dl767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 36205 times:
Honestly I doubt it will be the next replacement. Maybe after the Y1 we will see a radical design like this but I doubt it will be the next 737. The problem with this type of design is how much more difficult is it to provide maintenance on the engines, how do airports have to change to accept this type of design (it's one thing to have to change for a few 787s but to change for a 737 replacement would become very expensive). I just think it's too aggressive of an approach right now, the next 737 will probably have a lot in common with the 787 and remain a typical cylindrical shape just made out of composites.
fleabyte From Brazil, joined Jan 2010, 109 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 35941 times:
I think that the 737 replacement (Y1) will be a surprising and risky move by Boeing. I would argue the 787 is more bleeding edge than the A350, started 5 years later and likely real entry into service 5 years after 787.
So Boeing is gonna keep pushing, forever new frontiers - how you like this one Airbus, Bombardier, Embraer, China, India, Yawn?
It will be good for all, just when new standard design AL jets are getting ready to get into the AB/Boeing prime market, Boeing will announce a BWB MIT double bubble of trouble.
0NEWAIR0 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 941 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 35939 times:
Look at this like you look at concept cars... they look really nice and can get 300 miles on a fart but they won't be able to be put into mass production for many many years and when they do get put into production they never look like their concept design and don't preform as well either.
Also, when you see statements like "...could carry 180 passengers on domestic flights, with more room than a Boeing 737-800.", just forget it. The airlines are not going to want any "extra" space unless they can shove a seat in to it.
"The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams."
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 4310 posts, RR: 30
Reply 5, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 34823 times:
the engine placement will require a lot of selling... however coupled with concepts like the blended wing, airlines will eventually have the equipment to deal with it as easily as todays under wing engines.. spinning fuselage barrels in that shape may pose a problem however a rectangular cross section is do-able. transporting th fuselage by rail might pose a problem, so here would be more modified transporters. That rules out the Renton plant for final assembly since the LCF's could not land there... All in all, I'd like to see it.
jimbobjoe From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 675 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 34221 times:
70% efficiency would be amazing. If you could get even 40% efficiency I don't think it matters how ugly or airport-incompatible the airplane would be, passengers would use it, and airports would adapt.
Burkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4610 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 34075 times:
It looks like the double tube is used to get enough width with smaller cross section, so there is no belly left for cargo. No belly and no cargo is a part of these savings. But if anything like 70% fuel saving is realistic, that is a killer, and if these concepts are realistic for 2035 as the contest demands, then they are a good excuse against an intermediate new narrow body that would only have a life span of 15 years.
So I take they are part of the propaganda show to justify NO new narrow body around 2020, but to just make a 737NNG as response to the A320NG.
flipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1771 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 33786 times:
Looks like a standard university project that uses Microsoft excel to work everyhing out from the equations in the text books but neglects things like where the gear goes and how you get bags on it and other things that exist in the real world that make it not work. Sorry for my synacism, I have seen too many things like this.
pliersinsight From United States of America, joined May 2008, 523 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 31719 times:
Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 9): Looks like a standard university project that uses Microsoft excel to work everyhing out from the equations in the text books but neglects things like where the gear goes and how you get bags on it and other things that exist in the real world that make it not work. Sorry for my synacism, I have seen too many things like this.
Not to metion how something like that is going to handle in a stiff gusty crosswind with those big flat surface areas, assuming the big fat flat lifting body doesn't gide a few miles in ground effect before touchdown...
SU184 From Egypt, joined Feb 2004, 275 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 30608 times:
Well I remember Airbus visited the idea of horizontal double bubble in the concept phase of the A380 - then A3XX - and didn't go for it technically from several regards including emergency evacuation, the roller coaster effect of passengers seated on the window seats during turns and several other issues, on the aerodynamic side it would be superior but the practical passenger carrying planes, maybe not yet.
timboflier215 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 1347 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 30109 times:
I think the other problem flagged up was that those seated in the middle would be a long way from a window. Not sure if LED and mood lighting could mitigate the lack of natural light, but I certainly would not want to be stuck that far from a window, especially on a longer flight.
parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 2136 posts, RR: 11
Reply 15, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 30051 times:
We have recently seen yet "another" new 180 seater design from Airbus.Interestingly this is the company that is NOT going to produce a new aircraft! But nothing for a very long time from Boeing -the company that is! For me (at least) their new design (I personally don't believe they will re-engine a 50 year old design myself - I know others disagree) is possibly the most exciting thing to happen for a very long time.
The very idea that Airbus feels it has the right to "warn" Boeing against producing a new aircraft - and then to "advise" them that it would be obsolete in a decade - just takes my breath away.Boeing has always pushed the fronteers and I believe will continue to do so.Just how is the question!
With regard to the MIT design(s).The BWB is "old hat".Boeing are already on their second flying prototype.We all know the savings that can be made and we all know it works best on larger rather than smaller aircraft.So absolutly nothing new there.Indeed one day (10-15 years time?) ,I believe,Y3 will be a BWB.
As for the double tube.I am totally at a loss.In what way is it a "lifting body" design.It would be a wing with the worst aspect ratio on earth.And even if there was a pressure differential betwwen top and bottom surfaces,most of it would "leak" around the sides - nope don't understand it - erhaps others do.As Keejse says if you want to go in that direction then use a wider (low drag) tube - indeed they already have one in the 787.
Just got to wait I guess until Boeing is good and ready.
I agree Boeing will probably be the first to come up with a new narrowbody. Not because they like to be innovative though. I think CSeries and pimped A320/A321s need to be matched & the 737 can't do that job.
flybyguy From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 1815 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 27416 times:
I think any changes in the fundamental ways manufacturers build commercial aircraft will change gradually because of certification concerns. That is one of the reasons why the 7E7 went to a more conventional design. The MIT concept, IMHO will NOT be the 737 replacement. Most likely the 737 replacement will incorporate efficiency lessons learned from 787 and current versions of the 737. IMHO i think because the 757 replacement market is huge and largely unsatisfied with current offerings, Boeing may try to compete directly with Bombardier, Mitsubishi, Embraer and Comac and perhaps satisfy 757 replacement requirements with the same family of aircraft.
"Are you a pretender... or a thoroughbred?!" - Professor Matt Miller
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 4310 posts, RR: 30
Reply 19, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 24187 times:
A couple ideas about the problems mentioned in the above posts
there would have to be some space under the passenger floor for keel beam(s) and mechanical equipment (air handling, RAM turbine etc...) that would allow enough space from landing gear.
cargo could go in the aft end on the passenger deck. and those window deprived people over the wings, move first class there since the trend seems to be those no personal contact enclosures and lay flat beds. Heck from some of the pictures I've seen many seem to face the a/c centerline and not the window anyway
Increase the main cabin doors to double width and place them just forward of the wing so passengers can disembark two abreast.
jayspilot From United States of America, joined May 2001, 301 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 23685 times:
the EMB 170/190 uses the double bubble vertically. Since I first saw this plan back in 2004 I wondered if it was possible to jumbo size this and turn it horizontal. I don't have the numbers but I know the reason the embraer went with the double bubble was that it was much more efficient then the same cabin volume and cargo space as one cylinder.
I'm a child of the late 70's and can imagine that someone 30-40 years older then me is blown away by what is flying today. I'm saying this b/c 45 years ago the passenger jet age for narrow bodies was just beginning and I can only imagine what the next half century will bring. I can imagine that the 737-800 or Airbus will look as old as the DC-6 or 7 does now and if this is the jet that delivers the efficiences we will need to keep flying I'm interested to see where things go. Whatever is the next big leap I would imagine some sort of lifting body would be used
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7521 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 23226 times:
I think Boeing knows more about designing aircraft than MIT. I do not believe the 70% figure; but I do not know enough about aerodynamics to spot the problems, although slower speed will account for a significant part of it (and whether or not this will be acceptable remains to be determined by the market). The conventional tube with wings has been around a long time because it is so far the most efficient configuration when all facets of operation are included, which includes manufacturing. A lot of people have been seduced by the siren song of the canard, but it has not succeeded commercially because its advantages are outweighed by substantial disadvantages. Big companies are generally reluctant to adopt ideas from outside their organization, but the stakes are so high here that if this has genuine merit I'm sure Boeing will consider it. But my suspicion is that there are substantial drawbacks that the MIT guys have not seen, and Boeing will. But that is just my guess.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
SolarFlyer22 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Nov 2009, 1638 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 22768 times:
These are tremendous designs. They hit the nail on the head with the fuselage. One of the smartest and most efficient things that can be done is to use the fuselage for lift. I think the days of a tube may be numbered. Even if its not a flying wing design, there are ways of flattening the fuselage for extra lift. It will force a redesign of cargo pallets but eventually it will be worth it.
planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 7210 posts, RR: 37
Reply 23, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 22357 times:
Quoting Burkhard (Reply 7): But if anything like 70% fuel saving is realistic, that is a killer, and if these concepts are realistic for 2035 as the contest demands, then they are a good excuse against an intermediate new narrow body that would only have a life span of 15 years.
They also designed a "conventional" version that would be 50% more efficient and could be built in the "near-term".
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 21): The conventional tube with wings has been around a long time
It is a vertical double bubble that has been around a long time... of Boeing's aircraft only the 777 is a circular fuse, the rest are vertical double bubbles.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein