Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A3XX = MD-12?  
User currently offlineBoeing in PDX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (14 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1936 times:

I was reading a book called the future of aircraft, In the book there was a diagram of a MD-12 which looked very similar to the A3XX. Did MD or Boing sell the desing to Airbus

11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (14 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1781 times:

Back about 5 years or so ago, all 3 of the big airline makers had ideas made up for the superjumbos. Boeing had the 747X and NLA (new large aircraft). MDC had the MD-12 and the BWB (blended wing body). Airbus had the A3XX. The NLA, MD-12, and A3XX are/were all 4 engined double decker airliners, looking very similar. The 747X was, in simple terms, a 747-400 on steriods. The BWB was an all new concept, a flying wing airliner.

User currently offlinePaul_767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (14 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1704 times:

I don't know, but I saw the drawings of what the MD-12 would look like in that book, and it was cool.

User currently offlineKimb From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (14 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1682 times:

Boeing would not sell a design to Airbus and the same with Airbus to Boeing...

At the end of the day when you are designing a aircraft as big as the A3XX there are only a few ways you can make the aircraft look, one of them is big and the other is umm big...


User currently offlineWingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2315 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (14 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1680 times:

I've read a few articles about the BWB and it is truly fascinating. This is the real revolution in sumper-jumbo transport evryone is waiting for...yet I don't think it will ever prove feasible unless there is cooperation between manufacturers.

From the articles I read, it was predicted the BWB could handle between 800-1000 pax at over 30% less cost than the 747X or A3XX in seat/mile costs. Still, the design looks to be twice as expensive as the A3XX, maybe $25-30 billion (my guess) and only so many potential customers. One solution might be radical combi flights, so difficult these days with after midnight cargo flights delaying pax service.

I stll see the future in 300-500 SST airliners once NG engine technology is available. Either Jump Jets or supercruise around 2025? God, we'll be old farts by then. I love airplanes but I really hope to be traveling strictly via sailboat by then.


User currently offlineTeahan From Germany, joined Nov 1999, 5310 posts, RR: 61
Reply 5, posted (14 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1392 times:

Here is what the BWB might look like:

<



First Flight: 2010-2015
Crew: 2 pilots and 25 (?) attendants
Capacity: 800 in three class configuration
Cruise speed: mach 0.85 / 562 knots / 1,041 km/h
Range: 8,000 nm / 14,816 km

Jeremiah Teahan









Goodbye SR-LX MD-11 / 6th of March 1991 to the 31st of October 2004
User currently offlineAkelley728 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2194 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (14 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1354 times:

Although I think the BWB concept is fascinating, I have one major complaint:

NO WINDOW SEATS!!!!


User currently offlineGaut From Belgium, joined Dec 2001, 344 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (14 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1317 times:

The BWB is a very nice plane. What about the wingspan?



«Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae.»
User currently offlineDeltaRNOmd-80 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (14 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1311 times:

Akelley728, there are window seats in the front. Thats probably first class, you have to pay extra to look out the window.  

User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6515 posts, RR: 54
Reply 9, posted (14 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1302 times:

Airline passengers are very conservative people. Airliner manufacturers must be very careful to make sure that their products look exactly the same as all other airliners. Otherwise the airline companies will loose 10-15% of the passengers to the competitors. Those 10-15% means the difference between loss and profit.
Therefore BWB airliners will never fly.
There may be technical reasons as well. Landing in strong side wind. Too narrow centre of gravity margins. Engine positioning will be difficult. I think that most engine specialists will just shake their head when they see some of the drawing of BWB design "proposals" with rear mounted engines. A jet engine needs an undisturbed airflow and certainly not an airflow which has passed over a wing of a heavy plane.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineCstarU From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (14 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1299 times:

I think this concept has been validated by the B-2 Spirit.

User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6515 posts, RR: 54
Reply 11, posted (14 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1296 times:

CstarU is right, the B-2A Spirit is a true BWB plane.
Now little information has been released about the B-2. But we can guess a few facts:
1. the centre of gravity is much easier managed than on a passenger plane.
2. the B-2 will never be asked to land at 40 seconds interval in strong sidewind at JFK or LHR. Anyway, the B-2 is unstable on the gearing axis - "rudder control" is performed by wing spoilers. That's a principle which nobody would dream of having certified on a civil transporter. So maybe the B-2 is in fact able to fight strong sidewind while a civil BWB can't.
3. Little is known about the engines, except that they are used in no other plane. But they have a rather small and fast rotating front fan. That could indicate that sensitivity to disturbed air has been traded in against a somewhat inferior fuel eficiency.
4. Maybe the most striking difference between the B-2 and a civil BWB: Economy was never a driving force behind designing the B-2. Money is everything when talking airliners. They are only built to make money.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Mac Donnel Douglas MD 12! posted Tue May 3 2005 22:22:41 by DID747
The MD-12? posted Thu Apr 28 2005 17:16:19 by JetHost
Airways Magazine Article On MDC And The MD-12 posted Mon Feb 7 2005 01:57:21 by Al319
"The MD-12" posted Wed Dec 17 2003 00:59:00 by Zippyjet
A380 Unique? Not... Check Out The MD-12 posted Tue Dec 2 2003 07:12:39 by Ryefly
When Will They Build The MD-12? posted Sat Oct 20 2001 20:12:57 by Md11_man
MD-XX And MD-12 Projects posted Thu Nov 23 2000 20:56:48 by AFa340-300E
JAL Last MD-11 Flight 10/12 posted Wed Sep 8 2004 13:56:51 by TokyoNarita
Qantas Will Order 12 A3XX. posted Tue Oct 31 2000 21:36:50 by Ab.400
KLM And MD-11 Retirement posted Tue Nov 21 2006 18:39:11 by FlightLover