N768DH From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 23 posts, RR: 0 Posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1417 times:
hello I just found out that boeing has given the green light to make the next Super jumbo. as you might all ready know it's called ( BWB ) I've listed two websites to where you can learn more about Boeing new super flying wing jumbo.
this is the aircraft that will be going head to head with Airbus new A3xxxx aircraft
Widebody From Ireland, joined Aug 2000, 1150 posts, RR: 9 Reply 1, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1279 times:
So basically, Boeing have decided to go ahead with this design, despite the fact they have stated on their website that they don't see a need for more than 330 aircraft with 500 seats or more over the next 20 years........despite the fact they have slated Airbus for investing 12 billion to develop the A3XX, when a BLB design could cost many, many billions more to research and certify....despite the fact they have only last night updated their web page with new pictures and details of the 747X and 747 Stretch...............
Makes absolutely no sense to me.........either someone is having a laugh or Condit is taking too much medication........
Watewate From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 2283 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1219 times:
It's going to be a tough sell in the beginning. People are just too used to the conventional design. But if people start embracing it and the design offers significant advantages over the conventional design, it'll do fine.
WorldTraveller From Germany, joined Jun 1999, 624 posts, RR: 5 Reply 6, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1199 times:
With a wingspan of approx. 100 meters, the BWB will occupy 2 parking positions.
It's wise to go ahead with such a design, but we won't see it flying for the next 15 years, that's for sure. It'll also cost a least $20 billion to develop and I doubt Boeing will risk that now (basically, they can't afford it right now).
Ruscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1402 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1081 times:
It will take the A3XX programme 15 years to break even if all goes well. Boeings long term strategy is becoming obvious.
When the A3XX is too far down the track to halt, and the money is spent, then my bet is that Boeing will launch this. In the interim Airbus will not have the resources to spend on other technologies, and European aerospace will be a generation behind.
I know it sounds paradoxically wrong, but the best thing for Europe is to NOT launch the A3XX, and instead develop it's existing families, and wait for the next technology breakthrough ie BWB.
My 2 cents worth.
Widebody From Ireland, joined Aug 2000, 1150 posts, RR: 9 Reply 12, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1067 times:
15 years? Pulled out of thin air I think.....Airbuses profitability is sales based, not time.....370 aircraft for it not to be a financial disaster, 564 aircraft to be happy with it......Boeing have predicted the need for 330 aircraft with over 500 seats over the next 20 years.....why are they even bothering talking about the market, when they have already expressed their lack of interest in it.....as far as technologies go, I don't get your point....the A3XX will be the most technologically advanced when it flies, the BWB will be when it flies and so on down the line.....it'e the way evolution proceeds......if we all waited for technology, then we'd have got nowhere......gravity generators could be around the corner another 15 years after the BWB, but you won't see airlines holding off for them.........
....what I find interesting though as you said is the Boeing stategy....clearly, they have changed their tune and believe there will be a market for a VLA........unfortunately though, while deciding, the A3xx has, and is going to eat up a sizable portion of the market.....what I'd wonder is if the A3XX will have eaten up such a portion of the market that the BWB will have so to speak been too much too late......
........don't forget the A3XX is the start of a range of aircraft.......with cockpit commonality all the way up along the line.....the 747X/Stretch and the BWB will have absolutely nothing in common.....so the choice will be between a single type rating for your 500-1000 seater fleet, or two completely different aircraft, that probably won't even have the same flying/handling characteristics by the nature of the design, coupled with the fact that the A3XX will have had a 10-15 year old lead........you talk about new technology, as far as I'm concerned, if the BWB was any good, this type of design would have been introduced many years ago.......as well as this, we've all seen the 737 improvements in technology over years, how about an A3XXNG?
I see where you're coming from about the Boeing policy, and a few years ago, it probably may have been the right choice, but to be honest, Beoing's actions recently have semed a little jittery, and I'm beginning to sense some worry in the Boeing camp......
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7694 posts, RR: 5 Reply 13, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1063 times:
While the Blended-Wing Body (BWB) design has a lot of advantages over conventional airliners, there are some issues we need to resolve:
1. Will passengers accept such a weird design with very few windows to look out from? (Mind you, that can be compensated by giving every passenger a PTV display.)
2. What kind of jetwalk design will we need to accommodate the BWB? You certainly can't use the jetwalks now used by Boeing 747-400's.
3. How do you load and unload baggage and cargo on this plane?
One potential worry is that the very large wingspan of BWB may cause problems with ground handling at many airports. Mind you, this is relatively easy to solve; have the wingtips fold up during ground operations so the wingspan will be the same as today's 744's, so the only time the wings are fully extended is during takeoff, flight and landing.
Cicadajet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1052 times:
We'll see if this flying wing gets made now or not. Probably by somebody. As early as the 1950's Northrop actually filmed a commercial to get the public used to a flying wing; showing the stewardess, happy passengers etc... this at just about the time the 707 and Comet were brand NEW!!! A series of crashes (some mysterious) of the military prototypes, combined with politics, killed any hopes. But the basic idea, if not for circumstance and chance could have been explored long ago. By the time Boeing, Airbus, the combination or anyone else gets involved, this thing could be half space plane utilizing the upper atmosphere etc.
Na From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9605 posts, RR: 10 Reply 17, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1018 times:
I doubt passengers will like it. Screens a not windows. And airports won´t like it too should it be built as a 500 pax-bat. So I don´t give it to many chances especially in the Jumbo-size market. The Northrop project about 50 years ago was a big failure too (very instable in flight). And how will you evacuate such a thing?
Joni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1016 times:
The BWB concept was looked at seriously when Boeing and Airbus were developing an NLA jointly (difficult to imagine those days now!). AFAIK after that Boeing and Airbus (separately now) looked at doing a BWB in cooperation with the Russians, but eventually Boeing wound up with 747x and Airbus with A3xx - BWB apparently does not have much of a business case.
One issue might be price. If it takes USD 20+bn to develop this, and since build costs are unlikely to be even remotely as low as today's inherently stable, easily pressurized shapes, the price tag might simply be too much. People are already clamouring of how big a risk it is to make A3xx! Getting the r&d paid for by the US government would obviously be an advantage though, be it throught Nasa or the military.
If we move to a hydrogen economy and planes wind up needing much more tankage space BWB might become very relevant. Somehow I think the futuristic planes Airbus touted were more reasonable - more lift, less wingspan, more room.
Gerardo From Spain, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 3480 posts, RR: 34 Reply 19, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1010 times:
#-B777-#: If you read the Flug Revue article you see, that there is one major disadvantage in this BWB: You can't just stretch or shronk this design, as you can do with the A340 or B777 or B767 for example. So, any new version would need a whole new wing and fuselage design. So much for the family concept.
Add to that the changes on the airports, which were already mentioned and the "non existing market of VLA's" and you get an economical failure.
The A3XX is the technically most advanced aircraft, when it enters service. In 15 or 20 years we will have a new most advanced aircraft. Perhaps it will be Boeing, perhaps Airbus. It could have revolutionary engines or wing design or whatever else. But a radical new change in just only one step is rather impossible.
dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7694 posts, RR: 5 Reply 22, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 973 times:
Actually, one potential HUGE advantage of the BWB over the A3XX is the fact that because the plane IS a flying wing, if you apply the right moving surface design to the plane the BWB could end up with quite a bit shorter takeoff and landing distance than the A3XX. After all, the flying wing has lots of natural lift and could accommodate large spoilers on the top of the wings to quickly bleed off speed at landing so there is less dependence on reverse thrust from the engines.
This means the BWB won't need 12,000 ft. runways like the A3XX does now--it could probably get by with runways as short as 8,500 feet fully-loaded.
Joni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 925 times:
What is the benefit of having a shorter takeoff length with a BWB? All airports that can even remotely be thought to support a 744 already have runways that can land/launch an A3xx.
Besides, people seem to think Boeing would be offering this new plane to airlines, which is not the case. I didn't even find anything about it on their website. I'd categorize this along with the supersonic passenger jets - both Boeing and Airbus are looking at them but not with very much resources.