ap0lmc (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

No rudder, not safe for heavy crosswind landings. Unless thrust on engines can be adjusted with thrust vector or amount of thrust per leaft and right engine.

ap0lmc (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Why landing gear not taken up?

jmclellan01 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

are the runways too small for a full scale

Conservativepacheat (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

to good out weighs to bad,yes these will be the next bwb gen

mpturcotte (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Airports, especially jetways, are not set up for this aircraft. However, a smaller version would make a great business aircraft. Business travellers may feel more comfortable with the wider cabin than the tight "tubular" business aircraft. Probably more fuel-efficent also.

JLG0406 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

i agree. my senior design project revolves around this type of aircraft and it has many benefits. besides... i doubt boeing and nasa would invest time and money into something that does not have potential.

54thAggressors (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Interesting, do you understand the fluid dynamics behind this airframe? Your comment states that you have done years of research, explain to me a little bit of what you have learned in the years of research, high-lift wings and a wide airfoil-shaped body enables the entire craft to contribute to lift generation with the result of potentially increased fuel economy. what problems in this design you see ?

seaplaneguy1 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

What a waste. More government welfare. There are so many problems with this design...where to start. I have done years of research on this type of aircraft. This is NOT how you do it. the configuration is not good. It is very costly...low return. It is NOT the future...

narnyslip (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

what an operation!!