James Barbour
Why is NASA developing stealth aircraft? Leave that to DARPA. Also, why don't they move all reflective surfaces (bomb bays, landing gear, intake, exhaust and sensors to the bottom of the UAV. This would make the top perfectly smooth. The UAV could then launch, attain cruising altitude the flip upside down to continue the mission in total stealth. Upon reaching the target, bomb bay doors open on the top of the UAV, it rolls, releases the weapon, then continues the roll to disappear again. Simple, really.
BigGoofyGuy
I think that is really cool. I think it is the future for airlines. It would be neat to see a smaller version for non-airline uses. :)
DemonDuck
Good for freight and private business class aircraft -- bad for large commercial passenger aircraft.
Can you imagine spending 5-12 hours shrouded in a metal box bouncing around the sky with no windows? BARF -- a lot....
John Laity
The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) was a U.S. federal agency founded on March 3, 1915. On October 1, 1958, the agency was dissolved, and its assets and personnel transferred to the newly created National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
I only add this as your story suggests a "Keen Interest in conventional flight", when in fact avionics is a core service that NASA oversee for all. If you design a wing, propeller, turbine or rotor blade then you are likely to use NACA / NASA data and profiles.
Sorry to pick you up on this, but NASA provide free research and data that keeps us all in the air. They are Top Guys ;0)
Jeff Shartzer
I believe the reduced engine noise level and build costs based on not having a wing box frame to fuselage joint would create much less drag. Think of it as a move toward a uni-body - combine the use of composites you have a lighter stronger more efficient platform. You can place the engines above the wing, as they have done and optimize their efficiency. We need to look at reducing fuel costs and this is a good start,
Fritz Menzel
Interesting how much this looks like a stingray. Makes you wonder if designers have gained advantage by perceiving the atmosphere (at certain speeds) as a liquid and, if so, whether faster craft could end up looking like even more exotic marine life such as the maneuverable & speedy (yet counterintuitive) squid.
Scott in California
Since the aircraft is very quiet, they should go to the next logical step: short-hop (200-600 miles) airliners that are powered by electric motors (propellors) via a glorified, 2000 ft "extension cord". An elevated trackway would carry a "shoe" which would be pulled along in the trackway by the aircraft, making an electrical connection to mains power on the ground. With a predetermined flightpath, hijackers are out of luck. And, no need for a pilot onboard. Drone-style controls. Perhaps top speed would be 250 mph, but overall travel time would be much faster than any "bullet train" or current airline travel (with security, remote airport locations, etc). Onboard backup batteries would provide the ability to make an emergency landing within four-minutes of a "no power" alarm. Electric motors= very low maintenance costs, no refueling delays, very low capital costs per aircraft.
Stephen N Russell
To replace B2 bomber?
Slowburn
It is not a stealth design just aerodynamically clean.
Slowburn
re; Scott in California
Consider the weight and drag of the cables, the bird and bats that would be killed, and how often the cables would break and kill someone on the ground.