Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Nothing But Wing-Mounted Twins In The Future?  
User currently offlineFaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1613 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2491 times:

The titles says it all: besides the hypothetical BWB, will substantially all future airliners be wing-mounted twin-engined aircraft? Is airliner design essentially a defunct discipline?

It's sad but it seems that this configuration is by far the most efficient, be it in terms of weight, complexity, operating cost or ease of maintenance. What do you think?

Faro


The chalice not my son
16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePilotboi From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 2366 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2476 times:

I've always thought about this as well. It's my guess that we've found the best overall design in an airplane, in terms of all the things you've already listed. And the only things we can do now is tweak that a little bit to sqeeze more and more out of it. I don't think it's sad. I rather like the simple design.

User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17174 posts, RR: 66
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2459 times:

Definitely the trend will be towards wing mounted twins in the center of the market and way out to the sides. However:
- Smaller aircraft in the RJ range still benefit from tail mounted engines. However the cutoff point is moving downwards.
- Larger aircraft (larger than the 773) are not technically feasible today with 2 engines. 3 engines are out for lots of reasons. Given the huge investment required to scale up engines further than the GE90, if an aircraft i the 747-8 or larger class is built, a quad is still the way to go.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineOly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6843 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2432 times:



Quoting Faro (Thread starter):
Is airliner design essentially a defunct discipline?

Assuming you're not considering design as just the shape of the plane......

There are still areas for optimisation.

A lot of work is being done on flow control devices, to delay separation, for example, which could lead to smaller (lighter) flaps and improved flap performance as one possibility.

As we've seen with Boeing wing tips on the 748, 772/3LR and 764, winglets/tip extensions are always of interest.

Composites instead of metal.



wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8956 posts, RR: 60
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2430 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR



Quoting Oly720man (Reply 3):
As we've seen with Boeing wing tips on the 748, 772/3LR and 764, winglets/tip extensions are always of interest.

Spiroids in particular....

2H4



Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2408 times:



Quoting Faro (Thread starter):
besides the hypothetical BWB, will substantially all future airliners be wing-mounted twin-engined aircraft?

Large transport category? Probably. VLA's will stay as quads.

Quoting Faro (Thread starter):
Is airliner design essentially a defunct discipline?

Nope. There is an *enourmous* amount of design work going into making a twin that works well. Picking configuration is usually the least of your worries.

Quoting Faro (Thread starter):
It's sad but it seems that this configuration is by far the most efficient, be it in terms of weight, complexity, operating cost or ease of maintenance. What do you think?

Why is it sad? With enough people working on it, and enough money riding on it, and enough time, everyone was bound to converge on the solution that works best.

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 4):

Spiroids in particular....

Blasphemy!

Tom.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17174 posts, RR: 66
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2324 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 5):

Why is it sad? With enough people working on it, and enough money riding on it, and enough time, everyone was bound to converge on the solution that works best.

Indeed. Just look at cars. How many 6 wheel vehicles with fighter style canopies do you see on the roads today?  Wink



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineKeta From Germany, joined Mar 2005, 448 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2301 times:



Quoting Faro (Thread starter):
Is airliner design essentially a defunct discipline?

As others said, there are a lot of areas where engineers can continue improving. Basic configuration is the least of the work.

Indeed, wing-mounted twins are the more probable future. They've proven to be the most efficient design nowadays, though we could see more quads for very large aircraft as Starlionblue said.

However, in a more distant future (but not very far away) I think that engineers will look at other designs, specially the one you quote:

Quoting Faro (Thread starter):
besides the hypothetical BWB




Where there's a will, there's a way
User currently offlineFaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1613 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2290 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 5):
Why is it sad? With enough people working on it, and enough money riding on it, and enough time, everyone was bound to converge on the solution that works best.

Sad in the sense of less variety; basically, it's as if each and every woman on this planet suddenly dyed their hair blonde. Not necessarily bad in itself, but less varied.

Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8956 posts, RR: 60
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2251 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR



Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 6):
Indeed. Just look at cars. How many 6 wheel vehicles with fighter style canopies do you see on the roads today?

...And it's a damn shame, let me tell you:



 bigthumbsup 

2H4



Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5454 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2248 times:



Quoting Faro (Reply 8):
Sad in the sense of less variety;

Well, remember that for smaller RJ aircraft, and almost (if not all) business/corporate aircraft, the opposite is true ... they are all tail-mouinted.


Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17174 posts, RR: 66
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2231 times:



Quoting 2H4 (Reply 9):

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 6):
Indeed. Just look at cars. How many 6 wheel vehicles with fighter style canopies do you see on the roads today?

...And it's a damn shame, let me tell you:

Sure is. Just out of curiosity, how many pics are in the 2H4 Doomsday Vault?



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8956 posts, RR: 60
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2213 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR



Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 11):
Just out of curiosity, how many pics are in the 2H4 Doomsday Vault?

Unknown. The Doomsday Vault has never been fully mapped and explored.

2H4



Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineAvro7 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 46 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2143 times:

ok, just for the sake of wasting a few electrons- what about two under the wing and two on the aft fusalage on a large aircraft for optimized engine-out performance?

Or would that just combine a bunch of the worst features of both configurations?


User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2135 times:



Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 11):


Quoting 2H4 (Reply 9):

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 6):
Indeed. Just look at cars. How many 6 wheel vehicles with fighter style canopies do you see on the roads today?

...And it's a damn shame, let me tell you:

Sure is. Just out of curiosity, how many pics are in the 2H4 Doomsday Vault?

Ooof, there's automotive pictures in there, too.  faint 

2H4, I DOUBLE DOG DARE YOU to put the canopy from the original Pontiac Firebird in the next Identify This! thread...  mischievous 



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17174 posts, RR: 66
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2055 times:



Quoting Avro7 (Reply 13):
ok, just for the sake of wasting a few electrons- what about two under the wing and two on the aft fusalage on a large aircraft for optimized engine-out performance?

Or would that just combine a bunch of the worst features of both configurations?

Not perhaps combine the worst features, but you'd need to do the plumbing twice, if you will. That is, going from two to four underslung only adds some more plumbing and stuff in the wings. The equivalent with going from two to four on the tail. But having both means you need control runs and plumbing, plus the requisite pylons with strengthening, in two places.

That was also one of the problems with triplets. That tail mounted engine was an oddball.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineMetroliner From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2007, 1067 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1991 times:

Hey all,

I'd also encourage anyone disillusioned with modern airliner designs to go and look at what's happening in Russia - some fantastic configurations there, especially with the likes of the Beriev amphibs (with the twin turbofans mounted high out of the water) and the An-72/4 series, and even Ekranoplans! Big grin

Toni



Set the controls for the heart of the Sun
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Nothing But Wing-Mounted Twins In The Future?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Will AA Recall Any AMT's In The Future? posted Mon Jun 21 2004 01:24:20 by RiffedAAMech
Will Airline Pilots Be Needed In The Future posted Thu May 9 2002 06:56:40 by AIRNZsaab340
What Is In The Bulge Where The Wing Is Attached? posted Sun May 20 2007 16:44:53 by Flexo
How Long Does It Take To Be In The Cass System posted Sun Dec 9 2007 12:30:21 by Tuhlhorn
Take Offs In The Rain? posted Wed Oct 10 2007 21:57:43 by Spark
How Did Spantax Afford To Fly CV990s In The 80's? posted Mon Sep 17 2007 21:53:57 by Happy-flier
0° Angle Of Attack In The Cruise posted Thu Sep 6 2007 19:49:57 by Faro
What Is This In The Panel? posted Thu Jun 21 2007 00:38:58 by KLM685
What Causes The Suction In The Lav's Toilets? posted Fri Jun 15 2007 23:56:58 by UAL747
Why No Wing-mounted Engines Small Jets posted Wed Feb 21 2007 20:08:02 by Redcordes

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format