Airbus "Maverick" concept plane
 

Airbus has a flying wing concept plane and is testing with scale models.

https://loyaltylobby.com/2020/02/10/...lane-maverick/
https://cdn3.loyaltylobby.com/wp-con...PZj4k2Ytc.webp
https://cdn2.loyaltylobby.com/wp-con...V218Wcc2y.webp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgDRkNseNxU

It's about time.

it's past time.

Image of the "Boeing 797" from Popular Science, 2003:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...oncept_Art.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blende..._body_aircraft

Nice look... Nice RC model..

But in the world of RC models nearly everything can fly, even starship USS Enterprise :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFzu5ALdS7Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jG28ZDsG3w

I would not be surprised if someone created a RC control version of a Borg Cube.

From the Wikipedia link:

Boeing X-45C US UAV Experimental 2002 Prototype Tailless
Boeing X-48 US UAV Experimental 2007 Prototype Tailless
Lockheed A-12 US Jet Reconnaissance 1962 production
Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird US Jet Reconnaissance 1964 production

I don't find any examples of a RC Borg cube, but if one wanted to make [one], one might start with Alexander Graham Bell's tetrahedral kite.

https://i.imgur.com/yztNlIP.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/yztNlIP.jpg

If you want to give it a try, ask me about adaptive subdivision.

edit: Okay you don't have to ask. :)

A tetrahedron inscribed in a cube:

https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/Ya...Tetra_Cube.gif

Based on Bell's kites it would fly oriented with a vertex up. The inner tetrahedron could be a Rogallo Wing. With some propulsion.

Then it would be encased in a layer at the scale of Bell's kite, with an outer layer fine enough that you can paint greebling on it. Bell couldn-t be bothered with the fine scale because he didn't have CNC routers and 3D printers.

With Auxetic materials one could make the flying head from Zardos.

The placement of the jet engines is important.
The best position efficiency wise is behind and slightly above a wing.
The suction speeds up the air, increasing lift and reducing the risk of stalling.
This position is highly impractical with conventional airplanes, but not here.
As a bonus it will be less noisy, both inside and outside of the plane.

Airbus is fully aware of the difference between RC modeling and full sized planes.
If they had reason to believe this concept would not scale they wouldn't even try.

Airliner Number 4 by Norman Bel Geddes

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._c.1929-32.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airliner_Number_4
Note that Vincent_Burnelli flew his CB-16 in 1928, the year before Bel Geddes started his design.

I know the engineers are not fools.

But I saw so much weird look projects, since many years ago, and none ever got reality...
Like some turbo propellers of next generation that would get close speed to jet engines planes, with much less fuel, but in the end... never more we heard of it.

But if this project get real, it have a fine area for solar panels anyway. :D

I did see some turbo prop planes with weirdly warped propeller blades lately. It just does not get a lot of attention.

They don't replace the long distance air liners as jet engines have had their own development too. Some aviation expert said not long ago that aviation gets 1% more efficient each year, mainly due to jet development.

It is not enough to offset the yearly 4-6% growth in aviation passenger miles though.
The Maverick and likewise could bring fuel consumption down by 20% in one go. That should buy us a couple of years.

Interesting fuel saving...

The problem I see it's safety. How evacuate so much people. The design don't help...

Edited - about propeller:I refered about this :

https://aeromagazine.uol.com.br/medi...ns/i370010.jpg

Propfan and ducted fan

Wow, flights are increasing at 5% annually? That's crazy fast. That said, the only thing that explains that is it's getting more affordable for people. It gets more affordable due to efficiency gains.

I feel like recent efficiency gains have mostly been cramming more people into a smaller space.

...15 years ago, I don't know if I ever saw winglets on planes I flew, now I never fly one without them.

If efficiency improves 20%, we can expect way more flights since prices will come down even further.

More doors and inflatable slides.

Anyhow, I'd fly something that was 0.00002% more dangerous in exchange for paying 20% less. Safety doesn't always have to improve, sometimes it's enough to just cost less.

I suspect minimalism style movement is spsonsored by aviation companies and touristic companies. Many minimalist videos talk about live simple, eat simple, get simple cars, simple phones, to spent with something more meaninfull like trip to other countries.

Háaa háaa háaa...

Redpont, show where to put xtra doors...
Too many corridors, can't be fast evacuated...

Maverick... Was this name based on :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdHBsWXaHN8

Negative, Ghostrider.

He was a Songbird, put down like a dog. No great loss.

All Darc — duckduckgo.com/?q=airplane+with+detachable+cabin

Your proof? No orchestra on trans-Atlantic flights.

Only viable for small planes...

https://external-content.duckduckgo....jpg&f=1&nofb=1

Ohn, this Ghost Rider :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7VVatFqhJQ

And not the Nicholas Cage one.

Amazing maneuver:

https://youtu.be/ngzQSaUggjY?t=101