wolfpacker
Posts: 343
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 2:35 am

Boeing "Bat Jet"

Wed Jul 10, 2002 1:13 am

http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/020709/transport_boeing_1.html

Discuss

I don't like the no windows.
 
wingman
Posts: 2796
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

RE: Boeing "Bat Jet"

Wed Jul 10, 2002 1:43 am

I would trade in windows for rolling video fore and aft any day. Add a belly cam and you're really in business. It is unnerving though to watch Boeing jump all over the board with regard to its future plans.
 
Ilyushin96M
Posts: 2506
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 1999 3:15 am

RE: Boeing "Bat Jet"

Wed Jul 10, 2002 1:44 am

Blended wing body aircraft have been around in various forms for decades. Witness Burnelli passenger aircraft of the '30s and '40s, technology and designs which were suppressed by - guess who? - Boeing and the other aircraft manufacturers because they did not want to have to re-design their aircraft. The Burnelli design - a blended wing body with a square passenger cabin, front-mounted engines and twin boom tail - not only provided much greater lift than conventional aircraft designs, but also was significantly safer in a crash.

Northrop persevered with the "flying wing" designs, but again, the aircraft did not reach production, this time due to stability problems which could not be rectified. Note that Northrop's designs did not have tails, whereas Burnelli's did, which may be the reason Burnelli aircraft did not have the problems with stability as did Northrop's. Today, the design for the B-2 Stealth bomber seems to have addressed whatever issues plagued the earlier flying wing designs.

Boeing can't claim that its design is revolutionary. Burnelli and Northrop beat them to it long ago. In fact, had Boeing and other aircraft manufacturers, together with the US government, not suppressed the Burnelli designs so many years ago, aircraft today would probably look quite different.
 
EGGD
Posts: 11880
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:01 am

RE: Boeing "Bat Jet"

Wed Jul 10, 2002 2:17 am

I think that now the sonic cruiser is a no-no, Boeing need to come up with something (In this case, the McDonnel Douglas design, blended wing body) to overshadow the A380.

We'll see what comes of it in the future...
 
Areopagus
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 12:31 pm

RE: Boeing "Bat Jet"

Wed Jul 10, 2002 6:08 am

suppressed by - guess who? - Boeing and the other aircraft manufacturers

Do you have evidence for this? How would they go about suppressing Burnelli's ideas? He was flying planes before the B247 or DC-3, so it's not as if they had a stranglehold on the means of production.

Northrop ... stability problems which could not be rectified.

The B-49 did wallow in yaw, but that could have been rectified. The B-35/B-49 lost out because it was shorter ranged than the B-36, and slower than the B-47. Besides, Convair had more clout with Congress. (BTW, the B-2's yaw stability is ensured by computers.)

Yahoo: the same design could be modified for military and commercial clients and produced in a variety of sizes.

Yeah, like the 777 is a larger 767. Conventional airliners can be stretched by adding fuselage barrel sections & beefing up structure. It's hard to see how a BWB could be so easily stretched. In the early days of turbojet engines, it was said that jets are so simple, their designs could be scaled up and down with ease, but in reality, it is a big deal to upgrade an existing engine's thrust, not to mention scaling it up and down.

Boeing's official news release relating to that same event (opening the Madrid research center) http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2002/q3/nr_020709a.html makes no mention of the "bat jet". This may be a pet of the Phantom Works, but the commercial aircraft division doesn't seem to be promoting it.
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Boeing "Bat Jet"

Wed Jul 10, 2002 6:23 am

will this come before or after the Sonic Cruiser?  Big grin
Step into my office, baby
 
BWIA 772
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:33 am

RE: Boeing "Bat Jet"

Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:55 am

I think that the mass travel idea has gone down the drain some what in the pass couple of years. People want frequency and with globilastion this would be come the trend. Instead of trying to out beat the 380 boeing should try and see if they can beef up a 777 to sub or super sonic speeds with costs that would be the equal to those of operating L1011 today. I think that people are happy with how planes are now what they want know is a reduction in the amount of time spent in the air with a reduction of cost.

When one looks at it if a 777could fly mach 0.95- 0.98 with the same range and cost that are at most 15% higher than that of the current one I am sure that it would be a hit. LA to NYC in 3 hours now wouldn't that be cool.

Supersonic aircrafts being used in mainstream avaiation will not become a reality until operating costs come down. As for the 380 programme I will have to see how it shapes up but if I were Boeing the sonic curiser would come but as I said it will be very cheap to operate.
Eagles Soar!
 
TP313
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 12:37 am

RE: Boeing "Bat Jet"

Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:52 pm

Problem with flying wings:
lack of modularity.
It is almost impossible to build a family of aircraft since you have to scale
it up or down, forcing the manufacturer to use different parts for the
majority of sub-assemblies.
This in effect leads him to build a whole new plane when, with a convetional
design, he could just insert/take out a fuselage plug.
I think that instead of opting for "pure flying wing" designs, manufacturers will
choose hybrid solutions like tail-less thick wing, or lifting body designs.
 
EGGD
Posts: 11880
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:01 am

RE: Boeing "Bat Jet"

Wed Jul 10, 2002 9:24 pm

I think that the mass travel idea has gone down the drain some what in the pass couple of years. People want frequency and with globilastion this would be come the trend.

Frequency will become almost impossible. In the next twenty years air travel is supposed to tripple, there will be no room, and the skies would become so congested that the only alternative will be flying larger aircraft. Sometimes what people want is not possible, and what the airline wants almost always comes first (thats why seat pitch gets so small....).

The only place frequency can be a good thing is point to point, as aposed to hub to hub.. but this also could cause problems.

. Instead of trying to out beat the 380 boeing should try and see if they can beef up a 777 to sub or super sonic speeds with

rofl!! that is just about impossible, especially considering aerodynamic limitationso of the 777.

When one looks at it if a 777could fly mach 0.95- 0.98 with the same range and cost that are at most 15% higher than that of the current one I am sure that it would be a hit. LA to NYC in 3 hours now wouldn't that be cool.


lol! How long does LA-NYC take normally? 5 hours? If so, its only going to be about 30 minutes quicker, maximum. And usually its narrowbodies on this route???
 
srbmod
Posts: 15446
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 1:32 pm

RE: Boeing "Bat Jet"

Thu Jul 11, 2002 2:44 am

Now how are these things going to be parked at gates? It looks like airports will have to do even more infrastructure improvements to handle this aircraft. Many airports are already having to get ready for the A380, when Boeing throws this out there. Nice design Boeing, just a little too out there for the public.
 
Squigee
Posts: 634
Joined: Sun May 20, 2001 3:21 pm

RE: Boeing "Bat Jet"

Thu Jul 11, 2002 6:41 am

Srbmod- The a380 was designed to fit into current airport specifications (80x80x80) and therefore does not require a redesign of facilities. If the airports are taking 747s, they can take a380s too
Someday, we'll look back at this, laugh nervously, and then change the subject.
 
philb
Posts: 2645
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 5:53 am

RE: Boeing "Bat Jet"

Thu Jul 11, 2002 6:53 am

Squigee, the 80x80x80 dimension only applies to space coverage at the gate.

The size of the aircraft has many ramifications for airports and the industry has been dealing with this since Airbus first came out with solid proposals.

Many taxiways will need extra fillets at junctions, some extra strength will be needed on certain areas of concrete at various airports and the gate and loading facilities will need modification for the number of passengers and the extra servicing vehicles required.

Given the current security climate, check in areas will also have to be restructured.
 
brons2
Posts: 2462
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:02 pm

RE: Boeing "Bat Jet"

Thu Jul 11, 2002 8:40 am

squigee, if that is the case why is LAX spending $700,000,000 to prepare for the A380?
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
 
BWIA 772
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:33 am

RE: Boeing "Bat Jet"

Thu Jul 11, 2002 8:50 am

It would be a shame if they spent it and the airliner is flop.

As for EGGD I am not really well verse on the times for tran continetal flights so forgive me. My statement about the 777 should have been re written. I mean that the sonic curiser should be based on a 777 in terms of meeting the industry requirements like how the 777 does.

I will remain optimistic that before 2040 that supersonic or high subsonic aircrafts will become the mainstream type of jets used in trans alantic, pacific and continental flight.
Eagles Soar!
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

Brons2

Thu Jul 11, 2002 9:09 am

Brons2: squigee, if that is the case why is LAX spending $700,000,000 to prepare for the A380?

They don´t as far as I know. According to earlier posts to the topic, LAX isn´t even really capable of handling 747s properly as it is now. So most of the effort is overdue renovation and expansion, independent of the A380.