Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing In Talks With Airlines On BWB Freighter  
User currently offlineBells From Singapore, joined Nov 2001, 163 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 13401 times:

Boeing is working with two airlines interested in buying commercial blended wing body freighters (see article link). Maybe this is the future of the BWB, as passengers are expected to get sick flying in an airliner with no windows?

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-commercial-blended-wing-body.html

49 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineScouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3398 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 13334 times:

With a Pax version there's also the size of the up and down motion of those Pax sitting a long way from the centre line when the plane banks - it'd be like sitting half the way along the wing in a conventional plane.

User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 13267 times:

BWB designs have been with us for decades.

I think militairy / cargo use is most likely.

Think of the forces a pressurized cabin would endure -> weight.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Edw-2006-X48-061028-01-8.jpg

Why isn't it a Twin?  bomb 

[Edited 2007-05-21 11:24:20]

User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8508 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 13173 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 2):
Why isn't it a Twin? bomb

Because it was originally Douglas' idea, that's why. Boeing has apparently retained the trijet configuration from the original concept, which was first revealed a long time ago.


User currently offlineGeo772 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 519 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 13132 times:

This type of product could revolutionise the freighter market.

The main reason is that there is always a compromise when a passenger varient of an aircraft is altered to make a freighter varient.

Just look at the A330 freighter for instance, you go from an excellent passenger aircraft to a compromised freight aircraft.
The only aircraft really flying today which embrasses both freight and passenger use is the 747, but this is still quite limited when compared to the potential of a BWB.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 2):
Think of the forces a pressurized cabin would endure -> weight.

According to the article it would be a pressurised aircraft. It is described as a rectangular pressure vessel.



Flown on A300B4/600,A319/20/21,A332/3,A343,B727,B732/3/4/5/6/7/8,B741/2/4,B752/3,B762/3,B772/3,DC10,L1011-200,VC10,MD80,
User currently offlineCobra27 From Slovenia, joined May 2001, 1029 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 13033 times:

Quoting Geo772 (Reply 4):
Just look at the A330 freighter for instance, you go from an excellent passenger aircraft to a compromised freight aircraft.


Correction, excellent freighter with more than 30 orders


User currently offlineGeo772 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 519 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 12839 times:

Quoting Cobra27 (Reply 5):
Correction, excellent freighter with more than 30 orders

I'm not doubting that, but the aircraft had to be significantly redesigned away from the original A330 design to allow it to carry main deck freight.



Flown on A300B4/600,A319/20/21,A332/3,A343,B727,B732/3/4/5/6/7/8,B741/2/4,B752/3,B762/3,B772/3,DC10,L1011-200,VC10,MD80,
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31239 posts, RR: 85
Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 12755 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

CFRP should help reduce the weight of the pressure vessel, being both lighter and stronger then Al. And if the DoD will allow Boeing to use data gained from the B-2 Spirit program on the aerodynamic and flight characteristics of a true "flying wing", that should help them get a grip on those properties in a blended wing a bit easier.

User currently offlineParapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1637 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 12755 times:

There is no doubt whatsoever IMHO that this is Boeings next large passenger aircraft.

They are just introducing it to us slowly.
The window issue is a non issue.How many people get a window seat on a 747 ?- if it was a real problem every 747 would be three quarters empty - they are not! Your flat screen in front of you will give you plenty of camera angles to choose from.You can also work wonders with interior lighting. Indeed what about the fabulous feeling of size and space such an aircraft would give you.

As for constant radius turns. A few seconds of a (very) little extra or less "G" as you execute the turn. If this was a real problem then no one would fly with the risk of Turbulence. It is an every day occurance/risk.Often very violent ("fasten saftey belts please we are entering an area of turbulence"). Are people prepared to accept this risk? Yes, every day and they always have.

The 747-8I is a stopgap to cover the next 10 years as they develop their understanding on every aspect of handling and construction.Remember they cannot be seen to be "poaching" off the military division.


User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 12726 times:

Personnaly I have a very strong preference for windows, even when I not sitting next to one. I think this is a huge let down for a company who's next product has enlarged windows and improved passenger comfort features (787).


One Nation Under God
User currently offlineBWIA 772 From Barbados, joined May 2002, 2200 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 12689 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 2):
Why isn't it a Twin? bomb

Actually I am glad to see the trijet come back, I know twins can do it but I think having the three engines is so cool Big grin



Eagles Soar!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31239 posts, RR: 85
Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 12689 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Parapente (Reply 8):
The window issue is a non issue.How many people get a window seat on a 747 ?- if it was a real problem every 747 would be three quarters empty - they are not! Your flat screen in front of you will give you plenty of camera angles to choose from.You can also work wonders with interior lighting. Indeed what about the fabulous feeling of size and space such an aircraft would give you.

When at Boeing, I had a co-worker who was with the 777 Payloads (that's how Boeing refers to passengers) program in the development years and they were considering doing away with windows entirely and just projecting the outside sky on the cabin walls and ceiling! Unfortunately (?), the projection technology at the time was so bulky and heavy that it far outweighed the structural inefficiencies of cutting windows into the fuselage.

However, we have seen the latest versions of this idea in things like the BMW A350 cabin mock-up with it's projection of a "sky" on the ceiling (ala Hogwarts Castle in the Harry Potter films) so such a technology could be used on a BWB. And things like the Japanese Himawari sunlight transmission system could be used to bring natural light into the fuselage.

And with modern flight control systems, the motions of the wing itself can be damped and you could easily isolate the fuselage section inside the structure itself with some mechanical damping system to smooth out whatever minor side-to-side oscillations are transmitted into the frame if those oscillations are found to induce nausea or other discomfort.


User currently offlineKhushdesi From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 85 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 11579 times:

sorry if this is a dumb question, but couldn't there be windows in the ceiling? perhaps such skylights would also make people more comfortable?

User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 997 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 11355 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 2):
Why isn't it a Twin?

Well, your ignorant and historic prejudice towards twinjets non withstanding, the optimal design for a blended wing/body will be very different than the rules for an optimal tube-wing aircraft. A trijet is probably the optimal worse design for a tube-wing but perhaps the best for a BWB. It isn't that hard to figure out why.

Quoting Khushdesi (Reply 12):
sorry if this is a dumb question, but couldn't there be windows in the ceiling? perhaps such skylights would also make people more comfortable?

You could fit skylights, but it probably wouldn't improve cabin comfort much. There's nothing to really view from a skylight and they would provide no reference to the horizon that you can obtain from a standard window...


User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 11355 times:

Quoting Parapente (Reply 8):
There is no doubt whatsoever IMHO that this is Boeings next large passenger aircraft.

Excellent post, I am waiting for this day:

Big version: Width: 650 Height: 432 File size: 48kb


Notice the passenger section is still towards the middle, and I am assuming the freight and baggage is towards the outside. It clearly will not be a plane wioth people riding out near the wingtips.

Quoting Khushdesi (Reply 12):
sorry if this is a dumb question, but couldn't there be windows in the ceiling? perhaps such skylights would also make people more comfortable?

Not dumb at all, and the areas out towards the wing could be used for cargo.



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4376 posts, RR: 28
Reply 15, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 11055 times:

Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 1):
With a Pax version there's also the size of the up and down motion of those Pax sitting a long way from the centre line when the plane banks - it'd be like sitting half the way along the wing in a conventional plane.

Passengers would be seated towards the centerline with baggage/freight being carried further out in the wing.

I think the biggest obstacle, if it is even that, would be emergency evacs. In the event the plane ends up on its belly the only place for passengers to evac to would be up and out over the wing/body. Although they could exit the rear, I think there has to be an ability to exit in more than one direction.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 2):
Think of the forces a pressurized cabin would endure -> weight.

The pressure vessel would not necessarily follow the contours of the wing/body. They could very well be semi-circular tubes carried within the wing/body, thereby reducing the requirement for extra weight to support pressurization.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 2):
Why isn't it a Twin?

Probably because the original concept was for a BWB that would carry as many passengers/freight as today's 748 or A380. And you don't see those beasts flying with just two engines.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2827 posts, RR: 42
Reply 16, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 10819 times:

I agree with a lot of the posts here. I think BWB will be something that Boeing looks at very carefully for both Y1/Y3. I think it's more likely for Y3, since the operating advantages would be out of the ballpark on a larger frame. But it also might be good for Y1 to improve the performance even more then just CFRP and new engines. the wingspan and dip won't make as much difference here as well.

Anyone else notice that the latest Airbus technology presentation draft includes a nick'd BWB? It looks like they just went back to the McDonnell-Douglas pictures and repainted them.


User currently offlineTeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 17, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 10748 times:

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 15):
I think the biggest obstacle, if it is even that, would be emergency evacs. In the event the plane ends up on its belly the only place for passengers to evac to would be up and out over the wing/body. Although they could exit the rear, I think there has to be an ability to exit in more than one direction.

If we come to the point where we have a choice of flying in aircraft with a lesser chance of surviving a crash vs. not flying at all, the choice becomes obvious. Rising fuels costs and environmental concerns may push us to that point.

Simply put, the evac rules can and will be changed as the market demands it. airplane 



Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
User currently offlineCygnusChicago From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 758 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 10715 times:

Here is a nice page on the Stanford BWB, including a video clip near the bottom of it flying: LINK

Quoting Parapente (Reply 8):
There is no doubt whatsoever IMHO that this is Boeings next large passenger aircraft.

The 747-8I is a stopgap to cover the next 10 years

Wait, but I thought there was not a big enough market for VLA's to justify a new aircraft, like the A380. How will Boeing sell enough of these to recover their investment?  Wink



If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 10715 times:

EVACUATION - Would a BWB pass evacuation trials, considering how far pax would be from exits?

User currently offlineCygnusChicago From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 758 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 10663 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 2):
Why isn't it a Twin?

Horror! You CANNOT ask that of a Boeing design, that is only a fair question of an Airbus design  Wink

Anyway, looks like Airbus still believes in Four-Engines-For-Long-Haul. Their 1,000 seat BWB concept from 2001:

Big version: Width: 550 Height: 206 File size: 9kb



If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 21, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 10637 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
And if the DoD will allow Boeing to use data gained from the B-2 Spirit program on the aerodynamic and flight characteristics of a true "flying wing", that should help them get a grip on those properties in a blended wing a bit easier.

I can see W T O written all over that idea  wave 


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5477 posts, RR: 30
Reply 22, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 10506 times:

Screw logic...I like it...that should be good enough for Boeing, eh...?


What the...?
User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5728 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 10427 times:

What's the rotational-mass change with that much weight on the outside? I'm sure that's all been considered but how would it handle? With a tube and wings it easy to snap the thing around but throw a bit of inertial mass out there and what will happen?

Tug



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineRampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3152 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 10406 times:

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 21):
I can see W T O written all over that idea

Sad. A good example of swords to plowshares defied by regulations.

What would the WTO have thought of Velcro, or the Hummer, or the Internet?

-Rampart


25 Tugger : Wow! 24 windows for 1,000 passengers?!? Guess windows aren't actually needed but still..... Tug
26 JoeCanuck : From what I've seen on the news, more than a few officers of the WTO have been discovered using velcro and the internet in the middle of a hummer...
27 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ...possibly exits from both the top (ceiling) and bottom flooring also..would be quite interesting to see.. ...it was done 15 minutes away from my ho
28 Post contains images GAIsweetGAI : Where does the fuel go then? Also, has anyone thought of a rectangular fuselage? (as opposed to circular on today's airliners)
29 SWALoveField : Question: Would the cabin be more quiet over a traditional tube and wing design since the engines "are way back there." Robb Dallas, TX
30 JoeCanuck : I don't really thing cabin shape would be an issue. CFRP materials, and an interior shape much like the a380 cross section on it's side.
31 Rampart : The article cited states just that: -Rampart
32 Post contains images GAIsweetGAI : That said, I was thinking more towards replacing the current tube with a rectangular parallelepiped (?), making the airplane look basically like a fl
33 Dangould2000 : it is without a doubt unpractical and a dare go as far to say imposible, the simple reason being the corners of the attrocious looking aircraft (i ca
34 Greg3322 : I'm a huge fan of the airliner window, but with seatback video and selectable cameras, I could be happy. Greg
35 Post contains links DEVILFISH : Curious that not that many thought so in this thread..... Trijet For Y3? (by DEVILFISH Apr 29 2007 in Tech Ops)
36 Atmx2000 : I don't know whether it would be actionable with the WTO. I believe defense R&D spending generally isn't, unless the spending was just a masked comme
37 Tugger : Yes, but this is a BWB and all the engine could be in a similar location/profile. You would not need to have one buried in the body or tail with all
38 Post contains images Jbernie : serious answer: if the skylight is slight raised above the cabin such that light comes down and then spreads then it should be poossible and ok, mayb
39 Tugger : THAT would be THE ultimate window view. It'll NEVER happen but it would be very cool. Tug
40 Post contains images Stitch : I can see W T O written all over that idea. Not so sure about that. All it would really cover is some basic handling characteristics to compare again
41 AirRyan : What sort of pax size are these BWB's suppossed to fill? Blend the engines like the B-2 and put a bomb-bay in it to replace the B-52! And/or just buil
42 DEVILFISH : Please note that the X-48B was mentioned in that thread's start and a link was even included..... " target=_blank>http://www.boeing.com/news/releases
43 Rheinbote : More recent modular studies by Boeing covered everything from 200 seats upwards
44 Stirling : Just like a glass bottomed boat! Just look down between your legs....that would amuse me! With virtual reality making leaps and bounds, I could see i
45 Post contains links Areopagus : Probably up the tail ramp like a military airlifter. International Standards Organization's intermodal shipping container size: 8 feet wide x 8.5 hei
46 Rwy04LGA : Would a freighter version require pressurization? If not, wouldn't that reduce a lot of structure normally required for pressurization? Of course, the
47 Boeing7E7 : Y1 will not be a BWB.
48 Areopagus : It would if the operator wanted to transport race horses, dogs, or other live cargo. Then there was that fellow who had himself shipped air freight,
49 Bringiton : any link on that? wud be an interesting read
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...
AP: Boeing In Talks With Potential 747 Customers posted Wed Feb 28 2007 20:44:00 by USAF336TFS
Boeing In Discussions With MAS On B787 posted Tue Mar 29 2005 00:04:57 by NYC777
Boeing In Talks With Indian Carriers - 7E7 posted Mon Feb 2 2004 07:11:06 by Flyingdutchboy
Boeing In Talks With Embraer & 20 Others posted Wed Dec 8 1999 03:20:09 by DeltaAir
Virgin In Talks With Boeing/Airbus On New Aircraft posted Fri Mar 2 2007 15:42:56 by Pilot21
Garuda In Talks With Boeing For 24 Aircraft posted Wed May 18 2005 05:18:43 by Xkorpyoh
Shocker - Airbus In Talks With US Airlines 4 A380 posted Sun Jun 13 2004 03:48:38 by BoeingBus
Singapore Airlines In Talks With Regional Express posted Sat Sep 7 2002 00:25:06 by Singapore_Air
VG Airlines In Talks With Virgin Express! posted Fri Apr 12 2002 16:02:14 by A330DAT
LH In Talks With LOT Polish Airlines posted Thu Dec 20 2001 06:04:49 by Jiml1126