Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Businessweek Article On BWB  
User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1214 times:


Businessweek is running a rather provocative article on the BWB concept.

It's basically claiming that Boeing should ditch the SC and build a BWB family of planes, since the airlines are (according to BW) decidedly interested in BWBs.

It also claims that BCAG is deeply divided on the BWB issue and that this is hurting their relationship with their customers. Significantly, the article also says that NASA is paying for some of Boeing's BWB work and that the US government could pay for a sizable chunk of the 10 BUSD cost of launching a BWB plane on grounds of a future military version. (How this would fit in with the 1992 Agreement isn't discussed)

Overall the reporters paint a suspiciously rosy image of the BWB concept and seem to brush aside possible issues with the designs.


15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1200 times:

I read the same article. I really, really do not like the idea of no windows except for first class. I think many non-aviation enthusiasts sort of like windows as well. That is why I found it surprising that airlines United and Singapore were so excited about the aircraft. They do all sorts of market research and I would have thought the lack of windows would have really hurt the BWB concept.

User currently offlineGreg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1198 times:

I can't think of the last time I actually looked outside...except maybe landing.
Passengers will adapt.


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1193 times:

Greg,

You are apparently correct otherwise those carriers would not be pushing Boeing so hard. I look out quite a bit during t/o and landing off course, when flying over landmarks, and actually during turbulence to see the wing flex. I will miss windows more than the rest.


User currently offlineVirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4575 posts, RR: 41
Reply 4, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1150 times:

There was an interesting article about BWBs on page 28 of the October edition of Aircraft & Aerospace Asia Pacific. It pointed out some faily major problems with the BWB concept as a passenger aircraft, including the effect of having passenger seating weel away from the centreline, which would have interesting effects during manoevering, or even turbulence. It also pointed out that the design requires quite a hefty angle of climb and descent, which would not make for pleasent flying experiences.

V/F



"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1143 times:


I think the lack of windows can be compensated with nice interior decorating and lighting.

Increased turbulence may be more difficult to address, if it's indeed an issue with BWBs in respoect to conventional airliners.

Does anyone know, what are the actual reasons BWBs haven't been built (21 B2s are neither nere nor there) despite been researched for decades? There was an article on different configurations Airbus looked ar for the A380 that discussed the BWB option but I can't recall why they decided on the present configuration.



User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1119 times:

I think the A380 as a 555-seat aircraft is financially risky as a standard airliner. Airbus probably did not want to add the risk of the BWB concept to an already high-risk project. I did not read that article though.

User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8019 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1110 times:

I think we will see the BWB built.

Guess who's interested: the USAF's Air Mobility Command, FedEx, UPS, DHL, Northwest Cargo, Lufthansa Cargo, Singapore Airlines Cargo, Cathay Pacific Cargo, CargoLux, and Atlas Air. The reason is simple: Boeing has shown a BWB-based cargo carrier with roll-on/roll-off ramps, and the cargo area is big enough to carry both outsized cargo and generally more cargo than the A380-800F at lower fuel costs.

People forget that the BWB actually has less of a ground parking footprint than a 747-200F!  Big thumbs up



User currently offlineBwc1976 From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 194 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1101 times:

The BWB sounds like a great idea for cargo, cargo planes don't have windows anyway and boxes don't complain. But for passenger service, the lack of windows may pose problems for evacuation. People would have a greater risk of being disoriented, there would be less natural light coming into the cabin, and it would be harder to see, for example, which parts of the plane may have fire, debris, or are underwater, etc. meaning you shouldn't use a particular exit.



User currently offlineAT From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1049 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1073 times:


Why is it not possible to have windows on the BWB?
In any case, I think passengers will adapt to the lack of windows, and Boeing/the airlines involved will come up with new innovations to compensate


User currently offlineVoodoo From Niue, joined Mar 2001, 2095 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1065 times:

Designing evacuation procedures for a BW might be `interesting'.


` Yeaah! Baade 152! Trabi of the Sky! '
User currently offlineBwc1976 From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 194 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1063 times:

I know one thing, the wider a cabin gets, the less window seats there are to go around. It's bad enough with the 747 and 777, but people (including me) would really not be happy in the middle or rear of the BWB. I'm sure they would have PTV's and/or larger video monitors to show outside views, but that's just not the same. Plus they malfunction sometimes, and in an emergency it's good to be able to see directly out to assess the situation and to have outside light coming in to help you see to evacuate the plane when necessary.



User currently offlineHoustondallas From Canada, joined Jul 2001, 92 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1038 times:

The only thing that really matters to customers is price. That's why lcc's are doing so well. People will fly in a bucket of shit if it's fast and cheap. If the BWB reduces costs, it will succed in the marketplace.

houston


User currently offlineAvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2472 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1000 times:

If the technical issues can be worked out, the BWB could be a world-beater. If an airplane with A380 capacity could be built for 7000 or more nm range using just 3 medium-class (65,000 lb. thrust) conventional turbofans, the fuel savings would be tremendous! I don't think we'd be seeing one in the skies much before 2020, however, so I don't think Airbus has anything to fear in the near-term. It seems to me Dassault of France has a similar concept under study.

User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 997 times:

There are MASSIVE technical issues to be worked out. They aren't niggling concerns, they're big problems. The biggest would be a BWB of this size hasn't been built or tested at all. On a more general level, pax seated towards the outside of the aircraft will feel marked discomfort while banking, and ctrying to pressurize something that's not round is a nightmare.

No one really knows the aerodynamics of a BWB. They do theoretically, but there's a BIG gap before a BWB is built that conforms to current air travel standards (safety, comfort, costs etc)


User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 972 times:

The lack of windows can be compensated for by outside cameras tied to the IFE. The roll and climb rate problems have been well studied and are managable.

I suspect the thing that's really holding the BWB up is that companies are reluctant to invest their own money now into something they might get the government to pay for later. The BWB also has potential as a military transport or tanker and Boeing hopes it can get the government to pay the bill to make one for this purpose. Once they have proven the concept with our money - they can feel safer investing their own money.

This is what held up the US commercial space launch business for some time. Remember how even the faint prospect of government funding or government funded competition helped kill off Beal and many other commercial Reusable Launch Vehicle companies.

Remember when you were a kid? First you tried to get mommy and daddy to pay for something. Or ask for it for Christmas. Only when you were SURE that wouldn't work would you put down your own hard-earned dough.

Anyway, the government needs to know how to say "NO" to Boeing and be credible in so doing. Same thing with Airbus. If Airbus has recieved more government funding than Boeing, we here in the US shouldn't complain but should laugh at the European taxpayers for being duped. This kind of subsidy merely helps competing market oriented economies concetrate on more profitable and efficient endeavors.


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...
BusinessWeek Article On EY, EK And QR posted Thu Apr 20 2006 06:04:24 by YOWza
Dec 2006 Popular Mechanics Article On A380 posted Thu Nov 23 2006 22:12:07 by Mymorningsong
Article On ATC Controllers (last Month) posted Tue Nov 14 2006 04:43:53 by Timz
NYT Article On 787 BBJ And The Luxury Market posted Tue Oct 17 2006 17:33:55 by BWI757
Interesting Article On The Florida Market posted Sun Oct 15 2006 23:53:55 by JetBlueNYFL
NY Times Article On EAS Subsidies posted Fri Oct 6 2006 06:41:11 by FATFlyer
Houston Spotters Article On Airport System Website posted Thu Oct 5 2006 22:29:16 by Philhyde
WSJ: Article On VLJ's posted Sat Sep 30 2006 18:00:30 by Lightsaber
Article On F-70NG/F-100NG Re-production posted Fri Sep 22 2006 13:48:46 by MauriceB
Article On Canada's Airlines: Risky Business posted Wed Sep 6 2006 14:19:26 by AIRCANL1011