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.
I just hope that they have worked out the stability problems. The "all-wing" design has been notorious for being unstable except with computer help and "fly by wire" controls. If they have trumped these problems, go ahead; besides, I have no need to see outside the craft (one of the downsides mentioned. The passengers would be seated in wide rows only a few deep- think of the current tube and turn it 90 degrees, so only a few people would have window seats). But they are considering placing LCDs in front of all the seats with the option of seeing outside the plane. Now if they gave me ultra zoom over the midwest so I could see that farmer's daughter......
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
It's difficult to imagine anybody flying in this thing. For one thing, the passengers are intended to be kept in compartments close to the center of the aircraft, so no window seats. The very wide body means much greater displacement when the aircraft banks so even a slight bank would feel like a roller coaster ride for those on the extremities. One of the most important design challenges is emergency evacuation. And -- would the average person fly in a radically new, untested airframe?
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
-Fzz
Those don't seem like the kinds of problems to delay a technology for nigh on 50 years....Other posts about stability, on the other hand, do lend more credence to the delay, but the question of how they solve these problems is still open. There's the risk of flying in an untested airframe, but even moreso one that *requires* computer assistance to fly stably? No way.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
What most people don't realize is that this plane is directly competing against Airbus (Beoing's cloest competitor in this space). This plane is truly new in how it flies, what it does, etc. It is a HUGE step forward in commercial planes that will have major impact on the industry in terms of cost, savings, etc.
Traditional "bus" like airplanes cost a lot for fuel, maintenance, etc. Also, many of those planes aren't easily modified to support the new TVs, internet, etc that the newer Beoing and Airbus planes have. With this plane, it has all of the gadget, gizmo's AND it saves the airlines money.
Sure, not seeing out the window may not be a big deal to some, but saving money for the airlines is what they want. This plane will be rolled out and if it fails, it's gonna hurt Boeing a lot for the commercial side (its doubtful, but possible).
Last, but not least, the stability issue isn't going to be a problem for this wing craft. With all of the computer involved, GPS and fly by wire, its about as advanced as the military grade fighters and bombers, just without the stealth and weapons.
But those that DO have a window will have a much better view as they will be looking Front / Down with nothing blocking their view. If the windows were made fairly large the view would be spectacular.
F-16s *require* computer assistance for stability, and they are the mainstay of the Air Force's fighters. They are deliberately unstable because it makes the plane more agile and quick to respond to the pilot's input. The B-2 also has computer assisted flight controls, as do F/A-18s and other aircraft.
This isn't some far-fetched untested technology. It has been safely used for years.
My favorite plane of all time the Horten 229.
i l_ hoix.htm
http://www.hotel.wineasy.se/ipms/stuff_eng_deta
Another site of amazing flying machines.
http://visi.net/~djohnson/luftart.html
Sorry to be lame and reply to myself -- but i think it's better than being lame and keep a bunch of ideas mis-communicated.
1) Airbus 380 has wingspan of 79.8m -- and many airports (the stat was ~20% last i heard) cannot accomodate its size. by comparison, Boeing 747 has a wingspan of 64.4m
2) This proposed design has wingspan of over 88 (88.1?) meters. so if airbus 380 does not fit into some of today's airports, this will be having lots of troubles
3) the rate of new airports being built in the US is diminishing to a handful per year. Most metropolitan areas are surrounded by suburbs and new airports to accomodate new (bigger) planes is out of the question. this leaves us with a serious dilemma: our current airports do not fit these things, and there arn't any new airports here to take their place.
4) before anybody asks -- yes airports can be re-fitted. Chicago-midway, for example, is currently undergoing something like that. but even AFTER refitting, A380 will *still* not fit in ~5% of the airports. (something to do with runway length, gate width, etc etc that makes it economically or logistically impractical to refit) so i do not expect refit to be all that powerful a solution to our new one-wing design.
so... like the concord -- this might come off to be one of the vanity flights offered at only a few airports (for a different reason, of course) -- but it *would* make an excellent alternative if it could land on, say, water. so instead of cruise ships, we can ride THESE all day -- and maybe the top observation deck can be made with a glass ceiling dining room, etc etc. the possibilities are great for these planes -- but i just don't see it in people-carrying NY-Tokyo flights.
My life in the land of the rising sun.
These days many airlines are having trouble filling their 400 or 200-passenger jets. If they're only able to book a maximum of 200-400 passengers on these planes, the airlines are going to end up paying even more for fuel per passenger than they are now.
There went that idea. Next?
One issue is that all of the flying wing designs out there (and this is closer to a flying wing than a delta wing, and there is definitly a difference between the two) are on small craft. Something about the design lends to inherrently unstable craft, that take a much more precise control system to keep stable. Its just now that computer control of multiple flaps is precise enough that something like this in this large of a formfactor is feasable.
That's one of my gripes with modern airliners - they have such teeny, hard-to-see-through windows. My guess is that they make them that small so the airframe can withstand the streeses of pressurization.
The DeHavilland Comet, one of the first jet airliners, was originally built with large square windows. About a year after they went into service, Comets started falling out of the sky because of metal fatigue from pressurization. Since then, airliners have been designed with those tiny round windows we've all come to hate.
It would be really nice if the BWB was built with big panoramic front windows, so anyone could stick their heads into the aisle and get a decent view. But I don't know if they can do that without comprimising the structure.
Meldroc, Waster of Electrons
and more information regarding the history of the BWB design.
http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/megajet.htm
I'm thinking an electronic view would be just fine. Either on the back of the seat in front of you, or on one big screen at the front of the room. Since the camera or cameras could be pointed ahead, behind, or down, they would offer a much better view than one gets out the little window. A lounge area would just eat into the seating, which is not something that airlines are going to be interested in.
Another cool thing about no windows is that maybe they could mount all the seats rear facing without bothering anyone, since it is safer. If you have a screen that lets you feel like you are facing "forwards" then maybe people won't mind it.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
Boeing and /.s thinking so inside the box. Once landed these aircraft should be able to caster their wheels and pull into the conventional jetway sizeways. Airports are littered with these things called tractors and when 800 people and 2 billion in aircraft is moving having a trained crew of 5 to park isnt a bad idea since they will need to be their to replish and dump all the services provided.
Imageing the now empty wingtip bending vertical and exposing not one 72 in tall x 36 in wide doors but 5 72x72 doors and the other wingtip opening with a huge 72in x 300 in cargo opening.
Load and Unload time is where the airlines lose their lunch so to speed. Emergency exits to this beast will be overhead for the belly landing and the big doors at each wingtip.
As a private pilot my big fear in the current crop of airliners is overhead bagage compatments and the seats not fasten in the airframe. Id hate to survive the impact and be killed by the junk overhead, or the seats that are made for removal.
Make the space under your seat your cargo space a indivudaul compartment. So only a laptop briefcase and medication bags make sence to bring on. Use cabin pressure to vent the storage lockers, with a simple pressure trick so the smelly thing isnt smelly in the compartment. The passenger floor of the airplane is going to be big grid of storage boxes that hold also the seats together. Think molded carbon fiber, aerofoam and lots of conduits makeing the the seats molded the airplane instead of cargo to be secured. With this space under the seats gone we will move the seats farter apart, so every seat is an isle seat like at a sports stadium. Make the seats near the center extra wide and put the weighty passengers in the 'girth' seats in the middle of the airplane next to the bathrooms where they always want to be anyways and use the extra cord to widen the isles as you get closer to the services areas, or provide desk workspace for buisness class as flip down trays are gone and you have keyboard and pointers in the armrest for the 17" - 21" displays that are 2 feet from your knees and at seat back height. Nobody ever type the great masterpiece in flight anyways. Browsing, reading and enterianment are all cusomized to your 21" LCD infornt of you.
With all that overhead garbage gone the top tear can be 30% higher providing room for private cabins, food services and cargo space underneath to make real profits. You want to bring you pet, baby or 6 kids along you go to the crying baby area and childrens play area cabins (jerms in a box) , and visit your pet in the kennel area.
At dead centerline is the food services area, that is filled with quick change modual 20 ft l x 3 ft w x 6 ft h with the foodstuffs. The passengers are schedualed to visit the core area to pick up a snack and eat in the lounge as the flip up trays suck in my design.
The cost per passenger mile of the best air transports run about 80 miles/gallon/passenger. So, the cost in fuel to get a passenger across the US or the Atlantic is around 40 gallons. This is around $US60/passenger in fuel. Have you had any tickets in that price range lately?
Fuel is a big part of the cost of running an airline, but it's obviously not the biggest cost.
-Lee
Compare these two: Boing and the German Horten Go 229 from 1945.
Here's another picture...
-iie1195
I want the optional map overlay so I can see where the heck I am.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
The delta wing is only effective at higher speeds is my understanding. I can only imagine how difficult it would be to try to pilot one of these things in crash landing conditions. It probably has no control if its engine is out, like fighter craft and unlike passenger craft. Thats just not safe enough for commercial carrier flight.
They also haven't caught on because flying wing technology has dragged its feet since the advantages have been limited. Add the fact that they are expensive to design and test (especially when your prototypes are crashing all the time), and the only people really left that might be interested is the military.
There is a lot you can do with this technology to make flight faster and more energy efficient, but not really safer or more practical or cheaper.
I learned to drive an RX-2 wagon from 1972, and it didn't generally have compression issues either. But my parents let the maintenance be done by a cheaper mechanic for a few years, who didn't know that he had to flush the internal engine bits on a regular basis, and it ate its seals up. Voila, no compression at all. Pretty interesting to be on a family vacation and have the engine fail completely and have to be replaced.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001