Is it a sweep wing ? in one picture it looks like the passengers are facing sideward views and picture nr 3 above it looks like the passengers is looking to the front and the wing appears much less swept. I can't see this being that aerodynamic, the passenger compartment in the leading edge makes for... well a thick leading edge and overall wing which equals high drag, i suspect the wind tunnels tests will come to this exact conclusion, when the actual goal is to improve on efficiency.
Well if its like the main picture, i guess maybe they can get away with the drag issue as the main picture shows a lot of sweep aft wards, it does look innovative and good looking for a wing type aircraft.
Why not design it with electric motors along the entire wing surface for 300 mph cruising speed and make the entire wing surfaces the batteries for 2500 plus mile range?
Right now they don't allow lithium batteries in cargo areas much...just think of a giant one. Also to carry a battery all over the place is a bit inefficient for long flights. Unless the electricity comes from nuclear or some other renewable source it is kind of pointless to have electric anyway unless it ends up being safer... The reality is most electricity is still generated with gas turbines...
The biggest problem I see is the center of gravity vs. center of lift. Perhaps a canard with a variable geometry?
So in a normal plane the fuel is in the wings slightly away from the passengers - guess in this one it is underneath or behind the passengers. The wings and nose on a standard plane where the turbulence is mainly generated are away from the passengers in the tube, whereas in the design the windows are on the leading edges - wouldn't this generate quite a bit of cabin noise or require additional means to reduce this.
The farther you are from the aircraft's center line, the more you will be affected by banking maneuvers. The point about fuel storage is an excellent one as well. There are some serious tradeoffs here.
If I were Boeing, I would seriously consider patent infringement. Looks an awful lot like the X-48. Just with a cutaway in the back middle. Hope that someone comes up with ideas that are actually implemented. I remember one from about 2007-2008, talking hypersonic from London to Sydney in about 4 hours...but they stopped working on it.
I'm not an engineer but I think I can improve on this design. It needs to be more U shaped than Y shaped. The way the wings point out has to add to the drag co efficency factor. Like driving down the road with your doors half way open. I'd make it longer. Airports & the skies are overcrowded as is. Hopefully this design will allow for more leg room per passenger. In addition, I'd extend the top out past the body a bit further than this for tres benefit. 1, added shade for passenges like an awning. 2. Create more lift, it'd be like adding wing surface area & 3, more room to install solar panels. Whole top should be a solar panel. Forget 20% increase in fuel efficency, let's shoot for 40%. Odd but just a wk ago I thought of this same U design not for an airplane but a Carrier. Couple benifits for that. In warfare, outgoing fighter jets wouldn't have to wait for incoming & vice versa. 1 wing for outgoing, 1 for incoming. Yeah, make sure to paint giant arrows on top. Other benefit, instead of having to lower smaller boats over the side, a silly, time consuming process, you could have 3 small or mid size boats in btwn the wings. (1 up in the Y). Push a button to dislodge & your good to go. Your carrier get hit, you'd not have to waste time scrambling to dislodge a boat over the side......which are too small anyway. Nuts? Could be. But if just 1 of these ideas pan out, I'm ok with it.
I think that is a really cool looking design. I think it would be better as a delta design. Since a new design like this takes time to develop and is risky, I wonder if it will ever get into production?