^^ Yep that was an F-15 indeed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle#Notable_accidents
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle#Notable_accidents
Aviation Geeks unite?! Anybody else care about planes here?
- Thread starter { Emilia }
- Start date
Isn't there a myth about the F15 and how good it handles? Something about it can lose a wing and still land?
Yes I just noticed that when I looked at the link but was after I had posted. It's an amazing plane.
A lot more is known about airfoils than was understood at one point. NACA did so much work on subsonic airfoil shapes in its heyday before NASA that it might have been thought to be the lid on the matter, but moments like the F-15 doing something its own development team were certain was impossible is one of those cases. Then again lift itself is still something of a not-entirely-known. Flat wings develop lift, for instance.
then there are the Kline-Fogleman airfoils. These haven't been used in a large human carrying plane, as far as I know but they get used quite a bit in model rc aircraft. I have heard their performance described as somewhere between a traditional airfoil and a flat wing.
then there are the Kline-Fogleman airfoils. These haven't been used in a large human carrying plane, as far as I know but they get used quite a bit in model rc aircraft. I have heard their performance described as somewhere between a traditional airfoil and a flat wing.
SuperCritical AirFoils generally dominate alot of modern Air Frames in the Civil & Military world.
We can thank Richard Whitcomb along with his Area Rule.
We can thank Richard Whitcomb along with his Area Rule.
While I prefer blended-wing designs over traditional tube and wing designs, I don't think I'll see them flying in my lifetime. Here's an excellent video on the subject that I noticed today. The author of this documentary is probably a bit overoptimistic about how quickly scaled-up versions can be certified for airline use and put into production although many of the manufacturing techniques are already well understood. Perhaps they could start with building a cargo version?
Blended wing designs are actually really great when it comes to strength/weight, tube/wing is much more troublesome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying-V_jet
This one was mentioned I think, seems they're actually developing it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying-V_jet
This one was mentioned I think, seems they're actually developing it.
Cabin pressurisation is problematic for blended but new materials might offer solutions as the video details. The fuel savings promised are enticing to airlines if they can be realised.
I still think the Proteus Cargo Plane is on the right track between "Blended Wing Body" and Tube shaped aircraft.
It has the right balance of affordability and familiarity along with some of the benefits of "Blended Wing Body" & conventional Tube shaped Aircraft.
That's probably the more realistic route than a pure BWB aircraft.
Also, read up on the A380's Wing Design. It's a great read for us Aviation Geeks.
It has the right balance of affordability and familiarity along with some of the benefits of "Blended Wing Body" & conventional Tube shaped Aircraft.
That's probably the more realistic route than a pure BWB aircraft.
Also, read up on the A380's Wing Design. It's a great read for us Aviation Geeks.
Last edited:
i think being in a far-edge seat on a blended wing body during banking would be nauseating for a lot of people. think of an airport that requires high banking turns right from liftoff like John Wayne in Irvine. You'd be looking straight down at the pacific, minutes after liftoff.
Some people might enjoy the experience - I know I have in the past - but yes, most passengers might well not. It's a factor I haven't heard discussed previously in regard to such designs. In any case, I wouldn't envisage such aircraft using any but the most major hubs, which perhaps SNA (Irvine) isn't, with respect. I don't think it has ever handled conventional widebody airliners on a scheduled basis. Cargo and 757s are probably the largest planes operated out of there.
Last edited:
This made me think of the fictional plane Fireflash in Thunderbirds which was big enough people were sitting inside the wings with window views. I mean yes fictional show with insane technology but seats inside the wings no matter how comfy would be upsetting to people.
Just have Brains magic up some inertial nullifiers that create a constant local G field inside the plane.
That touches on something else that's been raised in the past about designed for blended body aircaft - the general lack of windows and the impact that could on some people.
At present even if you're not in a window row seat, you can still see something outside when the blinds up are up.
The main idea for blended bodied craft would be lcd screens inside the cabin that would show either image from outside the jet or something else suitable to reduce the feeling of claustrophobia.
that makes sense. I think if there is ever a new supersonic or hypersonic airliner (or large ballistic passenger rocket), it will have to have something along those lines. Windows are just an inefficiency that isn't worth that level of trouble.
we have to wait on that engineer in San Francisco to finally figure out transparent aluminum. He's had almost 40 years, now.I'm sure De Haviland would agree with you there
It exists, but MIBs came and took the formula to Area 51 for use on the flying saucers.
