintaining our edge over China”. It could be that these military aircraft are developed first, paving the way for the commercial jets in the future.

Other manufacturers are involved in the race. JetZero traces its origins to a Nasa-McDonnell Douglas project in the early 1990s, which culminated in a successful test-flight of a 17ft demonstrator in 1997 (the JetZero co-founder, Mark Page, led this project). Boeing went on to take on the designs after merging with McDonnell, creating the unmanned X-48B and X48-C aircraft, which were tested more than 100 times. But, ultimately, these were never put into service, as other research initiatives took precedence.

Airbus has revealed plans for a BWB prototype called Maveric, showcased at a Singapore air show in 2020. While Bombardier is the first business jet manufacturer to explore the potential of the blended-wing design with its “EcoJet” project.

The benefits, analysed
Despite Boeing pausing its plans, the blended-wing dream remains alive. Fuel efficiency is the chief reason. Blended-wing jets are considerably more efficient compared with tube-and-wing aircraft, because they can generate more lift at take-off and face less drag as they fly. This means the aircraft is cheaper to run and produces lower emissions.

“They do offer significant fuel savings over conventional aircraft, at least in theory, as they avoid all the common joints and fillets that create form drag, or the loss of energy from wind resistance,” says pilot Brian Smith, who flies for a British cargo airline and has previously flown with Ryanair, Emirates and Air2000 (later, First Choice).

Natilus says its planes are being designed in a way that they can use existing airport infrastructure.

From a passenger point of view, there will be exciting bonuses. The interior would be wider and more spacious, given that the plane is not structured around a long, thin tube. This could allow for some game-changing configurations, impossible in a tubular design. Given that the wider cabin design allows for multiple aisles, the boarding and disembarkation process would likely be much quicker and more pleasant for passengers, too.

By all accounts, BWB aircraft could be quieter than traditional jets. Because they are more aerodynamically efficient, they will be able to use smaller engines that generate less noise. The location of the engines above the fuselage would also shield passengers from excessive noise. Natilus estimates that its planes would be around 40 per cent quieter than tube-and-wing aircraft.

The interior would be wider and more spacious, given that the plane is not structured around a long, thin tube.

And if, as Natilus suggests, the aircraft can run with 50 per cent lower operating costs, this could also allow airlines flying BWB aircraft to be priced more competitively than traditional tube-and-wing services.

Dilemmas and hurdles
But there are, inevitably, some downfalls to the BWB design. Due to the plane’s wider interior, fewer passengers will have a window seat. There are also concerns that evacuating a blended wing aircraft would be more difficult, given that there would be fewer exit doors available.

Another challenge that BWB aircraft face is stability and control, due perhaps to the absence of a traditional tail. To counter this, designers may need to incorporate sophisticated flight control systems. There are also technical challenges around how to manage the pressurisation in a non-cylindrical fuselage. It is generally thought that the traditional tube-shaped design is better equipped to handle this.

And last, but certainly not least, is the question of whether such a design would ever pass through regulators. Conventional tube-and-wing aircraft, produced by manufacturers such as Airbus and Boeing which have been building them for more than half a century, must meet strict requirements before they can fly. Sometimes, these checks are so rigorous that they can lead to delivery delays. With a unique design, and chequered 100-year history, it is safe to assume there would be significant regulatory hurdles facing BWB manufacturers before they can safely take flight.

https://www.theage.com.au/traveller/travel-news/inside-the-revolutionary-jet-design-that-aims-to-change-air-travel-forever-20250708-p5mdgr.html

Witty Rejoinder said:

Inside the revolutionary jet design that aims to change air travel forever

By Greg Dickinson
July 10, 2025 — 5.00am

Some 101 years after the world’s first “blended-wing body” aircraft took flight (before promptly crashing back down to earth), a flurry of major manufacturers are designing planes in the unique aerodynamic style. This week, we gained a fresh look into how one of these planes might take shape.

The aviation start-up Natilus has published rendered images of its blended-wing body aircraft, a design concept which would allow for more spacious, fuel-efficient and potentially cheaper flights.

The Horizon aircraft will have a range of 3500 nautical miles (6482 kilometres) with a capacity of up to 196 passengers.

Natilus is a San Diego-based startup, co-founded in 2016 by aircraft design engineers Aleksey Matyushev and Anatoly Starikov. The mock-ups show a seating configuration that would see three aisles running through the plane, with futuristic booths allowing for in-flight video conferencing.

Aviators have theorised over the potential for a blended-wing body (BWB) jet for more than a century. But in recent years, with a sharpened onus on lowering emissions, airline manufacturers including Airbus, Bombardier and Boeing – plus a suite of start-ups – have begun exploring options for blended-wing designs.

A revolutionary design
In simple terms, a BWB aircraft has no clear dividing line between the main body and the wings, which are instead smoothly blended together. The result is an aerodynamic shape, which allows for a more fuel-efficient flight.

The blended wing differs from the “flying wing” – the design used for the B-2 Bomber – which sees an aircraft’s entire payload within the wing structure. But they are similar, in that they are both tailless.

The idea of the BWB was first dreamt up in the 1920s by Russian inventor Nicolas Woyevodsky. The result of his designs was the Westland Dreadnought, a single-engined fixed-winged monoplane. Only one was built, and it crashed on its maiden flight in Yeovil, Somerset, in May 1924, badly injuring the test pilot in the process.

Other prototypes were developed in the decades that followed, including designs by Vincent Burnelli, British manufacturer Miles, and a long-range interceptor aircraft called the “Moonbat”. The latter was designed for the US Air Force, but its production was cancelled after the prototype was destroyed by an engine fire.

Video pods and ‘club seating’
As the decades passed, the BWB design was sidelined in preference of the “tube and wing” design which Boeing and Airbus have adopted. But now, with airlines under pressure to meet net zero targets by 2050, the fuel-efficient BWB aircraft is back on the table.

Natilus is one of the smaller firms in the mix. Its Horizon aircraft will have a range of 3500 nautical miles (6482 kilometres) with a capacity of up to 196 passengers. This puts this particular BWB in a similar playing field to the Boeing 737-800, which has a capacity of 189 seats and a range of 2500 to 3850 nautical miles (4630 to 7130 kilometres).

But it is the other numbers that will catch the attention of prospective buyers. According to Natilus, the Horizon will reduce operating costs by 50 per cent, and the aircraft is 25 per cent lighter than conventional jets.

Natilus says: “Blended-wing bodyaircraft outperform traditional tube-and-wing aircraft in the areas of efficiency, performance, and environmental impact, resulting in improved fleet operations while protecting our planet for future generations.”

At a configuration of 196 passengers, the Horizon would have space for 108 in economy class (at 31-inch pitch), 48 in economy-plus (34 inches or 86cm) and 40 in first class (38 inches or 97cm). Natilus renderings show the potential for “video conference pods”, while there are also plans for “club seating” configurations which would allow groups to sit together during longer flights.

Crucially for prospective buyers, Natilus says its planes are being designed in a way that they can use existing airport infrastructure, plus they will use the same engines as conventional aircraft. In a 2024 interview with CNN, co-founder Matyushev said the plan is for the Horizon to go into service in the early 2030s. It appears that another manufacturer might beat them to it.

Ambitious competitors

California-based startup JetZero has similar ambitions to Natilus. The firm has received the backing of United Airlines, which has pre-ordered 200 of its 250-passenger Z4 plane (which is, as yet, uncertified), which it hopes to launch by 2030. At this size, the aircraft would be bigger than the single-aisle Boeing 737 and Airbus A320, but smaller than their twin-aisle designs, allowing it to fill a vital gap in the market.

The managing director of United Airlines’s Venture has previously said the Z4’s width would create a “living room in the sky”. But it is not only focusing on producing commercial jets. JetZero received a further boost when the US Air Force put in a $US235 million ($A360 million) contract for a demonstrator aircraft. This, according to Frank Kendall, the US secretary of the air force, was all about “maintaining our edge over China”. It could be that these military aircraft are developed first, paving the way for the commercial jets in the future.

Other manufacturers are involved in the race. JetZero traces its origins to a Nasa-McDonnell Douglas project in the early 1990s, which culminated in a successful test-flight of a 17ft demonstrator in 1997 (the JetZero co-founder, Mark Page, led this project). Boeing went on to take on the designs after merging with McDonnell, creating the unmanned X-48B and X48-C aircraft, which were tested more than 100 times. But, ultimately, these were never put into service, as other research initiatives took precedence.

Airbus has revealed plans for a BWB prototype called Maveric, showcased at a Singapore air show in 2020. While Bombardier is the first business jet manufacturer to explore the potential of the blended-wing design with its “EcoJet” project.

The benefits, analysed
Despite Boeing pausing its plans, the blended-wing dream remains alive. Fuel efficiency is the chief reason. Blended-wing jets are considerably more efficient compared with tube-and-wing aircraft, because they can generate more lift at take-off and face less drag as they fly. This means the aircraft is cheaper to run and produces lower emissions.

“They do offer significant fuel savings over conventional aircraft, at least in theory, as they avoid all the common joints and fillets that create form drag, or the loss of energy from wind resistance,” says pilot Brian Smith, who flies for a British cargo airline and has previously flown with Ryanair, Emirates and Air2000 (later, First Choice).

Natilus says its planes are being designed in a way that they can use existing airport infrastructure.

From a passenger point of view, there will be exciting bonuses. The interior would be wider and more spacious, given that the plane is not structured around a long, thin tube. This could allow for some game-changing configurations, impossible in a tubular design. Given that the wider cabin design allows for multiple aisles, the boarding and disembarkation process would likely be much quicker and more pleasant for passengers, too.

By all accounts, BWB aircraft could be quieter than traditional jets. Because they are more aerodynamically efficient, they will be able to use smaller engines that generate less noise. The location of the engines above the fuselage would also shield passengers from excessive noise. Natilus estimates that its planes would be around 40 per cent quieter than tube-and-wing aircraft.

The interior would be wider and more spacious, given that the plane is not structured around a long, thin tube.

And if, as Natilus suggests, the aircraft can run with 50 per cent lower operating costs, this could also allow airlines flying BWB aircraft to be priced more competitively than traditional tube-and-wing services.

Dilemmas and hurdles
But there are, inevitably, some downfalls to the BWB design. Due to the plane’s wider interior, fewer passengers will have a window seat. There are also concerns that evacuating a blended wing aircraft would be more difficult, given that there would be fewer exit doors available.

Another challenge that BWB aircraft face is stability and control, due perhaps to the absence of a traditional tail. To counter this, designers may need to incorporate sophisticated flight control systems. There are also technical challenges around how to manage the pressurisation in a non-cylindrical fuselage. It is generally thought that the traditional tube-shaped design is better equipped to handle this.

And last, but certainly not least, is the question of whether such a design would ever pass through regulators. Conventional tube-and-wing aircraft, produced by manufacturers such as Airbus and Boeing which have been building them for more than half a century, must meet strict requirements before they can fly. Sometimes, these checks are so rigorous that they can lead to delivery delays. With a unique design, and chequered 100-year history, it is safe to assume there would be significant regulatory hurdles facing BWB manufacturers before they can safely take flight.

https://www.theage.com.au/traveller/travel-news/inside-the-revolutionary-jet-design-that-aims-to-change-air-travel-forever-20250708-p5mdgr.html

I wonder what it would be like gliding?

Will there be a cargo version?

RR have a new engine.

No One Saw This Coming: This NEW Rolls-Royce Engine Revolutionize The Entire Aviation Industry

Tau.Neutrino said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Inside the revolutionary jet design that aims to change air travel forever

By Greg Dickinson
July 10, 2025 — 5.00am

Some 101 years after the world’s first “blended-wing body” aircraft took flight (before promptly crashing back down to earth), a flurry of major manufacturers are designing planes in the unique aerodynamic style. This week, we gained a fresh look into how one of these planes might take shape.

The aviation start-up Natilus has published rendered images of its blended-wing body aircraft, a design concept which would allow for more spacious, fuel-efficient and potentially cheaper flights.

The Horizon aircraft will have a range of 3500 nautical miles (6482 kilometres) with a capacity of up to 196 passengers.

Natilus is a San Diego-based startup, co-founded in 2016 by aircraft design engineers Aleksey Matyushev and Anatoly Starikov. The mock-ups show a seating configuration that would see three aisles running through the plane, with futuristic booths allowing for in-flight video conferencing.

Aviators have theorised over the potential for a blended-wing body (BWB) jet for more than a century. But in recent years, with a sharpened onus on lowering emissions, airline manufacturers including Airbus, Bombardier and Boeing – plus a suite of start-ups – have begun exploring options for blended-wing designs.

A revolutionary design
In simple terms, a BWB aircraft has no clear dividing line between the main body and the wings, which are instead smoothly blended together. The result is an aerodynamic shape, which allows for a more fuel-efficient flight.

The blended wing differs from the “flying wing” – the design used for the B-2 Bomber – which sees an aircraft’s entire payload within the wing structure. But they are similar, in that they are both tailless.

The idea of the BWB was first dreamt up in the 1920s by Russian inventor Nicolas Woyevodsky. The result of his designs was the Westland Dreadnought, a single-engined fixed-winged monoplane. Only one was built, and it crashed on its maiden flight in Yeovil, Somerset, in May 1924, badly injuring the test pilot in the process.

Other prototypes were developed in the decades that followed, including designs by Vincent Burnelli, British manufacturer Miles, and a long-range interceptor aircraft called the “Moonbat”. The latter was designed for the US Air Force, but its production was cancelled after the prototype was destroyed by an engine fire.

Video pods and ‘club seating’
As the decades passed, the BWB design was sidelined in preference of the “tube and wing” design which Boeing and Airbus have adopted. But now, with airlines under pressure to meet net zero targets by 2050, the fuel-efficient BWB aircraft is back on the table.

Natilus is one of the smaller firms in the mix. Its Horizon aircraft will have a range of 3500 nautical miles (6482 kilometres) with a capacity of up to 196 passengers. This puts this particular BWB in a similar playing field to the Boeing 737-800, which has a capacity of 189 seats and a range of 2500 to 3850 nautical miles (4630 to 7130 kilometres).

But it is the other numbers that will catch the attention of prospective buyers. According to Natilus, the Horizon will reduce operating costs by 50 per cent, and the aircraft is 25 per cent lighter than conventional jets.

Natilus says: “Blended-wing bodyaircraft outperform traditional tube-and-wing aircraft in the areas of efficiency, performance, and environmental impact, resulting in improved fleet operations while protecting our planet for future generations.”

At a configuration of 196 passengers, the Horizon would have space for 108 in economy class (at 31-inch pitch), 48 in economy-plus (34 inches or 86cm) and 40 in first class (38 inches or 97cm). Natilus renderings show the potential for “video conference pods”, while there are also plans for “club seating” configurations which would allow groups to sit together during longer flights.

Crucially for prospective buyers, Natilus says its planes are being designed in a way that they can use existing airport infrastructure, plus they will use the same engines as conventional aircraft. In a 2024 interview with CNN, co-founder Matyushev said the plan is for the Horizon to go into service in the early 2030s. It appears that another manufacturer might beat them to it.

Ambitious competitors

California-based startup JetZero has similar ambitions to Natilus. The firm has received the backing of United Airlines, which has pre-ordered 200 of its 250-passenger Z4 plane (which is, as yet, uncertified), which it hopes to launch by 2030. At this size, the aircraft would be bigger than the single-aisle Boeing 737 and Airbus A320, but smaller than their twin-aisle designs, allowing it to fill a vital gap in the market.

The managing director of United Airlines’s Venture has previously said the Z4’s width would create a “living room in the sky”. But it is not only focusing on producing commercial jets. JetZero received a further boost when the US Air Force put in a $US235 million ($A360 million) contract for a demonstrator aircraft. This, according to Frank Kendall, the US secretary of the air force, was all about “maintaining our edge over China”. It could be that these military aircraft are developed first, paving the way for the commercial jets in the future.

Other manufacturers are involved in the race. JetZero traces its origins to a Nasa-McDonnell Douglas project in the early 1990s, which culminated in a successful test-flight of a 17ft demonstrator in 1997 (the JetZero co-founder, Mark Page, led this project). Boeing went on to take on the designs after merging with McDonnell, creating the unmanned X-48B and X48-C aircraft, which were tested more than 100 times. But, ultimately, these were never put into service, as other research initiatives took precedence.

Airbus has revealed plans for a BWB prototype called Maveric, showcased at a Singapore air show in 2020. While Bombardier is the first business jet manufacturer to explore the potential of the blended-wing design with its “EcoJet” project.

The benefits, analysed
Despite Boeing pausing its plans, the blended-wing dream remains alive. Fuel efficiency is the chief reason. Blended-wing jets are considerably more efficient compared with tube-and-wing aircraft, because they can generate more lift at take-off and face less drag as they fly. This means the aircraft is cheaper to run and produces lower emissions.

“They do offer significant fuel savings over conventional aircraft, at least in theory, as they avoid all the common joints and fillets that create form drag, or the loss of energy from wind resistance,” says pilot Brian Smith, who flies for a British cargo airline and has previously flown with Ryanair, Emirates and Air2000 (later, First Choice).

Natilus says its planes are being designed in a way that they can use existing airport infrastructure.

From a passenger point of view, there will be exciting bonuses. The interior would be wider and more spacious, given that the plane is not structured around a long, thin tube. This could allow for some game-changing configurations, impossible in a tubular design. Given that the wider cabin design allows for multiple aisles, the boarding and disembarkation process would likely be much quicker and more pleasant for passengers, too.

By all accounts, BWB aircraft could be quieter than traditional jets. Because they are more aerodynamically efficient, they will be able to use smaller engines that generate less noise. The location of the engines above the fuselage would also shield passengers from excessive noise. Natilus estimates that its planes would be around 40 per cent quieter than tube-and-wing aircraft.

The interior would be wider and more spacious, given that the plane is not structured around a long, thin tube.

And if, as Natilus suggests, the aircraft can run with 50 per cent lower operating costs, this could also allow airlines flying BWB aircraft to be priced more competitively than traditional tube-and-wing services.

Dilemmas and hurdles
But there are, inevitably, some downfalls to the BWB design. Due to the plane’s wider interior, fewer passengers will have a window seat. There are also concerns that evacuating a blended wing aircraft would be more difficult, given that there would be fewer exit doors available.

Another challenge that BWB aircraft face is stability and control, due perhaps to the absence of a traditional tail. To counter this, designers may need to incorporate sophisticated flight control systems. There are also technical challenges around how to manage the pressurisation in a non-cylindrical fuselage. It is generally thought that the traditional tube-shaped design is better equipped to handle this.

And last, but certainly not least, is the question of whether such a design would ever pass through regulators. Conventional tube-and-wing aircraft, produced by manufacturers such as Airbus and Boeing which have been building them for more than half a century, must meet strict requirements before they can fly. Sometimes, these checks are so rigorous that they can lead to delivery delays. With a unique design, and chequered 100-year history, it is safe to assume there would be significant regulatory hurdles facing BWB manufacturers before they can safely take flight.

https://www.theage.com.au/traveller/travel-news/inside-the-revolutionary-jet-design-that-aims-to-change-air-travel-forever-20250708-p5mdgr.html

I wonder what it would be like gliding?

Will there be a cargo version?

I was thinking that a cargo option might be the first to become visible and literally and figuratively to take off. As such untested technology it might take years for the nuts and bolts of making it safe and reliable for passenger transport but using it for cargo would allow flight kilometres to be accrued with the only danger being to the pilots who might jump at the chance to experiment with the exciting new concept.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Inside the revolutionary jet design that aims to change air travel forever

By Greg Dickinson
July 10, 2025 — 5.00am

Some 101 years after the world’s first “blended-wing body” aircraft took flight (before promptly crashing back down to earth), a flurry of major manufacturers are designing planes in the unique aerodynamic style. This week, we gained a fresh look into how one of these planes might take shape.

The aviation start-up Natilus has published rendered images of its blended-wing body aircraft, a design concept which would allow for more spacious, fuel-efficient and potentially cheaper flights.

The Horizon aircraft will have a range of 3500 nautical miles (6482 kilometres) with a capacity of up to 196 passengers.

Natilus is a San Diego-based startup, co-founded in 2016 by aircraft design engineers Aleksey Matyushev and Anatoly Starikov. The mock-ups show a seating configuration that would see three aisles running through the plane, with futuristic booths allowing for in-flight video conferencing.

Aviators have theorised over the potential for a blended-wing body (BWB) jet for more than a century. But in recent years, with a sharpened onus on lowering emissions, airline manufacturers including Airbus, Bombardier and Boeing – plus a suite of start-ups – have begun exploring options for blended-wing designs.

A revolutionary design
In simple terms, a BWB aircraft has no clear dividing line between the main body and the wings, which are instead smoothly blended together. The result is an aerodynamic shape, which allows for a more fuel-efficient flight.

The blended wing differs from the “flying wing” – the design used for the B-2 Bomber – which sees an aircraft’s entire payload within the wing structure. But they are similar, in that they are both tailless.

The idea of the BWB was first dreamt up in the 1920s by Russian inventor Nicolas Woyevodsky. The result of his designs was the Westland Dreadnought, a single-engined fixed-winged monoplane. Only one was built, and it crashed on its maiden flight in Yeovil, Somerset, in May 1924, badly injuring the test pilot in the process.

Other prototypes were developed in the decades that followed, including designs by Vincent Burnelli, British manufacturer Miles, and a long-range interceptor aircraft called the “Moonbat”. The latter was designed for the US Air Force, but its production was cancelled after the prototype was destroyed by an engine fire.

Video pods and ‘club seating’
As the decades passed, the BWB design was sidelined in preference of the “tube and wing” design which Boeing and Airbus have adopted. But now, with airlines under pressure to meet net zero targets by 2050, the fuel-efficient BWB aircraft is back on the table.

Natilus is one of the smaller firms in the mix. Its Horizon aircraft will have a range of 3500 nautical miles (6482 kilometres) with a capacity of up to 196 passengers. This puts this particular BWB in a similar playing field to the Boeing 737-800, which has a capacity of 189 seats and a range of 2500 to 3850 nautical miles (4630 to 7130 kilometres).

But it is the other numbers that will catch the attention of prospective buyers. According to Natilus, the Horizon will reduce operating costs by 50 per cent, and the aircraft is 25 per cent lighter than conventional jets.

Natilus says: “Blended-wing bodyaircraft outperform traditional tube-and-wing aircraft in the areas of efficiency, performance, and environmental impact, resulting in improved fleet operations while protecting our planet for future generations.”

At a configuration of 196 passengers, the Horizon would have space for 108 in economy class (at 31-inch pitch), 48 in economy-plus (34 inches or 86cm) and 40 in first class (38 inches or 97cm). Natilus renderings show the potential for “video conference pods”, while there are also plans for “club seating” configurations which would allow groups to sit together during longer flights.

Crucially for prospective buyers, Natilus says its planes are being designed in a way that they can use existing airport infrastructure, plus they will use the same engines as conventional aircraft. In a 2024 interview with CNN, co-founder Matyushev said the plan is for the Horizon to go into service in the early 2030s. It appears that another manufacturer might beat them to it.

Ambitious competitors

California-based startup JetZero has similar ambitions to Natilus. The firm has received the backing of United Airlines, which has pre-ordered 200 of its 250-passenger Z4 plane (which is, as yet, uncertified), which it hopes to launch by 2030. At this size, the aircraft would be bigger than the single-aisle Boeing 737 and Airbus A320, but smaller than their twin-aisle designs, allowing it to fill a vital gap in the market.

The managing director of United Airlines’s Venture has previously said the Z4’s width would create a “living room in the sky”. But it is not only focusing on producing commercial jets. JetZero received a further boost when the US Air Force put in a $US235 million ($A360 million) contract for a demonstrator aircraft. This, according to Frank Kendall, the US secretary of the air force, was all about “maintaining our edge over China”. It could be that these military aircraft are developed first, paving the way for the commercial jets in the future.

Other manufacturers are involved in the race. JetZero traces its origins to a Nasa-McDonnell Douglas project in the early 1990s, which culminated in a successful test-flight of a 17ft demonstrator in 1997 (the JetZero co-founder, Mark Page, led this project). Boeing went on to take on the designs after merging with McDonnell, creating the unmanned X-48B and X48-C aircraft, which were tested more than 100 times. But, ultimately, these were never put into service, as other research initiatives took precedence.

Airbus has revealed plans for a BWB prototype called Maveric, showcased at a Singapore air show in 2020. While Bombardier is the first business jet manufacturer to explore the potential of the blended-wing design with its “EcoJet” project.

The benefits, analysed
Despite Boeing pausing its plans, the blended-wing dream remains alive. Fuel efficiency is the chief reason. Blended-wing jets are considerably more efficient compared with tube-and-wing aircraft, because they can generate more lift at take-off and face less drag as they fly. This means the aircraft is cheaper to run and produces lower emissions.

“They do offer significant fuel savings over conventional aircraft, at least in theory, as they avoid all the common joints and fillets that create form drag, or the loss of energy from wind resistance,” says pilot Brian Smith, who flies for a British cargo airline and has previously flown with Ryanair, Emirates and Air2000 (later, First Choice).

Natilus says its planes are being designed in a way that they can use existing airport infrastructure.

From a passenger point of view, there will be exciting bonuses. The interior would be wider and more spacious, given that the plane is not structured around a long, thin tube. This could allow for some game-changing configurations, impossible in a tubular design. Given that the wider cabin design allows for multiple aisles, the boarding and disembarkation process would likely be much quicker and more pleasant for passengers, too.

By all accounts, BWB aircraft could be quieter than traditional jets. Because they are more aerodynamically efficient, they will be able to use smaller engines that generate less noise. The location of the engines above the fuselage would also shield passengers from excessive noise. Natilus estimates that its planes would be around 40 per cent quieter than tube-and-wing aircraft.

The interior would be wider and more spacious, given that the plane is not structured around a long, thin tube.

And if, as Natilus suggests, the aircraft can run with 50 per cent lower operating costs, this could also allow airlines flying BWB aircraft to be priced more competitively than traditional tube-and-wing services.

Dilemmas and hurdles
But there are, inevitably, some downfalls to the BWB design. Due to the plane’s wider interior, fewer passengers will have a window seat. There are also concerns that evacuating a blended wing aircraft would be more difficult, given that there would be fewer exit doors available.

Another challenge that BWB aircraft face is stability and control, due perhaps to the absence of a traditional tail. To counter this, designers may need to incorporate sophisticated flight control systems. There are also technical challenges around how to manage the pressurisation in a non-cylindrical fuselage. It is generally thought that the traditional tube-shaped design is better equipped to handle this.

And last, but certainly not least, is the question of whether such a design would ever pass through regulators. Conventional tube-and-wing aircraft, produced by manufacturers such as Airbus and Boeing which have been building them for more than half a century, must meet strict requirements before they can fly. Sometimes, these checks are so rigorous that they can lead to delivery delays. With a unique design, and chequered 100-year history, it is safe to assume there would be significant regulatory hurdles facing BWB manufacturers before they can safely take flight.

https://www.theage.com.au/traveller/travel-news/inside-the-revolutionary-jet-design-that-aims-to-change-air-travel-forever-20250708-p5mdgr.html

I wonder what it would be like gliding?

Will there be a cargo version?

I was thinking that a cargo option might be the first to become visible and literally and figuratively to take off. As such untested technology it might take years for the nuts and bolts of making it safe and reliable for passenger transport but using it for cargo would allow flight kilometres to be accrued with the only danger being to the pilots who might jump at the chance to experiment with the exciting new concept.

visible=viable

Witty Rejoinder said:

…with the only danger being to the pilots who might jump at the chance to experiment with the exciting new concept.

Perhaps also a few peasants on the ground destroyed, when crashes of a new order of magnitude occur.

Nautilus, the proponent company’s name inspires confidence. Designed for ditching?

captain_spalding said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

…with the only danger being to the pilots who might jump at the chance to experiment with the exciting new concept.

Perhaps also a few peasants on the ground destroyed, when crashes of a new order of magnitude occur.

By the time it’s ready to fly cargo it won’t be prone to falling out of the sky. But it might be risky enough to render losing a passenger flight a year unpalatable for the airline’s insurers.

I doubt that seating arrangement would be legal. The A380 was first imagined as being wide, not a double decker. But safety regs says something like every one must be able to evacuate within 90 seconds and that’s not possible on a wide body. It needs to be double decker so it get more exits going in parallel.

I’d like to see what Bill has to say about the likely handling characteristics of one of these.

Ian said:

But safety regs says something like every one must be able to evacuate within 90 seconds and that’s not possible on a wide body.

How about…

…ejection seats!

captain_spalding said:

Ian said:

But safety regs says something like every one must be able to evacuate within 90 seconds and that’s not possible on a wide body.

How about…

…ejection seats!

What about seats that folded flat into the floor.

Tau.Neutrino said:

I wonder what it would be like gliding?

Will there be a cargo version?

It’d glide quite well I imagine as BWB’s are very slippery and (relatively) low drag.
FWIW a normal descent in most airliners is what we called a “three to one”, which was not a thousand metre drop every 3 km, but a thousand feet for every 3 nautical miles. So for example from 35,000’ you’d start the drop 105 nm from the airport and a normal descent uses idle power so you’d gliding almost all the way. There’d be compensation for several factors, such as the weight of the aircraft (the heavier it was the earlier you’d have to start TOPD), lots of tailwind would add say 10 miles, a straight-in approach would need an extra 10 nm to slow down, stuff like that.
Anyway, I imagine a heavy BWB would be no shallower than a 4-1 drop and quite possibly even 5-1.

As mentioned above a freighter version would probably be the smart way to go for the first few years. Setting up the interior so the freight containers can be moved around all over the interior probably wouldn’t be too difficult I reckon.
Two problems, again as mentioned above –
The pressurisation of an oval(ish?) hull is certainly tricky but with clever application & orientation of composites would be doable, I think. It might end up running a lower max differential pressure though until the technology matures. Not sure, just a guess. 8 PSID is pretty common with most airliners.
The other major problem is getting the punters out the doors quickly enough in an accident. As mentioned they have to test this with every seat full and 50% (randomly) of the doors cannot be opened. That’s going to be pretty tricky any way you look at it. I guess if the airliner companies & airlines pressure the authorities hard enough that rule may be relaxed somehow.
Unfortunately, money talks like that.

I imagine a heavy BWB would be no shallower than a 4-1 drop and quite possibly even 5-1.

—

The NASA M2-F1 is a lightweight, unpowered prototype aircraft, developed to flight-test the wingless lifting body concept. Its unusual appearance earned it the nickname “flying bathtub” and was designated the M2-F1, the M referring to “manned”, and F referring to “flight” version.

..a very limited in maneuvering range.. the lifting-body vehicle had a landing footprint of the size of California.

Ian said:

I imagine a heavy BWB would be no shallower than a 4-1 drop and quite possibly even 5-1.

—

The NASA M2-F1 is a lightweight, unpowered prototype aircraft, developed to flight-test the wingless lifting body concept. Its unusual appearance earned it the nickname “flying bathtub” and was designated the M2-F1, the M referring to “manned”, and F referring to “flight” version.

..a very limited in maneuvering range.. the lifting-body vehicle had a landing footprint of the size of California.

And there’s a good reason why no further aircraft of that shape were every flown.
It’s shit, bro.

Spiny Norman said:

Ian said:

I imagine a heavy BWB would be no shallower than a 4-1 drop and quite possibly even 5-1.

—

The NASA M2-F1 is a lightweight, unpowered prototype aircraft, developed to flight-test the wingless lifting body concept. Its unusual appearance earned it the nickname “flying bathtub” and was designated the M2-F1, the M referring to “manned”, and F referring to “flight” version.

..a very limited in maneuvering range.. the lifting-body vehicle had a landing footprint of the size of California.

And there’s a good reason why no further aircraft of that shape were every flown.
It’s shit, bro.

If it looks like shit and flies like shit…

Tau.Neutrino said:

captain_spalding said:

Ian said:

But safety regs says something like every one must be able to evacuate within 90 seconds and that’s not possible on a wide body.

How about…

…ejection seats!

What about seats that folded flat into the floor.

Not all seats would need to fold onto the floor, maybe just a few rows, an optimal design would need to be worked out.

Ian said:

I doubt that seating arrangement would be legal. The A380 was first imagined as being wide, not a double decker. But safety regs says something like every one must be able to evacuate within 90 seconds and that’s not possible on a wide body. It needs to be double decker so it get more exits going in parallel.

I’d like to see what Bill has to say about the likely handling characteristics of one of these.

Safety regs will just have to be changed so that more people are allowed to die.

It is after all saving the planet through reduced CO2 emissions from aviation, and humans are responsible for all those emissions.

I’ll run it past the ethics department.

party_pants said:

Ian said:

I doubt that seating arrangement would be legal. The A380 was first imagined as being wide, not a double decker. But safety regs says something like every one must be able to evacuate within 90 seconds and that’s not possible on a wide body. It needs to be double decker so it get more exits going in parallel.

I’d like to see what Bill has to say about the likely handling characteristics of one of these.

Safety regs will just have to be changed so that more people are allowed to die.

It is after all saving the planet through reduced CO2 emissions from aviation, and humans are responsible for all those emissions.

I’ll run it past the ethics department.

or maybe the Philosophy Department at the University of Woolloomooloo :)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifting_body

A lifting body is a fixed-wing aircraft or spacecraft configuration in which the body itself produces lift. In contrast to a flying wing, which is a wing with minimal or no conventional fuselage, a lifting body can be thought of as a fuselage with little or no conventional wing.

Hard to see how some of these get off the ground.

Ian said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifting_body

A lifting body is a fixed-wing aircraft or spacecraft configuration in which the body itself produces lift. In contrast to a flying wing, which is a wing with minimal or no conventional fuselage, a lifting body can be thought of as a fuselage with little or no conventional wing.

Hard to see how some of these get off the ground.

From that link…

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwater_glider

An underwater glider is a type of autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) that employs variable-buoyancy propulsion instead of traditional propellers or thrusters. It employs variable buoyancy in a similar way to a profiling float, but unlike a float, which can move only up and down, an underwater glider is fitted with hydrofoils (underwater wings) that allow it to glide forward while descending through the water. At a certain depth, the glider switches to positive buoyancy to climb back up and forward, and the cycle is then repeated.

While not as fast as conventional AUVs, gliders offer significantly greater range and endurance compared to traditional AUVs, extending ocean sampling missions from hours to weeks or months, and to thousands of kilometers of range. The typical up-and-down, sawtooth-like profile followed by a glider can provide data on temporal and spatial scales unattainable by powered AUVs.

.

Interesting

Ian said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifting_body

A lifting body is a fixed-wing aircraft or spacecraft configuration in which the body itself produces lift. In contrast to a flying wing, which is a wing with minimal or no conventional fuselage, a lifting body can be thought of as a fuselage with little or no conventional wing.

Hard to see how some of these get off the ground.

I’m pretty sure that all of the lifting body type X planes were lifted to launch height by a B-52, none were capable of taking off under their own power.

Spiny Norman said:

Ian said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifting_body

A lifting body is a fixed-wing aircraft or spacecraft configuration in which the body itself produces lift. In contrast to a flying wing, which is a wing with minimal or no conventional fuselage, a lifting body can be thought of as a fuselage with little or no conventional wing.

Hard to see how some of these get off the ground.

I’m pretty sure that all of the lifting body type X planes were lifted to launch height by a B-52, none were capable of taking off under their own power.

IC. OK

Ian said:

Spiny Norman said:

Ian said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifting_body

A lifting body is a fixed-wing aircraft or spacecraft configuration in which the body itself produces lift. In contrast to a flying wing, which is a wing with minimal or no conventional fuselage, a lifting body can be thought of as a fuselage with little or no conventional wing.

Hard to see how some of these get off the ground.

I’m pretty sure that all of the lifting body type X planes were lifted to launch height by a B-52, none were capable of taking off under their own power.

IC. OK

Getting off the ground was not so hard.

They would, of course, return to the ground.

The question revolved around the manner of their return to the ground.

Ian said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifting_body

A lifting body is a fixed-wing aircraft or spacecraft configuration in which the body itself produces lift. In contrast to a flying wing, which is a wing with minimal or no conventional fuselage, a lifting body can be thought of as a fuselage with little or no conventional wing.

Hard to see how some of these get off the ground.

With enough thrust you can get anything off the ground.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

captain_spalding said:

How about…

…ejection seats!

What about seats that folded flat into the floor.

Not all seats would need to fold onto the floor, maybe just a few rows, an optimal design would need to be worked out.

Maybe the outer seating near the fuselage running down both sides?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

What about seats that folded flat into the floor.

Not all seats would need to fold onto the floor, maybe just a few rows, an optimal design would need to be worked out.

Maybe the outer seating near the fuselage running down both sides?

Widen the corridor running down both sides of the fuselage, by retracting the seats into the floor.

So each row would retract 3 or 4 seats on both sides of the plane that are near the fuselage.

Movement down the rows could be sped up by folding the seats vertically.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Not all seats would need to fold onto the floor, maybe just a few rows, an optimal design would need to be worked out.

Maybe the outer seating near the fuselage running down both sides?

Widen the corridor running down both sides of the fuselage, by retracting the seats into the floor.

So each row would retract 3 or 4 seats on both sides of the plane that are near the fuselage.

Movement down the rows could be sped up by folding the seats vertically.

You’re looking at this all wrong. Who needs seats?

Just build the aircraft as cargo-only aircraft.

Then pack the passengers into suitable cargo containers, load them aboard like you would e.g. a shipment of Trump merchandise from China, and Bob’s your uncle.

captain_spalding said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Maybe the outer seating near the fuselage running down both sides?

Widen the corridor running down both sides of the fuselage, by retracting the seats into the floor.

So each row would retract 3 or 4 seats on both sides of the plane that are near the fuselage.

Movement down the rows could be sped up by folding the seats vertically.

You’re looking at this all wrong. Who needs seats?

Just build the aircraft as cargo-only aircraft.

Then pack the passengers into suitable cargo containers, load them aboard like you would e.g. a shipment of Trump merchandise from China, and Bob’s your uncle.

I’ll like a giant bean bag for the whole plane.

Really comfortable but take forever to get out of.

Tau.Neutrino said:

captain_spalding said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Widen the corridor running down both sides of the fuselage, by retracting the seats into the floor.

So each row would retract 3 or 4 seats on both sides of the plane that are near the fuselage.

Movement down the rows could be sped up by folding the seats vertically.

You’re looking at this all wrong. Who needs seats?

Just build the aircraft as cargo-only aircraft.

Then pack the passengers into suitable cargo containers, load them aboard like you would e.g. a shipment of Trump merchandise from China, and Bob’s your uncle.

I’ll like a giant bean bag for the whole plane.

Really comfortable but take forever to get out of.

Your right, storing people in shipping containers would be more efficient and would save a lot of space.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

captain_spalding said:

You’re looking at this all wrong. Who needs seats?

Just build the aircraft as cargo-only aircraft.

Then pack the passengers into suitable cargo containers, load them aboard like you would e.g. a shipment of Trump merchandise from China, and Bob’s your uncle.

I’ll like a giant bean bag for the whole plane.

Really comfortable but take forever to get out of.

Your right, storing people in shipping containers would be more efficient and would save a lot of space.

Years ago when I was flying 747 freighters, I worked out that we could carry about 1,200 people though they’d have to lie down on the floor and have a freight net thrown over them instead of seat belts.

The exit corridor running down each side of the aircraft need not to be so wide, I had it at 3 to 4 seats, 1 to 2 seats each side would do. This is for each row, each side.

The exit corridor in economy would be different to first class. Wider seats in First class.

One seat each side in first class, two seats each side in economy.

Safety exit hatches top and bottom of the aircraft would be placed in the middle, would allow for faster evacuating.

Tau.Neutrino said:

The exit corridor running down each side of the aircraft need not to be so wide, I had it at 3 to 4 seats, 1 to 2 seats each side would do. This is for each row, each side.

The exit corridor in economy would be different to first class. Wider seats in First class.

One seat each side in first class, two seats each side in economy.

Safety exit hatches top and bottom of the aircraft would be placed in the middle, would allow for faster evacuating.

If the plane flips and ends up upside down then a running channel above each row in the ceiling would assist exiting that way.

I’d be making a few changes to the fuel pump switches.

An audible alarm when pulled out.

Switches can only be turned off from both sides of the cabin.

Engines have a buffer tank that allows for a few minutes.

Tau.Neutrino said:

I’d be making a few changes to the fuel pump switches.

An audible alarm when pulled out.

Switches can only be turned off from both sides of the cabin.

Engines have a buffer tank that allows for a few minutes.

Switches can only be turned off from both sides of the cabin.
When both pulled out and both placed in the cut off position.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I’d be making a few changes to the fuel pump switches.

An audible alarm when pulled out.

Switches can only be turned off from both sides of the cabin.

Engines have a buffer tank that allows for a few minutes.

Switches can only be turned off from both sides of the cabin.
When both pulled out and both placed in the cut off position.

Maybe a flight computer could control the fuel a bit more while the plane is in the air?

If the plane is just taking off then the flight computer knows that the plane is ascending and fuel is needed to keep thrust. A switch to fuel off while ascending would not make any sense, therefore it could be interpreted as human error by the flight computer.

Rules would keep the switches from being turned off while the plane is ascending, while in flight or while decending.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I’d be making a few changes to the fuel pump switches.

An audible alarm when pulled out.

Switches can only be turned off from both sides of the cabin.

Engines have a buffer tank that allows for a few minutes.

Switches can only be turned off from both sides of the cabin.
When both pulled out and both placed in the cut off position.

Maybe a flight computer could control the fuel a bit more while the plane is in the air?

If the plane is just taking off then the flight computer knows that the plane is ascending and fuel is needed to keep thrust. A switch to fuel off while ascending would not make any sense, therefore it could be interpreted as human error by the flight computer.

Rules would keep the switches from being turned off while the plane is ascending, while in flight or while decending.

Get AI to look at all pilot suicides and all possible ways to disable the flight controls and then design around that?