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.

Comments

Stability

[bryan1945]

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......

Re:Stability

[GRH]

As other posters have noted, the delta wing configuration isn't new and it's advantages have been well known.

I suspect that the recent advent of "fly-by-wire" that Airbus first used has finally made this configuration "flyable".

Ok, so now they can build it, but passenger issues also have to be solved for it to be accepted. Personally, I think most folks would gladly trade the window view for more washrooms (which the new configuration might have room for).

If any of you have been on a 747-400 series, there is a LCD screen in the back of each seat. This allows each passenger to watch from movies/music/telemetry (my favourite). This could also be used to provide a "ground" view for those that have to have a window. Additionally, I suspect windows cost a lot of $ and weight. Look at cargo planes and you'll never see them (except for the pilots [well duh!]).

2010 eh? Well, I'll be happy to give it a try.

Who would fly on it?

[s20451]

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?

Re:Who would fly on it?

[negativethirsty]

I sure would. Tickets would be cheaper, or I would get to where I'm going faster. You might think its untested but its really not. They've been kicking this design around for a long long time (see future shuttle images). As for evacuation in a crash, think about what happens when a typical airliner today crashes, how it breaks apart at the wings dumping fuel all over to ignite. If i had to guess, as i am since i have no real data, this body style would be much much stronger. Stress would not be concentrated around the area where the wings meet the "tube" of the airframe, it would also lessen cyclic stress as the force is more distributed.

Re:Who would fly on it?

[Reality Master 101]

Actually, I just about to ask who would care about the fact that there are no window seats. Personally, I like window seats and ask for them every time, but I don't see this as a critical need particularly if this would cut the cost of airline travel.

Is there anyone out there who WOULDN'T fly on it just because it doesn't have windows? I guess you would, but...

As far as who would fly in "radically new, untested airframes", every airliner starts out as a new, untested airframe. I don't see the new Boeing 777 dropping out the sky.

Re:Who would fly on it?

[Moofie]

Boeing has addressed these concerns in another article I read in Aviation Week and Space Technology. With a skillful pilot (or computer) executing coordinated turns, you aren't going to feel a thing. And with video screens and passenger-controllable cameras, window seats aren't a huge deal.

And the passengers on the leading edge will have a FANTASTIC view.

And what the hell are you talking about, untested? You think Boeing's just going to start selling seats on the prototype? Just because an airplane looks conventional doesn't mean it's safe. Look at the delamination issues Airbus is facing with their composite empennages.

Sure, some people are going to be "scared" of the new design, but I bet many more people are going to be interested in the new layout.

Re:what exactly is the revolution here?

[elmegil]

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.

corrections and addentums

[lingqi]

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.

In today's market, this is a step back

[guttentag]

It is conceived to carry 800 passengers... This is almost twice the passenger capacity of the Boeing 747-400... This design would reduce fuel burn and harmful emissions per passenger mile by almost a third in comparison to today's aircraft.

So it's one third more efficient on fuel costs when carrying twice as many passengers.

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?

Re:what exactly is the revolution here?

[Fnord]

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.

Re:Aircraft windows?

[meldroc]

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.

LCD screen with ground view

[dpilot]

I want the optional map overlay so I can see where the heck I am.

Re:what exactly is the revolution here?

[elmegil]

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.