Talk:Blended wing body

Removed from article
The following section was in the middle of the article:


 * The first example of a BWB design is generally credited to be the Junkers G.38 which first flew in 1929 for Luft Hansa (present day Lufthansa). This aircraft, the largest land plane in the world when it first flew, seated passengers not only in the central fuselage but also in the wing structures.  At a time when competing aircraft, like the Ford Trimotor, could carry ten to twelve passengers, the Junkers carried over thirty.

I have removed it, as the Junkers G.38 clearly did not fit the design concepts which currently define BWB aircraft. Georgewilliamherbert 01:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it's back. It must not have stayed removed for long.

I don't see it anymore. The blended wing-body is a not a clear cut concept. They would have called it body-less or flying wing or some such. It's true that the G.38 is a bit of a transitional design, but 1. it's described as a blended wing body aircraft on its page which links to here and 2. It's more blended than the Lancer B-1 which is listed in this entry. Also, many of Junkers' designs -- never built -- were even more clearly BWB. He is very important in the history of BWB even if the G.38 may be more of a compromise design. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A1957 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

B-1B and Tu-160 don't belong
In my opinion, we should remove the B-1B and Tu-160 from the See Also list... they're too much a conventional aircraft to fit in the BWB category.

I will wait a few days for opinions, but intend to remove them later this week. Georgewilliamherbert 21:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:BWB-Composite.png
This was deleted per discussion at. I've only commented it out from the article in the hopes that the non-free Boeing image that was in there can be replaced with a free image instead and the image re-uploaded.  howcheng  {chat} 17:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Advantages section is almost a sales pitch
Perhaps it could be converted into a Advantages/Disadvantages section. Two disadvantages I can see are listed below. Will (Talk - contribs) 18:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Few passengers get window seats. In order to let them see out, a series of camera turrets may be needed.
 * 2) Evac would be slow as passengers are farther from exits.

Some fighters could be thought of as having a "blended wing body"
The best examples would include the MIG-29. Will (Talk - contribs) 19:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

General Dynamics F-16 in mid-1970s was famous for being the first fighter with fuselage-wing blending.Wikkileaker (talk) 04:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Design/operational constraints
Should we include design or operational constraints that has effected this type of aircraft from entering the markets ??? Raj

moved 797 hoax info here following discussion on X-48 talk page
title says all. this is fully verified info and has been moved here following discussion on X-48 talk page, where it was first created.

any issues? please lets discuss first and decide afterwards. --Krishvanth (talk) 11:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 09:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

List of blended wing body aircraft
Can't we also mention the MIT Double Bubble D8 there ? See https://www.nasa.gov/content/the-double-bubble-d8-0/ KVDP (talk) 06:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * That doesn't meet the definition for BWB in the article. Do you have a reliable source that calls it a BWB? It's NASA page doesn't. In addition, the list is for aircraft with WP articles, which this one apparently doesn't have. - BilCat (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Consider the 1916 Curtiss build of a Goupil design from 1883 flyingmachines.ru/Site2/Crafts/Craft29118.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.84.240.126 (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Disputed: List of [blended] wing body aircraft
Many aircraft are not BWB aircraft. As stated earlier in article, "having no clear dividing line between the wings and the main body of the craft." For example, the XP-67 and RQ-3A clearly have fuselages. Further, the internal links to some of the aircraft, like the RQ-170, distinctly state they are flying wings and directly conflicts with their inclusion on this list. A citation should be supplied to verify inclusion on the list rather that appearing as an inclusion on the basis of an individual's opinion. Jleipold (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have cleaned up the list a fair bit. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I have also removed four entries that seem marginal and might be better classed as flying wings. They are:
 * AVIC 601-S
 * Dassault nEUROn - currently included in the List of flying wings
 * Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel - currently included in the List of flying wings
 * Northrop Grumman X-47A Pegasus
 * If anybody can find reliable sources for their status as BWBs then they can be reinstated. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Blended wing body. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121204000341/http://www.boeing.com:80/Features/2012/08/corp_x48_08_07_12.html to http://www.boeing.com/Features/2012/08/corp_x48_08_07_12.html
 * Added tag to http://pdf.aiaa.org/getfile.cfm?urlX=%2C%3CWI%277D%2FQKS%2B%22R0%27M%0A&urla=%25*RD%26%220%20%20%0A&urlb=!*%20%20%20%0A&urlc=!*%20%20%20%0A&urld=(*%22L%25%23P*%40TA%3C%20%0A&urle=%27%2BB%2C%27!P.GT%20%20%20%0A&urlf=%27%2BB%2C%27!P.GT0%20%20%0A

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Disputed title
First citation:

"Hybrid Wing Body Aircraft System Noise Assessment With Propulsion Airframe Aeroacoustic Experiments"

Document states: "BWB = Boeing Blended Wing Body"

Additional citation:

"On Noise Assessment for Blended Wing Body Aircraft"

Document states: "BWB = Blended Wing Body, Boeing specific design" "HWB = Hybrid Wing Body, generic term"

Additional citation:

"United States Patent Number: 5,909,858"

Document states: Blended Wing-Body aircraft have the following characteristics: 1. The body is a lifting section. 2. Tailless. 3. Negative sweep of the transition section.

Additional citation:

"Lockheed, NASA Hybrid Wing Body Airlifter Tests Validate Predicted Performance"

This would be added as a BWB aircraft to this article based upon other aircraft currently listed. NASA however does not consider this aircraft a BWB and instead uses the HWB designation.

If community finds this a valid distinction, recommend article title should be changed to Hybrid Wing Body and Blended Wing-Body should be considered a subtype, potentially a term specific to Boeing (possibly through copyright and/or patent). Aircraft not meeting the definition in current article but listed as BWBs anyway would likely meet the generic HWB definition. This would resolve the inconsistencies of the current article.

Jleipold (talk) 07:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed move to Hybrid Wing Body
According to the Dispute title above, Blended wing body or BWB is a Boeing specific term, so the general term, Hybrid wing body or HWB is much more appropriate as it applies to all aircraft under the specifications of a BWB, not just Boeing made aircraft. ITSQUIETUPTOWN  talk • contribs 06:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. BWB is not Boeing-specific and is the original widely-used term, see for example Flight on a couple of McDonnell Douglas and Tupolev projects. HWB appears to be a relatively obscure neologism and citing handful of research papers and some patent blurb cannot change that. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)