UAL747DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2331 posts, RR: 11 Posted (8 years 1 month 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 15236 times:
So I know that there is another thread going on that says that there will not be a 737 replacement for 10 years, and I do agree with that statement. What I do not agree with is that it will be a narrowbody. Below I will paste my last post from that thread.
Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 33): Another thing that everyone should realize is that the 737 replacement will not be a narrow body it will be wide. This is what WN is asking for. It will cut turnaround time in half, offer better seats throughout the aircraft, and be a lot more comfortable for passengers.
And now like I said in the other post
Ladies and Gentlemen may I introduce to you the all new BOEING 797
So what do you think? I personally can't wait to see it roll out!
StuckinMAF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 15061 times:
The early 757 designs started out with a T-tail, too. I think that would be one design aspect that would be quickly revised as well. Until some revolutionary flying wing or other such monumental breakthrough comes along, we're pretty much locked into the low-wing, fuselage mounted tail, wing-pylon mounted engines design for a long time. There are still a few refinements that can be made, but all medium and large transport designs will come from this cookie cutter until the "big breakthrough" comes along. The designers keep coming back around to it because it just works. See? They even patterned the Airplane Smiley after it!
MD80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2651 posts, RR: 10 Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 month 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 14654 times:
Boeing will never make a bird with rear engines again....that would be like admitting defeat, in my opinion. I mean, they recently cancelled many rear engine production lines from "another" commercial aircraft builder if I remember correctly.
I think it's time to put the engines "inside" the fuselage, fighter-jet style. Scale up a F-14 Tomcat for instance....the fuselage carrying 30 abreast and 40 rows deep. Mimic the mighty goose, for example. Whah? It could happen?
SirOmega From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 735 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 month 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 14631 times:
Isnt there a problem aerodynamically with short and wide fuselages like this design? I'd think it'd be longer with a 2-2-2 layout, and regular wing arrangement (maybe a little taller landing gear for higher bypass ratio engines). A 120 pax arragement in 2-2-2 would probably be the same length as a 735 is.
StuckinMAF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 month 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 14593 times:
Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 14): I think it's time to put the engines "inside" the fuselage, fighter-jet style. Scale up a F-14 Tomcat for instance....the fuselage carrying 30 abreast and 40 rows deep. Mimic the mighty goose, for example. Whah? It could happen?
Why not scale up an SR-71? It has a much higher fineness ratio, it's quite efficient and would put the SST debate to rest for a long time!
Rikkus67 From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 1522 posts, RR: 2 Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 month 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 14581 times:
The drawing you are referring to is one of about 4 or 5 designs Boeing had drawn up as an alternative to the 737 narrow body design. IIRC, an article (which I cannot remember where from) showed this design, as well as a DC-9 looking variant, and a near 767-wide fuselage with a traditional wing placement design. It was an interesting article that was published a while back... I wish I had the article to be able to quote it properly!
If you do a search of the ORIGINAL Boeing 747 design, you will find 3 variations of the 747-100 fuselage, one with an XB-52 (or YB-52?) cockpit over top of the main fuselage, and yet another showing a TWO LEVEL FUSELAGE.
In other words, Boeing is just covering all their design bases! B2707, Sonic Cruiser, the 787 original design.... all are conceptual, as well as the high wing drawing you posted.
RichM From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 795 posts, RR: 7 Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 month 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 14538 times:
I am no expert on this. But surely it'd cause more drag than a typical narrow-body would? Thus making it a less fuel efficient design for an aircraft of that size?
I thought that major aircraft manufacturers had stopped designing aircraft with the T-tail, as apparently once the aircraft gets into a stall, it makes it more difficult to correct the problem. I am not 100% sure on that, so don't shoot me!
I personally think this is some sort of joke, trying to fool people into believing this is a 737 replacement.
BOS2LAF From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 366 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 month 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 14225 times:
Quoting RichM (Reply 19): I thought that major aircraft manufacturers had stopped designing aircraft with the T-tail, as apparently once the aircraft gets into a stall, it makes it more difficult to correct the problem. I am not 100% sure on that, so don't shoot me!
actually from what i recall from my aerodynamics class (its been 3 years, so im not certain), its the other way around. the t-tail is supposed to be better in a stall.
again, from what i can remember from this class, one of the big drawbacks to the t-tail is the extra weight required for structural reinforcement to support the weight of the tail.