Archives for posts with tag: Boeing

Prologue

In the Research & Development Gallery at the National Museum of the USAF near Dayton, Ohio stands an aircraft towering over all the other aircraft in the gallery, the centre piece, in the shadow of its wings stand several other aircraft appearing to shelter there.

This is the XB-70 Valkyrie, arguably one of the most influential aircraft of all time.

The XB-70 Valkyrie with the B-58 Hustler

The Nuclear Deterrence

Before we dive into the XB-70 Valkyrie, it’s important to understand the backdrop which led to her development.

The 1945 nuclear events of Hiroshima and Nagasaki clearly established the importance of nuclear deterrence. The cold war was ramping up and the modified B-29s used to deliver the nuclear ordnance were inadequate. 

The Enola Gay & Bockscar the two B-29s that dropped the atom bombs on Hiroshima & Nagasaki.

By 1941 Britain was at the risk of falling to Nazi Germany. America was looking for a new bomber that had at least a 5,700 mile range ( Gander – Berlin roundtrip), the ability to deliver a 10,000 pound ordnence load and return. Furthermore the bomber had to have a service ceiling of 40,000 feet and a cruising speed of approx 275 mph. The events of Pearl Harbor ensured the B-36 would only enter service post WW2.

The ten engined B-36 Peacemaker

Convair won the contract and the aircraft was originally designated the B-35, later switched to B-36 to avoid overlap and confusion with the Northrup YB-35 flying wing. The aircraft first flown in 1948 was huge with a wingspan of 230 feet and a length of 162 feet, was propelled by six pusher props. Later models had four turbojets  on the outboard wings making a total of ten power plants ‘ Six Turning & Four Burning’(the maximum on any production bomber aircraft ever), could carry over 80,000 pounds of ordnance. 

The ten engined B-36 . Six turning & four burning

The B-36 was relegated to obsolescence with the advent of the MIG 15 over North Korea by 1950. It was too slow for the faster interceptors Russia was producing. America needed an all jet powered bomber that was quicker.

The B-47 Stratojet entered operational service in 1951. While the requirement goes back to 1943 for a jet powered reconnaissance bomber, the original model 424 was essentially a version of the B-29 . Following the 1945 inspections of captured top secret German documents on swept wings the jet powered game pivoted on its head. With a 35 degree sweep and a wingspan of 116 feet with wings mounted on the fuselage shoulder, the aircraft was powered by six turbojets. The nuclear capable bomber had a max payload of 25,000 pounds and a range of  2500 miles. With a cruise speed of approx 500 mph the B-47 was the backbone of the Strategic Air Command’s ( SAC) bomber fleet through the 1950s. (Note: The B-45 operated from 1947-59 however had many shortcomings that severely curtailed its usefulness)

The six turbojet engined B-47. The very first jet engined bomber ever.

While the B-47 operated in tandem with the B-36 there was a clear gap in the Range / Payload / Speed doctrine and most importantly reliability, enter the B-52.

The eight jet B-52 is a venerable veteran among bombers globally, first entering service in 1955 and still in active service to this day. With a wingspan of 185 feet and a length of 159 feet, the aircraft cruises at 525 mph, has a range of 8,800 miles and service ceiling of 50,000 feet. The aircraft can carry 70,000 pounds of ordnance and is nuclear capable. 

The legendary B-52 with its eight engines. In service for 70 years and counting.
The B-52 prototype with a B-36 in the background.

Through the 1950s aircraft got faster and the push for air superiority quickly moved aircraft into the supersonic era. Starting with Gen. Chuck Yeager’s famous 1947 first in the Glamorous Glennis. Aircraft such as the F-86 Sabre and the F-100 Supersabre made sure that supersonic was here to stay. The Russians were making supersonic strides themselves with their MIG 19 ‘Farmer ‘ . Bombers needed to go supersonic.

The B-58 Hustler. The very first supersonic bomber.

The B-58 was designed with nuclear strike capability and was the very first operational Mach 2 bomber. While the B-58 was a clear statement of intent the aircraft had a limited range of 4,000 miles and payload capacity of approx 20,000 pounds. The delta wing (a recent innovation) made low speed handling very difficult and the aircraft had a high incident rate. SAC issued a fresh directive for new aircraft.

WS-110A

In 1955 the SAC  issued ‘ General Operational Requirement No. 38 ‘ the foundation for an operational bomber that had the capabilities of both the B-52 and the B-58. The conventional fuel powered jet version of this requirement was called ‘ Weapons System 110A ‘ or WS-110A.

The specifications of the bomber was a cruising speed of Mach 0.9, 50,000 pound payload and a combat radius of 4,000 miles. Boeing & North American Aviation both were included in round one of the development along with other leading companies.

By the mid 1950s USSR in addition to its supersonic fighters such as the MIG-19 had SAMs (Surface to Air Missile). The missiles were a threat to a Mach 0.9 aircraft. The rules of engagement changed to a Mach 3 heavy strategic bomber and a cruising altitude of 70,000 feet.

The initial designs from both companies had take-off weights in excess of 750,000 pounds and both the proposals were dismissed ‘ being too large ‘. Gen Curtis LeMay, the commander in chief of the SAC is said to have commented on seeing one of the proposals “ this is not a bomber, it is a three ship formation!”

Both companies were told to refine designs.

The NAA & Boeing initial designs for the WS110A.

NACA Supersonic Studies

In 1951 Richard Whitcomb put forward the ‘ Area Rule’. His discovery stated that ‘ Total cross sectional area ‘ of the aircraft was responsible for drag in the transonic ( Mach 0.8 – 1.2) regime and not just the wing cross section. This finding resulted in the ‘coke bottle fuselage’ , a narrowing of the fuselage where the wing cross section came into play.

In 1956 A J Eggers & Clarence A Syverton published ‘ Aircraft configurations developing high lift-drag ratios at high supersonic speeds’. The principle investigated the design concepts of aircraft at high supersonic speeds. The long title would come to be known as compression lift or wave riding.

The 1951 ‘Area Rule’ was first tested on the redesigned F-102A Delta Dagger. The rule which required the original F-102 to be lengthened by 11 feet , with narrowed coke bottle design in the middle, a new canopy along with redesigned wings and a pushed back tail, resulted in a much faster , more stable aircraft that comfortably sustained Supersonic speeds.

A design schematic of the F-104A design changes over the F-104 implementing ‘Area Rule’

The 1956 internal memorandum was studied in detail by NAA and they figured compression lift had to be central to the WS-110A design philosophy along with area rule.

By early 1958 the WS-110A would be officially designated the XB-70. The Air Force had transitioned the project from a concept ( Weapons System or WS) to an experimental program (XB). The name Valkyrie was the winning name submitted by Sgt. Francis Seller in a naming contest held by the USAF. Valkyrie the Norse Goddess is the ‘chooser of the slain’, guides souls lost in battle to Valhalla(the hall of heroes). Valkyrie was chosen from over 20,000 suggestions.

The Canards & Forebody

The XB-70 experienced significant ‘ Mach Tuck’ at high Mach speeds. This was caused by the centre of pressure moving aft as the aircraft accelerated through the speed regime.

The automatic canards managed by the FACS (Flight Control Augmentation System) adjusted continuously to manage the tuck. With a span of 28 feet they were significant in trimming out pitch shifts and helped smooth shock transitions.

The canards & forebody of the XB-70. Sr-71 in the foreground.

The canards worked in conjunction with the elevons on the wing’s trailing edges. 

The forebody of the XB-70 like most supersonic aircraft today was sharply tapered through to the canards. The underside as were the sides were not only flat and shallow, but also contoured to create the primary shockwave.

The XB-70 dimensions.

Behind the nose the contour widens and transitions towards the engine nascelles. It is here the coke bottle design is clearly visible.

Please be sure to read an about the evolution of the Flying & Blended Wings in the two part series here. http://theaviationevangelist.com/2025/09/13/the-evolution-of-the-flying-wing-part-one/

The windshield of the XB-70 in flight with the side windows. The second picture shows the XB-70 from 1964, the waisting clearly visible.

The XB-70 used a retractable windshield ( the first of its kind). The windshield serviced multiple purposes. The first was to create a clear aerodynamic line. The second was heat insulation for the cockpit at 600 degrees F (it did heavily restrict forward visibility). To augment visibility, the canopy had flat, heat shielded windows on the sides. Aircraft such as the Concorde and TU-144 followed a similar concept with their droop noses.

The Wings 

The large & thin wing area with a high aspect ratio ( the wingspan divided by the mean distance between the leading & trailing edges of the wing a.k.a average chord) managed sub / transonic lift (aerodynamic lift). 

The sculpted leading edges of the wing helped control vortices the delta wings generated. Vortex lift is important during high angles of attack (specific to delta wings) during take off and landing. Concorde is a famous example of using vortex lift.

A front view of the XB-70 clearly showing the sculpted leading edges and some elevations raised.

The flat undersurface of not just the wings but also engines ‘6 pack’ was critical to the XB-70’s most important design feature, ‘ Compression Lift’. The wings outer panels ( last twenty of the trailing edge on each side ) drooped by up to 65 degrees. The droop was important to trap the shock waves created off the sculpted engine intake splitter & the intakes themselves.

The sculpted inlet , the vertical splitter being the prominent feature. The second picture shows the six pack and the flat underbody of the aircraft enabling shockwaves to be trapped under the aircraft with the drooping wings.

While most of us think of shockwaves coming off a supersonic aircraft horizontally, the splitter was responsible for generating shockwaves vertically, these waves being trapped by the folded wingtips creating a wave cushion. The XB-70 generated up to 30% of required supersonic lift through compression lift. Shock waves would bounce into the engine inlets too. The folded wingtips improved yaw handling a great deal and the XB-70 needed much smaller vertical stabilizers as a result.

The XB-70 is the first aircraft to use three different kinds of lift across the speed regime. The swept back wings at 65 degrees reduced transonic drag and improved handling. 

The wings flexed and bent considerably through the speed regime. To help keep the wing flexible the engineers at NAA intuitively integrated six elevons (combination flaps & airelons) on each wing and avoided binding the wing. Furthermore by doing so they managed extreme hinge and actuator loads inflight (hinge moments).

Detailed schematics of the XB-70 showing the crew capsule (top picture top left corner ) and elevons (both pictures).

The six elevon setup gave the FACS more flexibility as it managed pitch / trim (inboard elevons) and roll (outboard elevon). As the wingtips drooped (25 – 65 degrees) the two outboard elevons were faired to zero and became part of the folding wingtip. Lastly, having six elevons helped with redundancy. All hydraulics on the aircraft were at 4,000 psi.

AV1 had a flat wing with zero degree dihedral, while AV2 had a five degree dihedral as a design refinement. This gave AV2 better directional and roll stability over AV1 and also gave AV2 better compression lift efficiency. 

AV2 was unfortunately lost on June 8 , 1966 during a formation photo flight. General Electric had a photo session using the XB-70, F-104 Starfighter, F-4 Phantom II & a T-38 Talon. All of them used GE engines.

Test pilot Joe Walker (the most experienced supersonic pilot then) in his F-104 was sucked into the starboard wingtip turbulence of the XB-70, flipped over the vertical stabilizers of the XB-70 and crashed in a fireball. The doomed XB-70 flew level for a few seconds before going into a steep spiral and crashing, taking with it co-pilot Carl Cross. Pilot Al white ejected using the crew escape capsule engineed for high altitude ejection or depressurisation while retaining control of the aircraft (in event of depressurization).

The Engine Nascelles & Intakes

The engine nacelles not only fed the engines with air but also were an integral part of the compression lift generated by the XB-70.

The entry was split by a vertical splitter fins. The engines were split three on each side. They also projected the airflow towards the drooped wing tips to trap shockwaves. The nacelles created oblique shock waves at the inlet lips as they began slowing air to about 400 mph from supersonic speeds as stable air was directed to the engines. This kept engine compressor pressure within a constant bandwidth. The trailing edges of the three moveable ramps behind the engine inlets hinged inwards or outwards (between 10 – 30 degrees or upto one foot) as per the Mach number and compressor requirement. The entire system including the ramp angles & bleed doors (for excess air) was continuously adjusted by the inlet control system. 

The inlet detailed schematic .

The engine nacelle had a 2D rectangular configuration and had a maximum height of 4 feet. The length of the intake from the nacelle to the engines was approx 30 feet.

A front view showing the engine inlet and splitter in detail
Rare pictures of the inside of the intakes at different depths inside the 30 foot intake .

The underside of the entire intake ramp was flat as it aided in compression lift.

The Engines a.k.a ‘The Six Pack’

The XB-70 had six General Electric ( GE) YJ93-GE-3 turbojet engines.

Each axial flow engine generated 19,900 pounds of dry thrust and 28,800 pounds with afterburners. The engines had no thrust reversers and used drogue chutes as a stopping device. With eleven compressor stages and of which six were low pressure and five high pressure.

The engines were made of Nickel based alloys and stainless steel. Advanced blade cooling allowed the engine to survive high exhaust gas temperatures (EGT). The engines used high flash point JP-6 fuel.

The engine control system synchronised with automatic inlet control management to prevent compressor stalls and upstarts (happens when airflow to engines is unstable due rapid speed changes).

With so many different systems working in tandem on such a precision piece of engineering the YJ93 was a high maintenance product.

The Landing Gear

The XB-70 had the conventional hydraulic tricycle gear. 

The rearward folding nosewheel had two wheels.

The nose landing gear.

The main gear had two bogies with four wheels each. The main gear had a complex mechanism of folding the bogie in, then a twist and then folding into the wheel wells. The wells had a flap that closed and aerodynamically sealed the wheels inside.

The main gear each had one small wheel between the outer pair of wheels. This small wheel acted as a braking sensor was an early ABS mechanism. During rejected takeoffs the brakes could heat up to 1,000 degree F.

The main landing gear.

The landing gear struts were made of forged chromium-molybdenum steel for its exceptional strength and fatigue resistance. The struts were more than capable of handling the 500,000 pound gross weight during heavy landings at over 200 knots.

The tyres were made by Goodyear and had aluminium woven into them to withstand the high landing temperatures of over 300 degrees F. Each tire was Nitrogen inflated to over 250 psi.

The XB-70s brakes had a multiple disc setup. Each disc is made of forged steel. They were heat treated to resist warping and cracking under extreme thermal loads.

The Fuel System

The aircraft carried approximately 43 – 46,000 gallons of JP-6 Fuel. Everything about the system was about managing heat, aircraft stability & structural integrity in addition to feeding the engines optimally across the speed range.

Fuel was stored across eleven fuel tanks distributed across the fuselage and wings of the aircraft. The tanks themselves were constructed using the same honeycomb sandwich panels used for the fuselage skin. The honeycombing did throw up sealing issues which was resolved using advanced epoxy compounds. Although some tanks never properly sealed and hence were never used (ex: the tail tank).

Using the JP-6 fuel as a coolant was a first ! The fuel was circulated through ten heat exchangers throughout the aircraft to absorb and dissipate heat. The heat exchangers were part of the engines fuel pumping system enroute to ignition.

The tanks themselves had heatsinks within each of them to draw excess heat. Furthermore to prevent vapor ignition the tanks were inerted using 700 pounds of liquid nitrogen held in dedicated tanks. As fuel was consumed nitrogen filled the empty tanks to maintain pressure, displace oxygen and reduce fire risk at elevated temperatures.

The fuel management system was integral to the Centre of Gravity Management system. The system actively transferred fuel between tanks as Mach numbers increased. As speed increases the aerodynamic centre of the aircraft moves rearward. The centre of gravity needs to coincide with this to avoid a Mach Tuck. By drooping the outer wingtips in conjunction with its canards, the aircraft effectively moved the centre of pressure forward. The fuel management system worked in conjunction with the compression lift mechanism by moving fuel forward to balance the rearward move of the aerodynamic centre. The wing tanks were typically burned off first. 

We observe here that all systems were dependent on each other to maintain stability.

Lastly the JP-6 fuel was specifically developed for the XB-70 program and its extreme speed regime. It addressed the issues of aerodynamic heating, high speed engine performance and safety & high altitude operation. The fuel performance exceeded all the XB-70 operating parameters and was developed as an alternative to zip fuels (high calorific value boron based fuels). Zip fuels had caustic byproducts that caused engine wear and posed toxicity risks.

Kerosene based JP-6 was the safe alternative that provided for all requirements without the byproducts. 

The Materials of the XB-70

Over ninety percent of the external structure of the XB-70 ( fuselage skin, nacelles ) was made of type 321 stainless steel built as a honeycomb structure. The material and construction had high thermal resistance of up to 600 degrees F with minimal distortion at Mach 3. The structure itself was rigid, lightweight and thermally stable.

The Honeycomb panels used on the XB-70.

The hot areas such as engine bays & aft of bays & internal structure was made of a titanium alloy called Ti-6Al-4V also known as Grade 5 titanium. The alloy was 90% titanium, 6% aluminium, 4% vanadium and had excellent thermal resistance of over 1000 degrees F with an excellent strength to weight ratio.

High temperature adhesives used to bond the honeycomb structure were made of redux and epoxy adhesives. The honeycomb structure could not be riveted as it would weaken the structure.

Non heat zones such as avionics bays, hydraulic lines & non load bearing fuselage sections were made of aluminium alloys as they were light weight, easy to machine and cooler.

The engine and exhaust area materials were made of Inconel & Rene 41. These alloys can resist very high EGTs in the range of 1,800 degrees F.

All coatings and sealants had heat resistant coatings to prevent oxidation and surface degradation due high temperatures. The sealants protected the honeycomb edges from moisture intrusion & thermal cycling damage.

Strategic Bomber to Experimental Research Platform 

By the late 1950s the US & Soviet SAMs were getting bigger, faster and more powerful. President Eisenhower was a proponent of the ICBMs (Inter Continental Ballistic Missiles). His take on the XB-70 program was that “ building the XB-70 was like fighting with bows & arrows in the era of gunpowder and guns” The XB-70 just could not cope with the banks of Soviet SAM systems coming online across the entire USSR. 

Gary Powers was shot down in a U2 over the USSR at 70,400 feet and this would prove President Eisenhower’s prophecy.

The program was cancelled in 1959, however to salvage the considerable expenditure already incurred (over $300 mn) the Pentagon authorized the production of a single vehicle. AV1 was almost completely handbuilt.

Pic 1 shows the XB-70 with flaked off paint after a supersonic run. The second picture shows the XB-70 with the A-12 Oxcart.

The XB-70 program is a great example of how politics directs expenditure. As the political tug of war continued NAA was caught in the middle of a fierce battle. The Air Force continued to support the program and even attempted to reinstate it as a combat test vehicle.

The 1960 election of President Kennedy brought fresh impetus to a failing program, the President switched the program from a manned bomber to an experimental aircraft. A total of three were to be constructed, however only two were ever completed, the third was incomplete (the avionics and other systems were actually ready).

NAA should be commended for sticking through the program at each step. Finally there was consensus across all stakeholders including the Air Force, Politicians, NASA & of course NAA.

The XB-70 in the Air

Total flights – 129

AV1 – total flights83
Total flight time – 160hrs 16min

Mach 3 flights – 1. 

AV1 had several design issues that restricted speed to Mach 2.5

AV2 – total flights 46

Total flight time – 92hrs 22min

Mach 3 flights – 9

On May 19, 1966 AV2 flew at Mach 3 for 32 consecutive minutes.

Combined, the XB-70 Valkyrie accumulated a total of 1hr 48min at Mach 3+.

Each flight of the XB-70 was an adventure and there were several incidents.

The Legacy of the XB-70 Valkyrie

The XB-70 was an aircraft of many firsts, later adopted for use by the Aviation / Aerospace Industry. Below are listed a few of them!

  • Variable geometry wings later adopted by aircraft such as the B-1A/B Lancer. Compression lift later used by the SR-71. The overall aerodynamic stability of XB-70 influenced several other projects.
  • Material and thermal management solutions advanced the development of heat-resistant structures and cooling systems, impacting aerospace exploration technologies.
  • Fuel and propulsion innovations directly contributed to the SR-71 and indirectly to modern jet engines and fuel systems, particularly for high-speed and high-altitude operations. 
  • Avionics and automation laid groundwork for modern flight control and safety systems, enhancing reliability and reducing pilot workload in complex aircraft .
  • The XB-70’s strategic obsolescence redirected military aviation toward low-altitude and stealth technologies, while its test data shaped research and development for decades

Epilogue 

Over 50 years after her last flight in 1969 the XB-70 at the National Museum of the United States Airforce, looks ready to take off and fly away to the clouds where she belongs. Makes you wonder what she would have been like in the air? A combination of size, speed, sound ,smoke & incredible power all coming together creating a show like none other.

Perhaps the Valkyrie’s greatest message to future generations is ‘ Always be innovating, it’s the only path forward’.

The XB-70 says good bye as she accelerates to Mach speed with her wingtips down to 65 degrees….

Credit for all pictures to the respective owners.

Please be sure to read about the Flying & Blended Wings, a two part series here. http://theaviationevangelist.com/2025/09/13/the-evolution-of-the-flying-wing-part-one/

For more deep dive easy to read articles please go to https://theaviationevangelist.com do keep scrolling down, and do share

Follow me:

LinkedIn : https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-aviation-evangelist/

X : @ManiRayaprolu

Reddit : r/theaviationevangelist

Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61583497868441#

https://www.instagram.com/theaviationevangelist?igsh=ZjA5YXI3MWd3OGZs&utm_source=qr

Introduction

The F-117 & the B-2 have firmly ingrained the shape of stealth in our collective imagination. Stealth represents the pinnacle of technology, power & supremacy. To truly understand stealth we need to go back to the beginning.

Stealth is a form of camouflage. The earliest forms were natural cover for example in forests, armies marching by night or hunters disguising themselves to blend with their surroundings. In the early days of aviation stealth as a concept did not exist. Flying in WW1 was mainly at night or Zeppelins flew noiselessly at high altitudes or under cover of night.

The concept of Radar was first introduced in 1886 by Heinrich Hertz who observed that radio waves deflect off metal bodies. The development of Radar in the 1920s & 1930s by both Germany & Britain also began the idea of radar avoidance. There was little understanding of how Radars actually detected metal objects or the concept of RCS (Radar Cross Section).

The first experiments with stealth began in WW2 and the most famous example of stealth albeit accidental is the Ho-229 by the Horten Brothers. A flying wing that had a severely curtailed RCS due to its combination of design & materials. Another example of accidental stealth is the  DeHavilland Mosquito, which had a low RCS because it was made of wood.

These aircraft are considered stealth generation zero some stealth and high maneuverability.

The Lockheed SR-71 and the Blackbird Family of aircraft are the first aircraft where stealth was conciously applied.  The Blended Wing Fuselage (read : https://theaviationevangelist.com/2025/09/19/the-flying-wing-part-two-the-blended-wing-body/ ) and inward canted vertical stabilizers were intended to divert radio waves away from the emitter/receiver in addition to the fins being contructed from early composite materials.

The most popular image of the Lockheed SR-71 in flight. One that I first saw in 1975. Pic Source : Wikipedia

The paint on the aircraft was radar absorbing and consisted of iron particles to convert radar waves to heat, plasma stealth was experimented on the A-12 Oxcart where fuel contained a cesium based additive that created an ionized cloud of exhaust to absorb radar waves. The RCS of the SR-71 was bigger than a bird but smaller than a man. The SR-71’s biggest weapon was its speed at over Mach 3.0

The Blackbird Family of aircraft are the first generation of stealth combining speed and low maneuverability.

The Concept of Stealth was formalized by Russian electrical engineer & mathematical physicist Pyotr Ufemtsev when he published his epochal research now known as ‘Physical Theory of Diffraction’ (PTD) in 1962.

Pyotr Ufemtsev

While at Institute 108 (a key institute in the research of radio & radar technology) in 1954 Ufemtsev began his research into the reflection of electromagnetic waves and began developing a high frequency theory for predicting the scattering of electromagnetic waves from 2 & 3D objects.The shapes of the objects included discs, cylinders, cones, flat bases and wires in addition to several other geometrical shapes. These findings together came to be known as PTD and were published in his book ‘ Method of Edge Waves in the Physical Theory of Diffraction’ (PTD for short) in 1962.

The Russian think tank deemed the findings to have no significant military value and okayed his book to be published internationally. And the book languished for over a decade, before it was rediscovered by Denys Overholser of Lockheed. However this comes later.

Ufemtsev continued with his research in yet another gray forgotten facility in the former USSR for another twenty years. Gorbachev’s Perestroika gained traction in 1985 and the scientific funding that most of the institutes in the USSR received began to dry up. In the words of Ufemtsev, science took a back seat and political reform took center stage.

Pyotr Ufemtsev the Father of Stealth. Pic Source : Wikipedia

In 1989 Ufemtsev was in Stockholm to attend the Technology Symposium when in his own words he was surrounded by about ten Americans who said they were his students. You can imagine his shock as most of these ‘students’ looked middle aged and were professors themselves. One of them was from the University of California and offered him a position of visiting faculty. By this time USSR had almost fallen and Ufentsev was free to leave, which he did and Ufemtsev & his family found themselves in sunny California in University accommodation. It was here that could resume his research that was close to his heart. He was asked for a plan of reserach and funds were released direct from NASA to UCLA.

All this while Ufemtsev claims he was unaware stealth aircraft were being developed using his theory. His lecture at the 1992 National Convention of Science & Technology in Nice, France was one which was closely anticipated and watched by the Americans! Why? You might ask, the lecture was about how to defeat stealth.

Most radars of the time were monostatic radars. To put it simply, both the receiver and the transmitter of the radar are in one unit, so radio waves travel both and forth down the same corridor. At full absorption the radio energy is at coefficient zero or 50% absorption. He further explained that stealth aircraft were surrounded by a dispersed energy field, however there was no physical manner of decoding this. 

The other manner of defeating stealth was to have the bistatic or multistatic radars, where the transmitters and receivers are separated by varying distances. This increases the complexity of the unit, however as stealth aircraft are primarily about deflecting the radio waves away from the transmitter, the chances of being caught in a multi static radar array are much higher. The technology has been around since the 1920s, however post Ufemtsev’s lecture and the continued rise of stealth, bi/multistatic radar has seen a resurgence since the 1990s.

Into his 90s now Ufemtsev is the father of stealth. 

Project Harvey

The 1973 Yom Kippur war was a major wake up call for the US. The 19 day war was lethal for US made aircraft. Of the total 102 aircraft lost, 85 were American made, 32 F-4 Phantoms & 53 A-4 Skyhawks. The Soviet made S-75 Dvina missiles were part of an integrated air defense system supplied by the USSR to the Egyptian & Syrian forces were lethal against Israeli aircraft.

The war and result was a huge wake up call for DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) who initiated Project Harvey. Harvey the name from Harvey the Rabbit an invisible six foot tall white rabbit from the 1950 movie.

US strategic planners realized the vulnerability US aircraft & forces faced if they were ever to be in a similar high threat environment. In 1974 Chuck Myers, Director of Air Warfares Programs, espoused the ‘ Harvey ‘ concept to Robert Moore, Deputy Director of DARPA. They needed a new aircraft that would be invisible to enemy radar, infrared and other sensors. The idea almost immediately gained the support of the Pentagon and DARPA took the lead. This led to the highly classified ‘Have Blue’ program. DARPA invited McDonnell Douglas, Grumman, General Dynamics, Fairchild & Northrop. Lockheed was a surprise entry, they were initially not invited, however they leveraged their experience with the A-12 & SR-71 projects with DARPA and won an invite.

The final two projects accepted by DARPA were Northrop & Lockheed and after testing both model mockups (they were surprisingly similar) Lockheed won, and this would result in the legendary F-117 Nighthawk.

Have Blue & The F-117 Nighthawk

Ben Rich who succeeded Kelly Johnson as Director of Lockheed Skunk Works put together a team of talented individuals across several critical fields,  they consisted of Bill Schroeder a veteran designer, Dick Sherrer preliminary designer, Denys Overholser among many famous names.

Denys Overholser recommended an aircraft with flat surfaces. In Overholser’s own words “Well, it’s simple, you just make it out of flat surfaces and tilt those surfaces over, sweeping the edges away from the radar view angle, and that way you basically cause the energy to reflect away from the radar”. Using Overholser’s recommendations, Dick Scherrer drew a preliminary aircraft with low RCS. The aircraft had faceted surfaces. The aircraft looked like anything but an aircraft and definitely did not look like it would fly.

The original Hopeless Diamond. Pic Source : Wikipedia

Over the next several weeks Overholser and Scroeder put together a computer team to create a prediction software called ‘Echo 1’. Ufemtsev’s calculations were incorporated into the software (Ufemtsev’s work had been translated by USAF Systems Command Foreign Technology Division which Overholser accidentally discovered). The final design would be a faceted delta wing that was stuck with the name ‘Hopeless Diamond’ a reference to the famous Hope Diamond at Smithsonian. The team took six months to convert Ufemtsev’s calculus to design. On March 7th 1974 at 02:47 a.m the code had its moment of epiphany, pyramids reflected no radar. These shapes were to be incorporated into Have Blue. Kelly Johnson who was sceptical of stealth said to Ben Rich “Our old D-21 drone (a mach 3.3 drone, Kelly Johnson loved speed) has a lower cross section than that goddam diamond”. The shape of Have Blue was limited by the computing power available at the time to create complex shapes, and hence the extremely faceted design.

Have Blue. Pic Source : PICRYL

In the summer of 1975 DARPA formally invited Northrop & Lockheed to develop the Experimental Survivable Testbest (XST). Both the shapes looked surprisingly similar. Northrop used a software called ‘GENSCAT’ similar to ‘Echo 1’. By Nov 1975 both Lockheed and Northrop were awarded $1.5 mn each to build a full scale mockup of their designs to be tested for their RCS signatures. It is important to remember here the designs were about stealth and not about aerodynamics. Lockheed won the round and were asked to build a flying test bed. Northrop were asked to continue with their own development, but were not part of Have Blue anymore.

Northrop’s XST. Pic Source : Reddit User

Lockheed were to build two demonstrators for testing and Ben Rich raised over $10 mn from Lockheed management for development. The demonstrators were ¼ th the size of the final F-117 Nighthawk. They had a wing sweep of 72.5° and had an inverse V tail. It had a wingspan of 22’6” and a length of 47’3” and a MTOW of 12,500 lbs. The small aircraft was powered by two GE J85 turbojets that developed 2950 pounds of thrust each giving it a max speed of 600 mph.

The shape of the aircraft meant it was extremely unstable and it had a quadruple redundancy fly by wire control system that gave the aircraft normal flying characteristics. However actual flights tended to be extremely wobbly, something the F-117 shared with Have Blue and came to be called Woblin Goblin. The two prototypes flew a total of 88 flights between them, before both of them crashed. HB1001 flew a total of 36 sorties and HB1002 flew a total of 52 sorties. Both the pilots were safe. The Have Blue shape was very similar to what Ufemtsev had envisaged.

Overlap comparison of Have Blue & the F-117 Nighthawk. Pic Source: PICRYL

The final shape of the F-117 Nighthawk  had sides that were at least 30° off the vertical with multiple polygonal shapes. The aircraft now sported a V tail. The serrated edges that would be found on the F-117 Nighthawk were all about diverting radar waves away from the point of origin. The final radar cross section of the F-117 is about 0.001 m2 . The length was 65’11” and wingspan was 43’4”, the MTOW was 52,500 pounds with internal weapons bays.

The F-117 was powered by two modified GE F404 – F1D2 family of low bypass turbo fans. In the interest of stealth the engines had no afterburners. The engines were buried deep inside the aircraft to avoid radar waves hitting the fan blades as these give a very loud RCS return. Furthermore both the intakes were covered by a composite radar absorbing grill, so any radar waves that got in would not get out again. The exhaust was buried in a ‘platypus tail’ which was wide, rectangular and flat, furthermore exhaust heat was managed inside the long, buried exhaust duct lined with heat absorbing exhaust tiles. The bypass air was ducted over the tiles to cool them and further facilitate hot exhaust gas mixing with ambient cold air. Furthermore the hot exhaust air was directed at a very narrow angle just behind and above the aircraft.

Rearview and top view of the F-117. Note the faceted shape and exhaust. Pic Source : Wiki Commons

The F-117 had almost one ton of radar absorbent material (RAM) consisting of several composites. The RAM actually impacted load and trim. The first was iron ball paint which consisted of polymer based paint infused with ferrite. The second was several layers of carbon based layered composite materials. When radar waves hit the iron balls oscillate and convert the electromagnetic waves to heat which is dissipated by the aircraft body. The RAM was cut much like a linoleum sheet and glued to the aircraft skin. The gaps between the panels were filled with a putty called butter. This ensured a seamless face to radar with no gaps. The glass of the cockpit was coated with a special composite mixture to absorb radar waves as well. In fact at one point of time Skunk Works toyed with filling up the cockpit with Carbon Monoxide, which would mask the pilot, however this was firmly rebutted by the pilots themselves!

The F-117 had a hinged radio antenna that hinged back into the aircraft body. Once retracted it meant the aircraft was silent with no contact. The pitot tubes themselves were designed to divert radar away from the emitter. In fact they were so sharp that one could cut a finger on them. The main pitot tube speed incicator had one hole that flew directly into the path of oncoming air for airspeed. This was also right out front in clean air. One of the reasons the F-117 did not go supersonic was to avoid shockwaves coming off the tube.

While Have Blue first flew in 1977, it was a black project and was only publicly disclosed in Nov 1988 after the disclosure of the B-2. 

The flyaway cost of each aircraft was $45 in 1981 dollars.

The F-117A is the second generation of stealth combining stealth with reasonable agility.

Tacit Blue & the B-2 Spirit

The Northrop Tacit Blue was a low observable stealth surveillance technology demonstrator aircraft. The aircraft could operate close or behind enemy lines with a high degree of survivability due its low probability of intercept radar (LIPR) and other sensors. The aircraft flew between 1982 – 85 but was publicly unveiled only in 1996.

The designation YF-117D represents an evolution on both Have Blue & F-117 programs. Tacit Blue was about demonstrating not only the next level of stealth design but other advances such as radar sensor technology was part of the ‘ Assault Breaker ‘ program that included technologies such as lasers, electro optical sensors, data processors etc that could break up ground launches working together in unison.

Tacit Blue. Pic Source : Wikipedia

Tacit Blue, nicknamed ‘ the whale / alien school bus’ featured a straight tapered wing with a V tail.. The fuselage was curved in a manner to cut RCS, and ended in a rectangular edge all round that protruded. The engines had a single flush inlet on top of the fuselage that led to a S shaped curve as did the exhaust. The exhaust did not have the ceramic tiles the F-117 had but was instead lined with radar absorbent and heat resistant coatings. The exhaust nozzle itself was flat, wide and a curved arc that blended into the highly curved body. The nozzle was placed between the V tail. The setup ensured the engines would have no exhaust / intake signature on radar. 

Rearview of Tacit Blue. Pic Source: Wikipedia

The aircraft featured concealed radar as mentioned earlier so it could be in touch with its ecosystem at all times. The radar did not interfere with its RCS signature. The shape of Tacit Blue was possible because of strides in computing power that in turn enabled more complex radar cheating shapes. Overall a look at Tacit Blue tells you of a shape is continuous with no breaks and very reminiscent of the B-2 Spirit.

The aircraft used two Garrett ATF-3-6 medium bypass turbofans that produced 5,440 pounds of thrust each. The engines propelled the whale at 290 mph, which is reasonable considering the aim of the aircraft was reconnaissance and not speed. The aircraft had a service ceiling of between 25-30,000 feet. 

The materials used on the aircraft were aluminium for the fuselage and wings structure with Titanium in structural components. The empennage, wing & fuselage leading edges used proprietary Northrop radar absorbent composite materials. The RAM continued to use ferrite materials that were highly radar absorbent, however unlike the F-117 the material could be applied to the continuous curved surfaces and not have to use butter in between panels.

Tacit Blue flew a total 135 sorties and 250 hours over a three year period and gathered valuable data that was used in the B-2 Spirit. 

The B-2 was the spiritual successor to Tacit Blue. It incorporated several technologies from both Tacit & Have Blue. The S shaped engine intakes and active exhaust gas management. The curved surfaces of Tacit Blue showed that improvements in computing power meant stealth aircraft shapes could be complex curves. The radar integration on Tacit Blue is on the B-2 as well. 

The Advanced Technology Bomber program as the B-2 was known began in 1979. The black project codenamed Aurora narrowed on the Northrop/Boeing & Lockheed/Rockwell teams to begin preliminary work. Both the teams came up with Flying Wing designs with Northrop’s proposal codenamed ‘Senior Ice’ & Lockheed’s as ‘Senior Peg’. Northrop’s proposal won as they already had experience with flying wings from their YB-35/49 days , their aircraft was larger & was a pure flying wing. Lockheed’s proposal was more like its Have Blue program featured a faceted design and incorporated a small tail. Northrop was awarded the contract in late 1981.

Senior Peg by Lockheed. Pic Source : TWZ

For the Northrop the B-2 Spirit was the culmination of almost 40 years on flying wing aircraft ( read: https://theaviationevangelist.com/2025/09/13/the-evolution-of-the-flying-wing-part-one/ ). Flying wings are naturally stealthy along with the technologies validated by participating in the Have Blue and Tacit Blue programs.

In its final form the B-2 is a lambda wing and is made of mostly carbon graphite composite material, with buried engines that have S shaped ducts for intakes and active exhaust management. The RAM on the B-2 is even more advanced than on the F-117 & Tacit Blue. While the material continues to be classified we can speculate it uses alternate high frequency material to reduce maintenance post each sortie. The iron ball paint technology is probably used as well in addition to signature control materials such as sealants (butter?), and conductive tapes. All of this gives the B-2 a radar profile of 0.1 m2 .To protect the coatings the B-2 is stored in environmentally controlled hangers called B-2 shelter systems (B2SS).

The B-2 Spirit. Pic Source : Wikipedia

The length of the B-2 is 69 feet with a wingspan of 172 feet (same as the YB35/49) and a height of 17 feet. Its MTOW is 376,000 pounds. The engines on the B-2 are four GE F118 non afterburning low bypass turbofans that develop 17,300 pounds of thrust each. The cruise speed of the B-2 is 630 mph with a service ceiling of 50,000 feet and a range of 6,900 miles, all phenomenal statistics considering it is almost never seen!

By 2004 the total program had cost $44.75 bn. Calculating the cost over 21 aircraft produced the cost per aircraft comes to $2.1 bn!

The B-2 represents the third generation in the stealth technology evolution.

The YF-23 & the F-22 Raptor

By 1986 the Soviet Union had several emerging threats such as the Sukhoi Su-27, the Mikoyoyan MIG-29 fighters and the under development Beriev A-50 airborne warning & control system (AWACS) along with increasingly sophisticated SAMs. The US needed to replace its aging air superiority fighter the F-15 Eagle. The Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) would use the stealth technologies developed along with advanced avionics, fly by wire systems, and advanced propulsion systems. Lockheed and Northrop were invited by DARPA as lead contractors of their respective teams due to their previous experience with all of the above. Lockheed’s proposal was dubbed the YF-22 & Northrop’s YF-23. Both aircraft had very similar properties.

The YF-23 with the B-2 coming in at Edwards AFB. Pic Source : Wikipedia

The YF-23 nicknamed ‘ Black Widow II’ had two prototypes built. Northrop teamed up with McDonnell Douglas and the prototypes would run both Pratt & Whitney and General Electric engines. So while this was a competition between airframe manufacturers it was a competition between engine manufacturers as well.

Three design concepts were studied, the Agile Maneuverable Fighter (AMF) with two vertical tails, that had the best handling but the least stealth was the first. The second was the Ultra Stealth Fighter (USF) that had the best stealth characteristics called the Christmas Tree due to its design and the third was the High Stealth Fighter (HSF) which balanced stealth and maneuverability. It had diamond shaped wings and all moving V tail rudders. The third would eventually become the YF-23.Northrop received $691 mn as did Lockheed and given 50 months to create for demonstration & validation (Dem/Val) two prototypes each.

The three designs Northrop assessed. Pic Source: Wikipedia

The YF-23s faceted & blended fuselage with its diamond shaped wings had very good RCS return of 0.001m2 , the steeply canted V tail (at 50°) gave the aircraft the agility it needed while at the same time blocking out the engine exhausts. The tail itself had the span of a small aircraft. A top view of the aircraft shows an alignment of all the edges along a couple of axis, this is critical to control radar return in a very narrow corridor. The engine intakes (at the entrance had a porous section) again had S shaped ducts similar to the B-2 and the exhaust had active gas cooling with ceramic tiles similar to the F-117. All weapons and radars were carried internally. The RAM continued to use the ‘iron ball paint’. Critical parts such as the all moving tail were made of advanced composite materials with high radar absorption. 

The YF-23 was tested with both the engine options. On the P&W YF119 option YF-23A number 1 flew a total of 34 flights for 44.3 hours. The maximum AoA at minimum speed was 25°, while the max speed was Mach 1.8 at maximum altitude of 50,000 feet..impressive numbers.

Prototype number 2 flew with the GE YF120 option, clocked 16 flights for a total of 21.6 flight hours. The max AoA at min speed was 20°, while max speed was Mach 1.72 at 50,000 feet max altitude. 

Both sets of numbers are impressive, while both the engines had afterburners the YF-23 could cruise comfortably at Mach 1.4-1.6 without them. An F-16 needed to afterburn to keep up.

The final specs of the aircraft was a length of 67’5”, wingspan of 43’7” and height of 13’11”. A MTOW of 51,320 pounds. The engines tested were two P&W YF119 and two GE YF120 that generated 23,500 pounds of thrust each (YF120) dry or 35,000 pounds with afterburner. The prototypes had to be constructed within a 3 month month period as their 50 month deadline was running out.

Lockheed teamed up with Boeing and General Dynamics to create the YF-22 which would become the F-22 Raptor. As stealth took centre stage the design team at Lockheed Skunk Works led by Bart Osborne moved away from its SR-71 type designs and once again came up with a design very similar to the F-117s faceted shape as they used the same computer program Echo 1. This design gave very poor aerodynamic handling characteristics. They needed to get better. They needed a design more like Northrop’s curved blended aircraft.

The final design submitted by Lockheed and team was vastly improved on the faceted design, incorporating curved shapes and surfaces. While the computers were not able to handle the design, physical reliance on radar range testing improved RCS while the curved shapes helped aerodynamics. The final design submitted for Dem/Val designated 090P had an arrow head forward fuselage, trapezoidal wings that had a steep crank on the leading edge and four empennage tail surfaces. The engines used the now familiar S shaped inlet and the rectangular exhaust nozzles and this is where the magic happened.

A screen grab showing the F-22 aligned edges. Pic Source: Western Museum of Flight

The nozzles featured a 2D thrust vectoring system that pivoted the exhaust stream down by up to 20°. This in conjunction with the all moving horizontal tail planes in conjunction with the twin vertical stabilizers (canted at 28°) gave the aircraft incredible pitch and stability control. And this probably won the F-22 Raptor contract.

The aircraft was constructed of composites which have now become a trend in stealth aircraft in addition to leading / trailing edge alignment all round. The large fins continue to mask the engine exhaust. The RAM on the YF-22 is a proprietary formula developed by Lockheed and Boeing an advancement on the iron ball paint formula and is done in layers. All hatches and openings on the aircraft are serrated much like the YF-23 to deflect radar waves away. In addition the surface of the aircraft is multiple shades of gray, these are different materials bonded together to further deflect radar waves and reduce RCS.

The first prototype with GE 120 engine first flew in September 1990 while the second with the P&W engines first flew in Oct the same year. The prototype with the GE 120 engines did a total of 43 flights for a total of 52.8 hours, maximum AoA at min speed was an insane 60°, while maximum speed was over Mach 2 at max altitude of 50,000 feet. The prototype with P&W engines flew a total of 31 flights for 38.8 flight hours, max AoA at min speed was 20° while max speed was MAch 1.81 at 45,000 feet. 

The YF-22 won, but it needs be said the YF-23 is a legendary aircraft in its own right. The F-22 Raptor final specs were a length of 62’1” and a wingspan of 44’6”. The MTOW is 83,500 pounds and is powered by P&W F119 engines that develop 26,000 pounds of thrust each dry and 35,000 pounds of thrust each with afterburner. The max speed is Mach 2.25 and range is 1,800 miles.

A total of 195 F-22 Raptors were constructed at a cost of $67.3 bn, at a unit program acquisition cost of over $350m each as the construction numbers were heavily curtailed from 750 as the costs proved to be prohibitively expensive and shifting priorities after the end of the Cold War.

The F-22 Raptor is the fourth generation of stealth incorporating speed and maneuverability.

The F-35 Lighting & The Democratization of Stealth

In 1993 DARPA launched the affordable Common Affordable Strike Lightweight Strikefighter (CALF) project to develop a stealth aircraft that would eventually repace the F-16, F-18 &Harrier across forces. The Joint Advanced Strike Technology project started in 1994. Congress order both of them to be merged and this became the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). The fighter needed to a versitile fighter that was capable of Short Take Off & Vertical Landing (STOVL) and be capable of a supersonic dash while being stealthy. There were four submissions Mc Donnel Douglas, Northrop, Lockheed & Boeing.

By 1996 the two finalists were Lockheed and Boeing. Both were awarded $750 million each to build two concept demonstrators each. Boeing would develop the X-32 & Lockheed the X-35.

Boeing’s strategy was about keeping lifecycle costs down by minimizing variations across applications. The X-32 had a carbon fibre composite delta wing with a 55° sweep angle and a thick leading edge. This allowed the aircraft to have minimal transonic drag , aid lift at lower speeds and carry radio antennas internally.

The X-32 used a single P&W F119 powerplant that put out 28,000 pounds of thrust , dry and 43,000 pounds of thrust with afterburner. For STOVL the aircraft used thrust vectoring where the engine nozzle moved down upto 15°. The aircraft had a V tail canted to 58° each and an air intake that was directly beneath the cockpit reminicent of the F-16 and unfortunately could not achieve the kind of stealth required.

The Boeing X-35 prototype. Pic Source: Wikipedia

The final specs of the aircraft show a length of 45’0.1”, wingspan of 36’ & height of 17’3.8”. The MTOW of the aircraft was 38,000 pounds with all weapons to be carried internally. The max speed of the aircraft was 1,200 mph max range across profiles was 850 miles in the USAF profile. 

The X-35 used many design elements from the F-22 Raptor (and does not need to repeated) and the VTOL exhaust duct from the Covair Model 200 from 1972. Furthermore Lockheed had purchased technical data from the cancelled Russian Yak-141 for examination of its swivel nozzle in 1991. The aircraft used helmet mounted display systems that had already been around to integrate into the hardware.

The stand out element of the X-35 was the shaft driven lift turbofan. The design was pateneted by Lockheed engineer Paul Bevilaqua and developed by Roll Royce. During normal flight the engine behaved as a normal medium bypass turbofan with afterburners. The turbofan also acted as a turboshaft engine where the engine produces shaft power instead of jet thrust a concept used in helicopters.

The engine nozzle, shaft & hover fan assembly of the F-35. Pic Source: Wikipedia

Where the X-35 differs is only a portion of the jet’s power is directed to the shaft, the rest of the power is still directed towards a thrust vectoring engine nozzle for hover mode. The nozzle can swvel to an astonishing 95° using the 3 Bearing Swivel Duct Nozzle (3BSD). The aircraft can transition from normal flight mode to hover inflight. The shaft in turn drove a two stage titanium lift fan that was 50” in diameter. The entire fan assembly and housing weiged in 1.2 tons, a deadweight during normal flight. In the interests of stealth the far was closed out from both top & bottom when not in use and was a dead weight during normal flight.

The X-35 inflight. Pic Source: Wikipedia

The final specs of the aircraft was a length of 50’5” , wingspan of 33’ & height of 13’3”. The MTOW was 50,000 pounds and powerplant was the P&W F119 turbofan that generated 25,000 pounds of thrust dry and 40,000 pounds with afterburner. The max speed was Mach 1.5+ and a max range of 1,400 miles with a service ceiling of 50,000 feet.

The X-35 won mainly on the basis of its extremely versitality and would become the F-35 Lightening. The final unit cost of an average of just over $100 mn a unit across variants represents a huge improvement in costs.

The F-35 represents the Fifth Generation of stealth aircraft.

Since the 2010s as stealth technology has been better undertood & costs bought down countries such as China & Russia we have seen a raft of stealth aircraft make their way into pubic awareness. Of these the J-50 & J-36 from China stand out as they incorporate All Moving Wingtips (AMT) along with tailess designs ( read here : https://theaviationevangelist.com/2025/10/02/lambda-wings-moving-wingtips-flying-wings-part-3/ ). The Chinese also have the J-20. Tailess aircraft being naturally stealthy. A late edit: A Chinese Team has recently unveiled an evolutionary new stealth material that has a durable and flexible coating that is extremely thin at just 0.1mm. Furthermore one of its properties is impedance tuning , adjusting dynamically to ambient surroundings including temperature. Such a property is critical to advanced stealth as it controls the material’s interaction with incoming electromagnetic waves from radars within range. This is a developing story and not many details are known yet.The Russian Su-57 is another example of stealth technology at work. The US has the B-21 Raider the the F-47 under development, both of them promise to be interesting developments in the evolution of stealth.

Stealth is the standard by which air superiority aircraft are measured.

The Future

The advent of drones like the loyal wingman, the Lockheed Vectiss is a stealth drone that flies ahead in high risk environments and ensure surviveability for airmen. This also represents the connected environment stealth enconpasses, it’s not just about stealth its about communicating effectively.

Stealth has spurred the evolution of radars. Bistatic & multistatic radars are getting more sophisticated (they are complex). RAM is optimized for high frequency but low frequency are getting better at stealth aircraft detection. Over the Horizon radars have the ability to monitor vast areas by bouncing their waves off the ionosphere. AI is playing a big hand in patching multiple data points to create a single picture this strenthens existing infrastructure. 

Quantum radar is in its infancy. Quantum radar looks at subtle changes in photons through quantum entanglement , this will render current stealth technology ineffective. We are getting better at detecting Ufemtsev’s theoretical radiation bubble around stealth aircraft. 

The next level of stealth is a cloaking device much like Star Trek!

Read More Amazing Content at: https://theaviationevangelist.com do keep scrolling down, and do share

Follow me:

LinkedIn : https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-aviation-evangelist/

X : @ManiRayaprolu

Reddit : r/theaviationevangelist

Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61583497868441#

https://www.instagram.com/theaviationevangelist?igsh=ZjA5YXI3MWd3OGZs&utm_source=qr

The Shenyang J-50 / J-XDS

The leaked pictures of the Shenyang J-50 last week on its takeoff roll, with its sleek lines looking like something out of Star Trek raised quite a stir on Social Media.

While the J-50’s tailless design & lambda wings raised eyebrows worldwide, what really got the buzz were the all moving wingtips (AMT) .

Before we get into the evolution of Lambda Wings, let us first investigate the all moving wingtips.

The Shenyang J-50. Note the wingtip angle. Source: X intelligence Pic

The All Moving Wingtips (AMTs)

Tailless flying wings or low drag configurations have always had yaw and pitch control challenges typical only to them. The control challenges have two approaches in the flying wing ecosystem. The drag rudder (made famous by the B2- Spirit & the Ho-229) and the recently made famous all moving wingtip.

The drag rudder schematic. Pic source: screenshot from slope dudes

On the face of it both of them appear to do the same thing but in actuality they are different. 

In AMTs the entire wingtip swivels or pivots, this gets them to act as mini wings, generating lift to create precise pitching/rolling movements with minimal drag.

Split rudders by opening to disrupt airflow create drag based yawing moments, they are effective for directional control in tailless aircraft but less agile for pitch control.

To sum up, on a fighter aircraft which has to be capable of high-alpha (high AoA) movements, AMTs are much more effective than drag rudders which are effective for stable level flight with gentler yaw moments much like a B2’s.

The evolution of AMTs

Right from J W Dunne’s early tailless flying wing designs in the early 1900s, they  had high angle of attack (AoA > 15°) instability, a pitch up due to vortex formations and airflow flow separation. 

Early stability was achieved through wing washout (refer part one of this series), some others such Jack Northrop’s N-1M from 1941 had manually adjustable wingtips that were adjusted preflight. These wingtips moved up and down on the vertical axis (altering the dihedral/anhedral angle relative to the main wing plane), however it was found that drooping wingtips did not contribute to lift and increased drag. Subsequently the wings were left flat inflight.

The Northrop N-1M. Note the dropping wingtips set before flight. Pic Source: Northrop Grumman Corporation on FB

The Ho-229 used elevons, a combination of elevators and ailerons. The elevons on the wingtips leveraged the wings outer sections for a greater moment arm (the perpendicular distance from the axis of rotation to the line of action of a force), improving control authority. The Ho-229’s elevons(which either deflected together or rolled differentially) on the wingtips can be considered  an early precursor to AMTs.

The Short SB.4 Sherpa is considered a milestone in the evolution of AMTs. It had an aero-isoclinic swept wing (maintaining a constant angle of incidence despite wing flexing and air loads, preventing issues like torsional instability, aileron reversal, and tip stalling). It had a 42° leading edge sweep and was designed by G.T.R.Hill who had designed the Westland Pterodactyls & BWB(detailed in parts one & two). The SB.4 Sherpa was the very first aircraft with controllable AMTs and its all moving wingtips acted as elevons (only). The AMTs were 20% of the total wing area and were hinged at 30% chord (means that the pivot point for the elevon was not at the very front of the control surface but further back. This allows the elevon to act more like an all-moving stabiliser and less like a conventional aileron, increasing its control authority).  

The all moving wingtips set before on the SB.4 . Pic Source : Wikipedia

The elevons had a symmetric rotation of ±15° and asymmetric rotation of ±10°. While the design was pathbreaking the electric actuators were slow and underpowered for larger aircraft, limiting scalability. The tests on the SB.4 that ran between 1953-64 confirmed 15% better control at high AoA vs flaps. The SB.4 Sherpa’s cancellation would only highlight the influence AMTs could  have on future aircraft.

During the 1980s the concept of wingerons on RC gliders (C.R. Turbo Kit) came about. They adapted the AMT concept for lightweight, low speed gliders. It became popular in RC communities because it simplified construction and enhanced soaring efficiency. In these gliders either entire wings were pivoted or just wingtip sections around a central joiner (carbon rod). The AMTs improved glide ratios by approx 15% and the wingerons had great performance at high AoAs (greater than 20°). The wingerons were directly inspired by the Horten Brothers and the SB.4 Sherpa.

The 2023 paper ‘Numerical analysis of pitch-break and all moving wingtip aileron of lambda wing configuration’ (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1270963823004054) reflects on decades of tailless aircraft research (ex: SACCON(Stability And Control CONfiguration), 1303 UAV(lambda wing unmanned combat aerial vehicle UCAV, configuration used for extensive aerodynamic and stability studies, notably its low-speed characteristics) and advances in computational fluid dynamics (CFD). It further proposes AMTs on aircraft such as the B-2 & X-47B. The reason for this is pitch break (cites the B-2 crash of 2008) over lambda winged aircraft. Pitch break on a lambda wing aircraft is a sudden and unstable pitch up motion that occurs at high AoA . This aerodynamic instability is caused by the complex flow patterns over the wing at high AoA, particularly flow separation over the outboard portion of the wing. The paper further suggested that Pitch-break on lambda wings is attributed to the combined effects of the leading edge vortex and the trailing edge pressure gradient at high angles of attack. A numerical analysis suggests that an all-moving wingtip (AMT) auxiliary aileron could provide more stable pitch control during the pitch-break zone compared to conventional ailerons, demonstrating engineering feasibility.

The paper’s AMTs or pivoting wingtip sections suggested them to be approx 10-15% of the wingspan, rotated symmetrically for a pitch of ± 10°. The differential rotation for roll of ±8°. To achieve precise control fly by wire is a must and the leveraged wingtips influence spanwise flow by adjusting lift and manipulating wingtip vortices, thereby enhancing aerodynamic stability. The paper references A. Schutte ( German Aerospace Centre (DLR)) & Sedat Yayla  (Kocaeli University) among many others who researched aerodynamic challenges in tailless lambda wing configurations.  

The Shenyang J-50 is a synthesis of all the knowledge gained over 70+ years and applied on a sixth generation fighter. The J-50 likely has its AMTs working in a similar manner as suggested above. The hydraulic actuators driven by fly by wire should have responses of <0.5s with composite hinges. The weight of each wingtip should be <100kg (speculation).

In summation the AMTs on the Shenyang J-50 overcame the challenges the tailless Horten Ho-229 & Sherpa SB.4 elevons faced. It takes the RC community idea of wingerons for low drag rotation and further synthesizes it with the 2000s research to deliver unmatched agility on a tailless lambda wing.

The Evolution of Lambda Wings

Without doubt the most famous lambda ( ƛ )wing is the legendary B-2 Spirit. Lambda wings get their name from the lambda shaped kink on their trailing edges. Almost 40 years after her first flight, she continues to inspire awe and respect. The B-2’s lambda wing design emerged from a combination of Jack Northrop’s (considered one of the fathers of the flying wing) flying wings from the 1940s, the need for stealth and desire for superior aerodynamics. To truly understand the lambda wing, let’s go back to the beginning.

The amazing B-2 Spirit. Note the split rudder on the port (left) wing. The lambda shape clearly visible on the trailing edges. Pic Source : Wikipedia

The basic supersonic shape of a wing is the Delta wing, it shaped like a ⍙ . Triangular in shape with a continuous wing sweep of between 35-60°. Double delta wings have kink on the leading edge a 50-60° sweep (vortex lift) and the outer wing (planar lift) has a sweep of approx 30-40°. The moderate kink blends delta and straight wing traits, improving low speed handling without really compromising high speed performance while maintaining aspect ratio.

The J-50 is a Cranked Lambda(Arrow) Wing which has a sharp kink on the leading edge. The inner wing has a sweep of between 60-70° and the outer wing has a sweep of between 30-40°. Furthermore the trailing edge has a kink (ƛ shaped) on it too and contributes to the J-50s stealth performance.

The cranked lambda wings on the J-50. Note the kinks on the leading and trailing edges. The elevons & wingtips clearly visible. Pic source : China Weibo Image

To fully understand Lambda Wings let’s go back to the beginning. Post WW2 early deltas such as Convair XF-92 (1948) and Dassault Mirage I (1955) had excellent high speed characteristics, but poor low speed handling. Engineers looked at hybrids to balance the two, the cold war dictated fighters capable of Mach 2 intercepts and be agile dog fighters. The answer was the double delta.

The Saab 35 Draken is considered a major milestone as the first operational double delta winged aircraft. It had an inner wing sweep of 80° and an outer wing sweep of 60°, this gave it excellent transonic performance and high maneuverability. The draken had only a vertical stabilizer. The kink improved lift to drag ratio by 10-15% at subsonic speeds compared to pure deltas. The Saab 37 Viggen had canards coupled close to the double delta wing, this boosted low speed agility even more and reduced the incidence of stall by generating additional vortices that interacted with the main wing flow.

The Saab 35 Draken with the leading edge kink. Pic Source: Wikipedia

Through the 1960s & 70s various aircraft experimented with variations of the double delta wings, and some of the notable examples were the XB-70 Valkyrie(1964, please read the detailed piece on it), the Tu-144(1969). These examples highlight design progression toward multi role versatility.

The double delta wing on the TU-144. Pic Source : Aerospaceweb.org

Other examples of evolution of the double delta (kink of leading edge) handling include the General Dynamics F-16XL (1982), developed under NASAs high speed research program. It modified a F-16s cropped delta into a cranked double delta with an inner sweep of 70° and an outer wing sweep of 50° and incorporated an S curve on the leading edge for a smooth flow transition. This design experiment improved fuel efficiency by 25% at subsonic speeds , increased range and had enhanced payload (weapons / fuel). The F-16XL had a vertical stabilizer, but proved double delta wing efficiencies. Through the 80s there were several experimental delta wings such as the Grumman X-29, a forward swept wing with close coupled canards that tested aerodynamic efficiencies.

The F-16XL. Pic Source : Lockheed Martin

The 1997 McDonnell Douglas/Boeing – NASA X-36 was a sub-scale tailless demonstrator with lambda wings and close coupled canards. The X-36 would directly influence UACV designs moving ahead.

In the early 2000s a generic lambda wing was used in transonic research to study complex vortical phenomena that occur at subsonic speeds (Mach 0.5-0.8) on lambda wings. The SACCON was used as a research test bed.

The X-36 & X-45 along with other greats at the USAF Museum. Note the trailing edge kinks on both aircraft. Pic Source : USAF Museum

The 2002 Boeing X-45 was a tailless UCAV demonstrator featuring a cranked lambda wing with a 65° inner wing sweep and a 30° outer wing sweep. The trailing edge kink was in the range of 30°.The wing’s leading edge had a sharp kink and swept back planform aligned edges aided RCS (Radar Cross Section) reduction. The design exhibited improved lift coefficients by 15% at transonic speeds, with vortex lift sustaining high-alpha (high AoA) maneuvers. The X- 45 proved autonomous technology along with lambda wing maneuverability.  

The Northrop Grumman X-47B program that ran between 2011-2015 is another example of lambda wings. The X-47B was a lambda wing UAV to test carrier operations. The program was cancelled in 2015 as engineers struggled to balance stealth, aerodynamics & propulsion. The 2023 paper mentioned earlier recommended AMTs. The program validated the concept of unmanned carrier aviation.

Summation

The cranked lambda wings (a.k.a cranked arrow) represents a move forward and an evolution of the double delta wing design. The design features a more pronounced leading edge kink in the range of an inner sweep of between 60-70° and  an outer wing sweep of 20-40° to optimize transonic efficiency and stealth. The crank enhances lift by between 5-10% in the transonic regime and improves vortex sustainability for better longitudinal stability. The lambda shaped kink (approximately 30°)on the trailing edge improves aerodynamic efficiency across the speed regime in addition to contributing to stealth properties.

The Shenyang J-50 a sixth generation Chinese fighter with it’s cranked lambda wing balances subsonic agility , transonic efficiency and supersonic dashes, with its wingtips enhancing high-alpha control by over 15% over traditional elevons. The wing further aid reduced RCS.

The fly by wire J-50 represents the next step in lambda wing evolution and it combines stealth, autonomy & adaptive surfaces and is definitely up there as far as sixth gen fighters go.

The J-50 prepares to take off. Note the wingtips. Pic Source: X

Please do read parts 1 & 2 of this series:

http://theaviationevangelist.com/2025/09/13/the-evolution-of-the-flying-wing-part-one/

http://theaviationevangelist.com/2025/09/19/the-flying-wing-part-two-the-blended-wing-body/ do keep scrolling down, and do share

Follow me:

LinkedIn : https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-aviation-evangelist/

X : @ManiRayaprolu

Reddit : r/theaviationevangelist

Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61583497868441#

https://www.instagram.com/theaviationevangelist?igsh=ZjA5YXI3MWd3OGZs&utm_source=qr

Full Circle Moment

The 2009 IATA Biofuels commitment turned out to be a full circle moment. The commitment did not introduce legally binding quotas on members, but instead made a landmark industrywide commitment to pursue sustainable aviation fuels as a core strategy for decarbonization. This included a pledge to achieve carbon-neutral growth from 2020 onwards (no increase in carbon dioxide emissions from a 2005 baseline) and to cut net carbon emissions in half by 2050 compared once again to a 2005 baseline.(73rd IATA Annual Meeting 2010)

The pledge kickstarted global SAF adoption and over 400,000 commercial flights have used SAF since then (World Economic Forum 2022/ GE Aerospace 2022). The 2009 commitment led to 2021’s ‘Fly Net Zero’ initiative, targeting net-zero emissions by 2050.

This piece looks at not just biofuels but other options as well.

Note the smoke pollution coming off this amazing looking Convair 880. Pic Credit Larry Pullen

The Background

Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF) has the following strengths. The first is the ability to operate  at low ambient temperatures,the second is to have a high calorific value, this is measured by the heat produced by a specific quantity, measured as J/kg (1 Wh/kg = 3600 J/kg). The third is volumetric energy density that is the amount of energy that can be stored within a given volume and is measured as Wh/L and ATF with a volumetric energy density of 35 MJ/L has high density. A flashpoint of 49 degrees centigrade obviously makes it combustible and needs to have safety protocols while being handled. Lastly ATF is cheap to manufacture at approx $1.0 per liter. (Aviation Fuel Wikipedia)

By the mid 2000s aviation was under intense scrutiny for its contribution to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Aviation was responsible for approx 2-3% of all carbon dioxide emissions, and was projected to grow rapidly. (expected to be over 25% by 2050).

While other forms of transport (road,rail,sea) had multiple forms of green propulsion coming up mainly dominated by electricity. Aviation had yet to see any move in the direction of decarbonizing. While the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference emphasized sector specific emission reductions there were other contributory incidents as well.

The 2008 financial crisis led to oil spiking at $147/barrel in July of that year and this only drove the point home to airlines, the need to hedge against fossil fuels. Biofuels did offer a hedge against this dependence, potentially stabilizing costs, Giovanni Bisignani of IATA emphasized that fuel innovation was key or else fuel would account for over 40% of airline costs by 2020 ( Reuters Factbox 2008, multiple sources)

By 2009, airframe and engine manufacturers had validated biofuels performance & safety and Virgin Atlantic flew the first flight with a SAF blend in 2008. Furthermore biofuels did not require any aircraft or engine modifications unlike electricity or hydrogen.

Growing calls from countries & private bodies like ICAO further influenced IATA to work on emissions reductions. Aviation was included by the EU in its emission trading system (ETS, a cap and trade policy that sets a cap on the total GHG emissions from specific industries) and added financial incentives/penalties for decarbonization. The commitment preempted stricter regulations through self regulation and fostered collaborations like the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Users Group that was launched in 2008 and united producers, airlines & NGOs to ensure biofuels met sustainability criteria.

SAF

The roots of the idea of SAF can be traced back to the mid 20th Century with the 1940s Fischer-Tropsch (FT) Synthesis. The process which has its roots back in the 1920s was developed by German scientists Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch to convert coal or biomass into liquid hydrocarbons, including kerosene like fuels (ATF is kerosene). While originally developed to overcome wartime shortages, FT synthesis laid the foundational work of producing jet fuel from non fossil sources.

The Oil shocks of the 1970s further spurred global interest in developing alternative fuels. In 1974 Brazil started the ProAlcool program which produced bioethanol from sugarcane for road transport vehicles. This program demonstrated the scalability of biofuels and catalysed interest in bio-jet fuels.

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol further heightened global focus on GHG emissions. Aviation, which then contributed about 2% of global carbon dioxide emissions, was growing rapidly with no alternatives to ATF came under scrutiny. Initial studies focussed on adapting ethanol and biodiesel processes,  but jet fuel’s need for high calorific values at low ambient temperatures shifted focus to hydrotreating (process of removing impurities such as sulphur and improving fuel quality) & FT synthesis.

Recognizing that biofuels were the path to decarbonizing, with minimal changes to aircraft & infrastructure, the concept of drop-in fuels gained traction. The SAF concept crystallized in 2005 as the quickest solution and was adopted by IATA in 2009 using 2005 as a baseline.DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) took specific interest in this project.

The newfound synergy between all the stakeholders resulted in the first tangible steps. Honeywell UOP partnered with DARPA to develop the renewable jet fuel process. Boeing collaborated with airlines, fuel producers & research facilities to further explore the practical application of bio jet-fuel.

SAF is produced through multiple refining processes that convert feedstocks into drop-in fuels. These processes or pathways convert diverse raw materials such as waste oils, biomass or captured carbon dioxide into hydrocarbons that mimic fossil based jet fuel while reducing lifecycle GHG emissions by 80%.

HEFA (Hydrotreated Esters & Fatty Acids) uses feedstocks of waste cooking oils & animal fats removes oxygen from triglycerides & fatty acids ( fat the human body stores, remember this is from cooking oil)producing paraffinic hydrocarbons (linked carbon and hydrogen atoms, found in fuels and known for their clean burning, high energy density properties)via hydrogenation.Simply put it is gather the grease, remove the oxygen, make fuel like molecules by adjusting the molecular chains or makes fuel from unwanted oils. This process produces top quality SAF. HEFA competes with bio diesel and has limited feedstock availability. However this is still the dominant process and accounts for 80% of all current SAF production. (companies : Neste)

The FT Synthesis uses biomass such as agricultural & municipal waste as feedstock. The biomass is gasified into syngas (carbon monoxide & hydrogen), then catalytically converted into liquid hydrocarbons, which are then refined into jet fuel. While feedstocks are flexible which translates to potentially high volumes, the high capital costs & energy intensive nature of gasification plants are obstacles to the adoption. While certified in 2009, the FT synthesis process is still niche.

Synthesized iso-Paraffins (SIP) / Direct Sugar to Hydrocarbon (DSHC) uses sugars such as sugarcane or corn syrup as feedstock. Fermentation converts sugars into farnesane, a hydrocarbon, which is then hydroprocessed into jet fuel. While this process produces high density fuel, it is a niche pathway with a limited blend ratio and is expensive to produce. (companies: Amyris)

Alcohol to Jet (ATJ) uses ethanol or isobutanol from biomass as feedstock. Alcohols are dehydrated (water is removed), oligomerized (smaller molecules for more efficient & cleaner burning) & hydroprocessed (refined using hydrogen under heat and pressure)to form jet fuel hydrocarbons. Certified in 2016 this process leverages existing ethanol infrastructure and uses versatile feedstocks, however this process is complex and multi-layered, leading to higher costs. (companies: Gevo, LanzaTech)

Power to Liquid (PtL) / Synthetic Fuels (e-SAF) uses carbon dioxide captured from the air directly  and green hydrogen (from electrolysis using renewable energy) as feedstock. The carbon & hydrogen are combined using FT or methanol synthesis to produce synthetic hydrocarbons which are refined into jetfuel.While this is still an emerging process, it is an extremely niche method & energy intensive,it is reliant on cheap renewable electricity. The RefuelEU is an aviation initiative that requires 1.2% e-SAF by 2030.

There are multiple other emerging pathways such as Hydroprocessed Hydrocarbons (HH-SPK) that use algae oils, this is not scaled as it damages ecosystems. Catalytic Hydrothermolysis (CHJ) that converts oils/fats under high pressure & temperature. Lignocellulosic (plant biomass) pyrolysis is the fast pyrolysis (decomposition through high temperatures) into bio-oil, this is an experimental process that upgrades bio-oil to jet fuel.

HEFA dominates at the moment because of its maturity & cost effectiveness, but PtL & ATJ are growing fast. Current global SAF production is at 2.5 bn liters/year ( IATA , Jun 2025 press release )of the total global ATF requirement of 300 bn liters/year.

Neste is the world’s leading SAF producer with operations in 14 countries. Its strategy is centered around HEFA technology using its patented NEXBTL technology to produce high quality SAF. It has the early mover advantage and has been helped by EU policy ensuring a ready market for its SAF. Neste prioritizes 100% waste and residue materials such as cooking oil and animal fat waste. It avoids food competing crops such as palm oil (phased out in 2020). Neste produces 25% of global SAF with three refineries, supplies over 20 airlines and airports and uses logistics partner skyNRG for blending & distribution.

SAF continues to face challenges such as limited waste oil supply, and it costs between 2-3x(World Economic Forum, “The cost of sustainable aviation fuel: Can the industry clear this key hurdle?” July 2025). that what ATF costs, however global policy shifts ensure this fuel is the quickest off the blocks in the decarbonization race.

Note: Could not avoid the chemical terms, have tried to explain them succinctly 

Hydrogen

Hydrogen has always featured in aviation almost from the beginning. Starting with the early 20th Century when it was used for buoyancy on early airships such as the Zeppelin LZ1 as far back as 1900. Hydrogen is known for its high energy density by weight and is seen as a potential fuel due to its zero carbon emissions.

During the 1930s German engineers conducted turbojet experiments using gaseous hydrogen laying the groundwork for cryogenic (hydrogen needs to be stored at -252.8 degrees C for storage efficiency and maximize payload and range. Cryogenic LH2 tanks, though insulated and complex, enable aircraft to carry sufficient fuel for long flights). Gaseous hydrogen would require impractically large tanks, reducing payload or making the aircraft design unfeasible. This was followed by Sikorsky Aircraft proposing liquid hydrogen as a fuel. By the 1950s liquid hydrogen production was scaled for rocket applications. The USAF’s ‘Project Bee’ began with a Martin B-57B Canberra bomber becoming the World’s first airplane powered by liquid hydrogen. Skunk Works led by Kelly Johnson developed the CL-400 Suntan as a reconnaissance aircraft that ran on P&W’s model 304 hydrogen engines. The project itself was cancelled but advanced liquid hydrogen’s production & tankage for the space program.

Between the 1960s-80s both the US & Soviet Union ran tests on passenger airliners using liquid hydrogen as propulsion. Lockheed looked at 130-140 passenger transports with ranges between 2700 – 9300km and the Soviet Union used a Tu-155 with a Hydrogen fueled engine. Both the programs highlighted storage and boil off challenges.

By the 1980s aerospace research considered hydrogen a clean and promising fuel for long range aircraft because of its high energy content and low emissions. Messerschmitt Bölkow Blohm (MBB) , the company that included the historic Messerschmitt Aircraft Company, was heavily involved in hydrogen research. The company was acquired by Deutsche Aerospace AG (DASA) which in turn would be acquired by Airbus. In November 1989 a major European Colloquium was held in Strasbourg, Germany. The main topic of the Colloquium was the future of supersonic & hypersonic transportation systems, here a paper on hydrogen as a propellant was presented. While MBB was a major player in the hydrogen space in Europe, there were others as well.

By the late 1990s the Hydrogen Cell Era had begun and between 2000-2002 the Airbus led the Cryoplane study which was funded by the European Commission had assessed liquid hydrogen configurations for biz jets and widebody airliners, it emphasized safety and infrastructure transitions.

In April 2008 Boeing’s fuel cell demonstrator , a modified Diamond DA20 eclipse became the first manned aircraft to fly solely on a hydrogen fuel cell (HFC). It was powered by Intelligent Energy’s 24 kW Proton Exchange membrane (PEM) system (the PEM is key to splitting hydrogen molecules, the electrons are stripped and forced into the electrical circuit generating electricity, while protons head to the cathodes)  reaching 1,000 meters altitude at 100 km/h for 20 minutes.

Over the next decade multiple organizations such as The German Aerospace Centre, Boeing, AeroVironment etc would make advances in the field of hydrogen flight endurance, altitude,storage pressure (hydrogen being gaseous needs to be cooled and stored cryogenically to maximize fuel), fuel cell architecture. These advances set the ground for the next decade.

The decade of the 2020s has seen increased activity with Airbus announcing its ZEROe project with four hydrogen (combustion & fuel cell) concepts targeting the aircraft in the 100-200 passenger range. While most of the aircraft are conventional there is a Blended Wing Body being tested as well. Airbus targets 2035 for its first first craft with zero emissions.

ZeroAvia is a British/American Hydrogen aircraft developer. In 2020 they tested a hydrogen powertrain on a retrofitted Piper M-class and completed their first eight minute flight. The testbed crashed in 2021  at Cranfield during a power system test, nobody was hurt.Since then ZeroAvia has procured two Dornier 228 . One flew in 2023 for ten minutes with one of its engines powered by hydrogen electricity. ZeroAvia has partnered with Textron Aviation, the parent of Cessna, to develop a hydrogen powered Cessna Grand Caravan.

Universal Hydrogen is yet another company in the field, converting an ATR72-500 & Bombardier Dash 8-300 to hydrogen using hydrogen conversion kits to be retrofitted to flying aircraft. There are multiple other companies in the field focusing on different types of aircraft.

Over the next 25 years expect to see the commercial viability & scalability of hydrogen fuel established in multiple aircraft segments. Airbus definitely heads the area, but there are developments happening across multiple companies and aircraft types. What is critical are the proving flights of today.

Electric

The biggest challenge that electric aircraft face is their energy density. Current lithium-ion batteries have an energy density of 250 Wh/kg which is below ATFs 12,000 Wh/kg. This clearly limits range (once again range anxiety), furthermore batteries add significant weight while reducing payload capacity. Nonetheless, short taxi services are still very much in the picture.

Joby Aviation plans to launch commercial taxi services in Dubai & Los Angeles. They plan to have electric vertical takeoff & landing (eVTOL) services. In 2023 they delivered their first eVTOL aircraft to Edwards AFB and have flown their S4, a four rotor electric eVTOL vehicle in urban settings such as New York. Interestingly the S4 can also be converted to hydrogen and has flown a record 523 miles in this form! They have a couple of interesting acquisitions. The first is XWing which they acquired in 2024. XWing focuses on autonomous aircraft and in a capacity constrained aircraft, autonomy means extra space to sell. The second is Blade Air Mobility’s ride share business. Blade Air Mobility is an urban air mobility platform.

The biggest hurdle to Electric propulsion is battery density and weight. Density is expected to reach approx 400-500 Wh/kg by 2030, this clearly helps with range.

Electricity is definitely on the cusp of revolutionizing urban air mobility and this is predicted to be a $1 tn market annually by 2040. The next generation of batteries are expected to be in the 500-1000 Wh/kg range and this definitely improves range and enables larger aircraft.

Hybrid electric aircraft such as the Airbus E-Fan X bridge the gap between current technology and full electric systems, offering a path to decarbonize larger aircraft using electricity.

The Future

As of today the aviation industry is midway through its decarbonizing journey. The progress is accelerating as is seen from the advances in the last ten years. SAF has scaled from 0.1% of total ATF in 2020 to approx 0.3% or 2 billion liters.Over 400,000 flights have flown using ATF blended with SAF. By 2030 we can expect to see aircraft using 100% SAF. (Robb Report Apr’23)

Hydrogen is still in its infancy, however flights such as ZeroAvia’s 19 seater demonstrator prove feasibility. With almost a dozen aircraft in development, hydrogen powered aircraft should enter service by 2030. By 2035 we can see hydrogen powering about 15% of short haul flight below 1000 km. (ZeroAvia, McKinsey, Decarbonizing the aviation sector, Jul 2022)

Electric aircraft are on the cusp of revolutionizing VTOLs. Companies such as Joby & Archer aviation are planning commercial services by 2026.With rising battery densities , we expect aircraft applications to only increase from here. By 2050 expect eVTOls to handle 13% of all urban mobility trips rising from 5% in 2030. (Icct2020 Jul 2020)

Together these technologies are plugging critical gaps to meet the 2050 net-zero target. This means reducing aviation emissions from one billion tons per annum in 2025 to near zero. SAF with proper blending will account 65% of this with production reaching 450 billion liters by 2050. Hydrogen will complement approx 20-25% of SAFs targets by powering regional flights of below 2000km. Electric aircraft will dominate the short range (below 500km) with 20% of urban trips & 10% of regional flights covering a total of between 10-15% of total flight segments by 2050.

Collaboration & Continued Innovation is key…

For more deep dive easy to read articles please go to https://theaviationevangelist.com do keep scrolling down, and do share

Follow me:

LinkedIn : https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-aviation-evangelist/

X : @ManiRayaprolu

Reddit : r/theaviationevangelist

Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61583497868441#

https://www.instagram.com/theaviationevangelist?igsh=ZjA5YXI3MWd3OGZs&utm_source=qr

The BWB is Born

As J W Dunne was conducting his early flying wing tests, there were  developments happening across the Atlantic in Europe. For the very first time, engineers were thinking of using the insides of the wings. A design philosophy was born.

The JetZero Z4. Pic Source: JetZero Website

The Pioneers

In 1910 Hugo Junkers of Germany patented a cantilever tailless wing design. It was an all metal construction (almost all aircraft until then were fabric and wood construction). Such a design & construction would be without any external wires or braces. Furthermore the wings could be hollow and the space used to house passengers, cargo and fuel. His designs were used by the Germans in WW1 and later in WW2 (he was ousted from his company in 1933 by the Nazis). 

The G-38 of 1929 was a major innovation of his blended wing concept and was for a time the largest landbased aircraft in the World. The passengers were seated in the wings which were 5 feet 7 inches thick at the root. The leading edges of the wings had sculpted windows giving passengers a panoramic view as they flew. There were three 11 seat cabins,in addition to smoking & wash rooms. The wings had a gangway through them that allowed mechanics to work on engines while inflight, a first. There were two operating aircraft and flew through to 1941(both flew until 1936)  before the final one crashed.

The G.38 schematic . Pic Source : Wikipedia

The Mitsubishi Ki-20 was based on the Junkers G-38. Six were built as heavy bombers between 1931-35. During WW2 they saw active combat. These aircraft were considered secret and their existence only made public in 1940.

Nicolas Woyevodsky was a Russian Aerodynamicist who filed a 1911 patent called ‘Aircraft’. Here’s where the patent gets interesting. It was filed in the United States in 1911 and granted in 1921 ( how and why did a Russian file for a patent in the USA and why did it take so long?). Not much else is known about this path breaking scientist other than his name, country of origin and patent.

The patent spoke of a continuous airfoil section integrating the fuselage and wings, what we now call the BWB. The patent further described a triangular shaped body with pterygoid (triangular) aerofoil sections that enclosed the engines and passengers. Such a construction would reduce drag and weight enhancing lift. This was considered revolutionary as most aircraft were biplanes with separate fuselage and wings.

The Westland Dreadnought. Pic Source: Wikipedia

Woyevodsky’s 1921 patent led to wind tunnel tests (probably in Russia & Britain) and validated his theory which led to designer GTR Hill of Westland designing and building the dreadnought. GTR Hill was already experimenting with the Westland Pterodactyl. The Pterodactyl was a revolutionary flying wing and flew through the 1920s & 30s in the hunt for a safer aircraft. The Dreadnought unfortunately crashed on its very first flight. After an initial stable take off and stable flight the Dreadnought stalled at 100 feet altitude and crashed, seriously injuring the pilot. The design was abandoned at the time, however It is recognized and appreciated by history.

The British further tried to pursue the BWB airliner design in the late 1930s & 40s through the Miles M.26 & M.30. The data was useful, however a full scale prototype was never constructed.

The BWF (Blended Wing Fuselage)

The timeline between the 1940s & 1990s is a BWB gap (very similar to the flying wings but longer, aviation development had moved rapidly in the direction of conventional aircraft ),except for the military applications between the 1950s – 1980s when the BWF was used. The A-12 Oxcart and its successor the  SR-71 pioneered the BWF design. The BWF integrates the fuselage and wings in a smooth aerodynamic transition, however the fuselage continues to be a distinct structure. 

The SR-71 schematics. The fuselage chine clearly visible. Pic Source : Wikipedia

Such a design used the fuselage as a lifting body, and the chines around the body contribute between 15-30% of total lift generated. The design used Area ruling and mitigated parasitic & wave drag through smooth transitions.

In the 1970s the Rockwell B-1 introduced variable geometry to the BWF. The wings pivoted on 6 ton hinges which are buried inside a wide fuselage. The BWF of the B-1B contributes approx 15-20% of the total required lift. 

The B-1B Lancer & The Tu-160 Blackjack. Note their similarities. The BWF clearly visible on both. Pic Source: Wikipedia

The Tu-160 which has a very similar design to the B-1 has an even larger BWF. The BWF contributed approx 18-25% of the total lift in supersonic flight.

All the aircraft mentioned had variable geometry inlets of various types (spikes / ramps).

The BWB Evolution

The Generation 1 BWB’s commenced in the 1990s and ran through to the 2010s. They represented the ‘ High Risk High Reward’ approach to BWBs where they envisioned extra large 800 seat BWBs with maximum aerodynamic efficiency. This meant Boundary Layer Ingestion (BLI) of the engines and integrating them inside the airframe. This proved to be difficult to accomplish & certify.

The NASA/McDonnell Douglas Studies were funded by NASA between 1993-96. The studies included wind tunnel tests of tailless BWB concepts at 1-6% scale. Models tested had the centre body contributing between 31-43% of total lift and exhibited between 6-8% fuel savings. 

NASA BWB-17 was tested between 1997-2000. With a 17 foot wingspan, the 6% scale RC model was built by Stanford University for NASA. The model demonstrated low drag and had centrebody lift of between 30-40%. The model proved BWB flight handling with a tailless design. The BWB-17 had stability issues and needed artificial stabilization to correct. The model further highlighted scaling & control issues on larger aircraft.

The BWB-17 by NASA. Pic Source : NASA

Boeing Phantom Works BWB studies ran between 2000-2007. Post the McDonnell Douglas acquisition of 1997, Boeing continued to build on the earlier program that ran between 1993-96. 

Part of the program was to construct the 35 foot wingspan X-48A demonstrator in 2004, however the program was cancelled before construction began. In 2005 a 12 foot wingspan BWB model was constructed to study transonic aerodynamics in a wind tunnel. This model exhibited a 15-20% drag reduction and lift to drag ratio of 20-23. As the project was for 450 seat passenger airliners it highlighted manufacturing complexity & airport compatibility issues.

The Boeing X-48B program ran between 2007-2010. It was a 8.5% scale 21 foot wingspan model that was powered by three jet engines and flew between Mach 0.3-0.7. The centrebody contributed 35% of the lift and had L/D improvements of approx 20% over conventional designs. The X-48B continued to have challenges with yaw handling and full size scaling. Furthermore engine out control and stall characteristics were tested and needed improvement. The aircraft needed artificial stability management.

The X-48B. Pic Source : NASA

The Generation 2 BWBs run from approx 2010 to date. Gen 2 highlights a safety first approach to design and has podded engines mounted above the airframe. The realistic path sacrificed potential efficiencies for safety with the approach. The Gen 2 BWBs also explored different propulsion types.

NASA N2A/B/C BWB concepts ran between 2010-2015. The concept was for a 300-450 passenger aircraft. Conducted in partnership with Boeing the N2A had two podded engines mounted on top of the upper surface of the aircraft. Wind tunnel testing was done to study its aerodynamic and acoustic performance at low speeds. The N2B used BLI and had embedded engines. While the N2B showed improvements over the performance of the N2A, the embedded engines increased manufacturing complexity. The N2C was a supersonic concept. The data gleaned from these concepts was to inform the future aviation industry on future design areas.

The Boeing X-48C first flew in 2012. With a wingspan of 21 feet it was a 8.5% scale of a large transporter. The C was focussed on noise reduction and featured vertical surfaces adjacent to the engines.The Modified X-48B had an extended aft fuselage on which the engines were mounted. It completed its 30th and final flight in 2013.

 

The X-48C. Pic Source : NASA

NASA N3-X Hybrid Wing Body that ran between 2013-2018 is a concept design. NASA tests such concepts through computer simulations and & wind tunnels. The research was on advanced technologies and propulsion. Some of the concepts explored included Turbo Electric Distributed Propulsion where instead of large engines, smaller electric fans distributed propulsion across the aircraft. Another concept explored was the Superconducting Power System, where superconducting technology allows for high power density with minimum energy loss. Others included wingtip generators and liquid hydrogen cooling. 

The N3-X can achieve a 70% reduction in fuel burn, significantly lower emissions and noise levels while maintaining performance at the same time.

The Airbus Maverick began development in 2017. With a wingspan of 10.6 feet and a length of 6.7 feet, the Maverick had two engines to the rear with each having a vertical fin on it. The model explored aerodynamic and technical specifications and results were encouraging .

The Airbus Maverick. Pic Source : Airbus

Airbus has further built on its BWB program by targeting 2035 as the first year for a zero emission aircraft. Such an aircraft would use hydrogen combustion or cells for propulsion. Storing Hydrogen is a big challenge in aviation and the BWB is considered an excellent test design. Airbus is further  studying conventional aircraft for its zero emission program. 

JetZero 

JetZero is founded by Mark Page a BWB pioneer. He was part of the seminal NASA / McDonnell Douglas collaboration on the BWB program as technical program manager. NASA concieved the program as a challenge to rethink aircraft design for greater efficiency. The program (although Mark was not part of it after 1996) culminated in the BWB-17(spoken of earlier) the very first BWB of the modern era. It was inspired By Northrop’s flying wings of the 1940s but was a completely fresh approach to aircraft design. The BWB design was co-created with Robert Liebeck & Blaine Rawdon and offered 20-30% better L/D ratios than conventional aircraft. The three of them authored ‘Beyond Tube and Wing’ in 2020 in which they charted the path to the BWB design.

The philosophy was Multidiciplanry Optimization (MDO) integrationg aerodynamics, engines, stability and internal structures to minimize drag and maximize efficiency. Page virewed the BWB as the fundamental reimagining of an aircraft blending wing and body into a seamless flowing structure. In one presentation Page mentioned imagine a Boeing 777 fuselage cut up into three parts and placed side by side. You then stick wings on the first and last sections, the middle one being the longest (with the cockpit) and place the engines on top of the stacked side by side fuselage, and lastly smooth them all together into one fused structure.

Page’s contributions influenced the X-48B/C programs as well. These programs validated the theory of BWBs with subscale models and wind tunnel testing. They sorted out  issues such as space by moving the main landing gear to the rear of the aircraft from the centre, saving space and increasing passenger numbers another example is sorting out pitch stability control issues with belly flaps, every thought had to be out of the box.

Later in 2012 Page co-founded DZYNE Technologies as chief scientist & VP and here he continued to focus on aircraft with high lifting efficiency , but the BWB bug was always there, first as a business jet and later as an airliner. In 2021 Page along with Tom O’Leary founded JetZero to take forward the BWB vision.

Page has mentioned that startups like JetZero are ideally placed to revolutionize the aircraft manufacturing space as they do not have massive legacy businesses that need to transition ex : Boeing & Airbus.

So far it has walked the talk with Alaska & United Airlines investing in JetZero through their investment arms. Delta Airlines is a strategic partner sharing expertize from a customer engagement perspective. In addition JetZero are talking to 14 other airlines and the USAF has awarded a $235 million contract to JetZero to build a full scale demonstrator, but we are getting ahead of ourselves.

The 12.5% scale JetZero pathfinder with its 21 foot wingspan first flew in 2023 and received FAA clearance in 2024. The USAF found the Pathfinder to exhibit similar characteristics to the X-48 program and has given the go ahead to JetZero to create a full scale demonstrator which is to be ready by the first quarter of 2027. The demonstrator is being constructed by Scaled Composites founded by the legendary Burt Rutan who has aircraft/spacecraft such as Spaceship One (won the Ansari X Prize) and Stratolaunch to his credit. Scaled Composites is now part of Northrop Grumman (its amazing the name Northrop is involved here, a doff of the hat to Jack Northrop).

The Z4 is a multirole platform and can be used for both passengers & military applications such as a sky tanker (the USAF is looking at the KC-Z4 as a replacement to its aging KC-135 tanker). To cut down the development & certification runway JetZero will be using Commercial off the shelf (COTS) parts where possible. 

The KC-Z4. Pic Source : JetZero Website

The engine choice is Pratt & Whitney PW2040 each generating approx 43,000 pounds of thrust. These are the very engines that powered the Boeing 757 & the Boeing C-17 Globemaster. While the design of the engines might be almost 50 years old, they are tried and tested and have a solid track record. Delta have provided three engines for the demonstrator. These engines are more than capable of managing the Z4s 5,000 nm range and cruise altitude of 45,000 feet. They will obviously be modernized for the production models. In future the Z4 might be offered with newer engines. Mark Page did note they were not looking for perfect tech, but are more interested in proving the airframe.

The JetZero Z4. Pic Source : JetZero Website

The fuselage ( after the demonstrator)will be made of composites and be manufactured at their Greensboro facility. Some of the other innovations it will have are shorter landing gear to enhance low speed handling, cargo door matching the KC-10 size (USAF applications). The passenger experience stresses comfort & efficiency (the 3D renderings on the JetZero website look stunning).

The personal passenger experience aims to revolutionized by offering larger seats, flexible cabin layout and dedicated overhead bin space (have forgotten what this feels like!). Instead of physical windows JetZero plans on high definition exterior cameras that provide a live view on digital windows. There is a possibility of overhead windows as well in addition to mood lighting.

While the overall exterior design of the aircraft is very sculpted, Page and his colleagues came up with a ‘ T ‘ shaped plug solution to scaling up the aircraft to either smaller or larger capacities, this means the aircraft construction has to be modular in nature almost like ‘LEGO’ !! They did this back in the 90s and the 25 year limit on the patent has expired, in Page’s own words “ I am happy to have it back” !

Page giving a DZYNE Technologies presentation in 2018 where describes the T shaped plugs that sum up the scalability of the BWB. Note their similarities plugs next to the engines. Pic Source : Page presentation off YT

Mark Page emphasizes pragmitism over perfection and this is achieved by delivering on the USAF contract, using milestones to attact fresh funding (the Z4 is expected to cost approx $5-7bn to develop as per Jon Ostrower of TAC) and target the largest market segment for aircraft the 200-250 passenger aircraft market worth over $2.5 Bn per annum. With projected savings of 50%, this will be a no-brainer for airlines future fleet decision making.

BWBs have promises to keep…..

Please be sure to read Part 1 of the two part series which details the evolution of the flying wing in detail at http://theaviationevangelist.com/2025/09/13/the-evolution-of-the-flying-wing-part-one/

End of Part 2

For more deep dive easy to read articles please go to https://theaviationevangelist.com do keep scrolling down, and do share

Follow me:

LinkedIn : https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-aviation-evangelist/

X : @ManiRayaprolu

Reddit : r/theaviationevangelist

Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61583497868441#

https://www.instagram.com/theaviationevangelist?igsh=ZjA5YXI3MWd3OGZs&utm_source=qr