Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 193–219

Invited paper

Flying wingFproblems and decisions

A.L. Bolsunovsky, N.P. Buzoverya, B.I. Gurevich, V.E. Denisov, A.I. Dunaevsky,
L.M. Shkadov*, O.V. Sonin, A.J. Udzhuhu, J.P. Zhurihin
Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute (TsAGI), 1 Zhukovsky str., Zhukovsky, Moscow Region 140160, Russia

Abstract

Traditionally, one of the priority directions in TsAGI’s research activity is searching for new concepts in
the field of aviation technologies. In the context of these studies basic problems related to the development
of advanced large-capacity aircraft of a flying-wing (FW) configuration have been studied at TsAGI since
the late-1980s (Byushgens, Aviation in XXI century, Symposium on ‘‘Aeronautical Technology in XXI
Century’’, Moscow, September1989; Denisov et al., Conceptual design for passenger airplane of very large
capacity in ‘‘flying wing’’ layout, ICAS 96-4.6.1, 1996). In the present paper primary emphasis is placed on
the rationale of selecting FW main design solutions, aerodynamic configuration, structural concept as well
as on development and analysis of alternative configurations. Consideration is also given to the problem,
which is in the opinion of experts the most critical for this airplane type, namely, meeting FAR-25
standards with respect to airplane operation in emergency situations. At present the work on this concept is
being conducted under the International Scientific and Technical Center grant No. 548. The project
collaborators are AIRBUS INDUSTRIE and Boeing. r 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

1. Introduction

One of the approaches to improving the efficiency of future airplanes is to increase their
passenger capacity. This will make it possible to reduce direct operating costs per passenger
(Fig. 1) and to relieve large airports by decreasing the number of flights. However, for
conventional airplanes with Cayley concept of separating component functions an increase in
dimensions can lead to degradation of weight efficiency. The stated feature as well as the
requirements of the airplane size dictated by the infrastructure of available airports can
significantly limit maximum passenger capacity of a conventional airplane configuration. At
the same time, increase of the airplane dimensions enables an entire payload or its portion to be
accommodated in the wing and, thus, a flying-wing (FW) concept will become possible, where the

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +7-95-556-4412; fax: +7-95-556-4481.

E-mail address: shkadov@tsagi.rssi.ru (L.M. Shkadov).

1369-8869/01/$ - see front matter r 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

PII: S 1 3 6 9 - 8 8 6 9 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 0 5 - 2
194 A.L. Bolsunovsky et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 193–219

Fig. 1. Comparative DOC.

component functions are integrated. The length of such an airplane is substantially less than that
of a conventional airplane and the span of outboard wings can be reduced in operating on the
ground by deflecting their tips upward. An increased structure depth of the center section makes it
possible to increase the wing span with less weight penalties as compared with conventional
airplanes and, thus, to increase the FW lift-to-drag (L=D) ratio.
An additional increment of the L=D ratio is provided due to the following factors inherent in
the FW configuration:

* higher Reynolds numbers on the wing with chords twice as large as those of the conventional
configuration;
* absence of a horizontal tail with corresponding friction and induced drag penalty;
* reduced static margin in the longitudinal channel and even small instability at cruise.

It was assumed that the total increase in L=D ratio of the FW configuration could be about
20% as against a conventional layout with load ratio close to the latter. So, there were serious
reasons for carrying out comprehensive studies on a large-capacity airplane of flying wing or close
to its configurations. The investigations carried out at TsAGI can be arbitrarily divided into three
stages:

* The baseline FW configuration was developed at the first stage. It formed the basis for
computational and experimental studies and definition of the requirements of the project.
* The second stage was dedicated to the development of three candidate concepts covering a
variety of possible configurations from updated conventional through intermediate to complete
FW configurations. In addition, for the purposes of comparison, a traditional airplane
configuration was developed for the same requirements.
 A.L. Bolsunovsky et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 193–219 195

* Detailed computational and experimental investigations are to be made at the third stage for
the most promising layout.

2. Preliminary studies

Using preliminary parametric studies as well as limited experimental investigations and some
considerations given below, the baseline configuration for a large-capacity airplane of an FW type
was developed (Fig. 2) [1]. It formed the basis for further computational and experimental
investigations.
The configuration corresponded to the preliminary concept with engines located over the rear
center section and fins arranged on wing tips. The configuration defined is a certain compromise
and involves such components of conventional designs as reduced nose and possibly rear fuselage
sections. The airplane was intended to carry 940 passengers in economy class for 10,000 km range
at a cruise Mach number of 0.8.

2.1. Wing configuration

2.1.1. Wing center section

The FW concept presupposes considerable dimensions of the wing center section where the
passenger cabin is housed. The wing with such a center section may have large front and rear
chord extensions. The center-section planform, leading-edge sweep, relative size of the front and
rear chord extensions greatly influence the behavior of moment characteristics at high angles of

Fig. 2. FW baseline configuration.

196 A.L. Bolsunovsky et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 193–219

Fig. 3. The investigated wing configurations.

attack. For tailless configurations these characteristics define to a large extent the feasibility of the
airplane.
Definition of a rational wing configuration was one of the main tasks in the experimental
investigations carried out at the first stage of the project. For this purpose three aerodynamic
models with wing span of about 1.6 m and center section of various shapes were tested in the
TsAGI’s low-speed wind tunnel. The results of those tests are presented in Fig. 3. Based on the
results obtained, the wing configurations with a large front chord extension were excluded from
consideration in favor of the wings with an enlarged rear extension, which, in addition to
satisfactory moment characteristics, provides sufficient inner volumes in the wing center section.
A number of contradictory factors affect the center-section span. Decrease of the center-section
span is beneficial from the standpoints of:
* decreasing wave drag;
* increasing the high-lift devices span;
* alleviating lateral and vertical g-loads acting upon passengers in airplane X-rotation;
* decreasing passenger path in emergency escape.
On the other hand, decrease of the center-section span results in:
* reduction of the wing portion with large structural depth and increase of wing weight;
* large difference in chords of neighboring sections, leading to a certain increase in induced drag;
* elongation of the passenger cabin and, as a consequence, widening of the center-of-gravity
(CG) range and increase in trim losses.
When analyzing the above contradictory factors, the basic value of the relative center-section
span was taken as Z% ¼ 0:22:

2.1.2. Outboard-wing parameters

The parameters of the main wing trapezoid were selected on the basis of aerodynamic and
weight calculations. The absolute wing span was not limited by the 80 m value, because it was
 A.L. Bolsunovsky et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 193–219 197

assumed that the wing tips would be deflected at rest and in taxing. The outboard wing span
should be sufficient to accommodate the control units. The wing panel taper ratio must be greater
than that of a conventional airplane to improve the stall characteristics. At first, fins were
mounted on the wing tips to achieve the winglets effect. Later on, it became clear that because of
such arrangement the critical flutter speed was reduced by more than 200 km/h and the fin was
located on the fuselage. For the FW configuration an optimal aspect ratio of the main wing
trapezoid is somewhat higher than for the conventional configuration owing to the large
structural depth of the center-wing section with lower cost to weight. At the first stage of studies
the following main trapezoid parameters were assumed: aspect ratio 10, taper ratio 0.4, leading
edge sweep 361.
As a whole, it was assumed that the functions and arrangement of the control units on the wing
would be identical to those for the FW XB-35 and YB-49 designed by Northrop in the 1940s.
Simple hinged flaps are installed close to the center-of-gravity position to minimize pitch-down
moment, which can be compensated by upward deflection of the trimming elevons at the wing tips
(Fig. 4). Besides, these tip elevon segments can be constructed as split rudders to provide extra
yaw control in the low-speed engine-out condition. A special aerodynamic half-model was tested
in wind tunnel to define the effectiveness of the split flaps more precisely. Mid-spanwise segments
are used as elevators and high-speed ailerons. Additional elevators are installed on the center-
section trailing edge.
Slats along the outboard wing occupy the wing leading edge.

Fig. 4. Control units.

198 A.L. Bolsunovsky et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 193–219

2.2. Static stability margin

Investigations into the problems relating to the reliability of a fly by-wire control system and
flight safety have indicated that the airplane in takeoff and landing regimes is able to have the
CL
degree of static stability close to zero (Cm p0), while in cruise flight the instability should be
limited by Cm p0:03: This restriction requires that the configuration considered previously should
CL

be revised. Since, unlike the conventional configuration, it is impossible to achieve a specified

stability margin for the FW by selecting a wing position relative to the fuselage, the main way is to
select the location of engines on the airplane.
The configuration with engines arranged over the wing tailing edge considered early at TsAGI
[3] as well as the layout described by Liebeck in Ref. [4] have a high static instability not meeting
the requirement Cm CL
p0:03:
Therefore, in the present investigations we considered the configuration shown above (Fig. 4)
with engines arranged on pylons under the wing that is typical for conventional configuration
airplanes.

2.3. The type and arrangement of the powerplant

Various options of engine arrangement and types of powerplants were analyzed, and along with
turbofans, propfans were also considered. In this case a cruise Mach number was limited by the
value 0.78–0.80. With the aim of increasing efficiency, the engines were located within stagnant
flow over the trailing edge of the center-wing section on the pylons. Such an arrangement was
considered preferable from the standpoint of reducing noise in the passenger cabin and increasing
the passenger safety in failure of rotating elements. It was supposed that the utilization of
propfans might appear an important feature and an advantage just of the FW configuration,
because it is difficult to locate propfan engines in such a manner on a conventional configuration.
To define the efficiency of the propfan powerplant mounted over the rear wing section,
computational and experimental investigations were carried out. The experimental facility, which
comprised a propeller device and wing section, was specially designed for testing in a large
subsonic wind tunnel. The test results proved the availability of favorable interference between the
wing and the propeller, which further contributes to the low fuel consumption of the propfans.
However on closer examination of the problem it was decided to abandon the
propfan powerplant and the engine arrangement over the rear wing in general for a number of
reasons:
* to increase the FW competitiveness, a decision was made to increase the cruise Mach number
up to M ¼ 0:85 (propfans are inefficient at this speed);
* for over-the-wing engine arrangement it is problematic to compensate nose-down moment due
to engine thrust without severe losses of lift in takeoff regimes;
* for rear engine arrangement the airplane has an unacceptably high instability in the lateral
channel or, in any case, excessively wide scatter of CG positions at different variants of airplane
loading;
* for engine arrangement in a row, failure of one of them can cause a successive failure of all
others.
 A.L. Bolsunovsky et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 193–219 199

2.4. Structure concept

Main features of the FW passenger airplane are associated with the placement of the passenger
cabin in the center-wing section and the way of taking up excessive pressure acting upon the cabin
walls. Calculations carried out have revealed that rather massive upper and lower panels of the
center-wing section are able to carry both pressure and bending loads. Flat highly loaded panels,
separating undercarriage bays from the pressure cabin, also take up the undercarriage loads and
pressure loads simultaneously without a significant addition of structural materials (Figs 5 and 6).

Fig. 5. Center-wing section layout.

Fig. 6. Center section, rear part.

200 A.L. Bolsunovsky et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 193–219

Fig. 7. DOC comparison.

For the nose and rear parts of the center-wing section, where aerodynamic loads are small
enough, the main factor defining the thickness of flat three layer panels and their weight are
aerodynamic constraints on the value of allowable wing surface deformation. A concept of
separately taking up the loads with flat panels absorbing external loads and cylindrical shells
absorbing cabin pressure may appear rational for these zones (Figs 5 and 6).

2.5. Rational airplane size

When defining a rational airplane size (passenger capacity), fuel efficiency and DOC were used
as a figure of merit. It has been revealed that a rational number of passengers can be 750 seats in a
three-class layout (950 seats in all-economy layout). With 650–700 passengers, the conventional
airplane operating costs were obtained close to minimal (Fig. 7). The length of a conventional
airplane is about 80 mFa limiting value from the airport standpoints. Based on preliminary
estimates it was assumed that the FW airplane of such a passenger capacity could meet FAR-25
with respect to safety and is compatible with existing airport infrastructure.

2.6. Experimental investigations of the baseline configuration

On the basis of the preliminary studies an aerodynamic model of an airplane intended for a
cruise Mach number of 0.8 was designed and tested in TsAGI’s large transonic wind tunnel.
The test results validated the possibility of achieving a very high cruise L=D ratio for realistic
FW configurations, 20–25% higher than that of conventional counterparts. At the same time,
favorable lift and moment characteristics at high-angles-of-attack regimes have been demon-
strated.
 A.L. Bolsunovsky et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 193–219 201

3. Current investigations

3.1. Definition of requirements

Taking into account the results obtained at the preliminary stage together with collaborators
from AIRBUS INDUSTRIE new project specifications and the level of basic technologies were
defined.

Main specifications:
Nominal range 13,700 km (7400 n.m.)
Passenger capacity in 3-class layout 750 seats
Cruise Mach number 0.85
Takeoff field length, ISA, sea level +151C 3350 m
Condition:
ACN 65
Standards FAR-25

3.1.1. Technology level

Although it is unlikely that the airplane will be put into operation until 2015–2020, that is, the
time when the problem of creating a high-capacity aircraft generation following the A3XX may
become urgent, it was decided to employ current advanced technologies used for aircraft being
designed at present.
This approach corresponds to the following technical solutions:

* basic structural materialsFaluminum alloys;

* limited application of composite materials;
* low degree of static instability (B3%) at cruise, neutral or stable airplane at takeoff and
landing;
* engines which are now under development;
* current infrastructure of airports.

Also defined were critical technologies making the greatest impact on the feasibility of an FW
concept:

* aerodynamic configuration;
* airframe/engine interference;
* systems providing stability, controllability and flight safety;
* center-wing section structure;
* aeroelasticity and flutter;
* passenger cabin arrangement meeting FAR-25 with respect to emergency passenger
escape;
* compatibility with airport infrastructures.
202 A.L. Bolsunovsky et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 193–219

3.2. Development of alternative configurations

At the preliminary stage the emphasis was placed on searching for main design approaches,
defining critical technologies as well as on the test verification of aerodynamic performance of the
accepted layouts. At the same time the developed baseline configuration was, in some sense, of a
conceptual nature because design problems associated with meeting the airport requirements and
the FAR-25 standards relating to the airplane operation had not been examined in detail. At this
stage, great attention was paid to the following aspects:
* number, location and structure of emergency exits;
* waterline position in ditching;
* possible charts of embarkment and deployment in standard and emergency situation;
* level of comfort in passenger cabins;
* arrangement of service compartments (galleys, coat rooms, crew berths, etc.);
* cabin floor inclination at cruise;
* arrangement and service of cargo bays;
* landing gear wheel base and track;
* airplane turn on taxiways;
* airfield pavement loads from undercarriage;
* engine arrangement;
* operational CG range at different modes of airplane loading, positioning and capacity of fuel
tanks, fuel usage sequence;
* stretched versions possibility;
* possibility of cargo and combi versions.
To investigate the design problem more thoroughly, a decision was made to consider a wide
range of possible configurations, from updated conventional through some hybrid layouts to a
‘‘pure’’ FW. Besides, for comparison purposes a conventional configuration for 750 seats was also
developed. Four developed configurations are as follows:
Configuration 1. Conventional configuration: It is a classical configuration with a traditional tail
(Figs. 8 and 9). The passengers are accommodated in the fuselage at two levels.
Configuration 2. Hybrid layout (IWB): This configuration has been evolved out of the baseline
layout (Fig. 2). It is an integral configuration combining a shortened fuselage and a wing with
enlarged center section. We call such hybrid scheme the integrated wing–body (IWB) scheme [3].
About 40% of the total passengers are accommodated in the center-wing section. The rest of the
passengers are placed on two decks in the fuselage. The general view of the IWB configuration is
shown in Figs. 10 and 11. The arrangement is presented in Fig. 12. The main features are as
follows:
* integration of the wing/fuselage structure;
* least relative center-wing thickness with large absolute structural depth;
* availability of windows in the first-class and business-class cabins;
* distribution of emergency exits over two levels (upper and main passenger cabins), which
simplifies their arrangement;
* stretched versions possibility.
 A.L. Bolsunovsky et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 193–219 203

Fig. 8. Conventional configuration general view.

Configuration 3. Lifting-body configuration: The configuration has a center-wing-fuselage of

large width, where the passengers are accommodated at one level, while the lower deck houses the
service and cargo compartments (Figs 13–15). The main features are as follows:

* absence of the upper passenger cabin deck, which significantly simplifies the airplane
maintenance;
* large volumes of containers in a cargo version;
* shift of the galleys to the lower deck which makes it possible to serve them and make passenger
embarkment and deployment simultaneously;
* short undercarriage legs yet enabling takeoff without angle-of-attack limitations;
* large control surface on the trailing edge of the shaped center-wing-fuselage, the effectiveness of
which does not depend significantly on structure elasticity.

Configuration 4. Pure ‘‘flying wing’’: This configuration corresponds most closely to the
definition ‘‘flying wing’’. Here all the passengers are accommodated in an enlarged wide center
section at one level (Figs 16–18). The main features are as follows:

* absence of the upper passenger cabin deck, which significantly simplifies the airplane
maintenance;
* smooth concatenation of wing consoles and center section.
204 A.L. Bolsunovsky et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 193–219

Fig. 9. Conventional configuration layout.

A.L. Bolsunovsky et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 193–219 205

Fig. 10. Hybrid configuration general view.

Fig. 11. Hybrid configuration perspective view.

206 A.L. Bolsunovsky et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 193–219

Fig. 12. Hybrid configuration layout.

3.3. Comparison of alternative variants of airplane

The studies carried out previously made it possible to reveal the FW peculiarities, to elaborate
the requirements of an advanced airplane of high passenger capacity and to develop a number of
alternative layouts. For further detailed analysis it is reasonable to choose the most advanced
configuration with the best characteristics among the layouts under consideration. The layouts
were compared on the basis of the following technical and operating data:
* aerodynamic efficiency;
* weight efficiency;
A.L. Bolsunovsky et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 193–219 207

Fig. 13. Lifting fuselage configuration general view.

Fig. 14. Lifting fuselage configuration perspective view.

208 A.L. Bolsunovsky et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 193–219

Fig. 15. Lifting fuselage configuration layout.

A.L. Bolsunovsky et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 193–219 209

Fig. 16. Flying-wing configuration general view.

Fig. 17. Flying-wing configuration perspective view.

210 A.L. Bolsunovsky et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 193–219

Fig. 18. Flying-wing configuration layout.

* fuel efficiency;
* operational characteristics:
* cabin floor slope at cruise;
* maximum distance to emergency exits;
 A.L. Bolsunovsky et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 193–219 211

Table 1
Some geometric parameters of alternative configurations
Conventional IWB Lifting body FW
Wing span (m) 84 100 100 100
Airplane length (m) 78 61.7 51 50
Airplane height (m) 26.5 22.6 14.5 15.7
Aria of basic trapeze (m2) 833 1089 1083 1020
Wing planform area (m2) 867 1588 1670 1651
Wing trapezoid aspect ratio 8.5 9.2 9.23 9.8
Wing aspect ratio 8.17 6.3 6.0 6.06
Airplane wetted area (m2) 4100 4080 4040 3860

Fig. 19. Aerodynamic efficiency.

* availability of windows in passenger cabins;

* number of cargo containers;
* operating CG range;
* stretching capability.
Some geometric parameters of alternative configurations are presented in Table 1.
As it is seen in Fig. 19, the configurations No. 2, 3, 4 (IWB layout, lifting body configuration
and pure FW) have actually equal aerodynamic efficiency at M ¼ 0:8: However, due to small
relative center-wing section thickness, the IWB layout has less wave drag and, as a consequence,
higher L=D-ratio at cruise M ¼ 0:85:
212 A.L. Bolsunovsky et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 193–219

Fig. 20. Gross takeoff weight comparison.

Fig. 21. Empty operated weight per one passenger comparison.

3.3.1. Weight efficiency

Minimum takeoff weight of the airplane (Fig. 20) and operating empty weight per one
passenger (Fig. 21) may be used as the criteria of airplane weight efficiency and price. It follows
from Figs 20 and 21 that the IWB and FW configurations are superior in these criteria.
Due to high aerodynamic and weight efficiency the IWB configuration is superior to other
configurations in fuel consumption per one passenger-kilometer (Fig. 22).

3.3.2. Operating and other characteristics

Generalizing the results of the investigations carried out, it may be concluded that all but one of
the configurations considered could meet the requirements of FAR-25. The FW configuration (see
Figs 16–18) with two engines out of four mounted on the rear of the center-wing section is
 A.L. Bolsunovsky et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 193–219 213

Fig. 22. Fuel consumption per one passenger comparison.

Table 2
Comparison of operating and other characteristics
Conventional IWB Lifting body FW
Cabin floor slope (degree) 1 4 4.5 4.5
Maximum distance to emergency exit (m) 11 11 13.2 11.5
All exits work 16.6 22 25 28
50% exits work
Windows availability in passenger cabins
First class + + + 
Business class + +  
Tourist class + 7 7 
Number of LD-3 cargo containers 42 40 43 32
Center of gravity range (%)  32 37 30
Possibility of the modifications creation + 7  

unacceptable due to impermissibly high instability in takeoff and landing regimes. Besides, the
emergency exits of this configuration are located lower down the waterline (Table 2).
For further investigations, in accordance with the criteria adopted, the IWB configuration
(Figs 10–12) was selected, which:
* includes all the peculiarities related to a configuration of an FW type;
* is the most thoroughly developed as a logical successor of the baseline layout (Fig. 2), enabling
the use of experimental results of the preliminary studies;
* has many common features with a conventional aircraft in operation and production and
satisfactorily solves the emergency evacuation problem;
* is superior in technical and economic criteria.
214 A.L. Bolsunovsky et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 193–219

4. IWB scheme characteristics

4.1. Basic data of the scheme

Basic data of the scheme are presented in Table 3. The relative dimensions of the normal and
IWB schemes are shown in Fig. 23.

4.2. Center-of-gravity range

On the basis of studying possible variants of the control system it was decided to assume static
instability of o3% MAC in the longitudinal channel at cruise. The corresponding L=D-ratio
decrease will be no more than 0.5 as compared to the absolute value, which is realized at a very high
instability level of about 12–14%. In takeoff and landing regimes the airplane must be neutral or
statically stable. The allowable CG range for the configuration chosen and the control unit
characteristics adopted should not exceed 6–6.5% of MAC in takeoff and landing regimes. It should
be noted that the MAC is related to the total wing area with the center-wing section and exceeds
more than twice the MAC of a conventional airplane, so the pointed cg range corresponds to the
CG range of 12–15% for conventional configuration. But even if the stated notion is taken into
account, the allowable CG range will be lower for FW than for current conventional airplanes.
The CG range was computed for all stages of flight for the following variants of the airplane loading:
* maximum number of passengers in three classes+luggage;
* maximum number of passengers in three classes+maximum cargo;
* maximum loading of aircraft (one-class layout of cabin with increased passenger density+
maximum cargo);
* 25% of passengers in the first half of compartments of each class;
* 25% of passengers in the rear half of compartments of each class;
* ferry version.

Table 3
Basic data of IWB scheme
Wing span in flight and on runway (m) 100
Wing span at rest and in taxiing (m) 79
Airplane length (m) 62
Height (m) 22.6
Capacity, 3-class, pax. 750
Max. capacity (economy class), pax. 975
Maximum takeoff weight (t) 572
Maximum landing weight (t) 437
Operating empty weight (t) 301
Maximum payload (t) 114
Fuel capacity (t) 280
Typical fuel per flight (including fuel reserve) (t) 199
Range (n.m.) 7650
Cruise Mach number 0.85
Takeoff field length (SL, ISA+10) (m) 3350
 A.L. Bolsunovsky et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 193–219 215

Fig. 23. External dimensions of IWB and conventional configuration comparison.

The computations carried out have revealed that with fuel transfer taken into consideration
the resulting CG positions are within the allowable range at all stages of flight. The important
factor enabling CG requirements to be met is the lesser length of the FW cabin and cargo bay as
compared with conventional configurations.
In selecting design solutions providing a required CG range, the effect of aeroelasticity on the
position of aerodynamic center must be thoroughly considered (Fig. 24).
The CG control is fulfilled mainly by assigning the order of fuel utilization and (or) fuel
transfer. A sufficiently large volume of outer wing box and the availability of the small fuel tanks
in the center-wing section make it possible to solve this problem properly.

4.3. Cabin floor slope at cruise

The floor of the passenger cabin of a conventional airplane at cruise is close to a horizontal
position. Such a floor inclination is provided by wing settings relative to fuselage of 3–41. For FW
concept with positive pitch-moment deficit a large incidence of the layout is favorable from the
standpoint of high L=D-ratio.
Wing-fuselage inclination results in an inadmissible reduction of the passenger cabin, and
cannot be actually more than 11. Thus, the cabin floor inclination will be high enough B3–3.51 at
cruise. During flight this circumstance may present some problems in moving food trolleys whose
216 A.L. Bolsunovsky et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 193–219

Fig. 24. Variation of the center of gravity.

weight is up to 100 kg. In the considered variant of the airplane the food trolleys are arranged in
the front part of the passenger cabin in order to push the loaded trolleys down.

4.4. Emergency evacuation

In Figs 25–27 the emergency exits for passenger evacuation on ground and water are shown.
According to FAR-25-800, the emergency evacuation during the airplane landing on ground
requires that no more than 50% of exits should be used. In this case it is customary to use the exits
arranged along one side of the airplane. The FW airplane passenger cabin is significantly wider
than that of a conventional airplane and this may increase the distance to the exit. Thus, the
maximum distance from the farthest row of seats to the exit does not exceed 16.5 m (see Fig. 25)
A.L. Bolsunovsky et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 193–219 217

Fig. 25. Emergency exits in IWB configuration.

218 A.L. Bolsunovsky et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 193–219

Fig. 26. Emergency evacuations on land (IWB configuration).

Fig. 27. Emergency evacuations on water (IWB configuration).

 A.L. Bolsunovsky et al. / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 193–219 219

for conventional airplanes, while for the FW under consideration this distance amounts to 22 m.
In order to not allow the increase of time for emergency escape, the following design solutions are
used. The number of three-seat blocks making the exit difficult is brought down to a minimum.
The seat-block pitch is increased and as a main solution the aisle width is increased almost one
and a half times (from 0.506 to 0.72 m). Such an increased width corresponds to a new standard
for advanced airplanes being in consideration at present.

5. Conclusion

A number of investigations on defining the configuration and possible characteristics of an FW

type airplane with super high passenger capacity were conducted. The level of technologies used in
the project corresponded to the near-term perspective. The outcomes confirmed preliminary
suppositions on the possibility of achieving higher technical and economical characteristics of FW
configuration airplane as compared with conventional airplanes. In the authors’ opinion, the
hybrid layout (or integrated wing–body scheme) which represents an intermediate link between a
‘‘pure’’ FW and a conventional airplane is the best competitive concept. The IWB scheme retains
a primary advantage of FWFhigh L=D-ratio (L=DB24.5 at M ¼ 0:85) and at the same time
could meet all main paragraphs of FAR-25.

References

[1] Byushgens GS. Aviation in XXI century. Symposium on ‘‘Aeronautical Technology in XXI Century’’, Moscow,
September 1989.
[3] Denisov VE, Bolsunovsky AL, Buzoverya NP, Gurevich BI. Recent investigations of the very large passenger
Blended-Wing–Body aircraft. ICAS 98-4.10.3, 1998.