777_sandbag From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (13 years 5 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1420 times:
I have been reading in magazines that Boeing are looking at a blended wing aircraft as a next generation large airliner. Do others think it is fact or fantasy. I think it is a great idea to have the cabin contributing to lift, but will the flying public take to such a change? Look at the initial resistance to fly-by wire!
B787 From Australia, joined May 2005, 152 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (13 years 5 months 18 hours ago) and read 1327 times:
it is fact that they are looking at it, the interesting part is are they going to build it. Flying wings have a great advantage aerodynamically, but that is not the only thing that you think about when designing a profitable airliner. These other factors are what they are looking at now, like would you like to be in the wing during a 20 deg bank, what about windows? whould people feel more claustrophobic without windows but with more open space?
My personal opinion is that if the airplane is an order of magnitude cheaper to operate the airlines and the public will get used to it. The 707 did this, and the 747 after that.
Keycaukr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (13 years 5 months 7 hours ago) and read 1311 times:
There is a long list of design factors not being considered by the blended Wing/Fuselage design.
Designers tend to focus on one hurdle, in this case wing airfoil, and ignore all other factors as obstacles to achieve the one goal. They design this way, in part, because they know all other flight factors can be solved through the quick reflexes and responce time of electronics/ computer augmentation.
This is not unusual. The designers of the F-14 and V-22 ignored a long list of 'complexity related' design factors before production. Now they are both living with major operational difficulties.
A designers focus (airlines) is always on high altitude/cruise/smooth weather flight.
Design factors not fully considered a priority, albeit in-part for minumum 'acceptable' government certification, not a major focus of research or new technology:
1. Low speed flight control/lateral stability
2. Piloting difficulty/pilot workload
3. Manual overide performance
4. Turbulence/windshear behavior
5. Power plant/fuel economy (This is fully considered)
6. Crash /impact behavior
7. Airport manuevering/compatibility
8. Ground hospital/emergency capability in the event
100-500 or more passengers are injured at one time.
9. Operational/maintenance/parts/turn around time.
10. Passenger acceptance/attractiveness/looks strange
/looks dangerous (This is fully considered)