Slashdot Mirror
Boeing Blended Wing Body Aircraft
pcolley writes "I love it when Science Fiction becomes reality. Boeing is nearly finished designing their super efficient Blended Wing Body (BWB) airplane. It looks like the BatJet." Boeing is considering both civilian and military roles.
There've been delta-wing type aircraft since the 50's. Always touting the "lift of the entire aircraft". What exactly is the issue that 1) they have never caught on with the airlines or public and 2) Boeing thinks it's solved? What am I missing?
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Commercial airlines carry on using the tried and tested 7X7, 3=X=7. The airplane industry is a classic case of "if it ain't broke" -- consider the sheer *lack* of modern technology in a 747, for example.
Boeing calculates that a BWB seating 480 passengers would use 32 percent less fuel than the proposed A380-700 [...] The plane would weigh 19 percent less, suggesting that it would cost less to build. And it would need 19 percent less thrust, saving on engine manufacturing and maintenance costs.
We at Boeing have the solution you are waiting for. Yes, our 747 is outdated and someone else is making a better product. We don't have an alternative to show but if you hold off buying your new big planes just another few years we'll supply you with a cheaper, better and more efficient product.
Now, why exactly does this all sound so terribly familiar to most of us?
So how exactly does this benefit the consumer? How much do airlines currently spend on fuel? How much does one flight cost other than the fuel?
I suppose if fuel costs would be 1/3 less per person and the number of flights required per day would be cut in half, the savings per passenger would be somewhere in the 33% to 50% range, but how much of that are we likely to see?
The plane would weigh 19 percent less, suggesting that it would cost less to build. And it would need 19 percent less thrust, saving on engine manufacturing and maintenance costs.
Okay, now _that_ is cost analysis for you! By that reasoning a gun should cost less to build than a club because it weighs less. That example is a little oversimplified, but if the BWB was really similar enough to the tube and wing design to justify that kind of ballpark estimate then they wouldn't have needed to spend as much time researching as they have (and will continue to spend) to solve the engineering dificulties presented by the new design. And Boeing is going to have to factor in the costs of the long research period once they actually start producing it.
Last i checked the airlines weren't in great finacial shape, and once these things start rolling out of the factories they may have to start taking out large loans to update their fleets. And of course they're unlikely to drop the price on tickets by a huge amount for as long as they have those loans to pay off.
That means that the smaller airlines that can't aford the new jets will continue to be feasible for awhile, until five or ten years later when the big airlines finish paying off the loans, and at _that_ point we may see some big price drops. Of course by that point it may be too late for the smaller companies to switch over, and i'm not sure what they'll have to do to stay competitive.
This isn't to say that the idea isn't really cool and would make good economic sense for the long term, but the idea that a medium increase in efficiency will "slash the cost of air transport" all by itself is a naive view of economics. (I won't pretend my view is perfect, but i'm trying to be a _little_ more realistic)
As for the windows issue, it would be cool if they could replace the walls and ceiling with polarizeable high impact plastic of some kind. Make the entire thing into a skylight! It wouldn't give you much view of the ground unless you were near one of the edges, but it would still help everyone feel less cramped i think.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Wonder why they picked NorthWest's colors for their graphic?
EnkiduEOT
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
-Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
There's an international standard that all commercial aircraft have to fit into a 262ft (80m) square footprint, which drives design issues like how far apart the gates have to be at airports.
This thing has a projected wingspan of 289ft (88.1m), which means that at airports where it can't "accidentally" fit, special gates will have to be built for it. (Then again, it'll probably have such a weird arrangement of doors, that you'll need multiple oddly-arranged jetways anyway.)
This must have been said by people watching Orville and Wilbur.
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
This is for trans-oceanic, not regional travel. It's efficiency will give it a monster range, so you can go LA-> Singapore in one shot, I think. For the distances that trains are practical, airlines tend to prefer smaller planes (eg 737s) and more numerous departure times.
It's not an SUV, it's a freighter for the skys.
"one treats others with courtesy not because they are gentlemen or gentlewomen, but because you are" --G. Henrichs
Although I agree that aerodynamics are prevalent in aeronautics, there's MUCH room for improvements in engines as well. I don't buy the claim of 30+% less energy consumption with only a new design. I bet the engines they intend to use are part of these 30+% as well.
Just look at cars... In less than 5 years, at least in Europe, gas engines have seen their consumption reduced by more than 40% at equivalent power, with close to no progress at all in aerodynamics. Progress has been even more spectacular with fuel engines. Worse, the friction car engines have to face is higher than in the past (higher total weight, larger width of tires, and recently greater height of cars - see the new Honda Civic). Nowadays, all of these improvements are barely applied to aeronautics. They would help at least on non jet thrust powered airplanes, and that means the vast majority of planes out there. But I'm confident that at least part of these improvements (stratified load for example) could be applied to jet-thrust engines as well.
As a side note, sound is energy as well... The noise generated by aircraft engines is awfully high, especially with jet thrust engines, but the vast majority of this noise is due to frictions in the engine itself... Instead of adding isolating material into the plane (which brings in more weight, hence more energy to move that weight), a better way to solve the problem is just to reduce the friction into the engine itself...
I think if passengers and cargo operators are willing to give the blended-wing body airplane a chance to succeed, the plane will definitely have some major advantages.
First, the plane uses substantially less fuel on a seat-mile basis than even the Airbus A380. This means the BWB could carry 200-250 more passengers per plane for the same range as the A380-800 (8,000 nautical miles). If Boeing is willing to keep the passenger capacity at around 550 passengers the plane could achieve perhaps the last major goal of commercial aviation, the ability to fly between London, England and Sydney, Australia non-stop in both directions year around (the distance is about 9,000 nautical miles on a Great Circle route).
Second, because the engines are located on the back of the plane, this could mean lower noise levels, meeting the upcoming ICAO Stage IV noise standard easily.
Third, since the entire plane's shape becomes a lifting surface, that could mean the BWB will probably need less runway lengths than the A380-800. Also, the BWB's landing gear placement will also mean compatibility with today's airport taxiways.
Fourth, because the BWB's length from front to back is about the same as a 767-300, a simple incorporation of folding wingtips could mean the BWB can easily fit into airport parking gates now used by the 747--no need to build parking gates that comform to the 80 x 80 meter standard that the A380 will require (an very expensive proposition for many airports).
Finally, because of the unique interior volume area of the BWB, Boeing could easily design much more efficient seating areas and airlines could put in large lounge areas or for the first time turn First Class seating into roomettes like you see on railroad sleeping cars.
Let's face it folks. Air travel is going to continue to increase in popularity, and given the space restrictions and noise abatement rules at today's airports the BWB could become the new queen of the skies by 2015.