Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Potential Airliners For 2030  
User currently offlineTomB From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 79 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2884 times:

NASA contracted industry design teams to design potential airliners for the 2030 timeframe. Some common design themes included flying slower (mach .70 to .75), higher (45,000 feet) and using very high by-pass ratio turbofans. Many of the design airframes were generally conventional in shape however the MIT design team presented a hybrid wing body. Their fuselage cross section is like two conventional tubes placed side by side to provide twin aisle seating. This permits the aircraft to have a lifting body nose and reduces the size of the wing and tail.

Here is the link to the three page article in Aviation Week

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...dles%20For%20Airliners%20By%202030

8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinecobra27 From Slovenia, joined May 2001, 1008 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2614 times:

Maybe morphing wing technology or something like that. Reduced wing when fuel get consumed .Laminar flow on swept wings. Single engine turbofan for cruise, other engine may fold into fuselage to reduce drag. Electric actuators and electric bleed. Blended wing for cargo. Maybe in even batery powered airplanes

User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4376 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2565 times:

All meterologists I know warn to fly higher. Water put into the stratosphere will remain there forever and will have climate impacts far above what we discuss now as global warming. Slower is good for environment, no doubt.

User currently offlineweb500sjc From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 719 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2201 times:

no body wants to go faster?


Boiler Up!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30379 posts, RR: 84
Reply 4, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2173 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting web500sjc (Reply 3):
no body wants to go faster?

Not if the cost is higher.


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6067 posts, RR: 34
Reply 5, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2145 times:

I am not surprised that they wouldn't want to ruffle any feathers but by 2030 we will certainly have the technology to go single-pilot, single-engine... at the very least on the 20-seater concept that the Cessna team came up with. S-E/S-P will knock at least 500-700 lbs off the take-off weight.


Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineTomB From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 79 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2136 times:

Here is a link to a separate article on the two MIT designs that were referenced in the Aviation Week article. The MIT designed D "double bubble" is a twin aisle 180 seat airliner with a lifting body fuselage and engines in the rear. It would supposedly use 70% less fuel than the current models. The article includes pictures.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/05/mit-20100515.html#more


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6067 posts, RR: 34
Reply 7, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2087 times:

Quoting TomB (Reply 6):
It would supposedly use 70% less fuel than the current models. The article includes pictures.

Interestingly they designed a more "conventional" material version that they project would use 50% less fuel...

Not only does the D series meet NASA’s long-term fuel burn, emissions reduction and runway length objectives, but it could also offer large benefits in the near future because the MIT team designed two versions: a higher technology version with 70% fuel-burn reduction, and a version that could be built with conventional aluminum and current jet technology that would burn 50% less fuel and might be more attractive as a lower risk, near-term alternative.

The above, I think, is an indication of Airbus' thinking about their NB replacement strategy... an all-new design at present will only net a 15% improvement whereas in 10 years 30-40% is achievable. And that is why I think Boeing's musings on an all-new design is just musing out loud. If they did go with an all-new design it would be "obsolete" within 10 years while only offering a bit better performance than the NEO.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineGST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 930 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2048 times:

Quoting TomB (Reply 6):
Here is a link to a separate article on the two MIT designs that were referenced in the Aviation Week article. The MIT designed D "double bubble" is a twin aisle 180 seat airliner with a lifting body fuselage and engines in the rear. It would supposedly use 70% less fuel than the current models. The article includes pictures.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010...#more

Interestingly the D series is not a million miles away from a concept aircraft I helped work on the concept for in a student project:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v674/greenskintau/3.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v674/greenskintau/4.jpg

The MIT one is much more refined though which is very good to see!


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Potential Airliners For 2030
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...
Vbe Speed For Airliners? posted Mon Feb 15 2010 14:31:23 by RJ111
Alternative Fuels For Airliners posted Tue Dec 29 2009 11:15:43 by Flyby519
All-Moving Fins For Airliners? posted Fri May 8 2009 01:49:24 by Faro
Altitude Settings For Airliners posted Thu Sep 18 2008 17:58:18 by Ovrpowrd727
How Do Airliners Compensate For Turning Engines? posted Sun Jun 1 2008 14:46:59 by UAL747
Can Noise Cancelling Technology Work For Airliners posted Tue May 20 2008 21:03:52 by UAL747
Thrust Settings For Most Modern Airliners posted Sun Dec 16 2007 10:50:02 by ZSOFN
TBO's For Airliners? posted Sat Oct 6 2007 06:31:03 by Cobra27
Fuel For Airliners When No More Fossil Fuel!? posted Sun Mar 11 2007 12:43:34 by Aak777
Main Landing Gear Load For Airliners. posted Sun Dec 24 2006 00:25:54 by Ps76

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format