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

net/publication/362960196

Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

Preprint · August 2022

CITATIONS READS

0 1,155

1 author:

Nicholas Landell-Mills
Independent Research
57 PUBLICATIONS 39 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Nicholas Landell-Mills on 04 October 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Flying-wing aircraft rethought.
The Newtonian explanation of why blended-wing designs
generate so little parasitic drag in subsonic flight.

Mr. Nicholas Landell-Mills

3 October 2024
Pre-Print DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13903.97446;
CC License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Keywords: Aerodynamics; BWB; blended-wing; drag;
flying-wing; lift; Newton; physics.
Independent Research
Donate via PayPal or buy me a coffee.

Fig. A. Flying-wing aircraft. [25] [51] .

Abstract
Newtonian mechanics (Force = ma) provides a better explanation of lift and drag experienced by aircraft, based on analysis
of the actual wing airflows observed in flight. This challenges the prevailing approach of fluid mechanics based on the
relative wing airflows, as observed in wind tunnel experiments. The Newtonian approach shows that if flying-wing aircraft
are thin enough and fly at subsonic airspeeds, then they generate maximum lift and negligible drag. The Newtonian approach
explains why flying-wing designs favour thinner and slower (subsonic) UAVS and cargo aircraft (military bombers), and not
the proposed thick and fast (transonic) flying-wing passenger airliners. See Fig. A.

1. INTRODUCTION A key insight from Newtonian analysis using the actual

airflows observed, is that wings generate negligible parasitic
drag in flight. Consequently, a longer wingspan and a thicker
wing have minimal impact on the drag generated, up to a point.
A. Why no flying-wing passenger aircraft?
This approach explains why flying wing designs offer superior
performance by integrating the fuselage into the wing.
Wing and aircraft development has broadly stagnated since
1970. Modern airliners (e.g. B.787) are little different to those
from 1970 (e.g. B-747). In contrast, the flying-wing concept
represents a radical change in aircraft design. See Fig. 1a. B. Wrong theory = Little progress.

The use of fluid mechanics and relative airflow analysis

B-747 in 1969 B-787 in 2010 Boeing and NASA
(wind tunnel testing). This strategy has led to flying-wing
concept prototype designs that are too big (high passenger capacities),
fuselages that were too thick, and flight at too high airspeeds
(i.e. transonic). The large fuselage does not benefit from the
physics of flying-wing design. These aircraft have many of the
drawbacks of the old tube-and-wing design, but few of the real
Fig. 1a. Wing and aircraft designs. [1][25]
benefits of the flying-wing design. See Fig. 1b.
The lack of flying-wing designs in commercial passenger
aviation, despite substantial research and investments, is at odds
with estimates that flying-wings can provide 40% increased The prominent and thick fuselage
Conventional design is similar to conventional designs,
endurance with lower engine thrust and fuel burn, as compared Sources of and is a large source of drag, not lift.
to conventional aircraft. [47][48] drag
Blended wing
Design
If flying-wing designs are so much more efficient, then why
aren’t more seen flying? The simple answer is that the physics
of flying-wing designs is best applied to UAVs and air cargo Fig. 1b. Aircraft drag profiles.
transport with thin fuselages and low airspeeds, rather than
passenger aircraft with thick fuselages and high airspeeds.

1
 Independent Research – Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

Contents:

1. Introduction....................................................... 1
2. The Argument Summarized .............................. 3
3. Background........................................................ 6
4. Aerodynamic Advantages .................................. 7
5. Wing’s Low Drag Coefficients ........................... 8
6. Fluid Mechanics .............................................. 10

7. Newtonian Mechanics For BWB ..................... 11

8. Newtonian Mechanics in more Detail............ 13
9. Airfoil Thickness and Lift ................................ 16
10. Prandtl’s Flying-Wing....................................... 18
11. Evidence .......................................................... 19

12. Discussion of Results ...................................... 28 This space is intentionally left blank.

13. Conclusions...................................................... 29
14. Additional Information ................................... 29
15. References ....................................................... 30

Appendix I – Unresolved Theory of Lift.................. 32

Appendix II – Newtonian Lift ................................... 33
Appendix III – Actual Wing Airflows ......................... 35
Appendix IV – Passive and Active Forces ................. 37
Appendix V – Equations for Lift and Drag ............... 38
Appendix VI – Navier-Stokes Equations .................... 40
Appendix VII – NASA’s Drag Equation ...................... 41
Appendix VIII – Historical Background ...................... 42

2
 Independent Research – Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

2. THE ARGUMENT SUMMARIZED B. Lift = m/dt * dv.

According to Newtonian mechanics, wings with a positive

angle-of-attack (AOA) fly through a mass of air each second
(m/dt), which is accelerated to a velocity (dv) downward and
A. Two actual wing airflows. slightly forward. This action creates a downward force (Force
DOWN = m/dt * dv).
The topside and underside of a wing with a positive AOA,
accelerates the static air flown through downwards and slightly
forwards, creating two separate airflows. See Fig. 2a-(i-ii). As a result, momentum is transferred from the aircraft to the
air. The reactive, equal and opposite upward force generated
1) The underside of the wing directly exerts a force against (Force UP) provides lift. See Fig. 2b. See the Newtonian
the air flown through out of its path, which pushes the approach to lift described in Appendix II–III.
air downward. This force creates high pressure on the
underside surface of the wing.

2) The forward movement of the wing creates a zone of low

air pressure (vacuum) on the topside of the wing (i.e.
behind the direction of travel, pulls the air above the
wing downwards and slightly forwards, helped by any
wing curvature due to the Coanda effect.

Upper air mass

Direction PULLED down
Fig. 2b. Newtonian forces acting
Upwash
of flight LOW on a wing.
Win pressure
g
m/dt
C. Wake airflows.
HIGH
Lower air mass
pressure Combined the two airflows push and pull the air flown
PUSHED d own
through downwards. After the wing has passed forwards in
Fig. 2a-i. 2D diagram of the two flight, the air masses accelerated downward by the wings
actual wing airflows in flight. continue to descend due to the momentum gained. The air
pushed and pulled downwards by the wings, then pushes and
pulls air upwards elsewhere. This action circulates a large
mass of air behind the aircraft, around the two spiraling
wingtip vortices. See Fig. 2c-i.

Fig. 2a-ii. 2D diagram of actual wing airflows.

For an aircraft at a high wing AOA and low airspeed. If the

upper air mass above the wing, is not pulled down fast enough.
The airflow may not reach the trailing-edge of the wing, by the
time that the wing has moved forwards. In this situation,
airflow separation can arise, which causes airflow turbulence
at the trailing-edge. Consequently, less air is pulled down, lift Fig. 2c-i. Wake airflows circulated.
is lost and a stall can be triggered. See Fig. 2a-iii.
The evidence for these airflows is seen behind aircraft
flying through clouds. Also, wing condensation on the topside
of the wing indicates that air above the wing is accelerated
downwards to the topside of the wing. See Fig. 2c-ii.

Fig. 2a-iii. Airflow separation and

turbulence on the topside of the wing.

This airflow pattern explains why stalls almost always arise

after turbulence is present at the trailing-edge of the wing. This Fig. 2c-ii. Airliners flying through clouds
insight has not been proposed previously. to create downwash and wingtip vortices. [32]

3
 Independent Research – Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

D. Drag according to Newtonian mechanics. Induced, parasitic and total drag

The Newtonian approach analyses the actual airflows and Newtonian approach identifies that parasitic and induced
resultant forces generated separately between the wings to the drag arise from different parts of the aircraft creating airflows
fuselage, tail, and engines. For an aircraft in subsonic flight: in different directions. Consequently, the forces arising from
See Fig. 2d-(i-ii). these airflows are explained by different equations:

- The fuselage, tail, and engines accelerate the air flown - Parasitic drag from the fuselage, tail and engines
through out of its path in all directions, which then moving forwards and pushing the air in all directions, is
primarily generates parasitic drag. This assertion is explained by the empirical equation for drag:
consistent with the prevailing views of drag.
Parasitic Drag = 0.5 (Aircraft Velocity2 * Air Density
- The wings accelerates the air flown through downwards * Surface Area * Drag Coefficient)
to create downwash, which generate a downward force
(Force DOWN). The reactive, equal and opposite upward Contrary to the prevailing view, the drag coefficient
force generates lift and induced drag. Hence, wings excludes the induced drag coefficient.
generate negligible parasitic drag (low drag coefficient),
as almost all the air flown through is pushed downwards. - Induced drag arises due to the wings pushing air
downwards and slightly forwards. i.e. Induced drag is a
function of the angle (X°) that the air flown through is
accelerated down by the wings, which depends on the
wing AOA and AOI. It is described by the equation:

Drag INDUCED = Force UP * Sin (X°)

= (m/dt * dv) WINGS * Sin (X°)

Total drag according to the Newtonian approach described

above can be illustrated graphically. See Fig. 2d-(iv-v).
Fig. 2d-i. Airflows that generate
lift and drag in flight – front view.

Fig. 2d-ii. Airflows that generate

lift and drag – side view.

This analysis explains why wings have (parasitic) drag

coefficients as low as 0.04. This indicates that wings generate Fig. 2d-iv. Graph of the Newtonian explanation
almost no drag, as compared to other objects. See Fig. 2d-iii. of total drag, at subsonic speeds.
See drag coefficients described in Section 5.B on page 9.

Fig. 2d-iii. Drag coefficients of objects. [1]

The total drag generated by an aircraft is the sum of the

parasitic drag from the fuselage and induced drag from the
wings, as shown by the equation:
Drag TOTAL = Drag PARASITIC + Drag INDUCED
Fig. 2d-v. Newtonian forces acting on a wing,
(Fuselage) (Wings) highlighting the induced drag.

4
 Independent Research – Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

E. Flying wings explained by Newtonian mechanics. Total drag graphs

Newtonian mechanics and an analysis of the actual airflows, The total drag profiles for induced and parasitic drag of
provides an improved explanation of the endurance benefits conventional and blended-wing aircraft designs, can be shown
and fuel efficiency gains provided by blended wings. For the graphically and compared, for subsonic airspeeds. See Fig. 2e-
conventional tube-and-wing design, the fuselage, engines and (iv-v).
tail represent the main sources of parasitic drag.

In subsonic flight, by integrating the fuselage, tail, and

engines into the wing, the blended wing design minimizes the
parasitic drag and maximizes lift. This occurs because the
wing generates negligible parasitic drag. See Fig. 2e-(i-ii).

Fig. 2e-iv. Graph of total drag generated by

conventional and blended-wing aircraft
designs compared, for subsonic speeds.

Fig. 2e-i. Newtonian forces

acting on a blended-wing.

Fig. 2e-v. Graphs of parasitic and induced drag

generated by conventional and blended-wing aircraft.
Fig. 2e-ii. The parasitic drag profiles
of aircraft compared.
As compared to the conventional tube-and-wing aircraft
design, the key advantages of the flying-wing design, as shown
In addition, BWB fly with a lower wing AOA, as compared
in the graphs above, includes:
to the conventional tube-and-wing aircraft designs. According
to Newtonian mechanics, a lower wing AOA minimizes - Significantly less parasitic drag, providing a lower
induced drag and the velocity (low dv) of the downwash total drag curve.
needed to generate lift, which is an energy-efficient method to - Induced drag is reduced, but is unavoidable.
generate lift. - Lower stall speeds and lower optimal cruise airspeeds.
The flying wing passes through a high mass of air flown - A lower optimal cruise speed (lowest total drag point).
through (high m/dt). Therefore, this air only needs to be - A lower overall drag profile in subsonic flight.
accelerated downwards to a low velocity (low dv), in order to - In transonic flight close to MACH 1, the parasitic drag
generate the same amount of lift, as summarized by the increases significantly due to the thick wings, which is
equations: See Fig. 2e-iii. not shown in the graphs above.
Lift CONVENTIONAL = m/dt * dv
Lift BLENDED-WING = high m/dt * low dv Overall, a blended-wing design generates a lower and
shallower total drag curve, as compared to a conventional
aircraft design.

F. Evidence.

The Newtonian approach that wings primarily generate lift

and negligible parasitic drag, is supported by a long list of
observations and evidence, as described in Section 11 on page
19.
Fig. 2e-iii. Wing airflows.
5
 Independent Research – Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

3. BACKGROUND

A. Description.

This paper treats the terms ‘blended-wing’, ‘blended-wing

bodies’ (BWB) and ‘flying-wing’ as synonymous. See the Fig. 3a-iv. Blended-wing military UAVs. [25]
historical description of BWB in Appendix VII.

A typical blended-wing design has a large wingspan,

straight frontal profile, short body, small tail or winglets, and B. The theory of lift is disputed.
no horizontal stabilizers or canard. and a tear-drop cross-
section shape similar to a wing.
An underlying problem is that the physics of how a wing
generates lift is still debated and unresolved. It is unproven
The blended-wing design is radically different from the
whether Newtonian or fluid mechanics explains lift best. The
conventional tube-and-wing aircraft designs. Importantly, the
media frequently comments on this on-going debate. For
cross-sectional view of the blended-wing shows how the
example, “No One Can Explain Why Planes Stay in the Air.” in
fuselage is shaped like a wing. See Fig. 3a-(i-ii).
the Scientific American magazine, 2020. [14] See Appendix I.

C. Fluid mechanics fails to explain blended-wings.

The lack of blended-wing adoption indicates that aviation

Fig. 3a-i. Some blended-wing designs.
experts have mistakenly used fluid mechanics based on
relative airflow analysis from wind tunnel experiments to
assess or design blended-wing aircraft. This has led to an
incorrect understanding of how lift and drag are generated,
which has then delayed the adoption of blended-wing designs.

For example, the prevailing research presents the benefits of

more lift and reduced drag achieved by blended-wings. These
benefits are presented in terms of the measurable outputs of
Fig. 3a-ii. Typical blended-wing design. endurance, fuel consumption and engine thrust. However, no
reference is made to the equations for lift and drag used in
Research indicates that blended-wings achieve superior these calculations.
performance over conventional designs, including:
An underlying problem is that the physics of how a wing
- 21% higher lift-to-drag ratio generates lift is still debated and unresolved. See Appendix I.
- 15% weight reduction Consequently, it is not surprising that aircraft manufacturers
- 28% less fuel burn are struggling to progress flying wing designs.
- 27% less thrust
Technical and commercial considerations have also helped
- 40% increased endurance with lower engine thrust and to restrict blended-wing development to drones, UAVs and air
fuel burn by blended-wings. [49] See Fig. 3a-iii. cargo (bombers). However, this is of secondary importance
given that blended-wings flew in the 1940’s and the B2
bomber first flew in 1989.

D. Wing airflow diagrams.

In contrast to the relative airflow analysis used by fluid

Fig. 3a-iii. Superior performance
mechanics, the Newtonian approach advocates the analysis of
of blended-wings.
the actual airflows observed in flight. See Fig. 3d.
It is observed that almost all operational In short, blended-
wing aircraft in use today are military UAVs and air cargo
(military bombers). These aircraft have thin wings and
fuselages, and fly at low airspeeds (subsonic).Newtonian
mechanics can explain this observation. See Fig. 3a-iv.

A conundrum prevails; blended-wing aircraft designs are

reported to achieve superior lift and drag performance (e.g. Fig. 3d. Relative and actual
40% greater endurance [49]), yet few aircraft are in service. airflow diagrams.

6
 Independent Research – Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

- Less induced drag with reduced wingtip vortices.

4. AERODYNAMIC ADVANTAGES However, the Newtonian approach asserts that induced
drag depends primarily on the wing AOA.
Consequently, induced drag is largely unaffected by
the difference between conventional and blended-wing
designs.
A. Aerodynamic advantages of flying-wings.
- A small or non-existent vertical tail or winglets. The
Anecdotal evidence suggests that blended-wings achieve substantial difference between an A-380 and blended-
10-20% reduced parasitic and induced drag and/or 40% greater wing design with a similar passenger capacity is shown
endurance, as compared to the conventional tube-and-wing in Fig. 4a-iii.
design. [49]

In short, according to the prevailing views, blended-wings

achieve superior aerodynamic performance mainly by reducing
their drag profile, due to the absence of a large vertical tail and
the fuselage being incorporated into the wing.

More precisely, the flight superior performance is due to:

See Fig. 4a-(i-ii). Fig. 4a-iii. Conventional and blended-wing
design comparison – cross-section. [49]
- The fuselage is integrated into the wing to generate
lift, not drag. Performance depends on how fuselage
thickness affects the lift and parasitic drag generated. - The thicker wings of blended-wing designs increase the
surface area facing the direction of travel. According to
- Improved engine position relative to the wing. For the empirical equation for lift this aspect should
example, positioning the engines at the trailing edge of increase the parasitic drag generated, but this increased
the blended-wing may reduce parasitic drag from the drag does not occur, as explained below. See Fig. 4a-
engines. iv.

Fig. 4a-iv. Frontal cross-section

comparison. [49]
Fig. 4a-i. Conventional and blended-wing
designs compared. 1
Energy-efficient at generating lift
- The blended-wing designs also increase the volume of
In addition to the advantages of the prevailing views listed
space available inside the fuselage. See Fig. 4a-i.
above. The Newtonian approach identifies how blended-wings
can generate lift more efficiently than conventional aircraft
- A more even weight distribution across the wingspan,
designs.
which reduces the structural demands on the wings.
and therefore, slightly reduces the aircraft’s mass.
As described below the Newtonian approach highlights that
Hence, it requires less thrust and less fuel to fly.
blended-wings generate greater lift from ‘m/dt’ and less from
‘dv’, which is a more energy-efficient , as shown by the
In contrast, the weight of the tube-and-wing design is
equations:
concentrated on the tube section. See Fig. 4a-ii.
Lift CONVENTIONAL = m/dt * dv
Lift BLENDED-WING = high m/dt * low dv

Other considerations

Blended-wings provide a different set of practical,

operational, maintenance, and manufacturing advantages and
disadvantages, which are not described here. In particular,
flight stability and difficulty in flight control have been
hurdles. Nonetheless, the analysis above supports the argument
Fig. 4a-ii. Conventional and blended-wing to adopt blended-wing designs.
designs compared. 2

7
 Independent Research – Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

5. WING’S LOW DRAG COEFFICIENTS Decreased drag despite wider fuselage

Aircraft wings experience at least three types of drag, which

include: parasitic, friction, and induced drag. In stable flight,
parasitic drag from the fuselage, tail, and engines is by far the
A. Parasitic drag and a wider fuselage.
greatest source of drag for a conventional aircraft.

Conventional tube-and-wing aircraft designs aircraft The superior performance of blended-wing designs is
minimize the surface area facing the direction of travel, and attributed to reduced parasitic drag. More precisely, increased
therefore, minimise parasitic drag generated in flight. In endurance with lower engine thrust and fuel burn, is attributed
contrast, blended-wings have significantly greater fuselage to reduced parasitic drag, as compared to conventional aircraft
surface area facing the direction of travel, due to a more designs.
rectangular shape, as compared to the conventional tube
design. See Fig. 5a-(i-ii). At first glance the claim that blended-wing designs achieve
greater endurance due to decreased drag is counter-intuitive,
because thicker blended-wings have a greater surface area
facing the direction of flight, due to a wider fuselage.

Although the blended-wing lacks a tail and horizontal

stabilizers. These features are extremely thin, and provide little
surface area facing the direction of travel.

The prevailing approach: Drag ≈ Surface Area

Fig. 5a-i. Comparison of conventional
and blended-wing designs. The prevailing approach assumes that the entire frontal
wing area facing the direction of travel (AF) affects the
parasitic drag generated by an aircraft in flight, as described by
the empirical equation for drag: See Fig. 5a-v.
Drag = 0.5 (Aircraft Velocity2 * Air Density
* Surface Area * Drag Coefficient)

Fig. 5a-ii. Fuselage surface area

facing the direction of travel.

Fig. 5a-v. The entire frontal area of the aircraft

contributes towards drag, including the wings,
according to NASA. [1]

Also, see NASA’s explanation of drag described in more

detail in Appendix VII.

Fig. 5a-iii. Frontal cross-section

of the cabins. Drag paradox – parasitic drag reduction

For example, the Airbus blended-wing model (Maverick This presents a paradox. How can a blended-wing reduce
design) has a wide triangular shape. It is a lot wider at 3.2 drag, if the surface area in the direction of travel increases?
meters, as compared to its length of just 2.0 meters. These
dimensions also indicate that maximizing the wingspan is Current research into blended-wings does not highlight this
beneficial for lift generation. See Fig. 19k-iii. paradox, nor does not provide any solutions. The prevailing
views provide no clear explanation why a wider fuselage and
thicker wings of the blended-wing design does not cause
increased parasitic drag. In contrast, the Newtonian approach
can explain this dynamic, as described below.

Logically, increasing the aircraft’s surface area facing the

direction of travel is only beneficial if it contributes towards
lift, and/or reduces drag.
Fig. 5a-iv. Airbus maverick
– demonstrator. [51]

8
 Independent Research – Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

B. Low drag coefficients of wings. Supersonic shock waves

Analysis of supersonic shock waves supports the Newtonian

Low drag coefficients of wings – Prevailing view argument based on actual wing airflows, of how different
shapes of objects differ in the way that they accelerate the air
As the fuselage section has been incorporated into the wing, passed through away from them.
it can generate airflows that primarily contributes towards lift,
not drag. This provides a justification for a significantly For example, a bell-shaped object (1) with a relatively flat
reduced drag coefficient, especially if it also reduces turbulent surface area facing the direction of travel, pushes the air
airflow (more laminar airflow). passed through in a more forward direction to a higher velocity
(higher dv), as compared to a more pointed, tapered, and
However, this conventional approach merely describes the triangular object (2). As a result, the bell-shaped object creates
situation. It offers no explanation for why a wing shape a larger (stronger) shock wave, which is seen a further distance
produces lower drag. in front of the object. See 5a-ii.

For example, wind tunnel experiments show that the wing

airflows can be turbulent (non-laminar) even at low wing
AOA. Consequently, the low drag coefficients cannot be easily
explained using relative airflow analysis.

Low drag coefficients of wings – analysed

Wings are observed to produce extremely low drag in flight,

as compared to similar objects such as spheres or bullets. This
is attributed to a low drag coefficients for wings. Fig. 5a-ii. Comparison of shock waves
from 2D objects. [25]
However, there is no explanation for this dynamic beyond
wings having a streamlined profile. For each one meter
squared (1 m2) of surface area facing the direction of flight,
wings generate almost no drag. Low drag coefficients of wings – observed

Experts like NASA simply presents the low drag coefficient According to experts, UAV blended-wings generate
of wings as a factual observation. A low drag coefficient is negligible (almost zero) drag coefficients at low AOA, below
taken to mean that the wings provide extremely high lift/drag 8°. At 20° wing AOA, the drag coefficient was only 0.02. [43]
ratios, as compared to other objects. [1] [43] These drag coefficients are much lower than conventional
aircraft wings, which is caused by the smaller fuselage surface
For example, a sphere (baseball) is estimated to have a drag area facing the direction of travel.
coefficient of about 0.5, whereas a wing has a drag coefficient
significantly lower at about 0.04. [1] Wings (streamlined
bodies) have a drag coefficient over 90% less that a sphere of
similar thickness. See Fig. 5a-i. Newtonian mechanics

In contrast, the Newtonian approach to lift can explain the

observed low drag coefficients of wings, based on the actual
airflows seen in flight. Namely, the wings push the air flown
through downwards, which generates lift and negligible drag.

To put it another way, the low drag coefficients also support

the argument that wings primarily generate lift and negligible
drag in flight.

See the drag coefficient described using Newtonian

mechanics, in the Empirical Equation for Drag, in a separate
paper. [3]

Fig. 5a-i. Drag coefficients for This space was intentionally left blank.
different 2D shapes. [1]

9
 Independent Research – Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

explain the superior performance.

6. FLUID MECHANICS
- Claims of improved laminar airflow by blended-wings,
based on wind tunnel experiments, are not supported
by any equation.

A. Fluid mechanics and failed flying-wing designs.

A reliance on fluid mechanics and relative airflow analysis
The lack of blended-wing passenger aircraft designs in use to assess lift and drag performance by aircraft, has produced
is evidence that aircraft manufacturers do not understand how poor blended-wing design features, including:
aircraft generate lift and drag adequately. - Flight at too high airspeeds (i.e. transonic).
A misguided belief that lift is explained by fluid mechanics - Aircraft that are that are too big, and therefore, require
(Navier-Stokes equations) and relative airflow analysis (wind a large central fuselage.
tunnel testing); create many problems:
Designs are typically for large aircraft for 500 – 800
- It relies on Navier-Stokes equations to explain lift. passengers. However, airport restrictions limit aircraft
These equations are heavily criticised, as explained in a wingspans, and therefore, make large aircraft
separate paper. [7] uneconomic. This is evident from the failure of the A-
380, which is too heavy for its short wingspan to
- Relative airflow analysis based on wind tunnel generate lift energy-efficiently. [3]
experiments does not provide an adequately realistic
simulation of airflows seen in flight, as described in a In other words, many proposed blended-wing designs
separate paper. [8] are for very large and heavy aircraft. These designs
have an excessively thick fuselage (of at least 2
levels), which restricts the lift and drag benefits of a
The key problems with this approach include: blended-wing design.
- It incorrectly assumes that lift is generated by low - Large central fuselages that are too thick, so can
pressure on the topside of wings, which generates all of generate additional drag, due to the additional surface
the lift. [9] area facing the direction of travel.
For example, flattening the fuselage to resemble a wing For example, the Airbus Maverick and other BWB
should generate significantly more lift according to this demonstrators. See Fig. 3b-(iii-iv) above.
logic. But this does not occur in practice.
Also compare the successful B2 Bomber to the concept
- It ignores the airflows under the wing and assumes that blended-wing aircraft. See Fig. 6a-i.
they do not contribute to lift.
However, the large central fuselage does not benefit
- It cannot explain why the blended-wing designs, as from the physics of blended-wing design, and
seen with UAVs and cargo aircraft (military bombers), maintains many of the unwanted aerodynamic
provide fuel-efficient flight at low-airspeeds (subsonic) drawbacks of the old tube-and-wing design, such as
with thin fuselages. high parasitic drag. See Fig. 6a-ii.
Similarly, it cannot explain why the proposed blended-
wing designs for passenger aircraft do not provide
superior performance, with their thick fuselages (and
Thin fuselage integrated Thick fuselage with wings.
extra surface area facing the direction of flight) or at with the wings.
high airspeeds (transonic).
- Relative airflows passively generate lift, and do not
Northrop B2 bomber Concept
accurately depict how actual airflows actively generate YB-49 Flying-wing aircraft design
lift in flight according to the Newtonian approach.
- Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is used in the Fig. 6a-i. Blended-wing designs. [25]
design and testing of blended-wings, without reference
of any equation for lift or drag. CFD merely analyses
how air flows around an aircraft and does not measure The prominent and thick fuselage
the lift generated accurately. Conventional design is similar to conventional designs,
Sources of and is a large source of drag, not lift.
drag
Blended wing
In addition, the theoretical basis for reduced drag and Design
improved lift by blended-wings is treated like a black box.
- It is uncertain exactly how the physics of blended-wing Fig. 6a-ii. Conventional and blended-wing
designs produces the superior performance observed. designs compared. [51]

- No example equations for lift and drag are to be found

in research papers on blended-wing designs. In short, companies may have been proposing blended-wing
- Experts such as NASA produce aircraft demonstrators designs that perform well in wind tunnel experiments based on
that are claimed to be aerodynamically superior. But fluid mechanics. But these aircraft not perform well in flight.
they do not reference the prevailing theories and
equations of fluid mechanics for lift and drag to
10
 Independent Research – Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

7. NEWTONIAN MECHANICS FOR BWB B. Lift = high m/dt * Low dv.

The entire blended wing (including the fuselage integrated

into the wing) accelerate the mass of air flown through each
second (m/dt) to a velocity (dv) downwards. This action
A. The key airflows and forces. creates a downward force (Force DOWN). The reactive, equal
and opposite upward force (Force UP) generated provides lift,
In stable subsonic flight, three key forces act on an aircraft as shown by the equation: See Fig. 7c-i.
arising from three separate airflows: See Fig. 7a-(i-ii).
Force DOWN = m/dt * dv = Force UP (lift)
- Parasitic drag is the equal and opposite backward force
resulting from the fuselage, tail, winglets, and engine At a low wing AOA induced drag is negligible, the upward
cowlings accelerating the mass of air that they pass force (Force UP) equals the lift generated. Therefore, the
through in all directions out of their path. equation above can be simplified to:
Lift = m/dt * dv
- Lift is the equal and opposite upward force resulting
from the wings accelerating the mass of static air flown
through downward. A small amount of induced drag,
spanwise drag, and upwash drag is produced. The wings
do not generate parasitic drag as they only push air
downwards.

- Thrust is the equal and opposite forward force in the

direction of travel. It results from the jet engines (or
propellers) accelerating the engine’s exhaust gases
and/or the air flown through by the engines backwards.
Fig. 7c-i. Newtonian forces acting
Broadly, the forward thrust is used to overcome on a blended-wing aircraft.
backward drag and generate upward lift, as shown by the
equation: Similar to conventional aircraft, the air pushed down
circulates the air behind the aircraft around the two wingtip
Thrust = Drag + Lift vortices. This action creates wake vortices.

As compared to a conventional aircraft, the fuselage

integrated in to the wing provides an increased effective wing
Lift area (as explained below) and a thicker wing. This means that
Air pushed Air pushed down at subsonic airspeeds, the wings fly through a greater mass of
forward air each second (high m/dt).
Airplane
Direction Drag
of flight As a result, the air flown through by the wings only needs to
Air pushed be accelerated downwards to a lower velocity (low dv), in
Thrust backwards order to generate the same amount of lift as a conventional
aircraft. This dynamic is shown by the equations for lift:
Fig. 7a-i. Three forces arising from three distinct
airflows created by an aircraft in flight. Lift CONVENTIONAL = m/dt * dv
Lift BLENDED-WING = high m/dt * low dv

All three forces (drag, lift, and thrust) can be described by

Newtonian mechanics (Force = ma); based on the mass flow Induced drag is primarily a function of the wing AOA, and
rate (Force = ma = m/dt * dv) and the transfer of momentum the downwash angle (X°) and the aircraft’s momentum. The
from the aircraft to the air (Force = ma = d(mv)/dt). Newtonian forces acting on a blended-wing aircraft are shown
in Fig. 7c-ii.

In short, the same Newtonian equation, principles and logic

can be applied to explain the drag, lift and thrust. A key
difference is that lift and thrust are considered beneficial to
flight and drag is not.

See the Newtonian approach described in Appendix II–III.

Fig. 7c-ii. Newtonian forces acting

on a blended-wing aircraft.

11
 Independent Research – Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

C. Additional considerations. Increased effective wingspan for generating lift

Constant lift curve – Blended-wings As the fuselage is integrated into the wing, it no longer
obstructs the lift generated by the wings. Blended-wing
A blended-wing and conventional aircraft with the same designs provide a greater effective wingspan and effective
mass, can be compared graphically on a constant lift curve. wing area that contributes towards lift. See Fig. 7c-v.
The graph compares how lift is generated from different
combinations of ‘m/dt’ and ‘dv’. See Fig. 7c-iii.

Fig. 7c-v. Comparison of effective

wingspan that contributes towards lift.

Fig. 7c-iii. Graph of a constant lift curve for a

blended-wing and conventional aircraft compared. Wing condensation and lift distribution patterns

How wings generate lift is revealed by wing condensation

patterns on the topside of the wings. More precisely, the
Energy-efficiency of lift generation
condensation reveals how the wings accelerate the air above
To put it another way, the blended-wing’s increased the wing downwards. See Fig. 7c-vi.
effective wingspan means that it generates lift more like a
glider. The low velocity (low dv) of the downwash from the
blended-wing is an energy-efficient method to generate lift, as
kinetic energy is proportional to velocity squared (K.E. = 0.5
mv2). See Fig. 7c-iv.

Fig. 7c-vi. Wing condensation

patterns. [25]

Condensation arises if the air above the wings is accelerated

downwards when atmospheric conditions are favourable. For
example, high humidity and a low atmospheric temperature
Fig. 7c-iv. The kinetic energy used to accelerate near the condensation point are needed.
the air downwards compared for different aircraft.
This analysis indicates that blended-wing design provide an
improved elliptical lift distribution across the wingspan, due to
Induced drag and parasitic drag the integration of the fuselage into the wing. See Fig. 7c-vii.

In subsonic flight, almost all wing airflows created generate

lift and some induced drag. The main sources of parasitic drag
(the fuselage, engines, and vertical tail), have been removed.
This analysis is consistent with observations of a lower drag
coefficient produced by blended-wing designs.

The mechanics change in high-speed flight (transonic

speeds or higher). The thick wings of blended-wings are
Fig. 7c-vii. Conventional and blended-wing
unable to accelerate the air in their path down fast enough.
lift distributions compared.
Consequently, in higher-speed flight, the blended-wings can
start to generate less lift and more parasitic drag. In addition,
the absence of sufficient wing-sweep can cause spanwise drag
to also increase in transonic flight.

These dynamics help to explain why blended-wings are

optimised for low-speed flight.

12
 Independent Research – Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

8. NEWTONIAN MECHANICS IN MORE DETAIL D. Thin blended-wings and subsonic flight only.

Blended-wing designs in use are observed to have thin

blended-wings and only fly at subsonic speeds. This is evident
from the aircraft designs of the subsonic UAVS and cargo
Newtonian mechanics is applied to explain the physics of aircraft (military bombers). See Fig. 8d.
the blended-wing design in more detail, including:
A) Non-aerodynamic considerations
B) Downwash in wind tunnels
C) Lower stall speed and reduced ground-effect
D) Thin blended-wings and subsonic flight only Fig. 8d. Blended-wing UAV
E) Lower thrust-to-weight ratios and bomber designs. [25]
F) Engine position on the wings
Comment: Despite the B-2 flying-wing bomber’s high
G) No tail – Yaw control (transonic) 900 km/hr cruise airspeed. It is suspected that this
H) No horizontal stabiliser – Pitch control high airspeed is not fuel-efficient airspeed. Fuel efficiency
I) Example: Russian PAK DA blended-wing bomber may not be a priority design feature for military aircraft.

These considerations are described in more detail below. It is observed that there are no blended-wing aircraft with
thick fuselages in services, either blended-wing passenger
airliners or military bomber. No blended-wing aircraft fly
efficiently at transonic speeds; and none fly at supersonic
speeds.
A. Non-aerodynamic considerations.
These observations are consistent with the Newtonian
Blended-wings’ adoption has been influenced by a variety approach.
of practical, operational, maintenance, and manufacturing
considerations, which are not described here. In particular, At subsonic speeds, a moderately thick blended-wing can
flight stability and difficulty in flight control were hurdles. boost lift by enhancing the mass of air flown through (m/dt)
and accelerated downwards. However, if the blended-wing
becomes too thick the airflows are no longer accelerated
downward. Instead the air flown through is accelerated in all
B. Downwash in wind tunnels. directions. Consequently, the wings can shift from generating
lift to generating parasitic drag.
Research using smoke in wind tunnels shows the relative
airflow being deflected downwards by the fuselage, which is The airflows change as the airspeed increases towards
acting like a wing. See Fig. 8b. transonic speeds or higher. At transonic and supersonic speeds
airfoil thickness is a hindrance due to increased parasitic and
spanwise drag. The air is no longer physically able to be
accelerated away from the wings fast enough.

Similar to the wings being too thick at low airspeeds. At

high airspeeds, the blended-wings no longer accelerate the
airflows downward. Instead the air flown through is
accelerated in all directions, which generates parasitic drag and
spanwise drag.
Fig. 8b. Blended-wing in a wind tunnel. [31]
Any spanwise drag depends on the wing-sweep of the
blended-wing aircraft, which tends to be limited. The blended-
wing designs tend to be optimised for subsonic flight.
C. Lower stall speed and reduced ground-effect.
Insight
This mix of generating lift may allow for a lower stall
speed and reduced ground-effect, as it relies less on ‘dv’, as In short, blended-wing aircraft are optimised for low-speed
compared to a conventional aircraft design. This dynamic flight with thin blended-wings. This allows the blended-wing
arises because ‘dv’ is highly sensitive to aircraft momentum, aircraft to maximise the lift generated and minimise the drag
and therefore, airspeed. As airspeed declines generated.

A lower stall speed and reduced ground-effect allow for a This insight is extremely significant.
lower approach speed to landing, and therefore, less runway
distance is required for landing. On take-off, a lower stall The Newtonian analysis highlights the problem for
speed allows for less runway distance to be needed. But this passenger blended-wing aircraft designs, is that if the wing is
benefit is tempered by a reduced ground-effect which boosts too thick due to a large fuselage. Then it can generate
lift close to the ground. additional parasitic drag, instead of lift.

13
 Independent Research – Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

E. Lower thrust-to-weight ratios. Lower thrust-to-weight ratios are not definitive evidence
that blended-wing designs generate lift more efficiently, as
Thrust-to-weight ratio = Max. Engine Thrust / MTOW compared to conventional aircraft designs, as these ratios
depend on many factors (airspeed, ground roll distance, rate of
Current analysis explains increased endurance of blended- climb, ….). Also, it is unclear if lower thrust needed is due to
wing aircraft from reduction in drag. This allows flight to be lower parasitic fuselage drag, or if the lift is being generated
achieved with lower engine thrust and lower fuel burn. more efficiently.
Newtonian mechanics concurs with this approach and adds
that blended-wing designs benefit from more efficient lift Blended-wings are more energy-efficient at generating lift
generation. Note that newer aircraft benefit from more by flying with lower downwash velocities (lower dv), as
powerful engines and lighter aircraft materials. compared to conventional aircraft designs. This dynamic arises
because the kinetic energy required to accelerate the air flown
Thrust-to-weight ratios reflect the amount of engine thrust through downward is proportional to the downwash velocity
used to transport each 1 kg of aircraft mass. Thrust is needed squared (K.E. = 0.5 mv2).
most for take-off (ground roll distance and rate of climb) and
the maximum cruise airspeed. As power is measured by kinetic energy per unit time (i.e.
seconds), (Power = K.E. / dt), this means that blended-wings
For example, military fighter jets tend to have high thrust- require less thrust to generate lift.
to-weight ratios in the range 0.60 – 0.84; which is about three
times higher than large commercial airliners with ratios in the In other words, the reduced kinetic energy used for lift
range 0.21 – 0.33. High amounts of engine thrust relative to generation means that the blended-wing can fly with less
aircraft mass provide better performance with shorter take-off powerful engines and lower thrust-to-weight ratios, as
distances, higher rates of climb, and higher airspeeds. [60] compared to conventional aircraft.

The Newtonian approach helps to explain how blended-

wings fly with lower thrust-to-weight ratios, as compared to
the conventional tube-and-wing aircraft designs.
F. Engine position on the wings. [3]
For example, data from Boeing shows blended-wing
concept has a thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.22, as compared to the If engines are positioned on top of the blended-wing at the
higher 0.26 ratio for a comparable conventional aircraft. trailing edge, as shown above in Fig. 8f-(i-ii), then this could
According to Boeing, this means that concept blended-wing provide a few benefits:
aircraft could fly with one less engine, as compared to a
- Boost the lift generated by the topside of the wing,
conventional aircraft of similar mass (MTOW). See Table 8e.
along the fuselage where the engines are located.
- Allow for the wing to be closer to the ground, as
compared to a conventional aircraft design (with the
Table 8e - Performance comparison engines positioned below the wings). In turn, this
2nd generation BWB vs. would boost the ground-effect.
Conventional baseline airplane
However, situating the engines as described can create a
new set of technical problems that need to be resolved. For
BWB Conventional
example, if the engines are located (embedded) close to the
MTOW, (lb.) 823,000 970,000
Thrust per engine (lb.) 61,600 63,600 fuselage, the airflow into the engine can be non-uniform
Number of engines 3 4 and/or can interfere with the boundary layer of air on top of
Engine Thrust Total (lb.) 183,000 252,000 the wing. See Fig. 8f.
Thrust-to-Weight ratio 0.22 0.26

Notes: BWB = Blended-wing Body

Source: Boeing [47] (Table 1, Page 9);

As another example, USA’s B2 flying-wing bomber has a

thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.2, which is almost half of the Fig. 8f. Engine positions
conventional B1 bomber’s (lancer) 0.38 ratio. [53] See Fig. on the wings.
8e.
These aspects can cause technical problems in engine
performance, but are beyond the scope of this paper.

Fig. 8e. B1 and B2 flying-wing

and bombers. [25]
14
 Independent Research – Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

G. No tail – Yaw control. I. Example: Russian PAK DA blended-wing bomber.

Conventional aircraft designs include a large tail, which is The PAK DA is the proposed prototype, long-range,
used for roll and yaw control, especially at low-airspeed strategic military bomber that is believed to have a blended-
manoeuvers such as landing. In contrast, the flying-wing’s wing design. It is intended to replace the existing supersonic
lack of a large vertical tail and horizontal stabilizers. TU-160 (white swan) bomber, which has a conventional tube-
and-wing design with variable-sweep wings. See Fig. 8i.
Instead, flying-wings achieved roll and yaw control with
computerised fly-by-wire systems and drag rudders. Drag
rudders function in a similar manner to ground spoilers, by
increasing the wind resistance to generate a force (drag).

For example, flying-wings such as the B2 bomber are

observed to used deploy drag rudders to trim flight. See Fig.
8g.

Fig. 8i. PAK DA concept blended-wing

and existing conventional TU-60 bombers. [25]

The relevance of this blended-wing aircraft is that it offers

significantly improved aerodynamic performance at a lower
airspeed, as compared to the previous generation of bombers.
Specifically, as compared to the existing TU-160 bomber, the
Fig. 8g. Drag rudders
PAK DA is reported to have:
on a B2 bomber. [45][25]
- Improved endurance (12,000 km and 30 hours flying
time; which is about 70% greater range on a
comparable basis, at the same airspeed).
H. No horizontal stabilizer – Pitch control. - Lower-speeds (subsonic vs. supersonic TU-160).
- Greater weapons payload capacity (about 30,000 kg;
Many conventional airplane designs employ the horizontal up 50%).
stabilizer in the tail section or a canard to provide stability and
pitch control. - 2 engines; as compared to the 4 engines of the TU-160.
However, no data was available on the thrust capacity
The absence of the horizontal stabilizer or canard on the of the engines.
blended-wing boosts the efficiency that it generates lift but at - Low and fixed-wing-sweep, as compared to variable-
the cost of reduced pitch control. See Fig. 8h. sweep wings.
- No reliable data is available on the wingspan.

Even though some data for the proposed blended-wing

bomber is unconfirmed or speculative, the reported features of
the PAK DA bomber are consistent with the analysis above of
the blended-wing design. More precisely, that blended-wings
provide greater endurance due to lower drag and more efficient
lift generation. But the blended-wing aircraft can only achieve
this at low airspeeds. In turn, this allows for greater payload
capacity with lower engine thrust.
Fig. 8h. No tail on a blended-wing.
Low airspeeds are not considered beneficial for commercial
or military users. Both applications would favour faster jets
and a shorter flight time to their destination, as compared to
slower flight. Aircraft can be built to perform at low airspeeds,
for technical and/or economic limitations.

Some long-range military bombers (e.g. B2 flying-wing and

PAK DA), have adopted the blended-wing design. However,
this is not an optimal design choice, as they have to operate at
low airspeeds to gain the benefits of low drag and lift
efficiency. The implication is the low airspeed has been
accepted as a trade-off for the increased endurance and
payload capacity.

15
 Independent Research – Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

9. AIRFOIL THICKNESS AND LIFT

A. Newtonian mechanics.

Empirical evidence shows that thicker wings generate more Fig. 9a-iv. Thick airfoil of
lift. [1] This evidence supports the Newtonian approach that the large aircraft. [25]
wing thickness affects lift generation, whereby the wings
physically push the air in their path downward.
Aircraft manufacturers developed aircraft with thick wings
The wing’s thickness is a key determinant of vertical wing early on. For example, the 1930’s German Junkers G.38 had
reach. Consequently, wing reach is a key factor that determines wings thick enough for passenger seats to be located on the
the mass of air flown through (m/dt), and therefore, the lift wings (as opposed to the fuselage). The G.38 aircraft closely
generated (Lift = m/dt * dv). See Fig. 9a-(i-ii). resembles a flying-wing design. See Fig. 9a-v.

Fig. 9a-v. Thick airfoil of

the Junkers G.38. [25]
Fig. 9a-i. Newtonian forces
acting on an airplane.
As another example, early military aircraft quickly abandoned
the thin wings design of WWI biplanes and tri-planes for
monoplanes with much thicker wings. See Fig. 9a-vi.

Fig. 9a-vi. Thick airfoil of

Fig. 9a-ii. Airfoil thickness the B-17 bomber. [25]
and wing reach.

The WWII B-24 bomber was fitted with a relatively thick

Optimal lift generation favours wing designs with a modest wing (the Davis wing). It achieved low drag with a short chord
amount of thickness, over thin airfoils. Thin airfoils were and high aspect ratio. See Fig. 9a-vii.
common only in early wing designs at the beginning of the 20th
Century. See Fig. 9a-iii.

Fig. 9a-vii. Davis wing of

the B-24 bomber. [25]
Fig. 9a-iii. Old and modern
airfoils compared. [25]
Significance
Optimal lift generation in subsonic flight favours a modest
amount of wing thickness, not ultra-thin designs. Larger aircraft The explanation of how airfoil thickness effect is new and
tend to have thicker wing designs, although this can also be for extremely significant. This assertion has not been made before.
structural reasons. For example, the Antonov 225 and the A-380
have significant wing thickness close to the fuselage. See Fig.
9a-iv.

16
 Independent Research – Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

B. Additional considerations. Airfoil thickness – The prevailing views

In summary, there is no simple method or equation currently - In contrast to the Newtonian approach described above, the
available to accurately or reliably quantify how wing thickness prevailing theories of lift based on fluid mechanics (Navier-
affects lift. Stokes equations) provides no adequate explanation for
how wing thickness affects lift.

Airfoil thickness – Additional considerations: - Fluid mechanics claims that lift is produced by low air
pressure on the top side of the wing. Consequently, wing
- The same logic also explains how propeller and helicopter thickness is not included in the Navier-Stokes equations.
rotor thickness affects the thrust generated.
- There is no proven equation for how wing thickness affects
- Thicker wings can produce additional spanwise drag and the lift or the drag generated.
shock waves at high-speed flight. Therefore, thicker wings
are a burden in supersonic flight, which can be partly - There appears to be relatively little research into the
mitigated by swept wing designs. optimal wing thickness. NASA’s website [1] includes wing
thickness as a factor that affects lift, but provides little
- Aspect ratios, which are commonly used ratios to measure elaboration.
how efficiently wings actively generate lift, are inaccurate
and flawed because it fails to consider how wing thickness - A prevailing view is that thin airfoils normally produce less
affects lift. Identical aircraft having wings with the same drag and less lift than thick wings at subsonic speeds, with
aspect ratio but different wing thickness, produce different all other factors constant such as wing AOA and aircraft
‘m/dt’, and therefore, different lift profiles. velocity.

- Flying-wings are simply one thick wing, making them - Wind tunnel experiments appear to provide little insight
aerodynamically efficient at generating lift and low drag. into how wing thickness affects the lift generated.

- Material and structural reasons also affect wing thickness

choices by aircraft manufacturers. Airfoil thickness – The empirical equations for lift and drag

- Fuel is often stored in the thick wings of larger airplanes, as - Wing thickness is not directly included in the empirical
there is ample space available there. Airliners have equations for lift and drag shown below. They are only
significant fuel demands for long-range flight. indirectly included in the lift and drag coefficients, but not
in a way that can be measured. See Fig. 9b-iii.
- At a zero wing AOA, the mass of air displaced by the wing
each second (m/dt), approximately equals the airfoil
thickness. Lift = 0.5 (Aircraft Velocity2 * Air Density
* Wing Area * Coefficient of Lift)
- Only high-speed (supersonic) aircraft have thin wings,
Drag = 0.5 (Aircraft Velocity2 * Air Density
which is due to the benefits from minimizing spanwise drag
that arises at high speeds. See Fig. 9b-i. * Surface Area * Coefficient of Drag)

Fig. 9b-i. Thin wings of supersonic aircraft;

Concorde and SR-71. [25]

- Some flying-wing (flying-wing) designs have excessively Fig. 9b-iii. Empirical equations for lift and parasitic drag.
thick wings, and are known for high lift and low drag
performance. These aircraft include the passengers, cargo All parameters of the empirical equation for lift and
and payload in the wing. See Fig. 9b-ii. parasitic drag (aircraft velocity, air density, wing area, and
lift/drag coefficient) affect the mass of air flown through
each second by the wings or fuselage (m/dt); and/or the
velocity to which this mass of air is accelerated downward
(dv), or accelerated away from the aircraft. See Fig. 9b-iii.

Consequently, the Newtonian explanations of lift and drag

based on the mass flow rate (Force = m/dt * dv) are
consistent with the empirical evidence, as described by the
empirical equations for lift and drag. See Appendix V.
Fig. 9b-ii. Flying-wing designs. [25][1]

17
 Independent Research – Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

alter the AOA, providing: See Fig. 10a-iii.

10. PRANDTL’S FLYING-WING
- A negative AOA at the wingtips.
- A positive AOA in the centre of each wing.
- A positive and high AOA at the wing root, near
the fuselage.
A. Comparison to Prandtl’s flying-wing.

The Newtonian approach to lift (Lift = m/dt * dv) based on

a separate analysis of ‘m/dt’ and ‘dv’ explains why flying-
wings are so efficient at reducing parasitic drag, due to the
fuselage being integrated into the wing, as described above.
See Fig. 10a-i.

Fig. 10a-iii. Wing twist – changing AOA.

- Conventional wingspan designs are often twisted, but

not to produce a negative AOA at the wingtips.
- The negative AOA at the wings tips means that the
bell-curved lift distribution curve does not reach the
Fig. 10a-i. ‘m/dt’ and ‘dv’ wingtips, as seen on conventional airplanes.
for a B2 bomber. [25]
- This wing design affects wingtip vortices generation,
The Newtonian approach challenges Prandtl’s speculation shifting the vortices higher up. Wingtip vortices start
of the lift distribution profile across a wing, by providing an below the wing on a conventional wing. Also, Vortices
alternative explanation for lift distribution. form on the wing where the upwash commences, rather
than at the wingtips. See Fig. 10a-iv.

Prandtl: Lift distribution and downwash

In a 1933 paper Prandtl asserted that a wing that produces

constant and evenly distributed downwash behind the wing,
produces more efficient lift. [72] Prandtl inadvertently
associated downwash and lift, which is consistent with
Newtonian mechanics. Fig. 10a-iv. Downwash profile and
vortices across a flying-wing.
This downwash pattern is associated with a non-elliptical
lift distribution across the wing that produces little lift at the
wingtips and weak vortices. Prandtl asserted that the downwash profile of the flying-
wing mirrors the lift distribution. [73] The small amount of
A wing can be designed to achieve an even lift distribution, upwash at the wingtips, due to the negative wing AOA there,
removing the need for a tail on the airplane. i.e. A flying-wing creates negative lift. See Fig. 10a-v.
that lacks a vertical tail, similar to birds, such as the B2 stealth
bomber. See Fig. 10a-ii.

Fig. 10a-v. Downwash and lift profile

across a flying-wing.
Fig. 10a-ii. Flying-wing lift distribution. [25]
A problem of the flying-wing is the upwash at the wingtips
generates a negative lift, which is inefficient. It is the cost of
According to the prevailing views, a flying-wing: gaining additional control.

- Produces an even, bell-curved lift distribution across

the wing, as compared to an elliptical lift distribution Summary
(interrupted by the fuselage) on a conventional wing.
The pattern of lift and downwash described by Prandtl is
- Lift generation by the wing shifts from the wingtip to
consistent with the Newtonian explanation for lift. The
the centre of the wing. This change makes the flying-
estimated bell curve lift distribution represents an equal and
wing less aerodynamically stable.
opposite force to the downwash (dv) created by the air flown
- In the absence of a tail, yaw control is achieved by through each second (m/dt) that is accelerated down.
twisting the wingspan profile at the leading edge to
18
 Independent Research – Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

11. EVIDENCE B. The low drag coefficients of wings.

This analysis explains why wings have (parasitic) drag

coefficients as low as 0.04. This indicates that wings generate
almost no drag, as compared to other objects. See Fig. 11b.
A. Airfoils primarily generate lift. See drag coefficients described in Section 5.B on page 9.

Analysis of the actual airflows created by the aircraft in

subsonic flight show that the wings primarily accelerate the air
flown through downwards (to generate lift and negligible
parasitic drag). In contrast, the fuselage, tail, and engines
primarily accelerate the air flown through in all directions, to
create parasitic drag. See Fig. 11a-(-i-ii).

Fig. 11b. Drag coefficients of objects. [1]

C. Wake airflows (wingtip vortices).

The airflows behind airliners flying through clouds shows

that the air is accelerated by the wings in one direction, which
is downward. The downwash created circulates air around the
Fig. 11a-i. Airflows that generate
two counter-cyclical wingtip vortices. See Fig. 11c-(i-iii).
lift and drag in flight – front view.

Fig. 11a-ii. Airflows that generate

lift and drag – side view. 1

Observations and evidence Fig. 11c-i. Vortices created behind

a small airplane. [68]
The Newtonian approach is supported by a long list of
observations and evidence, including:
B. The low drag coefficients of wings. (See above.)
C. Wake airflows (wingtip vortices)..
D. Airfoil thickness.
E. Long wingspans.
F. Vertical tail and winglets.
G. Glide ratios.
Fig. 11c-ii. Vortices created behind
H. Stalls. airliners in clouds. [27][28]
I. No increased drag with a higher wing AOA.
J. Expansion fans.
K. Ground spoilers.
L. Swordfish swim faster than cheetahs run.
M. Frisbees can be thrown further than baseballs.
N. Paper airplanes lack a tail.
O. Boomerangs.
P. Flying cars. Fig. 11c-iii. Wing airflows and wingtip vortices
behind an airliner.
Q. Wing, rotors, and propellers.
The omnidirectional, laminar wake airflow (downwash)
Conversely, there is no conclusive evidence contradicting
created by the wings, indicated that wings primarily generate
the Newtonian assertion above that wing airflows generate lift
lift and minimal parasitic drag.
and negligible parasitic drag in flight.
19
 Independent Research – Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

The B-747’s average wing thickness of 0,9 meters above,

D. Airfoil thickness. was based on aircraft data of a 9.4% thickness-to-chord ratio,
and an average chord length of 9.1 meters (0.9 m = 9.4% *
According to Newtonian mechanics, the thicker combined 9.1 m). [54]
wings and fuselage can boost lift generation in subsonic flight
up to a certain optimal amount of thickness, without
significantly increasing parasitic drag depending on the The prevailing view
airflows.
The absence of increased parasitic drag from thick wings is
More precisely, thicker wings increase wing reach, and inconsistent with the concept that a greater surface area exposed
therefore, increase the mass of air flown through each second to the direction of travel generates additional parasitic drag, as
by the wings (m/dt), which boosts the lift (Lift = m/dt * dv) described by the empirical equation for drag: See Fig. 11d-iv.
generated.
Drag = 0.5 (Aircraft Velocity2 * Air Density
See the explanation above in Section 9 on page 16. * Surface Area * Drag Coefficient)
For example, thin airfoils were common only in early wing
designs at the beginning of the 20th Century. See Fig. 11d-i.

Fig. 11d-i. Old and modern

airfoil thickness compared. [25]

Fig. 11d-iv. Frontal wing area (AF) of the aircraft

Another example of a thick wing providing superior lift that contributes towards drag, according to NASA. [1]
performance is the Davis Wing on the B-24 bomber in 1939. (The image was adjusted to highlight AF.)
See Fig. 11d-ii.

Blended-wings’ fuselage thickness

As described above, the blended-wing’s thicker combined

airfoil and fuselage of flies through a greater mass of air each
second (high m/dt), as compared to conventional aircraft.

Logic suggests that there is probably an optimal wing

Fig. 11d-ii. Davis wing of
thickness to wingspan ratio, which generates lift most
the B-24 bomber. [25] efficiently for a blended-wing. If the fuselage is too thick, it
ceases to push all the air flown through downwards, and
therefore, generates less lift and more parasitic drag.
Industry research For example, many of the proposed blended-wing designs
have thick fuselages, which probably generate worse produce
Research shows that in cruise flight, a B-747 wing with 90 poor aerodynamic performance. See Fig. 11d-v.
cm (0.9 meters) average thickness, created parasitic drag
equivalent to only a 1.2 cm (1/2-inch) thick cable. Somehow, a
wing that is 90 cm thick, produces parasitic drag that is
equivalent to a cable that is just 1.2 cm thick. [54] See Fig.
11d-iii. How is this possible?

Fig. 11d-v. Thick fuselages provide

poor aerodynamic performance.

Fig. 11d-iii. B-747 wing chord

and thickness. [25]

20
 Independent Research – Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

E. Long wingspans. Note that military aircraft are not subject to the same
airport wingspan limitations of civilian airliners.
Longer wingspans are not observed to be correlated with Consequently, the military heavy, long-range cargo
increased drag generated by an aircraft in flight, despite a aircraft (bombers) tend to have longer wingspans, as
increasing the surface area of the wing facing the direction of compared to airliners, as this wing design is more
flight. efficient at generating lift.

For example, glider’s long wingspans and high aspect ratios - Variable-sweep wing aircraft such as the F-14
are associated with efficient flight and high Lift/Drag ratios. Tomcat do not experience a significant change in
i.e. A longer wingspan is not observed to increase the drag parasitic drag generated by the wings, as the wing
generated in flight. See Fig. 11e-i. sweep angle alters. By comparison, significant drag is
generated when the landing gear is lowered. See Fig.
11e-iv.

Fig. 11e-i. Glider’s long wingspans

generate little parasitic drag.

This argument is supported by other evidence, including: Fig. 11e-iv. Variable-sweep

wing aircraft (F-14).
The Tupolev ANT-25 early long-range aircraft (1933),
which had extremely long wingspans despite limited engine
power. See Fig. 11e-ii.

F. Vertical tail and winglets.

Significant parasitic drag is associated with the large vertical

tail section and winglets of conventional aircraft, but not with
the wings or horizontal stabilizers.

This dynamic is illogical and inconsistent as wings and tail

have a surface area exposed to the direction of travel, so both
should incur the same parasitic drag in theory. But they don’t.
See Fig. 11f-i.
Fig. 11e-ii. Tupolev ANT-25 (1933).
An early long range aircraft (bomber). [25]

The Tupolev ANT-25 was built for efficiency and

endurance and not speed. Consequently, a low-drag
profile and small surface area facing the direction of
travel would be an essential design feature. However,
the extremely long wingspan of 34 meters, has a large
surface area facing the direction of travel. This aspect Fig. 11f-i. Vertical tail
contrasts the small fuselage diameter, which limits the of the A-380.
surface area facing the direction of travel.
For example, the A-380’s tail section reaches about 14.6
- Similarly, modern military reconnaissance and meters above the fuselage; which is equal to about 18% of the
bomber aircraft continue to have long wingspans with aircraft’s 80 meter wingspan. See Fig. 11f-ii.
a large surface area facing the direction of travel. See
Fig. 11e-iii.

U2 spy plane TU-160 Bomber

Fig. 11f-ii. Vertical tail of

the A-380. [51]

Fig. 11e-iii. Long wingspans

of range aircraft. [25]
21
 Independent Research – Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

G. Glide ratios. In addition, the A-320 has a slightly larger aspect ratio (1.4
times larger), which should provide better glide performance, as
Glide ratios support the argument that The airliners’ larger compared to the Cessna.
wings do not contribute toward parasitic drag, only the fuselage,
tail, and engines do.

It has been an enigma as to why the glide ratios of heavy Table 11g
commercial airliners, such as 17:1 for an A-320, can Comparison of A-320
significantly exceed the glide ratio of small single-engine
airplanes, such as 8:1 for a Cessna 172. This is a significant and Cessna 172 [50] [45]
difference in the glide ratios. [45] See Fig. 11g and Table 11g.
A-320 Cessna Change
172

Wingspan (m) 34 11
Aspect Ratio 10.3 7.3 1.4 x
Glide ratio 17:1 8:1 2.1 x
Wing Area (m2) 122.6 16.2
MTOW (kg) 78,000 1,100
Wing loading (kg/m2) 636 68 9.4 x
Cabin diameter (m) 4.0 1.4
Fig. 11g. A-320 and Cessna 172 Engine diameter (m) 2.2 1.8
glide ratios. [25] Surface Area (m ) 2
20.2 1.5 13.1 x
in direction of travel
More precisely, an A-320 commercial airliner with a 17:1
glide ratio glides 17 meters forwards, for each meter altitude
lost, in optimal conditions. For example, the US Airways 1549 Drag
(A-320) that successfully ditched in the Hudson River in Fuselage loading (kg/m2) 3,866 714 5.4 x
January 2009, achieved the optimum 17:1 glide ratio, at an
airspeed of about 390 km/hr. [46] Glide speed (km/hr) 407 120 3.4 x

This data also contradicts the expectation that a smaller,

lighter Cessna 172 would glide better than a heavy A320 for the
following reasons: Notes:

- The A320 has a larger mass, wing loading, and glide speed. - The data and calculations in the Table above are
approximate.
- In particular, the A-320 has 9.4 times higher wing loading
as compared to a Cessna 172. This means each meter - The A320 is assumed to have two Pratt & Whitney
squared (m2) of the A320’s wings needs to generate 9.4 PW1100G engines, with a 2.2 meter diameter.
times more lift, as compared to the Cessna’s wings, in order - The exposed struts, wheel and external fittings on the
to maintain altitude. This comparison assumes that both Cessna 172 are excluded from the analysis.
aircraft glide at their MTOW.
- Aircraft are assumed to be in stable flight at low-wing
- The A-320’s recommended glide speed is about 3.4 times AOA. Any difference in wing AOA between the aircraft
higher than the Cessna 172. Consequently, The A-320 could affect the amount of induced drag generated, and
should experience disproportionately higher drag, as drag is therefore, the glide ratio.
proportional to the velocity squared, according to the
empirical equation for drag: - For simplicity, the impact of the tail section on the
calculations is ignored.
Drag = 0.5 (Aircraft Velocity2 * Air Density - The wings and spanwise airflow are ignored from the
* Surface Area * Drag Coefficient) calculation of drag.

The main explanation for the difference in glide ratios,

despite the issues listed above, is that the A-320 has a lower
drag profile, as compared to the Cessna. The A-320 has
significantly more (5.4 times more) kg of aircraft mass per 1 m2
of surface area of the fuselage and engines exposed to the
direction of flight. This data excludes drag from the wings. See
Table 6b-13 below.

If the A-320’s wings were included in the calculation for

drag. Then it would not be possible to explain the different glide
ratios of the A-320 and Cessna. Hence, it is likely that the
wings do not contribute towards drag.
22
 Independent Research – Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

H. Stalls. [3] Description of a stall airflows

The physics and wing airflow of stalls confirm that wings For an airplane in stable, slow-flight with a low airspeed and
generate: a high-wing AOA. The stall occurs when the air at the leading
edge of the wing is not accelerated downwards fast enough. This
- Significant lift and little parasitic drag in cruise flight.
air does not reach the trailing edge of the wing, by the time that
- Little lift and significant parasitic drag when not creating the wing has advanced forwards, causing airflow separation on
airflows required to fly. For example, after a stall has been the topside of the wing.
triggered.
In this situation, the area of low-pressure at the trailing edge
of the wing then pulls air below the wing upwards, causing
Abrupt and dramatic changes turbulence. See Fig. 11h-(iii-iv).

An aerodynamic typically occurs at a high wing AOA and

low airspeed. In a stall the wings cease to generate enough lift
for an airplane to continue to fly.

A stall is abrupt and dramatic. The airplane quickly loses

forward airspeed and altitude. The vertical descent accelerates
rapidly until it reaches its terminal velocity. See Fig. 11h-i.

Fig. 11h-iii. Wing airflows in a stall.

Fig. 11h-i. Flight trajectory for slow-flight

and stall compared.

Fig. 11h-iv. Wing airflows

Loss of forward airspeed due to turbulence in a stall. [56] [63]
(See point 2:40 in the video [63] )
In other words, after a stall has been triggered and less lift is
generated, airplanes often do not adopt a gradual and gentle
glide downwards. This process causes a loss of lift and can trigger a stall if the
airplane ceases to generate sufficient lift to fly.
The key point is that in the initial stages after a stall is
triggered. The aircraft quickly loses forward airspeed, with As the wings shift from generating laminar airflows pushed
little actual change in the aircraft configuration. This loss of downward, to airflow turbulence. Then lift and forward
airspeed indicates that when the wing airflows cease to airspeed is quickly lost by the aircraft.
generate lift. Then these wings airflows generate parasitic drag
instead, which supports the argument that wing only generate The propellers become less effective at generating forward
lift in flight. thrust in a descent due to the increased propeller blade AOA.
This can help explain the lack of forward airspeed as the
This argument is confirmed by an analysis of the wing aircraft descends vertically. But it cannot explain the rapid
airflows. In the early stages of a stall, the topside of the wings initial loss of airspeed.
cease to accelerate air downwards, and generate turbulence
instead. The change in airflows then triggers a stall, as
explained below. See Fig. 11h-ii.

This space was intentionally left blank.

Fig. 11h-ii. Wing airflows in cruise flight and at

the start of a stall. trajectory for slow-flight.

23
 Independent Research – Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

I. No increased drag with a higher wing AOA. J. Expansion fans.

It is asserted that in flight, the parasitic drag generated by In transonic flight, condensation in expansion fans provides
the wings does not vary significantly with the wing AOA. A evidence that the fuselage accelerates the air flown through
change in the wing AOA does alter the parasitic drag from the away from the aircraft in all directions. See Fig. 11j.
fuselage, but not the wings.

Despite a higher wing AOA exposing a greater wing surface

area to the direction of flight. It is asserted that no increase
parasitic drag due to the wing is observed, unless a stall is
triggered. The induced drag does vary with the wing AOA, but
not the parasitic drag from the wing. See Fig. 11i-i.

Fig. 11j. Expansion fans in supersonic flight

showing air accelerated by the fuselage.

In supersonic flight, the wings have an extremely low AOA

and generate little lift each meter flown. Consequently, at an
airspeed around MACH 1, the fuselage is primarily responsible
for generating drag that cause the shock waves, not the wings.
This argument is supported by the aera rule.

Fig. 11i-i. Increased

wing AOA.
K. Ground spoilers.
The Newtonian explanation is that an increased wing AOA
increases the wing reach, which increases the mass of air Ground spoilers on the wings are primarily deployed to
flown through each second (higher m/dt). increase drag and negative lift on landing, which reduces the
runway distance needed to stop. Spoilers are occasionally
In other words, a higher wing AOA simply increases the applied in flight for brief moments, to trim or to counter
amount of air pushed downwards by the wings, and therefore, adverse yaw. See Fig. 11k-(i-ii).
the lift generated.

This aspect of flight is particularly evident for aircraft with

long wingspans such as gliders, or large wing areas, such as a
B-787. An increase in wing AOA significantly increases the
surface area of the wings exposed to the direction of flight. Yet
an increased wing AOA is observed to increase the lift
generated, but not the total parasitic drag from the entire
aircraft.

In contrast, for aircraft landing at an excessively high speed

or a short runway. When on the runway, keep the wing AOA Fig. 11k-i. Ground spoilers deployed
and aircraft’s nose are raised to increase the parasitic drag on a runway. [25]
generated, to help slowdown the aircraft. This increased
parasitic drag due to a higher wing AOA is not observed in
flight. See Fig. 11i-i.

Fig. 11k-ii. Ground spoilers deployed in flight

Fig. 11i-i. Increased wing AOA and drag rudders on a B2 bomber. [45][25]
in flight and ground roll compared.
In other words, the use of spoilers demonstrates that wings
A lack of reliable experimental data available, means that generate negligible drag in flight, but significant drag when the
the parasitic drag generated by the aircraft, cannot be split spoilers are extended.
between the drag generated by the wings from the drag
generated by the fuselage.

24
 Independent Research – Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

L. Swordfish swim faster than cheetahs run. M. Frisbees are thrown further than baseballs.

Swordfish can swim at over 100 km/hr, which is faster than Frisbees (flying discs) can be thrown multiple times further
cheetahs can run at 90 km/hr; as explained in a separate paper. than baseballs with a similar mass, as explained in a separate
[3] See Fig. 11l-i. paper. [3] See Fig. 11m-(i-ii).

Fig. 11l-i. Swordfish vs. Cheetah.

Also, tuna can swim at 80 km/hr, and dolphins manage 40 Fig. 11m-i. Frisbee vs.
km/hr. Whereas, the fastest submarines only achieve about 56 Baseball.
km/hr. [37][39][40][41] See Fig. 11l-ii.
The observation supports the assertion that wings
(frisbees/discs) generate negligible drag in flight, in contrast to
other objects that do not generate lift.

The explanation for this difference in distances thrown uses

the same logic for why flying wings are so efficient. Also, the
fluid flows generated by a swordfish are similar to those
generated by a frisbee. Whereas, the airflows generated by a
cheetah, are similar to those generated by a baseball.

The frisbee displaces the air in its path downwards, which

generates lift and wake vortices (laminar flow), but almost no
turbulence and drag. In contrast, the baseball pushes air in all
directions, generating turbulence and drag. See Fig. 11m-ii.

Fig. 11l-ii. Swimming speeds of fish,

person, submarine, and a cheetah.

The relatively high speed of swordfish is surprising given that

water is about 830x denser than air. It should be harder for a fish
to swim through water, as compared to a cheetah running on
land. The higher density of water should increase drag generated
when travelling, according to the empirical equation for drag:
Drag = 0.5 (Aircraft Velocity2 * Fluid Density
Fig. 11m-ii. Airflows generated by
* Surface Area * Drag Coefficient) a frisbee and a baseball.

The solution for this enigma and paradox is provided using

the same logic for why flying wings are so efficient.

Swordfish can swim fast because they displace the water in

their path efficiently all in the same sideways direction with N. Paper airplanes lack a tail.
each stroke, to generate alternating wake vortices and laminar
flow, but almost no turbulence and drag. A conventional paper airplane lacks a tail and resemble a
flying wing in many ways. Paper airplanes can be thrown long
In contrast, the cheetah pushes air in all directions, generating distances, flying over 60 meters in some competitions. This fact
turbulence and drag. See Fig. 11l-iii. indicates that the wing generates minimal drag. See Fig. 11n.

Fig. 11l-iii. Fish vs. Cheetah. Fig. 11n. Paper airplane trajectory.

25
 Independent Research – Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

O. Boomerangs. P. Flying cars.

Boomerangs have a flying wing design and generate lift At first glance, it would be reasonable to expect a flying car
similar to how a wing generates lift. to have an airspeed in flight that is lower than its ground speed
on a road. This dynamic arises due to the additional need to
Similar to frisbees, a spinning boomerang can be thrown an generate the significant force required for lift in flight, despite
extremely long distance with little loss of airspeed or altitude. the lack of drag from the tires on a road.
This observation indicates that the boomerang generates little
parasitic drag in flight, while generating enough lift to fly. However, the Terrafugia Transition flying car claims to have
a cruising airspeed in flight of 170 km/hr, which is about 50%
For example, a swan-neck boomerang can be thrown almost higher than its ground speed of 110 km/hr on roads. (155% =
vertically aligned. The boomerang produces a wide circular 170/110 km/hr – which is approx. 50% higher)
flight path and returns to the thrower. See Fig. 11o(i-ii).
This is a significant difference between the airspeed and the
ground speed. It is harder to push the car along the ground than
to push the car upwards in flight! [64] See Fig. 11p.
Wide and low circular
flight path

Boomerang

Fig. 11oi. Circular flight path

of a swan-neck boomerang design.

1 2 3 Fig. 11p. Terrafugia Transition

flying car. [64]

These speeds are achieved with the same 100 HP engine, with
almost the same aerodynamic shape, and the same mass of 650
4 5 6
kg (MTOW). [64]

The wings remain exposed to the direction of travel in both

flight and when folded for road use, so create similar drag; as
the same surface area is exposed to the direction of travel in
flight and driving.
Direction of flight

In summary, the 50% difference in airspeed (170 km/hr) and

7 8 9 ground speed (110 km/hr) above indicates that in flight the
flying car benefits from significantly less drag on the tyres and
wings, as compared to ground travel on a road.

Direction of flight In flight the flying car benefits from the absence of friction
drag from the tyres on the road in ground travel.
10 11 12 - Drag from the wheels (rolling drag) of a typical
passenger car travelling on a road is estimated to
typically represent about 25-40% of total drag
experienced. [66]

Direction of flight
- The proportion of drag associated with the tires (rolling
drag) varies with factors such as: ground speed, ground
Fig. 11oii. Example flight path surface, wheel types, aerodynamic shape, etc …
of a swan-neck boomerang design.
Consequently, absence of friction drag from the tyres on the
road in ground trave, cannot account for the 50% increase in
airspeed, as compared to ground speed.

26
 Independent Research – Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

Q. Wings, rotors, and propellers. In addition, the diameters of the propellers of WII bombers
and fighters jets are all larger than the aircraft fuselage’s
A helicopter rotor blade and propellers have the same design width. See Fig. 11q-iii above.
and function as an airplane wing. See Fig. 11q-i.
Similarly, increasing the number of propellers and using
Direction double propellers also does not appear to significantly increase
the parasitic drag generated. See Fig. 11q-v.

Rotor blade

Wing Propeller blade

Fig. 11q-i. Rotor, propeller

and airplane wing.

The assertion that wings primarily generate lift and little

Fig. 11q-v. Large double propellers of
parasitic drag in flight, is consistent with the observation that
a large cargo airplane. [25]
rotors and propellers primarily generate thrust and little
parasitic drag as they turn. See Fig. 11q-ii.
In particular, rotors and propellers can rotate thousands of
times per second (RPM) through static air, without generating
much parasitic drag. By deduction, wings also should generate
little parasitic drag as they move through the static air.

It is so common to see airplanes with propeller diameters as

large as the fuselage cabin’s width. As a result, no one overtly
questions the concept that propellers only generate thrust and
no parasitic drag. In contrast, the fuselage generates parasitic
drag and no thrust.

If propellers only generate thrust and no parasitic drag.

Fig. 11q-ii. Airflows and forces created by Then wings also only generate lift (thrust) and no parasitic
rotors, propellers and airplane wings. drag, as they have the same design and function as propellers.
In particular, the surface area of propellers facing the
direction of flight is substantial. However, propeller size does
not appear to generate much parasitic drag. For example, the
large propellers observed on WWII bombers, fighters, cargo
aircraft, and old airliners, do not appear to generate significant
parasitic drag. See Fig. 11q-(iii-iv).

Fig. 11q-iii. Large propellers of This space is intentionally left blank.

a WWII bomber. [25]

Fig. 11q-iv. Large propellers of

a large military cargo aircraft. [25]

For example, the Airbus A400 M military cargo aircraft has

four turboprops (each with 8 blades). Each turboprop is 5.3
meter in diameter, which is about the same size as the cabin’s
width. See Fig. 11q-iv above.
27
 Independent Research – Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

C. Not suited to high-speed flight?

12. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
It is unclear if blended-wing designs are suitable for high-
speed (supersonic or hypersonic) flight. This aspect is due to
the increased parasitic drag experienced by thick wings at
A. Wings generate minimal parasitic drag. high-speeds, which could be prohibitive.

A key insight is that wings in flight accelerate the air flown For example, current and past supersonic aircraft require
through downwards. Consequently, wings generate significant ultra-thin wings to achieve efficient flight. Presumably, the
lift and minimal parasitic drag. This insight is contrary to fuselages of these aircraft continue to account for the main
conventional logic, which asserts the reverse: That a longer source of drag in flight at high speeds, which is a similar
wingspan should be associated with increased surface area dynamic to subsonic flight. See Fig. 12c-i.
facing the direction of travel, and therefore, increased parasitic
drag. See Fig. 12a.

Surface area of the

wings facing the Fig. 12c-i. Parasitic drag from the fuselage
direction of travel. and engines of Concorde and SR-71. [25]

Fig. 12a. Surface area of the wings

facing the direction of travel The recent proposals for high-speed (i.e. supersonic or
hypersonic) flight adopt a conventional tube-and-wing design;
and not a blended-wing design. See Fig. 12c-ii.
As a result, parasitic drag can be minimised by shifting
from a conventional tube-and-wing design, to a blended-wing
design where the fuselage and tail are incorporated into the
wing. See Fig. 12b below.

Hypersonic Supersonic

B. Significant potential explained.

Fig. 12c-ii. Concept hypersonic and
supersonic aircraft designs. [25]
Wing and aircraft development has broadly stagnated since
1970. The latest modern airliners (e.g. B.787) are little
different from those from 1970 (e.g. B-747). In contrast, the
blended-wing concept represents a radical change in aircraft
design. See Fig. 1bi.

Fig. 12b. Airliner designs past, present,

and future (concept). [1][25]

To date, blended-wing designs have been adopted primarily

in military functions. Blended-wings represent a big change in
aircraft design towards more efficient wing and aircraft
technology for commercial (passenger and cargo) aviation. For
example, the improvements in aircraft fuel efficiency have
reached diminishing returns.

The benefits of a blended-wing design have been known for

some time. However, no one has been able to explain the
physics involved accurately before.

28
 Independent Research – Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

13. CONCLUSIONS
14. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

A. Summary. Author: Mr. Nicholas Landell-Mills, independent researcher.

Corresponding email: [email protected]

The assertion that wings generate negligible parasitic drag in
flight is new and extremely significant. This assertion has not Personal background: The author is British, currently living
been made before and It is likely to be highly controversial. in France, and was born in 1966 in Botswana. The author is
dyslexic. The author held a private pilot’s license (PPL) for 18
Newtonian mechanics provides useful new insights to explain years. He flew and maintained a small, single-engine, home-
the physics of flying-wing designs. Flying-wings move through built airplane (Europa XS monowheel, registration: G-OSJN).
the air generating almost no parasitic drag, like a hot knife
moves through butter. In addition, flying-wings generate lift Academic qualifications: The author is a graduate of The
more efficiently than conventional wings. University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. He was awarded a
M.A. degree class 2:1 in economics and economic history in
This knowledge proves additional theoretical support for the 1989.
development of flying-wing aircraft. The late development of
flying-wing aircraft may have been a significant missed Professional background: The author qualified as an
opportunity for the aeronautical industry. accountant (ACA) in England & Wales, as well as a Chartered
Financial Analyst (CFA). He worked in finance for 24 years in
The Newtonian absolute airflow analysis differs significantly numerous countries for different companies (1990 – 2013).
from the relative airflow analysis used by fluid mechanics.
These approaches are diametrically opposite. The Newtonian Author Contributions: This paper is entirely the work of
explanation of lift and drag (Force = ma) solves what fluid the author, Mr. Nicholas Landell-Mills.
mechanics, NASA, and other experts have missed
Affiliations: None.
It is feasible that it is not possible to design a flying-wing
passenger aircraft that is thin enough to provide superior lift and Acknowledgements: None.
drag performance, as well as meet the commercial requirements
of an airliner. However, aircraft similar to flying-wing designs Disclaimer: All data in the manuscript is authentic. There
were flying early as the 1930’s. are no conflicts of interest. All sources of data used in the paper
are identified where possible.
For example the German Junkers G.38 had wings thick
enough for passenger seats to be located on the wings (as ORCID ID: 0000-0003-4814-0443
opposed to the fuselage). See Fig. 13a.
Project duration: This paper is a product of applied physics
research by the author in the period 2014 – 2024, into how
objects fly, sail, fall, and swim.

Funding: This paper was self-funded by the author.

Project costs: The direct expenses used to write this paper

were minimal and included things like a computer, internet
access, and living expenses. However, the opportunity cost of
Fig. 13a. Thick airfoil of the the salary forgone by not being employed while conducting
Junkers G.38. [25] research over ten years (2014 – 2024) was substantial.

Request for financial support: This paper could not have

been produced through the established academic and scientific
systems. There is no intention to publish this paper or its
contents in an academic journal, as then it would no longer be
available for free to all. If you found this research to be useful,
valuable, informative, entertaining, or otherwise worthy. Then
kindly support the author with a financial donation via:
- PayPal.com at: https://paypal.me/landell66
- Or buy me a coffee: https://bmc.link/zhJIg4zRCW

It was a pleasure to write this paper. Thank you in advance

for any contributions, which will encourage further research!

29
 Independent Research – Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

15. REFERENCES Images:

[25] Image from Wiki Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/

[26] Top Gun: Maverick - Official Trailer (2022) - Paramount
Pictures; Jul 18, 2019; YouTube channel: Paramount Pictures;
[1] NASA, Glenn Research Centre. www.grc.nasa.gov https://youtu.be/qSqVVswa420
[27] Source: jetphotos.net
[28] Source: rt.com
Unpublished papers by the author: [29] Image licensed from Critical Past; www.criticalpast.com .
[30] Source: youtube: Phoenix FD 3.0 - Wind Tunnel; Nov 2016;
[2] N Landell-Mills (2019), How airplanes generate lift is disputed. https://youtu.be/IOLaoHbuVGY
Pre-Print DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34380.36487. [31] Design, Build, Fly, BWB, HAW Hamburg [English Commentary]
[3] N Landell-Mills (2019), Newton explains lift; Buoyancy explains (2006); Jul 25, 2015; YouTube Channel: Dieter Scholz;
flight. Pre-Print DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16863.82084. https://youtu.be/-Qtw9QrDrQA
[4] N Landell-Mills (2022), How swordfish swim faster than [32] 'SPECTACULAR! A-380 Condensation and Vortices on Landing
cheetahs run. Pre-Print DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29486.38727. at Zurich Kloten Airport,' uploaded on 15 Jul 2017, on youtube
[5] N Landell-Mills (2021), Relative airflow analysis is flawed. Pre- channel PlanesWeekly. Link:
Print DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19517.38886. www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaRb46vv_bQ
[6] N Landell-Mills (2023). A classic wind tunnel experiment re- [33] Emirates Boeing 777 - making and busting clouds; Oct 3, 2015;
evaluated. Pre-Print DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31272.03846 . YouTube video channel: flugsnug; https://youtu.be/fFEFEksnA_4
[7] N Landell-Mills (2020), Navier-Stokes equations are flawed; Pre- [34] Emirates 777 wake vortex spectacular!; Jul 31, 2013; YouTube
Print DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10678.52809. channel: flugsnug; https://youtu.be/ViKYFsN3p24
[8] N Landell-Mills (2021), Relative airflow analysis is flawed. Pre- [35] Russia's New PAK-DA Stealth Bomber Just Took a Big Step
Print DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19517.38886 Forward, The National Interest; October 2022,
[9] N Landell-Mills (2023), Is low air pressure on top of a wing a http://cast.ru/eng/comments/russia-s-new-pak-da-stealth-bomber-
cause or consequence of lift? Pre-Print DOI: just-took-a-big-step-forward.html
10.13140/RG.2.2.31272.03846 . [36] Removed.

Appendix I:
Additional references
[10] K. Chang (Dec 9, 2003), Staying Aloft; What Does Keep Them
Up There? New York Times. See: www.nytimes.com or [37] R D Lorenz; Flight Dynamics Measurements on an Instrumented
www.nytimes.com/2003/12/09/news/staying-aloft-what-does- Frisbee; Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, University of Arizona; 9
keep-them-up-there.html November 2003; unpublished.
[11] RR Britt (August 28, 2006), How Do Airplanes Fly? in Live [38] Wilson, A., Lowe, J., Roskilly, K. et al. Locomotion dynamics of
Science; www.livescience.com/7109-planes-fly.html hunting in wild cheetahs. Nature 498, 185–189 (2013).
[12] R Matthews (Jan 1, 2012), The secret to airplane flight. No one https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12295.
really knows. The National newspaper, UAE. [39] M. Hildebrand; Further Studies on Locomotion of the Cheetah,
[13] R. Allain, There's No One Way to Explain How Flying Works; Journal of Mammalogy, Volume 42, Issue 1, 20 February 1961,
Wired Magazine, 22 Feb 2018; www.wired.com/story/theres-no- Pages 84–91, https://doi.org/10.2307/1377246.
one-way-to-explain-how-flying-works/ [40] J. J. Videler, D. Haydar, R. Snoek, Henk-Jan T. Hoving, Ben G.
[14] E Regis, No One Can Explain Why Planes Stay in the Air. 1 Feb Szabo, Lubricating the swordfish head, Journal of Experimental
2020, Scientific American Magazine. Biology 2016 219: 1953-1956; doi: 10.1242/jeb.139634
www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-one-can-explain-why- [41] Woong Sagong,Woo-Pyung Jeon,Haecheon Choi ; Hydrodynamic
planes-stay-in-the-air/ Characteristics of the Sailfish (Istiophorus platypterus) and
[15] J Hoffren (2012), Quest for an Improved Explanation of Lift, Swordfish (Xiphias gladius) in Gliding Postures at Their Cruise
AIAA Journal, Helsinki University of Technology, Speeds; Dec 2013; https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0081323.
https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2001-872 [42] Pei Li, R Seebass and H Sobieczky; Oblique flying-wing
[16] W. Thielicke, (2014). The flapping flight of birds: Analysis and aerodynamics; Published Online: 22 Aug 2012;
application. University of Groningen, Department of Ocean https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1996-2120 .
Ecosystems, PhD Thesis. [43] P Mahamuni, A. Kulkarni, Y Parikh; Aerodynamic study of
[17] D.D. Chin, D.Lentink; Flapping wing aerodynamics: from insects flying-wing body; January 2014; International Journal of Applied
to vertebrates; Journal of Experimental Biology 2016 219: 920- Engineering Research; ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 9, Number 24
932; doi: 10.1242/jeb.042317. (2014) pp. 29247-29255; © Research India Publications;
[18] CW McAvoy (2002); Analytical and Experimental Approaches to http://www.ripublication.com .
Airfoil-Aircraft Design Integration; NC State Universities, thesis, [44] LI Peifenga, ZHANG Binqiana, CHEN Yingchuna,b, YUAN
Aerospace Engineering, www.lib.ncsu.edu/resolver/1840.16/7 Changshenga, LIN Yua; Aerodynamic Design Methodology for
[19] K Leoviriyakit and A Jameson, Challenges and Complexity of Flying-wing Body Transport; Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, 9
Aerodynamic Wing Design, Chapter 1, page 2, Dept Aeronautics October 2011.
and Astronautics, Stanford University, International Conference [45] Pilot operating handbook, Cessna 172N Skyhawk 1978. Cessna
on Complex Systems (ICCS2004), Boston, May 16-21, 2004. Aircraft Company Wichita, Kansas, USA.
See: http://aero-comlab.stanford.edu/publications.html [46] S. Paul, F. Hole, A. Zytek, C.A. Varela, Flight Trajectory
[20] M Van tooren, J.P.T.J. Berends (2008); Feasilization of a Planning for Fixed-Wing Aircraft in Loss of Thrust Emergencies,
structural wing design problem; DOI: 10.2514/6.2008-2263; Cornell University, Oct 2017.
[21] A. Jameson and L. Martinelli (1997); Optimum Aerodynamic [47] R. H. Liebeck, The Boeing Company, Journal of Aircraft; Vol.
Design Using the Navier–Stokes Equations; Theoretical and 41, No. 1, January–February 2004; Design of the Flying-wing
Computational Fluid Dynamics; (1998) 10: 213–237. Body Subsonic Transport.
[22] NF Smith (1972); Bernoulli and Newton in Fluid Mechanics, the [48] M. Potsdam, M. Page, R. Liebeck, Flying-wing Body analysis and
Physics Teacher Journal, (AAPT), volume 10; Published online in design; AIAA, 1997, Published Online: 22 Aug 2012
2006 at: https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2352317 . https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1997-2317
[23] P Garrison; You Will Never Understand Lift. Why the true nature [49] Presentation by DYZNE, Flying-wing Body Aircraft with Mark
of lift continues to elude us. June 4, 2012. Flying magazine. Page; Oct 29, 2018; YouTube Channel: Kashmir World
https://www.flyingmag.com/pilots-places-pilots-adventures-more- Foundation; https://youtu.be/x0vYuPmOPYE
you-will-never-understand-lift/ [50] Website: http://www.modernairliners.com
[24] D. Ison; Bernoulli Or Newton: Who’s Right About Lift?, Feb 6, [51] Airbus www.airbus.com
2016; Plane & Pilot Magazine; [52] Boeing Co. www.boeing.com
www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/bernoulli-or-newton-whos- [53] USAF; www.af.mil .
right-about-lift/

30
 Independent Research – Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

[54] DF Anderson and S Eberhardt, Understanding Flight (2nd

edition). 2010, by McGraw-Hill Companies; ISBN: 978-0-07-
162697-2.
[55] JA. Tirpak, Air Force Plans New Blended Wing Body
Cargo/Tanker Aircraft by 2027, Oct. 5, 2022, Air & Space
Forces Magazine, https://www.airandspaceforces.com/air-force-
plans-new-blended-wing-body-cargo-tanker-aircraft-by-2027/
[56] Airflow during a stall; Apr 28, 2011; YouTube channel: Harvs
Air Service; https://youtu.be/WFcW5-1NP60
[57] P. Okonkwo, H. Smith; Review of evolving trends in blended
wing body aircraft design. February 2016; Progress in Aerospace
Sciences 82(1); DOI: 10.1016/j.paerosci.2015.12.002
[58] Clay Mathematical Institute, Millennium problems,
www.claymath.org .
[59] Quanta magazine, Navier-Stokes equations, viewed on 26 Feb
2021, list of articles on fluid flow and Navier-Stokes equations;
www.quantamagazine.org/tag/navier-stokes-equations
[60] L. Ariffin, A. H. Rostam, W. M. E. Shibani; Study of Aircraft
Thrust-to-Weight Ratio; Journal of Aviation and Aerospace
Technology; 2019; e-ISSN : 2682-7433.
[61] Amazing Aircraft Wake Vortices by Emirates & Etihad at Sunset;
Jan 11, 2018; YouTube channel: ePixel Images;
https://youtu.be/Efq65ZFIIW0
[62] Heavy's taking-off form Schiphols Kaagbaan runway. [wing
condensation]; Mar 19, 2017; YouTube channel:
Schipholhotspot; https://youtu.be/qahnGlfrhu8
[63] Sonex Wing Airflow Visualization; Mar 18, 2017; YouTube
Channel: Jeff Shultz; https://youtu.be/n0SZKo5OVzo
[64] Terrafugia Transition website: https://terrafugia.com/transition/
[65] F. Wittmeier, .. J. Wiedemann,Classification of aerodynamic tyre
characteristics; The International Vehicle Aerodynamics
Conference, 2014.
[66] EPA; Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of
Energy (www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml ; on 10 March
2021).
[67] Source: ‘planes clouds and vortices’ video on youtube channel of
flugsnug, uploaded 6 Nov 2014.
This space is intentionally left blank.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfY5ZQDzC5s
[68] youtube video channel: FLY8MA.com Flight Training§; Wake
Turbulence Aircraft Accident Inflight Breakup; Oct 14, 2020;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=W72QE4FENpY ;
[69] Jetzero www.jetzero.aero .
[70] 2021 International Council on Clean Transportation.
https://theicct.org/
[71] Cessna, Textron Aviation; https://cessna.txtav.com
[72] D. F. Hunsaker and W. Phillips; Ludwig Prandtl’s 1933 Paper
Concerning Wings for Minimum Induced Drag, Translation and
Commentary; AIAA 2020-0644; History of Aerospace I:
Aeronautics; 5 Jan 2020; https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2020-0644
[73] V. Bembrekar, A. Rasane, Ajay Jadhav, O. Vaishnav, S.
Mirdude; Design of a Wing with Bell-shaped Span-load using
VLM Method; International Journal of Engineering Trends and
Technology (IJETT) – Volume 59 Issue 4- May 2018.
[74] Airbus A380 vs Balloon; YouTube channel: 3 Minutes of
Aviation; Mar 8, 2023; https://youtu.be/ir06S6ntbyk . This
video was attributed to ‘BHX air spot’.
[75] Source: ‘planes clouds and vortices’ video on YouTube channel
of flugsnug, uploaded 6 Nov 2014.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfY5ZQDzC5s
[76] Removed.

31
 Independent Research – Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

C. Academics, engineers, pilots, pundits, …..

APPENDIX I – UNRESOLVED THEORY OF LIFT
Various groups promote at least twelve radically different
theories of flight, which include:
- Academics and engineers prefer complex models based
A. The theory of lift remains unresolved. [2]
on fluid mechanics (e.g. Bernoulli, Navier-Stokes, Euler,
….). They frequently confuse mathematical proof, wind
The physics of lift is disputed. tunnel experiments or computer simulations (e.g. CFD) for
There is no scientific experiment on a scientific evidence.
real aircraft in realistic conditions that
conclusively proves any theory or - Aircraft manufacturers and designers (e.g. Burt
equation for how a wing generates lift Rutand) design wings by intuition, trial and error, rather
to be true. Fig. I-a. Unknown. than by any particular theory or equation for lift.
[14][19][20][21]
The preferred theory of lift of academics, the Naver-Stokes Similarly, micro unmanned vehicles (drones) are simply
equations, is only based on a mathematical proof. It is not built to mimic bird and insect flight, without the
verified by any experiment. Pilots do not use it to help designers fully understanding the physics involved.
understand how to fly an airplane. Aircraft manufacturers do
not use it as a primary tool to design a better wing. - Pilots prefer Newtonian-based theories of lift, which
correlate to what they experience in practice. Wings push
Experts still cannot agree whether aircraft generate lift by air downward and the reactive equal and opposite force
being pulled upwards according to fluid mechanics, or pushed pushes the airplane upwards. Momentum is transferred
upwards according to Newtonian mechanics; nor exactly what from the airplane to the air.
role vortices play. This is surprising given airplanes have been - NASA sits on the fence in this debate and supports both
flying for over a hundred years. explanations of lift. “So both Bernoulli and Newton are
correct.” [1] NASA fails to state what proportion of lift
Academics, engineers, aircraft manufacturers, pilots, aviation is explained by Bernoulli and Newton; 50/50? Or 70/30?
authorities, and other pundits (e.g. NASA) promote over twelve
diverse theories of lift. New theories are occasionally proposed. However, both Newtonian and fluid mechanics cannot be
true as they provide very different and incompatible
Worse, there is no accepted universal theory of how lift is explanations of lift. How can NASA not know which
generated that applies to all objects that fly. Airplanes, theory of flight is correct?
helicopters, birds and insects each have their own unique
- Aviation authorities (e.g. FAA, CAA, EAA; …)
explanations. Different theories are used to explain lift in
recommend that pilots are taught a theory of flight based
different insects. This aspect is highly inconsistent.
on the Venturi effect and Bernoulli’s principles of fluid
dynamics. NASA describes this theory to be incorrect’ [1]
and academics discredited Bernoulli’s theorem as an
B. Media and academic commentary. explanation for lift at least as early as 1972. [22]
- Other groups promote a mixture of different theories of
The media occasionally comment on the ongoing debate lift based on vortices, the Magnus effect, the Coanda
about the mysterious, unproven and unknown causes of lift: effect, …..
 “No One Can Explain Why Planes Stay in the Air.” in - Some experts advocate that the pressure differential on a
the Scientific American magazine, 2020. [14] wing explains lift. However, the correlation of pressure
 “Staying Aloft; What Does Keep Them Up There?” in and lift on a wing does not prove causality. Pressure is the
New York Times, 2003. [10] result of a force (Pressure = Force/Area), not a cause.
 “How Do Airplanes Fly?” Live Science, 2006. [11] - Empirical observation: The factors that affect lift in
 “Why the true nature of lift continues to elude us.” practice have been observed and measured; as summarized
Flying magazine 2012. [23] by the empirical equation for lift: [1]
 “Bernoulli Or Newton: Who’s Right About Lift?” In Lift = 0.5 (Aircraft Velocity2 * Air Density
Plane & Pilot Magazine, 2016, [24]
* Wing Area * Lift Coefficient)
 “The secret to airplane flight. No one really knows.” in
the National Newspaper, 2012. [12] However, this equation only describes the factors that
affect lift; it does not explain the physics of how these
 “There's No One Way to Explain How Flying Works,” factors affect lift.
in Wired Magazine, 2018. [13]
In particular, fluid mechanics fails to explain the physics of
 “Quest for an Improved Explanation of Lift,” in the
the empirical equation for lift, but Newtonian mechanics
AIAA journal, 2012. [15];
can explain the empirical equation for lift. For example,
only Newtonian mechanics can explain why lift quadruples
The physics of how birds fly is also debated:
if aircraft velocity doubles.
 “…. flapping flight is not fully understood.” [16]
 “….there are still myriad open questions about how
animals fly with flapping wings,” [17]

32
 Independent Research – Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

Momentum is transferred from the aircraft to the air, by the

APPENDIX II – NEWTONIAN LIFT wings accelerating the mass of air flown through downwards.

The Newtonian approach based on the mass flow rate is a

different approach to the old Newtonian explanations of lift
based on a change in momentum or flow turning.
A. Newtonian mechanics explains lift. [3]

Newtons Laws of Motion describe the forces arising due to Mass flow rate (m/dt)
the airflows caused by the aircraft’s motion. More precisely,
Newtonian mechanics based on the mass flow rate is used to ‘m/dt’ is a product of the volume of air flown through each
explain active lift generation using actual airflow analysis. second by the wings and the air density (i.e. Mass = Volume x
Density). The volume of air flown through depends on airspeed,
Simply put, the wings fly through a thin layer of air that is wingspan, and wing reach (i.e. wing AOA and wing thickness).
accelerated downward. The reactive equal and opposite force
pushes the wings and aircraft upward. See Fig. II-a-i. Lift (Lift = m/dt * dv) depends on the amount of air flown
through by the wings each second (m/dt), as this factor is time-
More precisely, for an airplane in stable flight through static dependent. To put it another way, ‘m/dt’ increases 60 times if
air. Wings with a positive angle-of-attack (AOA) fly through a the time period of measuring ‘m/dt’ is altered from one second
mass of air each second (m/dt), which the wings accelerate to a to one minute.
velocity (dv) downward. This action creates downwash and a
downward force (Force DOWN), as summarised by the equation:
Downwash velocity (dv)
Force DOWN = ma = m * dv/dt = m/dt * dv [1]
‘dv’ depends primarily on aircraft momentum (i.e. airspeed
The inertia of the air provides resistance to the downward and mass), wing AOA, and wing depth (chord). Slower and
force, producing a reactive, equal and opposite upward force lighter aircraft have less momentum. Their wings strike each air
(Force UP), as shown by the equation: molecules in their path with less force, which accelerates the air
Force DOWN = Force UP = m/dt * dv to a lower velocity (lower dv) downward.

‘dv’ is caused by a one-off force (impulse) from the wings.

As a result, ‘dv’ is not time-dependent. In other words, ‘dv’ does
not change if the time period or measurement is altered from one
second to one minute. Consequently, lift is expressed as a
function of ‘dv’, and not ‘dv/dt’ (i.e. Lift = m/dt * dv).

Evidence of downwash

A wing can only generate lift if it accelerates a mass of air

downward, which creates downwash behind airplanes, as well as
a pressure impulse. The downwash circulates in the aircraft’s
Fig. II-a-i. Newtonian forces wake airflow around the two wingtip vortices.
acting on an airplane.
These aspects are more evident from the heavier and faster
aircraft, which have the greatest momentum. These aircraft
The upward force can be split into two vectors: accelerate the air flown through downwards aggressively in
- Lift is defined as the vertical vector. order to generate the significant amount of lift that they need to
fly. See Fig. II-a-(ii-iii).
- Induced drag is the backward horizontal vector.

For simplicity, it is assumed that an airplane in flight at a very

low wing AOA, the upward force is close to the vertical
direction. Therefore induced drag is negligible, and lift equals
the upward force, as shown by the equation:
Force UP = Lift = m/dt * dv
N = kg/s * m/s (Units)
Fig. II-a-ii. A-380 flying through clouds. [32]
Definitions:
- m = Mass of air the wings fly through.
- m/dt = Mass per unit time. The mass flow rate.
- dt = Change in time (i.e. per second).
- dv = Change in velocity of the air.
- a = dv/dt (acceleration).
Fig. II-a-iii. Pressure impulse below jets. [25]

33
 Independent Research – Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

B. ‘m/dt’ and ‘dv’ analyzed separately. Example – Glider and Harrier compared

The generation of lift (Lift = m/dt * dv) is complex as key The Newtonian approach can be illustrated in a simplified
factors (e.g. airspeed, momentum, aspect ratios, flaps, wing example by comparing a slow and light glider to a fast and
AOA, ….) can affect both ‘m/dt’ and ‘dv’ to different extents, in heavy fighter jet (Harrier). In this example: See Fig. II-b-(iv-v).
a non-linear and inter-dependent manner.
- These aircraft have similar wing areas, but significantly
For example, an increase in the wing AOA affects ‘m/dt’ and different aspect ratios, momentum and lift generated.
‘dv’ differently. It can also cause induced drag to increase, - Both aircraft fly through the same mass of air each second
which then reduces the airspeed and aircraft momentum. As (same m/dt), to allow for an easier comparison.
airspeed declines, there are secondary effects on ‘m/dt’ and ‘dv’.
- The differences in lift generation between the glider and
The Newtonian approach allows ‘m/dt’ and ‘dv’ to be Harrier are shown to be primarily due to differences in the
analyzed separately. This allows the different factors that affect velocity (dv) of the downwash.
lift to be identified more accurately. See Fig. II-b-i.
A glider’s long wingspan flies through a large mass of air
each meter. But its slow airspeed means that it manages to fly
through only a relatively modest mass of air each second
(modest m/dt). This air is accelerated downward to a low
velocity (low dv) due to the glider’s low airspeed and
momentum. Overall the glider’s wings generate only the small
amount of lift required to fly, as summarised by the equation:
Low LIFT GLIDER = modest ‘m/dt’ * low ‘dv’

Fig. II-b-i. ‘m/dt’ and ‘dv’ analyzed separately. In contrast, the Harrier’s short wingspan fly through a small
mass of air each meter flown. However, the high airspeed means
that overall it manages to fly through a relatively modest mass
Constant lift curve of air each second (modest m/dt). This air is accelerated down at
a high velocity (high dv) due to the aircraft’s significant airspeed
The Newtonian approach allows ‘m/dt’ and ‘dv’ to be shown and momentum. Overall, the Harrier generates the significant lift
graphically along a constant lift curve. See Fig. II-b-ii. required to fly, as summarised by the equation:
High LIFT HARRIER = modest m/dt * high dv

Fig. II-b-ii. Graph comparing ‘m/dt’ and ‘dv’,

for constant lift generated.

3D lift distribution

In addition, this approach allows for the lift distribution along

a wing to be presented in 3D images. See Fig. II-b-iii.

Fig. II-b-iv. 3D lift distribution compared.

Fig. II-b-iii. 3D lift distribution

for a small airplane.

This approach allows the lift generated by different aircraft

configurations, wing shapes, flight conditions, etc….. to be
Fig. II-b-v. Constant lift curves compared.
compared and analyzed in new ways.

34
 Independent Research – Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

B. Wake airflows.
APPENDIX III – ACTUAL WING AIRFLOWS
After the wing has passed forwards in flight, the air masses
accelerated downward by the wings continue to descend due to
the momentum gained. The air pushed and pulled downwards
A. Actual wing airflows. by the wings, then pushes and pulls air upwards elsewhere.
This action circulates a large mass of air behind the aircraft,
A wing with a positive AOA in flight, accelerates the static around the two spiraling wingtip vortices. See Fig. III-b-i.
air flown through downwards and slightly forwards, creating
separate airflows: See Fig. III-a-i.

1) The underside of the wing directly exerts a force

against the air in its path, which pushes the air down and
forward. This action creates high pressure on the surface
of the wing’s underside.

2) The leading-edge of the wing initially pushes the air up

and forwards, creating upwash.

3) As the wing moves forwards, it creates void of empty

space behind it, on the topside of the wing. This is a low- Fig. III-b-i. Wake airflows circulated.
pressure zone that indirectly pulls the air above the
wing downwards and slightly forwards; helped by:
- Any wing curvature due to the Coanda effect. The evidence for these airflows is seen behind aircraft
flying through clouds. Also, wing condensation on the topside
- The weight of the atmosphere above the wing. of the wing indicates that air above the wing is accelerated
downwards to the topside of the wing. See Fig. III-b-ii.

Fig. III-a-i. 2D diagram of actual

wing airflows in flight.
Fig. III-b-ii. Airliners flying through clouds
to create downwash and wingtip vortices. [32]
Turbulent airflows and stall risk

For an aircraft at a high wing AOA and low airspeed. If the

Laminar wake airflows
upper air mass above the wing, is not pulled down fast enough.
The airflow may not reach the trailing-edge of the wing, by the
The downwash and air circulating around the wingtip
time that the wing has moved forwards.
vortices is laminar, not turbulent, except at the very center of
the vortices. Laminar downwash is also evident from the
Then in this situation, airflow separation can arise, which
smooth surface of the water behind low-flying aircraft, flanked
causes airflow turbulence at the trailing-edge. Consequently,
on either side by turbulent wingtip vortices. See Fig. III-b-iii.
less air is pulled down, lift is lost and a stall can be triggered.
See Fig. III-a-ii.

Fig. III-a-ii. Airflow separation and Fig. III-b-iii. Airflow behind

turbulence on the topside of the wing. low-flying aircraft.

This airflow pattern explains why stalls almost always arise This point that the wake airflow is mostly laminar is
after turbulence is present at the trailing-edge of the wing. This significant, as many experts assert the opposite; that all wake
insight has not been proposed previously. airflow is turbulent.

35
 Independent Research – Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

C. Downwash observed. E. The Coanda effect.

The downwash from airliners can be observed from airliners Fluid flow naturally follows a curved surface due to the
flying through clouds and in one case, from a balloon that was Coanda effect. For example, water falling from a tap is passively
seen to cross in front an airliner. Estimates indicate that for re-directed to the right (and slightly upwards) by the curved side
airliners observed on approach to landing, the wings create of a spoon due to the Coanda effect.
downwash that has speeds of approximately 10 – 14 m/s. See
Fig. III-c-(i-ii). According to Newtonian mechanics, this action creates a
turning force, due to the change in momentum of the water flow.
The reactive equal and opposite force pushes the spoon
sideways to the left (and slightly downwards). See Fig. III-e-i.

Fig. III-c-i. Downwash and wake vortices

from airliners flying through clouds. [67] [32]

36.5 m

Peak
position
Balloon Upwash
Start Fig. III-e-i. Spoon experiment
demonstrating the Coanda effect.
15.0 m
in 1.2 seconds
Wind tunnel experiments demonstrate relative airflows over
dv = 12.5 m/s
an airplane wing. The upper airflow above the wing is re-
directed downwards along the topside of a curved wing, due to
End
the Coanda effect.

Fig. III-c-ii. Image sequence of a large In the absence of a sufficiently strong Coanda effect, airflow
blue balloon caught in the upwash separation can arise, which causes turbulence. The wing’s flat
and downwash of an A-380. [74] underside simply deflects the air downwards. See Fig. III-e-ii.

D. Wing pressure difference.

The generation of lift produces a pressure difference on the

wing; Low pressure on the topside of the wing and high pressure
on the underside of the wing. The pressure difference across the Fig. III-e-ii. Coanda effect and
wing only arises because a force is exerted on the wing turbulent wing airflows. [28]
(Pressure = Force/Area).
In general, wings produce a stronger Coanda effect with
Contrary to the prevailing view, the wing pressure patterns laminar (non-turbulent) airflow at a lower wing AOA, higher
observed are a consequence of the airflows and resultant process airspeed, and where the wings are deepest (largest chord, such as
that generates lift, and not a direct cause of lift. See Fig. III-d. near the fuselage).

Some fighter jet wing and fuselage designs show

pronounced curvature that maximizes the Coanda effect. The
Coanda effect helps to explain why airplanes keep the topside
of wings clear of any obstructions that could disrupt airflows.
See Fig. III-e-iii.

Fig. III-d. Pressure difference

above and below a wing.

Fig. III-e-iii. Fighter jets. [25]

36
 Independent Research – Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

APPENDIX IV – PASSIVE AND ACTIVE FORCES In short, this analysis shows that Galilean invariance does
not apply to wings, as frequently claimed by advocates of
fluid mechanics. A wing exposed to relative airflows in a wind
tunnel produces different wake airflows, and therefore,
different forces, as compared to an airplane wing in flight.
A. Analysis of actual wing airflows. [3]
Nonetheless, both passively and actively generated forces
The prevailing view uses relative airflows to explain how can be described by the same Newtonian equation (Force =
forces are generated by all airfoils in all situations, including m/dt * dv). See Fig. IV-a-iv.
airplane wings and sails on boats.
1) A mass of air each second (m/dt) from oncoming
However, the wake airflows differ. The turbulence seen at relative airflow (headwind) can be passively re-directed
the trailing edge of a stationary wing from relative airflows in by a stationary airfoil. This airflow decelerates (dv) on
a wind tunnel, are significantly different from the laminar contact with the undisturbed wind at the trailing edge of
wake airflows observed behind a wing in flight through static the airfoil to produce turbulence. This action creates a
air (i.e. actual airflows). See Fig. IV-a-i. backward force (Force BACK = m/dt * dv), and a reactive,
equal and opposite forward thrust is generated.

For example, a sailboat, wind turbine blade, and a glider

wing can passively generate forward thrust by re-
directing a relative airflow (headwind).

2) A moving airfoil can actively accelerate a mass of static

air each second (m/dt) flown through to a velocity (dv)
diagonally down and slightly forwards. This action
creates a downward force (Force DOWN = m/dt * dv). The
reactive, equal and opposite upward force generated
(Force UP) provides lift.

For example, this is how an airplane wing or propeller

can generate lift. These airflows are described as being
Fig. IV-a-i. Relative and actual
the actual airflows observed, to differentiated them from
wing airflows compared. [28][27]
the relative airflows seen in wind tunnel experiments.
A sailboat sailing into the wind, experiences a relative
airflow (headwind), and passively generates a force. Also, an
airplane propeller turning in static air provides another
example of how an active force is generated, similar to an
airplane wing. Sails produce turbulent wake airflows, whereas
propellers produce laminar wake airflows. See Fig. IV-ii.

Fig. IV-a-iv. The passive and active creation

of forces based on actual airflows.
Fig. IV-ii. Turbulent vs. Laminer
wake airflows. [25][32]
In addition, other key differences between how passive and
For example, doubling the number sails (and doubling the active forces generated include:
sail area) of a boat sailing into the wind, causes the forward - An actively generated forces are vertical and almost in a
thrust generated to double. In contrast, doubling the number of perpendicular direction to the wing’s alignment. In
wings on an airplane (and doubling the wing area) makes little contrast, the passively generated force (thrust) is aligned
difference to the lift generated. See Fig. IV-iii. to the direction that airflow is re-directed by the wing.
- Momentum is transferred from the relative airflow
(wind) to the wing in passive force generation, and vice
versa in active force generation.

Fig. IV-iii. Two sails on a boat compared to

two wings on an airplane (biplane). [25]

37
 Independent Research – Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

APPENDIX V – EQUATIONS FOR LIFT AND DRAG Where: Velocity = Aircraft velocity.
Wing Area = Wingspan * Chord
Wing Reach = 0.5 * Chord * [Lift Coefficient§]

A. Empirical equations for lift and drag. (Wing reach includes part of the lift coefficient.
However, for simplicity the lift coefficient element is
not shown in the equation above. See the full
Newtonian physics explains the empirical equation for lift: [1] explanation. [3] )
Lift = 0.5 (Aircraft Velocity2 * Wing Area
* Air Density * Lift Coefficient)
The correlation between the empirical equation for lift and
The empirical equation for lift is simply a mathematical Newtonian mechanics is shown in Fig. V-a-ii.
description of how lift is observed to vary in practice with
different parameters. Until now there has been no adequate
Force UP
explanation of the physics involved. Aircraft Velocity
(Lift)
Ai r
Density
All parameters of the empirical equation for lift (aircraft
velocity, air density, wing area, and lift coefficient) affect the m/dt
mass of air flown through each second by the wings (m/dt); = Velocity * Wing Area
and/or the velocity to which this mass of air is accelerated * Air Density * L.C. A
Force DO W N Wing
downward (dv). Therefore, this equation can be explained by = m/dt x dv Reach
Newtonian mechanics based on the mass flow rate (Force = ma dv
= 0.5 * (Velocity * L.C. B )
= m/dt * dv); as shown by the analysis below: See Fig. V-a-i.
Fig. V-a-ii. Newtonian and empirical
equations equated.

Why lift quadruples if aircraft velocity doubles.

For example, Newtonian mechanics mass flow rate (Lift =

m/dt * dv) can explain why lift quadruples if aircraft velocity
doubles according to the empirical equation for lift. See Fig. V-
a-iii.

If the aircraft’s velocity doubles, then:

Fig. V-a-i. The empirical and - As the aircraft is travelling twice as fast, the wings fly
Newtonian equations for lift. through twice the mass of air each second (2x m/dt).
- As aircraft momentum has also double, the wings
The analysis is provided in three steps: accelerate the air flown through to twice the velocity
downward as before (2x dv).
(i) The Newtonian and empirical equations are equated: The combined effect of these two aspects above, quadruples
Newtonian = Empirical equation the Force DOWN and lift, as summarised by the equations:
Force DOWN = Lift 4 * Force DOWN = (2 * m/dt) * (2 * dv)
m/dt * dv = 0.5 (Velocity2 * Wing Area = 4 ma
* Air Density * Lift Coefficient)
= 4 * Force UP (Lift)

(ii) The equation above is revised as follows:

m/dt * dv = 0.5 (Velocity * Wing Area * Air Density) (a)
* (Velocity * Lift Coefficient) (b)

(iii) ‘m/dt’ and ‘dv’ of the Newtonian equation are correlated to

two different parts of the empirical equation of lift, (a) and (b):

m/dt = 0.5 * Velocity * Wing Area * Air Density (a)

= 0.5 * Velocity * (Wingspan * Chord) * Air Density
= (Velocity * Wingspan * (0.5 * Chord)) * Air Density
= (Velocity * Wingspan * Wing Reach) * Air Density
= Volume /dt * Air Density Fig. V-a-iii. Lift ⇔ Aircraft Velocity2
= m/dt
This is a new explanation that has not been presented before.
dv = Velocity * Lift Coefficient (b)
38
 Independent Research – Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

The analysis is provided in three steps:

B. Empirical equations for lift and drag.
The empirical equation can be re-stated to correspond more
Newtonian physics explains the empirical equation for drag: closely to the two elements of the Newtonian equation for the
forward force (m/dt and dv), as follows:
Drag = 0.5 (Aircraft Velocity2 * Surface Area
* Air Density * Drag Coefficient) [1]
(i) The Newtonian and empirical equations are equated:
The empirical equation for drag is only a mathematical Newtonian = Empirical equation
description of how drag is observed to vary in practice with
different parameters. Until now there has been no adequate Force FORWARD = Drag
explanation of the physics involved. m/dt DRAG = 0.5 (Velocity2 * Air Density
* dv DRAG * Surface Area * Drag Coefficient)
All parameters of the empirical equation for drag (aircraft
velocity, air density, surface area, and drag coefficient) affect
the mass of air flown through each second by the fuselage, (ii) The equation above is revised as follows:
engines, and tail (m/dt DRAG), and/or the velocity to which this
air is accelerated away from the aircraft (dv DRAG). m/dt DRAG = (Velocity * Surface Area * Air Density) (a)
* dv DRAG * 0.5 (Velocity * Drag Coefficient) (b)
Therefore, the drag equation can be explained by Newtonian
mechanics based on the mass flow rate (Force = ma = m/dt *
dv); as shown by the analysis below for subsonic flight. Drag (iii) Then the two parts of the Newtonian equation (m/dt DRAG
excludes the wings, except for spanwise wing airflow. See Fig. and dv DRAG) are correlated to two different parts of the
V-b-i. empirical equation of drag, (a) and (b):

m/dt DRAG = Velocity * Surface Area * Air Density (a)

= (Velocity * Surface Area) * Air Density
= Volume DRAG / dt * Air Density
= m/dt DRAG

dv DRAG = 0.5 * Velocity * Drag Coefficient (b)

Fig. V-b-i. The empirical and Newtonian

Where: Velocity = Aircraft velocity.
equations for drag.
Surface Area = Surface area of the fuselage, engines,
and tail in the direction of travel; excluding wings.
Drag ≈ Aircraft Velocity2

Newtonian mechanics can explain why drag is proportional to

aircraft velocity squared, as described by the empirical equation
This analysis provides useful insight into the drag coefficient;
for drag above. More precisely, Newtonian mechanics can
which can be defined by the effectiveness at which air is
explain why parasitic drag quadruples if aircraft velocity
accelerated away from the aircraft fuselage (dv DRAG). This
doubles. An aircraft travelling twice as fast: See Fig. V-b-ii. depends on things like the fuselage shape, surface material, and
- Flies through twice the mass of air each second (2 * m/dt the angle that it hits the air. This aspect is consistent with the
DRAG), which it pushes out of it’s path. current description of the drag coefficient.
- As aircraft momentum has also doubled, the air flown The mass of air flown through each second by the fuselage
through is accelerated to twice the velocity as before (2 * (m/dt DRAG) depends on the volume of air flown through and the
dv DRAG). air density. In turn, the volume of air flown through depends on
the aircraft velocity and the surface area facing the direction of
The combined effect is to quadruple the parasitic drag force; flight.
and thus quadruple drag generated, as shown by the equation:.
4x Force (Drag) = 2m/dt DRAG * 2dv DRAG Summary

This analysis is significant as it shows that Newtonian

mechanics explains the physics for the empirical equation for
drag, which fluid mechanics and other theories fail to do.

Fig. V-b-ii. If aircraft velocity x2; then drag x4.

39
 Independent Research – Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

APPENDIX VI – NAVIER-STOKES EQUATIONS The criticisms of Navier-Stokes equations (NS equations)

fall into the following broad categories:

A. General criticisms.

A. Summary. [7] A.1. NS equations are unproven.

A.2. Multiple NS used to explain lift.
The long list of material criticisms shown below makes it is A.3. No agreement on the physics that explain lift.
extremely puzzling that anyone would use NS equations or fluid A.4. No general theory of lift for all objects.
mechanics to explain lift. NS equations are limited as they are
A.5. No universal theory or equation of lift.
simplifications of reality. Therefore, they are only as good as
how well the model reflects reality. The NS equations are based A.6. Focus on fluid flow on the topside of the wings.
on a number of false assumptions, theoretically faults, and A.7. Excessively complex.
(unsurprisingly) fail to adequately explain what is observed in A.8. Little practical benefit to pilots or manufacturers.
practice. See Fig. VI-a.
A.9. Excessively abstract.
A.10. Cannot calculate efficiency of lift generation.
A.11. The existence and smoothness problem.
A.12. Ignores the airflow on the underside of the wing.

Fig. VI-a. Part of the Navier-Stokes equations. B. False assumptions.

B.1. Low air pressure explains lift.
NS equations are widely critiqued in publications such as the
Quanta magazine, for their theoretical problems and limitations B.2. 2D models are sufficient.
in explaining lift. [58][59] B.3. Fluid mechanics can explain lift.
B.4. Use of dimensionless Reynolds number.
The criticisms are particularly significant given that NS
equations have been applied to airplanes for over a hundred B.5. Airflow accelerates due to wing curvature.
years. It is reasonable to expect that solutions and proof should
have been found by now. C. Faulty logic.
C.1. Logic contrary to how other things move.
The high degree of uncertainty surrounding the theoretical
C.2. Inconsistent logic with rotors and fan blades.
basis for NS equations is highlighted by the $1 million award
offered by the Clay Mathematical Institute since the year 2000. C.3. Inconsistent logic for thrust, drag, weight, and lift.
The award is for anyone who can prove that Navier-Stokes C.4. Why the aerodynamic force has a backward angle.
equations explain fluid flow and turbulence. C.5. Exclude wing AOA, induced drag, and stalls.
“Since we don’t even know whether these (Navier-Stokes) C.6. Relative wing airflow diagrams.
solutions exist, our understanding is at a very primitive level. C.7. Focus on immediate wing airflows.
Standard methods from PDE appear inadequate to settle the C.8. Bernoulli and the Venturi effect.
problem. Instead, we probably need some deep, new ideas.”
C.9. The top of the fuselage is excluded.
This paper asserts that there is no solution to the Navier-Stokes
problem identified by the Clay Mathematical Institute.
D. NS equations fail to adequately explain:
Despite the criticisms, fluid mechanics (NS equations) is the D.1. Flight manoeuvers. e.g. Inverted flight, ...
prevailing method used to model airflows and explain lift by
D.2. Practical aspects of lift. e.g. Ground effect, …
engineers, academics, and pundits.
D.3. Stalls, turbulence, and supersonic shock waves.
Description vs. Explanation D.4. How aircraft momentum can affect lift.
D.5. Dynamic soaring by gliders and albatrosses.
There is a subtle but critical difference between being able to
D.6. How bees can fly.
describe the dynamics of the lift observed in practice and
explaining the physics for why and how lift occurs. For D.7. Prandtl’s lifting line theory.
example, the empirical equation for lift: D.8. The empirical equation for lift.
Lift = 0.5 (Aircraft Velocity2 * Air Density
Lift = 0.5 (Aircraft Velocity2 * Air Density * Wing Area * Lift Coefficient)
* Wing Area * Lift Coefficient ) D.9. Optimal wing design (aspect ratios and wing shape).
D.10. Aircraft performance data.
For example, this empirical equation for lift above describes
the relationship between lift and aircraft velocity; where lift is D.11. The lift paradox – How airplanes fly with a thrust-
related to the square of aircraft velocity. But the equation does to-weight ratio as low as 0.3.
not explain the physics for why lift quadruples if aircraft D.12. How vortices affect lift.
velocity doubles. Similarly, a significant criticism of NS D.13. Other enigmas NS equations fail to solve.
equations is their failure to explain what is observed in practice.

40
 Independent Research – Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

APPENDIX VII – NASA’S DRAG EQUATION

NASA’s website calculates drag based on the different areas
of an aircraft. NASA’s reference area (AREF) used in the drag
equation includes: [1] See Fig. VII-a-ii.
- The total surface area (AS) of the body, due to the
A. Empirical equation for drag. [7]
friction between the air and the body.

The prevailing approach uses the entire aircraft surface area, - The frontal area (AF) of the aircraft’s body, which is
including the wings, facing the direction of travel in the perpendicular to the flow direction (direction of travel),
calculation of drag based on the empirical equation for drag: due to the resistance to the flow (travel). The frontal
See Fig. VII-a-i. area is shown in blue in Fig. 3f. Although, the blue area
in the image includes the fuselage area facing the
Drag = 0.5 (Aircraft Velocity2 * Air Density direction of flow (travel).
* Surface Area * Drag Coefficient) - The wing area, (AW).
- These areas above are proportional to each other, as
shown by the equation:
AS ~ AF ~ AW
Where “~” means that the areas are proportional.
- The reference area (AREF) is directly related to the
coefficient for drag (a constant), as shown by the
equation:
Drag = Constant * AREF

B. Summary.

This method allows the drag coefficient can be determined

Fig. VII-a-i. Graph of parasitic, induced,
experimentally, by measuring the drag and measuring the area
and total drag. [1][45]
and performing the necessary math to produce the coefficient,
we are free to use any area which can be easily measured.
For example, NASA’s website describes drag as the
However, NASA fails to provide a single and clearly defined
component of the aerodynamic force created by the aircraft,
equation to calculate the drag coefficient, and therefore, the drag
along the flight direction. The amount of drag generated depends
acting on an aircraft in flight. NASA simply states that the
on:
different areas of the aircraft affect the drag coefficient in a
- The size of the object. constant manner.
- The pressure variation of the air around the aircraft’s
NASA’s website states that the drag coefficient is related to
body as it moves through the air.
the wing frontal area (AF) facing the direction of flow (travel),
- The surface area around the aircraft’s body. Doubling as shown in blue in Fig. 3f. This area includes the wings and
the area will double the drag. fuselage facing the direction of travel.

This paper challenges NASA’s claim that the wing

component of the wing frontal area (AF) significantly impacts
the drag acting on the aircraft, for the reasons provided in this
Section on Flying Wings. This paper asserts that in flight, only
the fuselage significantly affects the drag acting on the aircraft.

Fig. VII-a-ii. Areas of the aircraft that contribute

towards drag, according to NASA. [1]

41
 Independent Research – Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

B. Status of some BWB projects. [57]

APPENDIX VIII – HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Blended-wing aircraft in use are restricted to UAVs and
cargo aircraft (military bombers). No blended-wing passenger
aircraft in use despite substantial research and investments.
A. Tailless aircraft. Only a few sub-scale demonstrator aircraft have been built
tested. The development of blended-wing aircraft appears to
Blended-wing development has been on a trial-and-error have stalled.
basis. Fluid mechanics has failed to adequately explain how a
wing and fuselage generate lift and drag. This dynamic has
hampered the adoption of blended-wing designs. UAVs and air cargo (military bombers) designs

Conventional aircraft have vertical tails to solve the adverse Almost all operational blended-wing designs have thin
yaw problem in turns, as well as to provide additional lateral wings and fuselages and fly at low airspeeds (i.e. subsonic).
control at slow airspeeds on approach to landing. See Fig. VIII-b-i.

Perhaps inspired by the observation that birds lack a vertical

tail. Tailless aircraft designs has been proposed since the
beginning of powered flight.

For example, aircraft built by the Wright brothers in the

early 20th Century lacked vertical tails. Instead, adverse yaw
was countered by adjusting the wingtip AOA in flight, by
twisting the leading edge of the wingspan. Nonetheless, this Fig. VIII-b-i. Blended-wing military
approach to aircraft control was not adopted as the standard. UAVs. [25]

The concept of merging the wings and fuselage has been Blended-wing designs are suited for UAVs and air cargo
around since the 1930’s, but none were very successful. Only a (including military bombers) purposes, because the designs
few different concepts with thick wings and/or a fuselage that provide a greater volume of space inside the fuselage. This
contributed towards lift were attempted. See Fig. VIII-a-i. dynamic allows less dense goods to be carried, or more goods
to be carried to benefit from the improved lift performance.

Blended-wing designs actively being developed include the

Burnelli UB-14– 1930’s
US Air Force’s blended-wing B-21 bomber, a cargo/tanker
aircraft as well as a Russian PAK DA bomber. [35] See Fig.
VIII-b-ii.

Junkers 38 – 1930’s

Fig. VIII-a-i. Early blended-wing

designs. [25]

Blended-wing designs progressed in the 1940’s with

Fig. VIII-b-ii. Russian PAK DA
experimental military bombers. Testing continued in the blended-wing concept.
1950’s and 1960’s on a small scale. None were introduced into
service, partly due to flight control problems See Fig. VIII-a-
ii.
Passenger blended-wing aircraft

The lack of blended-wing passenger aircraft in use, is a

conundrum given the estimated 40% increased endurance with
lower engine thrust and fuel burn, as compared to the existing
conventional aircraft. [49] As blended-wing designs offer
superior performance, then why aren’t there any blended-wing
designs for commercial passenger services in use?

Technical, manufacturing, operational and commercial

Fig. VIII-a-ii. Flying-wing bomber
issues have restricted blended-wing development, especially
designs. [25]
for passenger aircraft. However, these issues are of secondary
importance that can be overcome if blended-wing designs
The B2 bomber first flew in 1989. It was the first flying-
provide a superior lift and drag performance.
wing design manufactured and deployed, but on a limited
scale. Although, the reasons for its use was more to do with
It is asserted that the technical issues have been solved or
stealth than the low-drag profile of its flying-wing design.
could be solved. The aadoption of blended-wing designs is
being held back because aircraft manufacturers have failed to
adequately understand how a wing generates drag and lift.

42
 Independent Research – Flying-wing aircraft rethought.

Numerous projects in the period 2000 – 2023 investigated

the BWB concept, including:
- Boeing, NASA and Airbus have built sub-scale
blended-wing prototypes. This includes the Maveric
demonstrator, for a 200-seat BWB airliner; by Airbus
(2020).
- The X-48B demonstrator, for a 450-seat BWB, by
Boeing and NASA (2007).
- Very Efficient Large Aircraft (VELA) and New
Aircraft Concept Research (NACRE) EU projects from
2005, to develop large capacity passenger and cargo
aircraft.
- The Active Flight Control for Flexible Aircraft 2020
(ACFA2020) by the EU.
- TU Delft Flying V demonstrator.
- The TsAGI project undertaken by Russia, with Airbus
and Boeing, to compare 4 large aircraft configurations,
long range, and a 750 passenger capacity.
- The BWB-300 demonstrator, for a 330-seat airliner, by
China’s Northwestern Polytechnical University and the
Chinese aircraft manufacturer Comac (2023).
- SAX-40 demonstrator, for a 200-seat BWB concept,
by Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in 2006,
under the Silent Aircraft Initiative.
- Large-cabin business jet, by Bombardier (2022).
This space is intentionally left blank.

C. BWB projects : large aircraft with thick fuselages.

Almost all BWB projects have focused on large (heavy)

aircraft designs with thick fuselages, which often resemble the
tube-and-wing designs. This is evident from the prototypes and
concept images. See Fig. VIII-c-(i-ii).

Fig. VIII-c-i. Sub-scale flying-wing

aircraft. [50][1]

Fig. VIII-c-ii. BWB demonstrator models.

It is suspected that a focus on large-capacity aircraft in

many BWB design projects above was influenced by the large
A-380 launched in 2000, with its 850-passenger capacity.
However, only about 250 of the A-380 aircraft were
manufactured, well below the >2,000 production targets. The
A-380 ceased production in 2021. It is considered to be fuel
inefficient and a commercial failure.

43

View publication stats