Revolutionary DARPA X-65 Plane With No Moving Control Surfaces

by

DARPA and Aurora, subsidiary of Boeing, are making a breakthrough X-plane without regular flights controls. The Control of Revolutionary Aircraft with Novel Effectors (CRANE) program aims to design, build, and flight test a novel X-plane that incorporates Active Flow Control (AFC) as a primary design consideration. Crane seeks to optimize the benefits of active flow control by maturing technologies and design tools, and incorporating them early in the design process. Active flow control could improve aircraft performance by removing jointed surfaces, which currently drive design configurations that increase weight and mechanical complexity. Demonstrating AFC for stability and control in-flight would help open the design trade space for future military and commercial applications. In 2023, the aircraft received its official designation as X-65.

If it succeeds this make planes and drones, cheaper, stealthier and more maneuverable.

The X-65 has no external moving parts. No flaps. No rotors. No elevators, rudders, stabilators or any other method of maneuvering used before. the flight can be improved while also reducing costs, and wear and tear on the aircraft. The smoother surface should help improve the X-65s stealth characteristics.

DARPA awarded Aurora Flight Sciences (AFS) a phase 2 contract in January for the CRANE program. DARPA’s phase 2 funding finances the detailed engineering design work needed to create a full-scale X-65. The DARPA contract awarded to AFS includes phase 3 option, as well, that includes flying a full-size X-65.

The full-size X-65 will have a 30-foot wingspan and should weigh just 7,000 pounds.

X-65 will use active flow control using bursts of air rather than moving flight surfaces on the exterior of the wings and tail to control its flight.

19 thoughts on “Revolutionary DARPA X-65 Plane With No Moving Control Surfaces”

  1. Brian the guy is a troll. I however found your article to be interesting. Wasn’t misleading or anything bad. A great read and well written.
    P.s. I think he was hoping for the Pentagon to say it was alien technology from his Anus. I mean Uranus. 😆✌️

    • Well, I suppose it could still use flow control if the airspeed is above a critical value. With an intake below the cord line, a certain angle of attack should provide for a fairly controllable glide while ensuring air is still entering the system sufficient to exit the system where needed to control lift and attitude.

      Bypass ducts inside the main duct could default to an open position when suction isn’t present to redirect as much inflow air as possible out to the control vents instead of to the dead engine core.

      This unpowered glide would then manifest as less responsive control, but there might still be enough control to land safely if no crazy maneuvers are needed to get lined up with a localizer and glide slope.

      As long as air is moving into the aircraft, it can be redirected out, as long as the actuators for the flow control have some backup power. Batteries are heavy but could be minimalized for emergency only, perhaps with a 20 min flight control limit.

      What would be better is a deployable ram air turbine like in an Airbus, as that could supply enough juice to run the actuators, nav, and other systems. The turbine generator wouldn’t even have to be external like on an Airbus. It could just be built into the internal ducts and default their own bypass ducts to open when engine suction is absent.

      And if all else fails, you can always rig an automatic deployable chute to drop safely as long as the craft is below a certain weight.

      In short, as long as an electrical backup system can move the air redirection actuators in this aircraft, the absence of thrust won’t prevent a controlled descent.
      The source of power for the backup system isn’t difficult to implement, either with ram air turbines or just batteries. This is an engineering problem to be solved if such aircraft are to be manned.

  4. Awesome review, probably ion stream propulsion,possibly may have ramjet engine incorporated. All which requires no moving parts. The hollow wings would allow for rapid decent and vertical take off and landing. Simply need only landing buffers.Though very curious to its power source.

    • I’m usually pretty loose about what I consider clickbait – but the title of this article absolutely promises a sci-fi level breakthrough in propulsion that doesn’t match the content. It should be changed. *shrug*

      • there is nothing in propulsion in the title. It is no moving parts. Which is correct for the lack of moving control surfaces. What is your “correct title” for the DARPA technology

        • What’s the over under on these things having the capability of being silent other than jet noise? I’m thinking not likely but I thought I’d ask. Nothing wrong with the title. Enlightening read. Thanks.

          • Jet engines typically produce sound levels between 120 and 140 decibels (dB). In comparison, normal conversation is usually between 60 and 70 dB.
            The outside of aircraft engines are around 140 dB at takeoff. However, sound levels can vary among aircraft. For example, the F-35 is 121 dB at 1,000 ft and 500 mph, while the F-16 is 114 dB at the same speed and height. Sounds above 85 dB can cause hearing damage, especially with frequent or prolonged exposure.

            I think they would only be silent when the jet engine is off and it is gliding without air jets controlling direction and movement

Comments are closed.