Copyright 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

A98-16309

AIAA 98-0438
BLENDED-WING-BODY SUBSONIC COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT R. H. Liebeck, M. A. Page, and B. K. Rawdon The Boeing Company Long Beach, CA

36th Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit January 12-15, 1998 / Reno, NV
For permission to copy or republish, contact the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Suite 500, Reston, Virginia 20191-4344

Copyright 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

AIAA-98-0438

BLENDED-WING-BODY SUBSONIC COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT

R. H. Liebeck*, M. A. Page', and B. K. Rawdon' The Boeing Company, Long Beach, California Abstract The Blended-Wing-Body (BWB) airplane concept represents a potential revolution in subsonic transport efficiency for large airplanes. NASA has sponsored an advanced concept study to demonstrate feasibility and begin development of this new class of airplane. In this study, 800 passenger BWB and conventional configuration airplanes have been compared for a 7000 nautical mile design range, where both airplanes are based on technology for a 2020 entry into service. The BWB, shown in Figure 1, has been found to be superior to the conventional configuration in all key measures. The BWB advantage results from a double deck cabin that extends spanwise providing structural and aerodynamic overlap with the wing. This reduces the total wetted area

of the airplane and allows a long wingspan to be achieved, since the deep and stiff centerbody provides efficient structural wingspan. Further synergy is realized through buried engines that ingest the wing's boundary layer, and thus reduce effective ram drag. Relaxed static stability allows optimal span loading and obviates the need for a tail. An outboard leading-edge slat is the only high-lift system required. Resulting improvements are: Fuel Burn 27% lower Takeoff Weight 15% lower Operating Empty Weight 12% lower Total Thrust 27% lower Lift/Drag 20% higher

Figure 1. Isometric view of the Blended-Wing-Body airplane.

* Boeing Senior Fellow, Fellow AIAA Boeing Fellow, Member AIAA 1 Manager, Advanced Configuration, Member AIAA
1

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Copyright 1998 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.

Copyright 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

AIAA-98-0438
Background and Introduction The Wright Flyer was designed in 1903. The first sweptwing jet bomber, the Boeing B-47, flew a short 43 years later. Embodied in the B-47 are most of the fundamental design features of the modem subsonic jet transport: swept wing and empennage and podded engines hung on pylons beneath and forward of the whig. Comparing the Wright Flyer with the B-47 reveals a remarkable technological accomplishment in a period of slightly more than four decades! Forty-three years after the B-47, we have the MD-11. The three airplanes are compared hi Figure 2. Thus, hi 1988, when NASA Langley's Dennis Bushnell asked the question: "Is there a renaissance for the longhaul transport?", there was cause for reflection.
Wright Flyer
B-47 MD-11

Figure 4. First Generation Blended-Wing-Body.

The performance potential implied by the BWB concept provided the incentive for NASA Langley to fund a study at Boeing to develop and compare advanced technology subsonic transport configurations for the design mission: 800 passengers hi 3-class seating 7000 nautical mile range 0.85 cruise Mach number 11,000 foot takeoff field length Composite primary structure Advanced ducted propeller engine technology 2020 entry into service
Work began with an attempt to utilize cylindrical pressure vessels for the fuselage as shown hi Figure 5. Cabin pressure loads are carried efficiently hi tension, just as they are hi the case of the double bubble fuselages of current transports. The corresponding airplane configuration is shown hi Figure 6. One of the design team members described it as an MD-12 with its fuselage laid on its side with large whig fillets, and the engines installed ala the DeHavilland Comet.

- 43 years Figure 2. Aircraft Design Evolution; thefirst and second 43 years.

In response to Bushnell's query, Figure 3 was prepared at Boeing. This showed the evolution of the aerodynamic figure-of-merit, ML/D, with time. The curve was almost flat, which further justified the renaissance question. In turn, a brief preliminary airplane design study was conducted at Boeing to create and evaluate alternate configurations. A first generation blended-wing-body (BWB), shown hi Figure 4, was the result. Comparison with a conventional configuration airplane based on the same level of technology indicated that the BWB offered a major increase in lift to drag ratio (L/D) and a substantial reduction hi fuel burn.
25

Range > 4,500 nmi

Figure 5. Initial cylindrical pressure vessel arrangement.

15

10

1960

1970

1980 1990 Service Entry Date

2000

Figure 3. Progress in Aerodynamic Efficiency.

Figure 6. Initial layout with cylindrical pressure vessels.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Copyright 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

AIAA-98-0438
There was an almost overwhelming tendency to converge back to the conventional configuration. (It remains possible that this could be the most significant message of the entire study.) At this point, it was decided to abandon the requirement for a cylindrical pressure vessel, and assume that an efficient structural concept could be developed. Removal of this constraint became pivotal for the development of the BWB. A NASA/industry/university team was formed, and has just completed a three year NASA-sponsored study to demonstrate the technical and commercial feasibility of the BWB concept. Boeing is the program manager, and the team members include NASA Langley, NASA Lewis, Stanford University, the University of Southern California, the University of Florida, and Clark-Atlanta University.

Figure 8. Effect of body type on surface area.

Rationale and Development The development of the BWB concept begins with the payload and a quote from an early airplane designer, Leonardo da Vinci: "Man is the measure of all things." For the case of airplane design, passenger height is discrete, and hence can not be rubberized. This implies a minimum cabin height of 82 niches. Applying this to the notion of packaging passengers within the airplane's wing is illustrated in Figure 7. This example shows that the aerodynamic wetted area per passenger is reduced by a factor of two for a double deck configuration.
Pax
100 800

Figure 9. Effect ofwing/body integration on surface area.

Surface Area
5,500 sq-ft 22,000 sq-ft

Area/Pax
55.0 sq-ft 27.5 sq-ft

Figure 7. Effect of passenger count on packaging within an 18% thick airfoil.

For this design study, the passenger cabin volume requirement has been set at 82 niches of height and 10 square feet of floor area per passenger. This includes volume required for each passenger's share of galleys, lavatories, and closets for 3-class international interior rules. Thus 800 passengers require on the order of 55,000 cubic feet of cabin volume, and it remains to establish the optimum geometry for packaging this volume. Minimum wetted area for a given volume is a sphere, and a sphere with a volume of 55,000 ft3 will have a surface area of about 7000 ft2. However, a sphere is not streamlined. Figure 8 shows how this sphere can be transformed into two distinct streamlined fuselage concepts: a conventional cylinder and a streamlined disk, both of which are almost equivalent in wetted area. In turn, Figure 9 gives the result of placing these fuselages on a wing which has a total wetted area of 15,000 ft2. Here, the effective

Figure 10. Effect of engine integration on surface area.

Figure 11. Effect of controls integration on surface area.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Copyright 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

AIAA-98-0438
masking of the wing by the streamlined disk fuselage results hi a reduction of total wetted area of 7000 ft2 as compared to the conventional fuselage case. Next, adding engines as shown in Figure 10 provides a difference hi total wetted area of 10,200 ft2. (Weight and balance require that the engines be located aft on the streamlined disk configuration.) Finally, adding the required control surfaces to each configuration (Figure 11) results hi a total wetted area difference of 14,300 ft2, which amounts to a reduction of 33%. The streamlined disk fuselage configuration as shown hi Figure 11 is a canonical sketch which has been used to demonstrate the philosophy of the germination of the B WB concept. Synergy of the basic disciplines should be clear. The fuselage is also a whig, an inlet for the engines, and a pitch control surface. The verticals provide directional control and act as winglets to increase the effective aspect ratio. Now, the sketch of Figure 11 must be transformed into a realistic airplane configuration. This is achieved by blending and smoothing the streamlined disk fuselage into the whig. In addition, a nose bullet is added to offer good cockpit visibility, and at the same time provide increased effective whig chord at the centerline to offset compressibility drag due to the unsweeping of the isobars at the plane of symmetry. Utilizing this design

philosophy, the BWB concept has evolved into the configuration shown in Figure 12. A more detailed discussion of its design features is given below, including a description of some of the major trade studies which have been conducted, and engineering challenges which await resolution.
Features and Challenges of the BWB Configuration The BWB configuration shown hi Figure 12 is the result of the past three years of study, and it continues to evolve and develop as this is being written. A representative, but by no means complete, list of design features and issues follows.

Wing Sizing Sizing of the BWB wing is based on minimum takeoff gross weight (TOGW) as the figure-of-merit. Constraints include: 11,000 foot takeoff field length, 150 knot approach speed, low-speed trimmed CLmax of 1.7, and a cruise Mach number of 0.85. Initial cruise altitude (1CA) is allowed to vary to obtain minimum TOGW, with the additional requirement that ICA be greater than 35,000 feet. The resulting whig has an aspect ratio of 10, span of 280 feet, and a trapezoidal area 7840 ft2. Optimized wing loading is about 100 psf, much less than other long-range airplanes which are closer to 160 psf. This difference is a

Figure 12. Current BWB configuration.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Copyright 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

AIAA-98-0438
direct result of blending which "hides" much of the trapezoidal wing within the centerbody, thereby reducing the "cost" of wing area on drag. Since wing area is cheap, the airplane optimizes with a larger wing area to increase span at low cost to weight. Aerodynamics The BWB features moderately loaded airfoils on the outboard wing to minimize drag with a balance of wing wetted area and shock strength. Alternatively, the centerbody with its large chord requires a much lower sectional lift coefficient to preserve an elliptic span load. Reduced sectional lift demand on the centerbody allows large thickness to maximize payload volume, and trailing edge reflex for pitch trim, without exacting a high compressibility drag penalty. See Figure 13. Further, the centerbody airfoils have been tailored to provide acceptable passenger cabin deck angles at cruise.
Narrow Wing Chord Urge Centerbody Chord

Figure 14. Navier Stokes results at cruise.

Figure 13. Lift coefficient and thickness to chord ratio

over the wing span.

Structured grid Navier-Stokes computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analyses were performed. Single block CFL3D and overset grid OVERFLOW along with the inverse design CDISC methodology from NASA were used to design the BWB wing-alone and full wing/nacelle configurations, respectively. Challenging aspects of the inverse design were the numerous constraints (cabin, trim, manufacturability) and the necessity of specifying pressure distributions on a class of aircraft for which there is no previous design experience. The CFD analyses were also used to investigate engine mass flow ratio effects, engine size/location, and isolated and installed inlet duct performance with boundary layer ingestion. Navier Stokes analysis of the configuration at cruise is depicted hi Figure 14. A typical shock is evident on the outboard wing which becomes very weak on the centerbody. Ahead of this shock, the flow is supersonic. Behind, the flow is subsonic and suitable for the engine installation. Buffet is critical outboard of the kink with weak shocks ahead of the engine. These shocks vary little with angle of attack.

Stability and Control To trim the BWB with only centerbody reflex requires a statically unstable airplane. Aligning the actual Centerof-Gravity (C.G.) with the required C.G. is accomplished by sliding the centerbody fore and aft on the wing. The low effective wing loading of the BWB and beneficial trim effect mean that an exotic high-lift system is not required. A leading-edge slat is necessary on the outboard whig, but all trailing edge devices are simple hinged flaps which serve as elevens. Flight-critical stability augmentation and envelope protection systems will be required. The outboard elevens are the primary pitch and roll controls since they have the largest lever arms about the C.G. However, even the outboard elevens are relatively short-coupled, and will require control blending with the inboard elevens to de-couple pitch and heave. Figure 15 shows the pitch authority of the individual elevens as well as the locus of their effective lever arms (center of pressure). The centers of pressure are shown to be well ahead of the eleven hinge line, so they yield short lever arms about the C.G., and even shorter arms about the main landing gear. However, total control power is substantial by virtue of full span elevens.

Nose-Up
tO.10 40.05

CM per panel

nn\\

-0.05 -0.10
MOSB-[)own

-y

1
$ ii

n R 1; i 1
i-L

IFIFI
^ t""J fc**J |

I:

Figure 15. Elevon effectiveness and moment arm in pitch.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Copyright 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

AIAA-98-0438
The proportionally shorter BWB cabin results in relatively small center-of-gravity variations and low pitch inertia. This and low wing loading reduce control power demands. Small winglets provide primary directional stability and control, but for low-speed engine-out conditions, drag rudders similar to those on the B-2 are employed, as depicted hi Figure 16.

Double-Hinged Rudders

Split Drag-Rudders

40% Full Time Control

60%
Vmcg X-wind

Figure 18. 6% scale flight control testbed inflight. board computer which also recorded flight test parameters. The BWB-17 has flown successfully with excellent handling qualities in the normal flight envelope. Future tests will explore the extreme flight envelope.

Figure 16. Yaw control effectiveness.

A low-speed test of a powered 5% scale model was conducted at NASA Langley Research Center's 14 x 22 ft. wind tunnel. The model is shown in the tunnel in Figure 17. The results verified trimmed CLmas estimates, showed favorable stall characteristics, and excellent control power through stall. Power effects were found to be much smaller than expected.

Figure 17. 5% scale model in NASA Langley's 14 x 22ft. wind tunnel, slats deployed.

Low speed flight mechanics of the BWB were explored with a 6% scale flight control testbed built by Stanford University. See Figure 18. The model has a 17 ft. wingspan and weighs 120 pounds. Powered by a pair of 35 cc two-stroke engines, the BWB-17 was dynamically scaled to match the flight characteristics of the full size BWB. Stability augmentation was provided by an on-

Propulsion The ADP-class engines are located aft on the centerbody for balance since the center-of-lift of the swept whig is also aft. This offers the opportunity for swallowing the boundary layer from that portion of the centerbody forward of the inlets, a unique advantage of the BWB layout. In principle, boundary layer swallowing can provide a reduction in fuel bum. (Heuristically, the source of this efficiency can be explained as effectively reducing the ram drag at the engine inlet.) However, this assumes that an inlet canbe designed which provides uniform flow with efficient pressure recovery at the fan face of the engine. Other engine installation options include an S-duct inlet with boundary-layer diverter. Wind tunnel testing was performed at the University of Southern California to develop high recovery/low distortion boundary layer ingestion (BLI) inlets. A semicircular inlet was studied initially. Figure 19 shows results from the baseline inlet configuration. Vortex generators have been shown to effectively redistribute the low energy air for unproved recovery and distortion. Figure 20 shows the unproved results from an inlet fitted with vortex generators. Future tests will study semicircle-to-circle inlets. For the BWB, engine integration affects several disciplines (aerodynamics, structures, flight mechanics, and weights) more directly than is the case of a conventional configuration. Consequently, an engine installation downselect study was conducted, where candidate concepts included: pod and pylon, S-bend with diverter (over and under the whig), and a mid-bifurcated inlet which ingests the boundary layer from both the upper and lower surfaces of the wing. Figure 21 depicts the candidates. Airplanes were sized for each case with appropriate gams and losses for inlet recovery and distortion, weight, thrust moment, and wetted area drag (including boundary-layer

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Copyright 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

AIAA-98-0438
configurations had unacceptable foreign object damage (FOD) exposure. Development of the mid-bifurcated boundary-layer ingesting inlet later proved impractical. First, the lower duct was susceptible to foreign object damage and increased airport noise. Second, the three dimensional duct design suffered from large S-bends and poor boundary layer presentation to the engine. Therefore, the upper S-bend configuration was selected (with boundary layer ingestion) since it solved the foreign object damage and airport noise problems with shielded inlets while providing adequate center of gravity range and ditching characteristics. A view of this inlet is shown in Figure 22.
Figure 19. Baseline semicircular inlet (1/2 shown). C tLos

= 18.73%. ( P P

= 94.09%. DC = 63.1% "

Figure 22. Selected engine installation.

Figure 20. Inlet with vortex generators. C lLos =17.00%. ^

Pod & Pylon

UjJperS-Bend Lower S-Bend

Structure A key element of the BWB concept is to use the passenger cabin as wing bending structure. This dramatically reduces the cantilever span of the thin outer wing and distributes the BWB's weight along the span more optimally as shown in Figures 23 and 24. The peak bending moment and shear on the BWB is half that of a conventional configuration. Lift Aerodynamic

lllil iliil
Figure 21. Alternate engine installation matrix. ingestion). The figure of merit was simply minimum TOGW for the design mission. In addition, all were evaluated for center of gravity range, ditching, emergency egress, foreign obj ect damage susceptibility, airport noise, reverse thrust, landing gear integration and maintainability. All three of the mid-bifurcated designs were slightly lighter than the other concepts, with the 3-engine version the best. The pod and pylon concept suffered from increased wetted area and weight, but its fatal shortcoming was a drastically reduced center of gravity range caused by the displaced thrust line. All of the lower inlet

Figure 23. Aerodynamic, inertia! and pressure loads on a conventional configuration.

Aerodynamic Lift

Figure 24. Aerodynamic, inertial and pressure load's on the BWB.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Copyright 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

AIAA-98-0438
Deep Sandwich Pressure Vessel (CFRP facings w/ Al honeycomb core) CFRP Secondary Structure (unpressurized)
Fuel Tanks (symmetric left & right)
CFRP Floor (secondary structure)

CFRP Skin, Stringer & Rib Structure

Control Surfaces
(CFRP multi-rib)

Figure 25. BWB structural layout.

Structurally, the bulk of the BWB will be built from composites. The outboard wing is fairly conventional, but does not benefit from an outboard engine installation in bending moment or flutter relief. This is largely offset by the beneficial effect of inboard engines for hard landing and taxi-bump loads. A primary challenge exists in the development of the structural concept for the centerbody. Cabin pressure loads as well as whig bending loads must be absorbed by this structure. Figure 25 shows the chosen structural concept. Both pressure and bending loads are carried by the 5 inch thick sandwich or deep hat stringer structural shell. Core density and skin thickness of the sandwich vary as a function of local load and buckling and deflection constraints. Alternate concepts, such as the deep skin/stringer are also very competitive and feature manufacturing benefits as well. A global finite element model was developed to understand the combined pressure and bending loads in the centerbody. The wing deflection from a 2.5 g maneuver load is depicted in Figure 26. Exaggerated skin bending deflection due to pressurization is shown in Figure 27. Navier Stokes analysis of this deflected shape showed a small drag penalty that will require local stiffening. Interior The double-deck BWB ulterior is configured with ten 15 0 inch wide passenger cabin bays, at least 74 inches high on the upper deck and nominally 84 inches high on the lower

Figure 26. Wing deflection, 2.5 g case.

Figure 27. Exaggerated cabin skin deflection due to pressurization.

deck. Despite its lower minimum height, the upper deck is generally taller because it takes advantage of the upper surface curvature. Figures 28 and 29 show the cabin planform and cross section respectively. This ulterior cabin bay arrangement was established after the examination of a wide array of candidate configurations. Variations included the number of decks, the number of bays on each deck, and the length of the bays, plus the number and distribution of cargo compartments. Considerations and constraints included: center-of-gravity vector, maximum

8 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Copyright 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

AIAA-98-0438

Figure 28. Upper deck interior arrangement.

passenger offset from vehicle centerline (ride quality), and resulting wetted area of the cabin which defines the surface area of the pressure vessel. Partitions between the cabin bays are whig ribs that are primary structural members. The size of a typical passenger bay is on the order of the width of a DC-8 cabin and the length of a DC-9-30 cabin. Windows are located on the leading edge forward of each cabin bay. Galleys and lavatories are located aft, which provides the passengers with an unobstructed forward view. In addition, the ulterior features a forward "promenade aisle" which spans the front of the passenger cabin on both decks. These aisles are not an inefficient use of space, since the forward portion of the cabin is closed by the curve of the wing leading edge as indicated in the cross section of Figure 29. Egress is via main cabin doors in the leading edge, and through aft doors hi the rear spar.

A simplified full scale mockup of a portion of the ulterior cabin was made to help evaluate passenger acceptance. Reaction to this mockup, shown hi Figure 30, has been positive. Cargo compartments are located outboard of the passenger bays, and the fuel hi the wings is outboard of the cargo. Total volume of the cargo compartments is set to provide 7 ft3 of containerized cargo per passenger plus another 3 ft3 per passenger of bulk cargo to provide a total of 10 ft3 per passenger.

Figure 30. Aphotograph of thefull scale mockup looking

Figure 29. Profile and frontal views of the passenger cabin. forward towards the leading edge windows from midcabin,

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Copyright 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

AIAA-98-0438
Safety and Environmental Features The configuration has several features that can improve safety. The rear location of the engines places shrapnel from a failed engine aft of the pressure vessel, systems, most flight controls and the fuel tanks. The stagger of the center and outboard engines reduces the chance that a single uncontained engine failure can fail both of the remaining engines. The pressure vessel is unusually stout by comparison with conventional cylindrical fuselages, improving crashworthiness. Fuel is separated from the passenger compartment by the broad cargo bays. The trailing edge flight controls are redundant and reconfigurable. The airplane provides environmental advantages as well. The configuration promises a low acoustic signature. Engine inlets are hidden from below by the body of the airplane and exhaust noise is not reflected by the wing undersurface. Airframe noise is diminished by the absence of slotted flaps and all the mechanisms that support them. Air pollution is diminished simply by the substantial reduction in fuel burn per passenger mile provided by the configuration. Performance In order to properly evaluate the BWB concept, an airplane of conventional configuration has been designed using the same level of basic technologies (e.g. ADP engines, composite structures), and sized to the same design specification. A two-view of the resulting "conventional baseline" is given in Figure 31, and a three-view of the BWB is given in Figure 11. Figure 32 compares the BWB planform with the conventional configuration and an MD-11. Table 1 summarizes the basic performance of the BWB and the conventional baseline.

Figure 31. Conventional baseline 2-view drawing.

BWB Conventional Passengers n.d. 800 800 nmi Range 7000 7000 TOGW Ibs 823,000 970,000 Ibs 412,000 OEW 470,000 Fuel Burned Ibs 213,000 294,000 L/D @ Cruise n.d. 23 19 Wing Span ft 280 235 sqft 6100 Whig Area (trap) sq ft 7840 Total Thrust Ibs 3x61,900 4 x 63,600 T/W n.d. 0.262 0.226 0.466 0.466 TSFC i. ir)/lb Table 1. Performance comparison between BWB and conventional baseline.

Figure 32. MD-11, Blended-Wing-Body and Conventionalplanview size comparison.

10 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Copyright 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

AIAA-98-0438
Conclusions and Observations The magnitude of the performance increments of the BWB over the conventional baseline airplane is indeed unusual, if not unprecedented, in the aircraft industry. All of these benefits are due to the BWB configuration itself, rather than specific traditional technologies such as aerodynamics or structures. The configuration is the new technology. Advanced engines such as the ADP and stitched Resin Film Infusion (RFI) composites have been utilized in the present studies on the assumption that they will achieve technology readiness by the year 2005. Technology creation (e.g. a new material which does not exist today) is not required. A BWB could use today's engines and be constructed from aluminum. Figure 33 shows how the BWB allows a departure from the wing/body/tail legacy. The NASA-sponsored studies described in this paper have demonstrated the technical feasibility of the BWB concept for a subsonic transport. At the same time, this work has identified challenges within all of the technical disciplines that will require creative solutions.
Aerodynamic Efficiency History of Long-Range Transports
25 20 15

Range > 4,500 nmi

BWWOO

10

1960

1970

1 8 1 9 2020 9 0 9 N0

Service Entry Date

Figure 33. ML/D comparison of BWB, Conventional and existing airliners.

Acknowledgment and Historical Note The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the BWB team and our NASA sponsors. This work was performed under NASA contract NAS 1-20275 by the McDonnell Douglas Advanced Transport & Systems group (Long Beach, CA) until August 4, 1997 when the unit was merged with the Boeing Company. NASA Langley Research Center - COTR J. R. Elliott NASA Langley Research Center - Technical Coordinator Robert McKinley
Henri Fuhrmann Phil Arcara
DanMurri

Thomas Moul Cheryl Rose Bernie Anderson Vivek Mukhopadhyay Paul Scott Raquel Girvin Scan Wakayama Arthur Hawley George Rowland Norman Princen Douglas Cameron Eric Dickey Jennifer Phillips Ilan Kroo
Ben Tigner

Mark Meyer Dave Rodriguez Amer Anabtawi Ron Blackwelder Peter Lissaman Raphael Haftka Roberto Vitali Ashraf Badir

NASA Langley Research Center - Aerodynamics NASA Langley Research Center - Performance NASA Langley Research Center -14' x 22' Lead Engineer NASA Langley Research Center - Flight Mechanics NASA Langley Research Center - Structures NASA Lewis Research Center - Propulsion NASA Langley Research Center - Structures Boeing - Weights Boeing - Propulsion Boeing - Advanced Aircraft Performance Boeing - Structures Boeing - Structures Boeing - Flight Mechanics Boeing - Flight Mechanics Boeing - LaRC 14 x 22 Requesting Engineer Boeing - Configuration Design Stanford University - Principal Investigator Stanford University - BWB-17 Lead Engineer Stanford University - BWB-17 CFD - Doctoral Candidate Stanford University - Inlet CFD - Doctoral Candidate University of Southern California - Inlet Test - Doctoral Candidate University of Southern California - Inlet Test University of Southern California - Inlet Test & Structures University of Florida - Principal Investigator - Structures University of Florida - Structures - Doctoral Candidate Clark Atlanta University - Principal Investigator - Structures
11

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics