Faro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1443 posts, RR: 0 Posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1910 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?
Pilotboi From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 2366 posts, RR: 10 Reply 1, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1895 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.
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15870 posts, RR: 66 Reply 2, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1878 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." - from Citadel by John Ringo
Oly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6184 posts, RR: 11 Reply 3, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1851 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.
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 5, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1827 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.
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15870 posts, RR: 66 Reply 6, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1743 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?
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
Keta From Germany, joined Mar 2005, 440 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1720 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:
Faro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1443 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1709 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.
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15870 posts, RR: 66 Reply 11, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1650 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." - from Citadel by John Ringo
Avro7 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 45 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1562 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?
KELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 5932 posts, RR: 4 Reply 14, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1554 times:
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15870 posts, RR: 66 Reply 15, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1474 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." - from Citadel by John Ringo
Metroliner From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2007, 1058 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1410 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!
Sponsor Message: 
From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1443 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 2366 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15870 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6184 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, 
From Germany, joined Mar 2005, 440 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
