Future Planes

[Ar-Pharazon]

Story at Yahoo News.

Leave it to Boeing to reuse the B1/flying wing design yet again

Also, a series of photos of some more designs.

 

[Jono]

Story at Yahoo News.

Leave it to Boeing to reuse the B1/flying wing design yet again

Also, a series of photos of some more designs.

I didn't think B-1 was classed as a flying wing design. Given that Northrop Grumman built the B-2 they would appear to be the more likely to go for a flying wing design.

Hard to really tell from the pictures but all but the Lockheed Martin design look to have pretty huge wingspans, which would be an issue for airports given they like to squeeze in as many planes as they can. I do like the look of the Boeing design the best.

On the other future planes, some of those are pretty crazy. I'm glad someone put a flying saucer in there...it isn't the future if something isn't in a saucer shape. You have two car-planes and a car-plane-boat design! Awesome.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

, I was picturing the B2 but typed B1.

 

[SchwEnt]

Ehhh...Popular Science has been showing this stuff for decades. And the commercial airliners of 2011 still look just like the airliners of the 1950s: a tube with two wings.

No flying saucers, no twin fuselages, no flying wings.
And there won't be because any mainstream commercial airliner will have to meet the logistical requirements of the world's airports. All the boarding terminals, baggage handling equipment, gate clearances, etc.

What good would a giant flying wing passenger aircraft be if it couldn't fit any of the world's airport boarding gates? No airline would buy it, no airport would accept it.

Even the Concorde was limited on it's flight routes because of sonic booms over urban areas. Major tech innovations bring their own problems beyond the aircraft itself.

Any great, radical marked redesign of major commercial aircraft won't become mainstream unless all the world's airport infrastructures are also redesigned.

So somebody's gotta come up with airports that can accommodate giant flying wings, conventional airliners, flying saucer shapes, twin-hull fuselages, etc.
And that's way more unlikely than just redesigning the plane itself.

 

[sojourner]

The puffin is not amphibious.

 

[CorporalClegg]

No flying saucers, no twin fuselages, no flying wings.
And there won't be because any mainstream commercial airliner will have to meet the logistical requirements of the world's airports. All the boarding terminals, baggage handling equipment, gate clearances, etc.

What good would a giant flying wing passenger aircraft be if it couldn't fit any of the world's airport boarding gates? No airline would buy it, no airport would accept it.

Even the Concorde was limited on it's flight routes because of sonic booms over urban areas. Major tech innovations bring their own problems beyond the aircraft itself.

This is simply not true. The flying wing is very a real possibility. Boeing has been working on the idea for years. It's been all but verified that the X-48 was built to be a more of a scaled mock-up to determine commercial potential than it ever was meant for military application. There was even that infamous 2008 hoax that had a "real size" X-48 that was siting on a tarmac someplace. The scuttlebutt is that the picture was created by someone high-up at Boeing to generate attention.

The fact of the matter is, a flying wing offers a ridiculous improvement to cost/efficiency over the standard tube fuselage. The require a lot less fuel, can carry a lot more passengers, and to so much more rapidly.

Plus, the whole principle concept to the design is that is can remain stable at speeds infinitely close to the speed of sound. It can thus fly at high-speed and avoid the turbulence and still not create a boom. And since it can hold so many more people than a Concord, the express London/NY flight wouldn't be limited to the elite.

As far as the gate problem, it's all but been solved. There was a animated simulation video about five or six years ago (I think from NOVA.) that showed a simple retrofitting and modification to the gates that would allow the planes access. It wouldn't be THAT expensive, and the long-term profits would overwhelmingly justify the cost to the airlines. Airports really wouldn't have a say in the matter.

So real is the possibility, that I can almost guarantee they'll start popping up at airports within the next 10-15 years.

 

[Switch]

The general consensus seems to be that Blended Wing Body (see the Boeing concept) is the next major evolution in airliner design that we'll see.

A next-generation SST would be interesting ... what happened to that Japanese-French project?

 

[sojourner]

So real is the possibility, that I can almost guarantee they'll start popping up at airports within the next 10-15 years.

Considering how long it has taken to get the Dreamliner and A 380 from development and into service, I wouldn't hold my breath if i were you.

 

[MANT!]

Believe it or not..the Aviation Industry is basically conservative in design and resistant to innovation unless there is a monetary advantage..(The switch from piston engines to jets was primarily for economic reasons I.E. less cost per mile in required fluids, fuel, maintenance, and due to the higher speeds number of aircrew per flight..it was even more economically sensible when the 747 was introduced.)Please note the rise of the twin-jet long-haul wide body airliners (the Boeing 777 as a case in point) in all but the longest routes..they cost less per mile/passenger than most of the quad-jet airliners flying today... and they are flying all over the world. Just 45 years ago, ALL long haul airliners were quad-jets.


If there's enough fuel/maintenance and speed savings involved, the airlines will adopt the newer aircraft designs.... If not, you'll continue to see the 2 wing, tube fuselage airliners on the drawing boards...

 

[scotpens]

. . . The fact of the matter is, a flying wing offers a ridiculous improvement to cost/efficiency over the standard tube fuselage. The require a lot less fuel, can carry a lot more passengers, and to so much more rapidly.

Plus, the whole principle concept to the design is that is can remain stable at speeds infinitely close to the speed of sound. It can thus fly at high-speed and avoid the turbulence and still not create a boom. And since it can hold so many more people than a Concord, the express London/NY flight wouldn't be limited to the elite.

The advantages of flying wings have been known for decades. A flying wing is aerodynamically the most efficient shape for an aircraft because all the surface area contributes to useful lift. The stability and control problems that affected earlier experimental designs like the Northrop XB-35 and YB-49 have now been conquered thanks to computerized flight controls.

The big problem with a commercial flying wing is that, to use the maximum available cabin space, you’d have passenger seating at a considerable distance from the aircraft’s centerline. In a normal banked turn, the effect for passengers in the most outboard seats would be like sitting at the ends of a very long seesaw. Maybe those seats could be reserved for the more adventurous passengers!

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

The general consensus seems to be that Blended Wing Body (see the Boeing concept) is the next major evolution in airliner design that we'll see.

A next-generation SST would be interesting ... what happened to that Japanese-French project?

There was a Boeing 2707 concept back in the 70's that would have been quite a bit larger than the Concorde.

 

[Switch]

The general consensus seems to be that Blended Wing Body (see the Boeing concept) is the next major evolution in airliner design that we'll see.

A next-generation SST would be interesting ... what happened to that Japanese-French project?

There was a Boeing 2707 concept back in the 70's that would have been quite a bit larger than the Concorde.

70s is not exactly next-gen.

Anyway, this is what Janes has on the Japanese SST:

JAXA SST (Japan), Aircraft - Fixed-wing - Civil

Type
Supersonic airliner.

Programme
Begun as indigenous project in 1997 by National Aerospace Laboratory of Japan; continues towards development of future supersonic transport for service entry in 2015 to 2020 time frame. Main objectives are to improve environmental impact by minimising sonic boom and reducing engine noise during take-off and landing; and to increase economic viability by reducing airframe weight and air drag, and improving engine efficiency. Research phase (development of design approach), involving NEXST-1 test models, ended in 2006. Project phase (2007-2011) is refining the design, and begins with S3TD demonstrator.

EDIT: Here's a video from sometime between 2005-2008:

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cajhbo46EhE[/yt]

 

[trekkiedane]

It all looks very nice and good, and who wouldn't like a little more space inside a plane?

But: there's another reason why all planes today are 'tubes with wings': safety!

Imagine how long it would take you to get from a seat (cabin?) in the middle of a flying wing to an emergency exit on the side of the plane or -possibly worse- you did get out of a burning plane only to find yourself boxed in by flames and the second 'tube' of a twin hull design!

Passenger aircraft design is also limited by regulations on how fast you must be able to get everyone out of the plane. Most of these designs seem to be usable only for cargo.

 

[T'Girl]

Airports really wouldn't have a say in the matter.

Quite the opposite really, one of the reasons so few airports will premit the A380 to land, is that the outboard engine project out beyond the wideness of the taxiways, and in the summer months might set the grass on fire, rather than widen their taxiways most airport simply won't let it land, even though they can handle the weight.

 

[Switch]

But: there's another reason why all planes today are 'tubes with wings': safety!

Safety is overrated.

In any case LM's diamond wing is by far the most aesthetically pleasing and seems the same as today's airliners wrt passenger evacuation.

For the moment Ukraine's Mriya is still the most badass unarmed aircraft around:

 

[Lindley]

The big problem with a commercial flying wing is that, to use the maximum available cabin space, you’d have passenger seating at a considerable distance from the aircraft’s centerline. In a normal banked turn, the effect for passengers in the most outboard seats would be like sitting at the ends of a very long seesaw. Maybe those seats could be reserved for the more adventurous passengers!

If the turns are coordinated, any passengers not looking out a window shouldn't be able to tell anything is happening, except, perhaps, for a slight increase in G forces. Uncoordinated turns, I agree, would be a problem for passengers.

 

[MANT!]

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub6U9CL0K_A[/yt]

 

[flux_29]

I'd like to see a plane like Fireflash from (G. Anderson's) Thunderbirds be built.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Considering how long it has taken to get the Dreamliner and A 380 from development and into service, I wouldn't hold my breath if i were you.

Except the Dreamliner was almost completely new technology. Flying wings have been around for 60 years.

Airports really wouldn't have a say in the matter.

Quite the opposite really, one of the reasons so few airports will premit the A380 to land, is that the outboard engine project out beyond the wideness of the taxiways, and in the summer months might set the grass on fire, rather than widen their taxiways most airport simply won't let it land, even though they can handle the weight.

Airports have resists, but it's proving to be futile. It's only remained as such for now because it hasn't been economically/politically sound for the Airlines to apply the pressure. That is quickly changing. Once it does, (I.E. Once the profit exceeds any insurance write-offs.) the 380 will become ubiquitous over night.

For example, here in ABQ there is a cargo one that comes in once a week. It's always early morning and no one else is around. But the Sunport is really pretty much a glorified regional airport. But whoever the company is, finds it worth it to pay, I guess. I never actually seen the thing, but there was a fuss about it in the newspaper several months ago.

The big problem with a commercial flying wing is that, to use the maximum available cabin space, you’d have passenger seating at a considerable distance from the aircraft’s centerline. In a normal banked turn, the effect for passengers in the most outboard seats would be like sitting at the ends of a very long seesaw. Maybe those seats could be reserved for the more adventurous passengers!

If the turns are coordinated, any passengers not looking out a window shouldn't be able to tell anything is happening, except, perhaps, for a slight increase in G forces. Uncoordinated turns, I agree, would be a problem for passengers.

And certainly the whole thing isn't even conceivable without sophisticated next-gen fly-by-wire. But, at this point, I think that is really only a small matter. The technology has advanced enough that there's a stable platform to start with.

Also, I think I read somewhere that the cabin floor would have a slightly convex (Concave? I'm not a physicist.) shape.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

I'd like to see a plane like Fireflash from (G. Anderson's) Thunderbirds be built.

Wasn't that powered by a nuclear reactor like the Thunderbirds themselves? I sort of remember a cutaway diagram from Century 21 magazine showing that. Nuclear-powered aircraft -- very retro.

Ah, here we are:

http://lester.demon.nl/superm/tbirds/fireflash.html