Aerospace Science and Technology 43 (2015) 96110

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Aerospace Science and Technology

www.elsevier.com/locate/aescte

The aerodynamic design evaluation of a blended-wing-body

conguration
Payam Dehpanah a,1 , Amir Nejat b,,2
a
b

K.N. Toosi University of Technology, P.O. Box 16765-3381, Tehran, Iran

University of Tehran, P.O. Box 11155-4563, Tehran, Iran

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 11 May 2014
Received in revised form 18 February 2015
Accepted 19 February 2015
Available online 24 February 2015
Keywords:
Blended wing body
Future airliners
Computational aerodynamics
Aircraft design
Sequential airframes

a b s t r a c t
Inherent aerodynamic potential and environmental benets of the blended-wing-body conguration
make it an appropriate candidate for the future airliners. This article studies an initial scaled blendedwing-body airframe using computational analyses in early conceptual design stage. Then, a modied
airframe is developed based on evaluation of the initial airframe. Eventually, a full-scaled high-capacity
blended-wing-body conguration is proposed for a long-range mission. In assessment of the initial
airframe, its aerodynamic coecients are obtained for a range of angle of attacks based on ReynoldsAveraged NavierStokes simulations. The second airframe is designed using conceptual design approach
with a typical mission prole, and it is modied based on evaluation of the rst airframe. The sequential
aerodynamic investigation of the airframes with emphasizing on geometric parameters facilitates the
design methodology at its early stage. In the second airframe, the appropriate space for 800 passengers
is provided, and geometric parameters are changed according to the mission prole. The current design
philosophy allows utilization of maximum aerodynamic potential for designing a blended-wing-body
conguration.
2015 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The rst blended-wing-body airliner, called the Stout Batwing,
was designed by William Bushnell Stout in 1926 [35]. He was
promoting his design with an unorthodox conguration. Furthermore, the Junkers G38 super jumbo was ying with capacity of 34
passengers in its central body in 1926. Another example of such
a conguration was the Ford Trimotor airliner which was ying
with 9-passenger capacity at the same time [11]. In early 1940,
the X Minor was designed as a research model for studying combination of wing and body in a large airliner [3]. Following this
further, the Burnelli CBY-3 with its airfoil liked central body ied
in 1944. It was designed with a twin boom for improving the stability in ight [30]. At the end of the World War II, Horton brothers
designed the Ho 229, which was a true ying wing conguration [23]. Later, Jack Northrop developed the YB-49 [34]. Nowadays,
NASA and the Boeing Company are developing the blended-wingbody conguration as a commercial transports for the future [16].

*
1
2

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: nejat@ut.ac.ir (A. Nejat).
Aerospace Engineering Department.
Assistant Professor, School of Mechanical Engineering.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2015.02.015
1270-9638/ 2015 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

After emergence of rectangular-shaped body and then tubeshaped body, wings and cylindrical body have become two main
characters of commercial ights since early 20th century. Aircraft
manufactures remained loyal to them, and passengers, more or
less, entered the cylindrical body to travel around the world. At
the time of designing the B747, it has been believed a typical
conguration with cylindrical body has reached its maximum performance, and further development for commercial transport could
be a challenge [15]. However, the Boeing Company came up with
an innovative idea which was a practical substitute for addressing
real requirements of the future commercial transport in 1998, in
a conference in Reno, Nevada. Accordingly, the blended-wing-body
conguration ocially came into existence for the future generation [17]. In general, aircraft congurations are classied according
to conventional, blended wing body, hybrid ying wing, and true
ying wing. In comparison with ying wing conguration with no
central body also known as tailless xed wing, in the BWB conguration, passenger cabins, cargo, and equipment are located in
central structure of the wings and body. In other words, the BWB
conguration combines features of the conventional conguration
with the ying wing conguration. It has advantages in terms of
performance, and construction in comparison with the conventional conguration. This conguration exploits thick airfoil-liked
body in the center, and it accommodates cargo and passengers

P. Dehpanah, A. Nejat / Aerospace Science and Technology 43 (2015) 96110

97

Nomenclature
t /c
C D0
C L max
C 0
b
AR w
Y
i
CR
x, y , z
CL
CD
CM
L/D
S wet
C L
S ref
S exposed
F
C D0
Cp
K

thickness-to-chord ratio
minimum drag coecient
maximum lift coecient
zero-angle-of-attack lift coecient
wing span . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m
wetted aspect ratio (S wet / S ref )
mean aerodynamic chord location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m
angle of incidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
root chord . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m
streamwise, spanwise, and vertical coordinates
lift coecient
drag coecient
pitching moment coecient
lift-to-drag ratio
wetted area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m2
lift coecient curve slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . rad1
reference wing area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m2
exposed wing area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m2
fuselage lift factor
parasite drag coecient
pressure coecient
induced drag factor

Acronyms
AEROPP
CFD
RANS
SA
AR
MAC
AoA

aerodynamic research on passenger plane

computation uid dynamics
Reynolds-Averaged NavierStokes
SpalartAlmaras
aspect ratio
mean aerodynamic chord
angle of attack

in the center with low compressibility drag. Meanwhile, it reduces total drag comparing with the conventional congurations
because its airfoil-liked body with no tail is blended smoothly
with outboard wings. Consequently, it increases lift-to-drag ratio and decreases fuel consumption for a long-range high-capacity
missions [17]. Moreover, those advantages are expanding on economical fuel consumption, reliability, maintenance period, and low
cost for large-scale production [2].
There are several technical advantages in the BWB conguration. Among them, effective spanwise lift distribution is intended
to be obtained by using a wide airfoil-liked body. Therefore, entire
airframe in this conguration play an effective role in lift generation that improves economical fuel consumption. Meanwhile, this
conguration decreases aerodynamic load on outboard wings because of big central chord that bears major part of the span loading [31]. In addition, because of the biggest chord in central body,
it needs low lift coecient to bear an elliptical spanwise load distribution. Therefore, central spanwise location can be thicken to
acquire required space for accommodating passengers and cargo
without large compressibility drag penalty. In this conguration,
most trapezoidal area of planform is covered by the wings, which
decreases wing area, and consequently the skin friction drag. Furthermore, shape of the airframe relatively weakens shock waves
over the wings and body, and also subsonic ow region behind
the shock waves provides appropriate area for engine installation.
Besides, its low and effective load coecient eliminates needs for
complex high lift devices because of trim effect. Therefore, it only
needs leading edge slots in outboard wings and simple fowler ap
along with elevons, which combines functionalities of elevator and
aileron.

Re
GPS
ANT
c.g.
FAR

Reynolds number
global positioning system
antenna
centre of gravity
federal aviation regulation

Greek symbols

0 L
LE
0.25C
0.5C

maxle

angle of attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
zero-lift angle of attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
leading-edge wing sweep angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
quarter-chord wing sweep angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
half-chord wing sweep angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
twist angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
dihedral angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
taper ratio
sweep angle in maximum t /c location . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
airfoil eciency
Mach number parameter

Super-/subscripts
L
D
M
0
w
R
C
ref
LE
maxle

lift
drag
pitching moment
zero angle of attack
wetted
root
chord
reference
leading edge
maximum t /c location from leading edge

In central body of this conguration, usable space accommodates passenger cabins, galleys, equipped restrooms. The least possible wetted area for this volume is obtained in shape of sphere.
However, the sphere is not aerodynamically appropriate. It is only
usable when it attens out to a disk. Therefore, disk-liked body
decreases total wetted area in this conguration, which has low
compressibility drag in cruise ight condition [15]. Further, blending the body with the wings in addition of adding an elliptical
nose in front of the conguration completes a commercial transport BWB conguration. Meanwhile, engines are connected to the
aft portion of central body. Therefore, because of their vertical distance from neutral point, they need to be considered in balancing
the conguration around the lateral axis.
Several researchers around the globe are investigating the
blended-wing-body conguration from different points of view.
Among them, Liebeck et al. introduced the BWB conguration as
a subsonic commercial transport in 1998. They compared it with
conventional conguration, studied its advantages as the future
airliner, and performed a multidisciplinary planform optimization
for improving its aerodynamic performance [1417,25]. Roman
et al. [31] aerodynamically studied the BWB conguration. They
used a multidisciplinary design and optimization technique on
its planform for increasing its cruise speed. Kuntawala et al. [13]
performed a series of aerodynamic shape optimizations for improving spanwise lift distribution on a BWB conguration with a
short range mission. In addition, Reist and Zingg [29] investigated
a series of multipoint shape optimizations on a BWB conguration using Euler and RANS simulations. Wakayama et al. [3741]
recongured a BWB aircraft using a multidisciplinary design and
optimization technique. Lyu and Martins [18,19] studied a BWB

98

P. Dehpanah, A. Nejat / Aerospace Science and Technology 43 (2015) 96110

conguration using a robust high-delity aerodynamic shape optimization technique. Furthermore, Mader and Martins [20] investigated aerodynamic shape optimization with stability constraint for
a similar conguration. Hileman et al. [7,8] studied a BWB conguration for achieving a silent fuel-ecient conguration. Diedrich
et al. [4] investigated a multidisciplinary design and optimization
technique of a silent BWB conguration. Moreover, Sargeant et al.
[33] studied static stability and lift distribution of a BWB conguration with leading-edge curving. Bradley [2] investigated sizing
methodology for a BWB conguration. Mukhopadhyay et al. [21,22]
studied structural design of fuselage in a BWB conguration.
In this article, a simple one-percent airframe model of BWB
conguration is designed and then studied. The second airframe is
developed as a full-scaled conguration for a typical mission prole. The rst airframe is obtained through extruding an S-shaped
airfoil along the span. Possible modications are introduced for
designing the second airframe after evaluation of the rst airframe. In this paper, design methodology for both airframes are
explained briey at the rst. Then, aerodynamic performance of
the rst airframe is studied. A possible approach for meeting pitch
trim and obtaining proper static margin are described. Later, design constraints, like required space for 800 passengers, are studied according to a mission prole. The second airframe with its
conceptual approach, baseline geometry, interior arrangement, and
control surfaces are introduced. Eventually, the rst and the second
airframes are compared, and at the end, the conclusion is stated.
2. The design methodology
The rst BWB airframe is obtained simply through extruding an
S-shaped airfoil along the span. Provisionally, for opening possible
future research opportunity, one-percent scaled airframe is considered at initial conceptual design layout. Meanwhile, because aft
portion of the central body is appropriate for engine installation
and total pitching moment of the airframe needs to be trimmed in
cruise condition, an airfoil with S-shaped chamber line is chosen.
The second BWB airframe is designed based on computational
aerodynamic analyses of the rst airframe. Meanwhile, aircraft
conceptual design approach is used for designing the full-scaled
conguration. Accordingly, mission prole includes main and reserved sections for this airframe. In addition, the interior arrangement and control surfaces are being sized. The modied airframe
is obtained with arranging S-shaped airfoils from central body toward the span, and then smoothly converting their camber line
into form of supercritical curvature near the outboard wing.
3. The rst airframe
In this section, design procedure, including conceptual design
approach and baseline geometry, for the rst airframe are introduced. The rst airframe is assessed using computational uid dynamics. The computational aerodynamic assessment, grid over the
baseline geometry, and implemented computational schemes are
also discussed here. Meanwhile, longitudinal stability and pitching
moments of the rst airframe is investigated afterward. At the end,
usable space is discussed as a major design constraint.
3.1. Conceptual design approach
Typical mission prole includes takeoff, climb, cruise, loiter, approach and landing segments. The mission prole is schematically
shown in Fig. 1. Furthermore, range, cruise speed, and altitude are
stated in Table 1, and static weight estimation is demonstrated
in Table 2. Additionally, Table 3 illustrates aerodynamic performance. For the weight estimation, airframes structure is assumed
to be constructed from composite material. Meanwhile, geometric

Fig. 1. Mission prole of the rst airframe.

Table 1
Cruise ight condition of the rst AEROPP airframe.
Cruise conditions

Unit

Value

Range
Altitude
Speed

km
m
km/h

90
1800
100

Table 2
Weight estimations of the rst AEROPP airframe.
Components

Weight (kg)

Control surfaces, jacks and accessories

Structure and frame including ribs and spars
Servo motor, propeller and speed controller
Drive system
Battery (Li Polymer)
Avionic including transmitter, data link, GPS, ANT

0.35
0.65
0.15
0.04
0.17
0.14

Total weight

1.50

Table 3
Aerodynamic performance of the rst AEROPP airframe.
Parameters

Unit

Value

C L /

rad1

0.0304
4.5
0.0148
0.801
0.167

0L

C D0
C L max
C L

Table 4
Geometric parameters of the rst AEROPP airframe.
Parameters

Unit

Value

(t /c )airfoil

m
m2

m
m

0.1
0.93
0.0493
8.35
3.1553
0.14
0.13
33.42
30.01
26.6
2.5
2.5
2
0.18
0.227

b
S ref
AR
AR w
MAC
Y

LE
0.25C
0.5C

CR

parameters of the airframe are demonstrated in Table 4. In this

airframe, Selig S5010 airfoil has been chosen for extrusion along
the span. This airfoil is designed for low Reynolds number. Its zero
pitching moment coecient is close to zero, which is appropriate
for longitudinal stability of the airframe.

P. Dehpanah, A. Nejat / Aerospace Science and Technology 43 (2015) 96110

99

Fig. 2. The rst baseline airframe.

3.2. Baseline geometry

The rst baseline geometry, as already mentioned, is obtained
through extruding the Selig S5010 airfoil along the span with respect to a planform. The rst baseline airframe is illustrated in
Fig. 2, and also technical drawing of the planform is shown in three
views in Fig. 3. The airfoil-liked body is connected smoothly with
the wings, and they are connected to a winglet in wingtips. The
winglet improves lift distribution by weakening the wingtip vortices [5]. They are important in reducing induced drag. For this
reason, they are included in the rst baseline airframe. For sizing
the winglets, vertical tail volume coecient is used.
3.3. Computational grid
A hybrid grid is used for RANS simulations. This grid is combining a structured boundary layer block with an unstructured block
surrounding the boundary layer. The unstructured block includes
tetrahedral and pyramid cells. The pyramid cells are connecting
hexahedral cells in the structured boundary layer block to the
tetrahedral cells in the unstructured block. The boundary layer
block is shown in Fig. 4. For the structured boundary layer block,
nodes over the surfaces are distributed in streamwise direction,
and then, they are extruded in normal direction. For improving orthogonality of the hexahedral cells, from 95% of the chord toward
sharp trailing edge of the airframe, surface mesh is extruded separately. The cylindrical unstructured block is illustrated in Fig. 5.
The pyramid cells are the interface between the hexahedral and
the tetrahedral cells. However, in the trailing edge, due to highaspect-ratio hexahedral cells in initial layout of the boundary layer
block, non-conformal grid interface is used instead of the pyramid interface. In case of pyramid interface, the high-aspect-ratio
hexahedral cells generates high-aspect-ratio pyramid interface in

Fig. 3. Technical drawing of the rst AEROPP airframe.

trailing edge of the boundary layer block. Consequently, the highaspect-ratio pyramid interface reduces the mesh quality affecting
the grid convergence. On the contrary, the non-conformal grid interface uses hanging nodes, and connects the hexahedral and the
tetrahedral cells without damaging the mesh quality. The nonconformal grid interface is shown in Fig. 5. The hybrid grid has
3.046M cells including 1.6M tetrahedral cells, 1.4M hexahedral
cells, and 46K pyramid cells.
3.4. CFD solver
The Reynolds-Averaged NavierStokes equations with Spalart
Almaras turbulence model is used for the simulations. The oneequation SpalartAlmaras turbulence model is chosen because of
anticipated class of ow regime and shape of the airframe [9]. The
simulations are iterated in 200,000 Reynolds number, in which the
incompressible solver includes the SIMPLEC algorithm for pressurevelocity coupling with second-order scheme and the GreenGauss
gradient evaluation. Meanwhile, with respect to different ight
conditions, simulations are performed in different angles of attacks
ranging from 16 to 25 .
3.5. Aerodynamic performance
The computational aerodynamic analysis includes variation of
lift coecient, drag coecient, pitching moment coecient, lift-

100

P. Dehpanah, A. Nejat / Aerospace Science and Technology 43 (2015) 96110

Fig. 5. Non-conformal grid interface illustration in (a) winglet, (b) trailing edge.
Fig. 4. Structured boundary layer block illustration in (a) nose, (b) winglets,
(c) winglet tip, (d) trailing edge.

to-drag ratio, and center of pressure location with angle of attack.

Moreover, distribution of spanwise lift coecient, cross-sectional
area, and pressure are also discussed.
3.5.1. Lift coecient
The lift coecient variation with angle of attack is demonstrated in Fig. 6. As the angle of attack increases, the lift coecient
shows smooth variation. Up to 24 , no stall behavior is observed
for this airframe in this interval. Among the geometric parameters, low Aspect Ratio and high sweepback angle are responsible
for this stall behavior. This issue shows their inappropriateness in
the low-Reynolds-number ow regime for this airframe [1].
In general, the BWB conguration introduces high lift-to-drag
ratio in a cruise ight condition. The high lift-to-drag ratio increases aerodynamic performance of an airframe. In the rst airframe, desired lift coecient is not satised in the cruise ight
condition with zero angle of attack. Typically, angle of zero lift
is approximately equal to percent camber of an airfoil. In this
airframe, the angle of zero lift is 4.5 . In addition to this approximation, semi-empirical equation also estimates subsonic lift-curve
slope prior to drag-divergent Mach number, which is stated in
Eq. (1) [28].

C L =

2 AR


2+

4+

AR2 2

(1 +

(
tan2 maxle

S exposed
S ref

)( F )

(1)

Fig. 6. Lift coecient variation with AoA.

In this equation, maxle indicates sweep angle of a wing in chord

location with maximum thickness-to-chord ratio, and is airfoil
eciency factor, which is ratio of lift curve slope to Mach number parameter for an airfoil. Furthermore, S exposed indicates wing
reference area less the parts of the wing covered by the fuselage,
and F is lift factor of the fuselage. The lift curve slope of the airframe, according to this equation, is directly affected by the Aspect
Ratio, which means the Aspect Ratio of the rst airframe is not

P. Dehpanah, A. Nejat / Aerospace Science and Technology 43 (2015) 96110

101

Fig. 7. Spanwise lift coecient and thickness-to-chord ratio distribution.

adequate. Thereupon, the second airframe is expected to have a

planform with higher Aspect Ratio to satisfy a high lift-to-drag ratio.
3.5.2. Spanwise lift coecient
The spanwise lift distribution is demonstrated in Fig. 7 in
cruise ight condition, and also thickness-to-chord ratio distribution across the entire airframe is shown in this gure. The maximum spanwise lift coecient is obtained in 0.15 m far from the
center line, in which the lift coecient is reduced slightly toward
the central locations. The slight reduction of lift coecient in this
portion is because of non-gradual interconnection in trailing edge
between swept forward body and swept backward wing. The nongradual interconnection causes high-pressure ow in lower side
escapes toward low-pressure ow in upper side. Consequently, it
generates vortices, extract energy from ow over the wing, and increases induced drag [10,12]. Therefore, proper spanwise lift distribution and smoother interconnection between the swept forward
body and the swept backward wing reduce induced drag. Based
on this point, the second airframe is expected to acquire elliptical
spanwise lift distribution for minimizing the induced drag. Therefore, the taper ratio is changed, and the thickness-to-chord ratio is
expected to vary across the span.
3.5.3. Cross sectional area
The second airframe is designed as a commercial transport, in
which necessary geometric modication is applied based on study
of transonic area rule in the rst airframe. The transonic area rule
reduces drag at transonic speed. Based on this rule, continuous
area distribution diminishes wave drag. Theoretically, the Sears
Haack body has the lowest theoretical wave drag [31]. According
to Fig. 8, the area distribution along the central line of the rst
airframe is shown. The cross-sectional area in each location has
been normalized based on the maximum value. In comparison, the
cross-sectional area of the SearsHaack body are provided in this
gure as well, and both distributions follow similar trend. However, in the second airframe it is expected varying thickness-tochord ratio across the span makes cross-sectional area distribution
closer to the area distribution of the SearHaack body.
3.5.4. Drag coecient
The drag coecient variation with angle of attack is presented
in Fig. 9. Although, angle of attack in cruise ight condition is zero,
minimum drag coecient is obtained in a negative angle with
positive lift coecients. One of the major reasons for obtaining
minimum drag in a negative angle is high angle of incidence in this
airframe. For this purpose, cruise ight condition in zero angle of
attack is not economically ecient. The thrust is not minimized in
this condition and fuel consumption will raise. Additionally, maximum lift-to-drag ratio is not gained, which affects the aerodynamic
performance of the airframe. In the second airframe, it is expected
choosing appropriate incidence angle obtains the minimum drag
coecient in between 0 and 2 angle of attacks.

Fig. 8. Cross-sectional area distribution.

Fig. 9. Drag coecient variation with AoA.

3.5.5. Drag polar

As already mentioned, induced drag minimization is important
for improving the aerodynamic performance. Furthermore, for an
airframe, drag coecient is dened according to Eq. (2), which includes minimum drag and induced drag coecients. Meanwhile,
when total drag is minimum, parasite drag is equal to induced
drag. The total drag is sum of the parasite drag, induced drag, and
wave drag. The parasite drag is consist of form drag, skin-friction
drag, and interference drag. The form drag results because of shape
of an object. The skin-friction drag depends on wetted area, and interference drag is the increase in the drag of a component due to
change of the airow caused by other component [28]. The prole
drag is sum of the form and skin-friction drag.

C D = C D0 + K C L 2

(2)

The induced drag results because high-pressure ow in lower

side of the airframe escapes toward upper side in the wingtips,
which indicated by second term of the aforementioned equation.
For this reason, lift vector rotates backward, and a component of
the lift lies in drag direction, which affects aerodynamic performance of an airframe.

102

P. Dehpanah, A. Nejat / Aerospace Science and Technology 43 (2015) 96110

Fig. 10. Drag polar diagram.

Fig. 11. Pitching moment coecient variation with AoA.

Meanwhile, strength of tip vortices decreases by increasing the

Aspect Ratio, which are produced due to escape of the highpressure ow toward upper side. Therefore, increasing the Aspect
Ratio weakens the component of the lift which lies in drag direction, and consequently diminishes the induced drag [32]. For
the rst airframe, Drag Polar diagram is demonstrated in Fig. 10.
The drag coecient increases dramatically in high lift coecients,
which inhibits lift-to-drag ratio to meet its maximum value. The
maximum lift-to-drag ratio is obtained by drawing a tangent line
on the curve from the origin. By increasing the Aspect Ratio, the
parabolic curve in this diagram is widen, and higher lift with lower
drag coecient is obtained. Therefore, it increases the lift-to-drag
ratio. The increase of Aspect Ratio is restricted by structural constraints. Moreover, the parabolic curve in this diagram offsets vertically. The vertical offset is small which implies approximately the
minimum drag coecient equals to zero-lift drag coecient.
3.5.6. Pitching moment coecient
The pitching moment coecient variation with angle of attack
is demonstrated in Fig. 11. As angle of attack increases, the pitching moment decreases. According to the right-hand rule, positive
direction of pitching moment around lateral axis is associated with
the counterclockwise rotational direction, indicating downward ro-

Fig. 12. Lift-to-drag ratio variation with lift coecient.

Fig. 13. Lift-to-drag ratio variation with AoA.

tation of nose. The pitching moment coecient is negative after

4 , and also the curve slope is negative before 5 and after of
11 . Therefore, as angle of attack increases, pitching moment coefcient decreases, implying the airframes nose is turning upward.
In between 5 and 11 , pitching moment coecient is almost constant because its curve slope is almost zero. For this reason, the
airframe needs to be considered for pitch up avoidance in climb
condition. In addition, the static margin is negative ratio of pitching moment curve slope to lift curve slope. From the aforementioned points, the second airframe is expected to obtain at least
1% positive static margin with appropriate distribution of airfoil
stack across the span.
3.5.7. Lift-to-drag ratio
The lift-to-drag ratio variation with lift coecient is illustrated
in Fig. 12. The maximum lift-to-drag ratio is obtained in 0.175 lift
coecient. Accordingly, higher lift coecient and lower drag coecient increases the ratio, which is desirable for decreasing the
fuel consumption and increasing the range.
The lift-to-drag ratio variation with angle of attack is illustrated in Fig. 13. Its maximum value is 8.5 obtained in zero angle
of attack. Setting the maximum lift-to-drag ratio in cruise ight

P. Dehpanah, A. Nejat / Aerospace Science and Technology 43 (2015) 96110

103

in negative angle of attacks. The longitudinal location varies approximately around 23.5 cm far from the nose. Comparing with
aerodynamic center and center of gravity, this location is important in order to acquire static margin in cruise ight condition.

Fig. 14. Center of pressure longitudinal location.

Fig. 15. Total pressure line at AoA = 2 and Re = 200K over the upper surface. (For
interpretation of the colors in this gure, the reader is referred to the web version
of this article.)

condition improves the aerodynamic performance; however, the

maximum value is not desirable. The maximum lift-to-drag ratio is
relatively lower than the desirable value for the airframe, resulted
by small lift-curve slope with large drag coecient.
3.5.8. Center of pressure location
The longitudinal location of the center of pressure varies
slightly in term of angle of attack according to Fig. 14. Along
the central chord of the airframe, this displacement reaches to 8%

3.5.9. Pressure distribution

The pressure line distribution is demonstrated in Fig. 15. Based
on the pressure line pattern in the interconnection between swept
forward body and swept backward wing, high-pressure ow escaped toward upper surface in this region. Therefore, smoother
interconnection diminishes induced drag and viscous separation
drag, which is desirable in the second planform.
The pressure distribution over upper and lower surface of the
airframe is provided in Fig. 16. Over the lower surface, pressure
coecient fairly remains uniform, except there is a slight variation
narrowly in the leading edge. Over upper surface, there is a little gap between low and high pressure coecients in trailing-edge
interconnection between the swept forward body and the swept
backward wing. The gap between low and high pressure coecients develops toward wingtips, which makes airow vulnerable
to separate. The gap produces vortices which extract energy from
the ow and develop induced drag.
The spanwise pressure coecient distribution is demonstrated
in Fig. 17 for seven locations across the span. Respectively,
Reynolds number and angle of attack are 2 105 and 2 . Among
the spanwise locations, two are situated on the body, one is situated before and after the tailing edge interconnection, another is
situated on the pressure gap after the interconnection, and two are
situated near the wingtip. Their chordwise proles are also shown
below their pressure coecient distribution. They demonstrates
similar prole twisted across the span. Their locations are indicated based on the semi-span percentage. The pressure coecient
in 10% semi-span location remains almost constant in lower surface, and increases sharply till 20% of chord in upper surface, then
decreases gradually. In 20% semi-span location, the pressure coefcient follows similar trend in the upper surface, except its peak is
increased slightly in 20% of chord location. In 40% and 50% semispan locations, which are located before and after the trailing-edge
interconnection, the pressure coecient increases sharply until the
10% of the chord in the upper surface, decreases gradually until
40% of the chord, remains almost constant until 80% of the chord,
and then decrease to reach to similar pressure coecient to the
lower surface. The peak of the upper-surface pressure coecient is
increased in these sections in 10% of chord location in comparison
with the previous section. In these semi-span locations also, the
pressure coecient in the lower surface is almost constant. In 60%
semi-span location, the pressure coecient increases sharply until
10% of chord in the upper surface, decreases gradually until 40%

Fig. 16. Total pressure distribution at AoA = 2 and Re = 200K over upper and lower surfaces. (For interpretation of the colors in this gure, the reader is referred to the
web version of this article.)

104

P. Dehpanah, A. Nejat / Aerospace Science and Technology 43 (2015) 96110

Fig. 17. Comparison of chordwise pressure distribution at Re = 200K and AoA = 2 . (For interpretation of the colors in this gure, the reader is referred to the web version
of this article.)

of the chord, remains constant until 70% of the chord, increases

again slightly until 80% of chord, and then decreases to reach
to a value lower than pressure coecient in lower surface. The
pressure coecient also in this section remains almost constant
in lower surface. In 80% and 90% semi-span locations, the pressure coecient increases sharply until 10% of chord in the upper
surface, decrease gradually until 40% of chord, remains constant
until 80% of chord, increases again slightly until almost 90% of
chord, and then decrease to reach to a value similar to the lowersurface pressure coecient. The lower-surface pressure coecient
in 80% semi-span location remains almost constant; however, in
90% semi-span location, it decreases slightly in 90% of chord location.
From the aforementioned points, in the second airframe, it is
expected the trailing-edge interconnection with relatively smoother
curvature and lower swept forward angle to be considered in the
planform. Moreover, for improving the spanwise pressure distribution, which consequently leads toward effective spanwise lift distribution, different spanwise proles are expected to be exploited.
Because of transonic ow regime in the second airframe, supercritical airfoils are needed to be situated in the outboard wing. For
this purpose, camber line of airfoil stack is transformed gradually

Fig. 18. Schematic view of pitching moments around the airframe.

along the span from the S-shaped curvature to the supercritical

curvature.
3.6. Longitudinal stability and controllability
The pitching moments in cruise ight condition around the lateral axis are identied in Fig. 18. Accordingly for obtaining the

P. Dehpanah, A. Nejat / Aerospace Science and Technology 43 (2015) 96110

105

Fig. 19. Location of aerodynamic center and types of winglets.

Fig. 20. Schematic view of the c.g. movement for balancing the airframe.

pitch trim, pitching moment due to external ow identies pitching moment produced by pressure distribution over the airframe.
The pitching moment due to thrust vector identies pitching moment because of its vertical distance in aft body. The pitching moment due to c.g. location identies pitching moment because of its
location in front of aerodynamic center. As stated earlier, the pitching moment curve slope is negative for the airframe, and it is also
negative in zero angle of attack. Therefore, aerodynamic pitching
moment turns the nose in clockwise rotational direction. Besides,
because vertical distance of the thrust vector is located above the
c.g., it turns the nose in counterclockwise rotational direction [36].
Moreover, the aerodynamic center of the rst airframe is located
behind the c.g. according to Fig. 19a. Therefore, it turns the nose
in counterclockwise rotational direction. The aerodynamic center is
calculated based on subsonic semi-empirical equations for similar
geometries [6].
In general in a BWB conguration, because of small moment
arm, advanced control systems and ight computers is being used
for turning around the lateral axis in addition to obtaining longitudinal static margin in a cruise ight condition. In fact, several
control surfaces simultaneously contribute in stable and controllable turn [24]. The rst AEROPP airframe is a one-percent research
airframe in which electric engines are considered for free ight
tests. For this reason, the aircraft weight does not vary during a
test because of fuel consumption. In this case, it is possible to
obtain the pitch trim and longitudinal static margin in the cruise
ight condition by adding an external mass moving along the central line. The external mass is indicated in Fig. 20. It can exactly
match the c.g. location with the aerodynamic center and remove
the pitching moment due to c.g. location. Furthermore, because

aerodynamic pitching moment turns the nose upward by increasing the angle of attack and thrust vector turns the nose downward,
pitch trim is achievable. By moving the external mass backward,
which moves the c.g. location backward, we can balance the airframe in the cruise ight condition. As stated earlier, this approach
is appropriate for obtaining the pitch trim in this airframe because
of using electric engines.
In the rst airframe, similar to the Boeing BWB concept, yaw
motion is considered with a Split Drag-Rudder and a DoubleHinged Rudder, which are situated on the winglets as control
surfaces. They are schematically shown in Fig. 19b. Their functionalities enable the airframe to spin around the c.g. without sliding in
transversal direction. Meanwhile, based on aerodynamic forces of
the winglets, they produce appropriate vector which acts together
with the forward c.g. motion in a bank maneuver.
3.7. Usable space
The blended-wing-body conguration provides adequate space
for accommodating passengers and cargo. The space is not usable unless an airfoil with appropriate thickness-to-chord ratio
to be used in the central body. The rst airframe does not provide adequate space for accommodating passengers and cargo,
which is shown in Fig. 21, and the Selig S5010 airfoil with 10%
thickness-to-chord ratio is not proper. It is expected the second
airframe to be designed with appropriate airfoil, which provides
sucient thickness-to-chord ratio for accommodating 800 passengers and cargo. Meanwhile, because the central airfoil-liked
body has small compressibility drag, it can be thicken enough
to accommodate the passengers in a double-deck interior and

106

P. Dehpanah, A. Nejat / Aerospace Science and Technology 43 (2015) 96110

Table 5
Geometric parameters of the second AEROPP airframe.
Parameters

Unit

Value

(t /c )central

m
m2

m
m

0.18
0.8018
0.0659
10
4.3416
0.0970
0.1465
37.49
35.24
32.7
4 .5
4
3
0.1345
0.22

b
S ref
AR
AR w
MAC
Y

LE
0.25C
0.5C

CR

Table 6
Design constraints of the second AEROPP airframe.
Constraints

Unit

Value

Passengers
Crew
Flight attendants
Range
Diversion
Diversion altitude
Loiter endurance
Cruise altitude
Cruise speed
Field length

km
km
m
min
m
Mach
m

800
2
20
121,964
277.8
6100
35
10,000
0.85
3690

Fig. 21. Schematic view of usable space for the rst AEROPP airframe.

participate in the lift generation. The thick central body hold

major load over the airframe allowing outboard wing to be
thinned adequately and preventing wave drag development over
the wings.
4. The second airframe
The second airframe is designed and modied based on evaluation of the rst airframe. In this section, design procedure of the
second airframe is described which includes the conceptual design approach, baseline geometry, interior arrangement, and control surfaces.
4.1. Conceptual design approach
In the second airframe, required space for 800 passengers is acquired by choosing a very thick airfoil in the central body. Further,
thickness-to-chord ratio of the airfoil stack is changed from 18% to
10% across the span. Other modications are applied to this airframe based on the assessment of the rst airframe. Among them,
Aspect Ratio of the wings are increased to improve the maximum
lift-to-drag ratio, in particular wetted Aspect Ratio. Moreover, ve
different airfoils with different thickness-to-chord ratio are situated across the span. With respect to the increase of Aspect Ratio,
the span is decreased in comparison with the rst airframe. However, the wing area is increased just 33% comparatively. The geometric parameters of the one-percent second airframe is stated in
Table 5. In addition, design constraints for this airframe is demonstrated in Table 6. They comply with FAR Part 25 regulations for
general aviation aircraft. In this airframe, the reserved mission prole is also added which is indicated by diversion parameters in
this table. The second airframe performance is illustrated in Table 7. The weight is estimated using a buildup method together
with a rened method. In the rened method, weight fractions are
corrected based on wing loading and thrust-to-weight estimations.

Table 7
Design performance of the second AEROPP airframe.
Parameters

Unit

Value

MTOGW
OEW
Fuel burned
L / D (cruise)
Wing Span
Wing Area(trap)
Wetted Area
T /W
Thrust(total)

kg
kg
kg

m
m2
m2

358,838.99
178,603.86
103,463.38
21.65
80.18
670.076
2756.348
0.2009
2 353,484

Meanwhile, operational empty weight and fuel burned weight are

calculated in the weight estimation. Besides, the c.g. location is
calculated using a group weights method, and DATCOM methods
semi-empirical approach is implemented for aerodynamic performance estimation.
4.2. Baseline geometry
The full-scaled baseline geometry of the second airframe is
demonstrated by its technical drawing in Fig. 22. It shows dimensions of the second conguration in top, front, and side views. The
control surfaces are also sized in this airframe, and they are indicated in this gure.
4.3. Interior arrangement
The lower and upper passenger cabins are demonstrated in
Fig. 23 in the second airframe. The upper deck includes rst, business, and economic seats class located in 7 cabin bays. In every
bay, galley and lavatory are located at the rear. The lower deck is
accessible through two stairs in front of the upper deck. Additional
stairs toward the lower deck are also situated in rear of the each
bay.

P. Dehpanah, A. Nejat / Aerospace Science and Technology 43 (2015) 96110

Fig. 22. Technical drawing of the second AEROPP airframe.

Fig. 23. Schematic views of the interior arrangement at (a) upper deck and (b) lower deck.

107

108

P. Dehpanah, A. Nejat / Aerospace Science and Technology 43 (2015) 96110

Fig. 24. Sectional view of the interior arrangment.

The rst seats class in the upper deck includes two cabin bays.
One bay is located in front of the deck and another one is located
in one of the central bays. The lower deck includes rst and economics seats class included in 5 bays. The rst seats class in the
lower deck is located in front with wide view toward the sky, and
other bays in this deck are dedicated to the economic seats class.
The entire interior of the second airframe, including passenger cabins and cargo bays, are illustrated by the middle sectional view in
Fig. 24. The passenger bays in the center are surrounded by the
cargo bays. As it is shown, the double deck interior arrangements
appropriately ts in the provided space in this airframe.
4.4. Airframe sections and control surfaces
The airframe layout of the second airframe is demonstrated
in Fig. 25a. Accordingly, passengers and cargo are placed in the
central body, and fuel tanks are situated in the outboard wings.
Moreover, tip-to-tip control surfaces are sized for this airframe
for providing 10% extra controllability. Among the tip-to-tip control surfaces, a single slotted fowler ap is placed between the
two engines. In the trailing interconnection between swept back
wing and swept forward body, a double slotted ap is situated. In
this region, horizontal line of the trailing edge improves its performance. Between the fowler and double slotted aps, elevators are
sized. In addition, ailerons are located toward the tips at the end of
the double slotted ap. In the outboard wing, a leading edge slot
is sized. Similar to the rst airframe, a Split Drag-Rudder and a
Double-Hinged Rudder are situated on the winglets demonstrated
in Fig. 25b.
5. Airframe comparison

Fig. 25. Second airframe layout and types of winglets.

A comparison between the second and the rst one-percent airframes is presented in this section. Comparatively in the second
airframe, wing span is doubled, and also wing reference area increased by 33%. Moreover, wing Aspect Ratio is almost doubled,
and MAC increased by 72%. The leading edge sweep angle of the
wing increased by 4 degrees, and the angle of incidence increased
by 2 degrees. Furthermore, the wing twist angle raised by 2 degrees, and also the dihedral angle raised by 1 degrees. The central
chord length is doubled. The wing taper ratio relatively remains
constant. The thickness-to-chord ratio in central section is doubled.
As earlier stated, appropriate spanwise lift distribution across
the span play crucial role in improving the aerodynamic performance [26,27]. This distribution can be adjusted by changing the
taper ratio and the twist angle of the airfoil stack across the span.
Meanwhile, trend studies states the taper ratio depends on Mach
number, which denes the wing sweep angle. Therefore, the wing

Fig. 26. Baseline geometry comparison between the rst and the second airframes.

P. Dehpanah, A. Nejat / Aerospace Science and Technology 43 (2015) 96110

Fig. 27. Planform comparison between the st and the second airframes.

109

lence model. The aerodynamic performance investigation includes

variation of lift, drag, and pitching moment coecients. In addition, spanwise lift and cross-sectional area distribution are studied for improving the performance of the second airframe. Meanwhile, Drag Polar diagram, lift-to-drag ratio, location of center
of pressure, pressure distribution, longitudinal stability and controllability, and usable space are also studied in this airframe.
Through this investigation, advantages and disadvantages of the
geometric parameters are identied in the rst airframe. Then,
based on assessing the rst airframe, the second airframe is designed and modied. In design procedure of the second airframe,
conceptual design approach is implemented, in which a buildup
method together with a rened method for weight estimation,
semi-empirical method for aerodynamic performance estimation,
and group weights method for calculating the c.g. location are being used. Meanwhile, design constraints are applied to geometric
parameters of the second airframe based on main and reserved
missions. In this airframe, interior arrangement and control surfaces are also investigated. In summary, baseline geometries and
planform of the rst and the second airframes are compared, and
the second airframe is proposed as a high-capacity long-range
blended-wing-body commercial transport. As the future works,
aerodynamic shape optimization of the spanwise airfoils and multiobjective planform optimization improve performance of the airframe further, which are currently under investigation by the authors.
Conict of interest statement

Fig. 28. Artists rendering of the second AEROPP conguration.

sweep angle also affects the spanwise lift distribution. From these
points, shape of the wings is modied in the second airframe with
aim of improving the spanwise lift distribution in cruise condition.
The comparison between the rst and the second baseline geometries are demonstrated in Fig. 26.
The planform comparison between the rst and the second
airframes are provided in Fig. 27. Accordingly, Aspect Ratio is increased notably. Moreover, for decreasing the wetted area, leading
edge curvature is curved inward in forepart of the body. Altogether,
in the second airframe, two turbofan engines are connected by
their pylons at the rear, two winglets are sized and placed in the
wingtips, and a bullet-liked nose is added in front of the airframe.
An artists rendering of the second AEROPP conguration is shown
in Fig. 28.
6. Conclusions
Combining wing and body in the blended-wing-body conguration is an innovative idea which benets from its inherent
aerodynamic potential. However, it needs creative and careful revision at its stage of evolution as a proper candidate for the
future generation of commercial transport. In this work, aerodynamic performance of a blended-wing-body airframe is studied with aim of improvement in early stage of the conceptual
design. For this purpose, key design parameters are identied
for two sequential airframes using computational uid dynamics. In this procedure, the rst airframe is designed as a simple research model. Its aerodynamic performance for a mission
prole is investigated based on RANS simulation with SA turbu-

This research is carried out without any kinds of connections

and involvements from any organizations and industrial projects.
We conrm there are no conict of interest associated with this
publication and there has been no nancial support for this work
that inuenced its outcome. The manuscript is read and approved
by all authors and there are no persons who satised the criteria
for authorship but are not listed.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary material related to this article can be found online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2015.02.015.
References
[1] J.D. Anderson Jr, Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, Tata McGrawHill Education,
1985.
[2] K.R. Bradley, A sizing methodology for the conceptual design of blended-wingbody transports, NASA/CR-2004-213016, 2004.
[3] D.L. Brown, Miles Aircraft Since 1925, Putnam Limited, 1970.
[4] A. Diedrich, J. Hileman, D. Tan, K. Willcox, Z. Spakovszky, Multidisciplinary design and optimization of the silent aircraft, AIAA Paper 1223, 2006.
[5] R. Nangia, M. Palmer, R. Doe, Aerodynamic design studies of conventional and
unconventional wings with winglets, in: 24th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2006.
[6] R. Fink, D. Hoak, USAF Stability and Control DATCOM, Air Force Flight Dynamics
Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, 1996.
[7] J. Hileman, Z. Spakovszky, M. Drela, M. Sargeant, Aerodynamic and aeroacoustic
three-dimensional design for a silent aircraft, in: 44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences
Meeting and Exhibit, 2006, 2006-241.
[8] J. Hileman, Z. Spakovszky, M. Drela, M. Sargeant, A. Jones, Airframe design for
silent fuel-ecient aircraft, J. Aircr. 47 (3) (2010) 956969.
[9] A. Jameson, A perspective on computational algorithms for aerodynamic analysis and design, Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 37 (2) (2001) 197243.
[10] R.T. Jones, The Spanwise Distribution of Lift For Minimum Induced Drag of
Wings Having a Given Lift and a Given Bending Moment, National Advisory
Committee for Aeronautics, 1950.
[11] A. Klemin, Junkers G-38, progress of the year and more, Technology 142 (1930)
150.
[12] I. Kroo, Drag due to lift: concepts for prediction and reduction, Annu. Rev. Fluid
Mech. 33 (1) (2001) 587617.

110

P. Dehpanah, A. Nejat / Aerospace Science and Technology 43 (2015) 96110

[13] N.B. Kuntawala, J.E. Hicken, D.W. Zingg, Preliminary aerodynamic shape optimization of a blended-wing-body aircraft conguration, in: 49th AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace
Exposition, Orlando, Florida, 2011.
[14] R. Liebeck, Blended wing body design challenges, in: AIAA International Air
and Space Symposium and Exposition: The Next 100 Years, American Institute
of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2003, pp. 1417.
[15] R.H. Liebeck, Design of the blended wing body subsonic transport, J. Aircr.
41 (1) (2004) 1025.
[16] R.H. Liebeck, M.A. Page, B.K. Rawdon, Evolution of the Revolutionary BlendedWing-Body, McDonnellDouglas Aerospace, Transportation Beyond 2000: Technologies Needed for Engineering Design, 1996, pp. 431459 (SEE N 96-26302
09-01).
[17] R.H. Liebeck, M.A. Page, B.K. Rawdon, Blended-wing-body subsonic commercial
transport, AIAA Paper 438, 1998.
[18] Z. Lyu, J. Martins, RANS-based aerodynamic shape optimization of a blendedwing-body aircraft, in: 21st AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference,
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2013.
[19] Z. Lyu, J. Martins, Aerodynamic shape optimization of a blended-wing-body
aircraft, in: 51st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons
Forum and Aerospace Exposition, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2013, 2013-0283.
[20] C.A. Mader, J.R. Martins, Stability-constrained aerodynamic shape optimization
of ying wings, J. Aircr. 50 (5) (2013) 14311449.
[21] V. Mukhopadhyay, Blended wing body (BWB) fuselage structural design for
weight reduction, in: 46th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2005.
[22] V. Mukhopadhyay, J. Sobieszczanski-Sobieski, I. Kosaka, G. Quinn, G. Vanderpaats, Analysis, design, and optimization of noncylindrical fuselage for
blended-wing-body vehicle, J. Aircr. 41 (4) (2004) 925930.
[23] D. Myhra, The Horten Brothers and Their All-Wing Aircraft, Schiffer Publishing,
1998.
[24] K. Nickel, M. Wohlfahrt, E.M. Brown, Tailless Aircraft in Theory and Practice,
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1994.
[25] M. Potsdam, M. Page, R. Liebeck, Blended wing body analysis and design, in:
15th Applied Aerodynamics Conference, American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, 1997.

[26] N. Qin, A. Vavalle, A. Le Moigne, M. Laban, K. Huckett, P. Weinerfelt,

Aerodynamic studies of blended wing body aircraft, AIAA Paper 5448,
2002, p. 2002.
[27] N. Qin, A. Vavalle, A.L. Moigne, Spanwise lift distribution for blended wing
body aircraft, J. Aircr. 42 (2) (2005) 356365.
[28] D.P. Raymer, et al., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, American Institute
of Aeronautics and Astronautics Reston, 2006.
[29] T.A. Reist, D.W. Zingg, Aerodynamic shape optimization of a blended-wingbody regional transport for a short range mission, in: 31st AIAA Applied
Aerodynamics Conference, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
2013.
[30] David R. Townend, Clipped Wings The History of Aborted Aircraft Projects,
AeroFile Publications, Markham, Ontario, ISBN 978-0-9732020-4-5, 2007.
[31] D. Roman, R. Gilmore, S. Wakayama, Aerodynamics of high-subsonic blendedwing-body congurations, AIAA Paper 554, 2003, p. 2003.
[32] J. Roskam, Airplane Design: Part 5-Component Weight Estimation, DAR corporation, 1985.
[33] M. Sargeant, T. Hynes, W. Graham, J. Hileman, M. Drela, Z. Spakovszky, Stability of hybrid-wing-body-type aircraft with centerbody leading-edge carving,
J. Aircr. 47 (3) (2010) 970974.
[34] W. Sears, Flying-wing airplanes The XB-35/YB-49 program.
[35] W.B. Stout, A low-A/R, all-wing light plane with pilot and engine within wing,
British Patent # 149,708, 1919.
[36] M. Voskuijl, G. La Rocca, F. Dircken, Controllability of blended wing body aircraft, in: Proceedings of the 26th International Congress of the Aronautical
Sciences, ICAS 2008, including the 8th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration
and Operations (AIO) Conference, Anchorage, Alaska, September 1419, 2008,
Optimage Ltd., ISBN 0-9533991-9-2, 2008.
[37] S. Wakayama, Blended-wing-body optimization problem setup, AIAA Paper
4740, 2000.
[38] S. Wakayama, Multidisciplinary design optimization of the blended-wing-body,
AIAA Paper 4938, 1998.
[39] S. Wakayama, I. Kroo, Subsonic wing planform design using multidisciplinary
optimization, J. Aircr. 32 (4) (1995) 746753.
[40] S. Wakayama, I. Kroo, The challenge and promise of blended-wing-body optimization, AIAA Paper 98-4736, 1998.
[41] S. Wakayama, M. Page, R. Liebeck, Multidisciplinary optimization on an advanced composite wing, AIAA Paper 4003, 1996.