A390
Topic Author
Posts: 138
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 7:21 pm

Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Thu Aug 10, 2006 5:39 pm

Hi all,

I just came across this article. What do you all think?

http://www.newtechspy.com/articles06/boeing797.html
 
gunsontheroof
Posts: 3226
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:30 am

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Thu Aug 10, 2006 5:40 pm

Quoting A390 (Thread starter):
Hi all,

I just came across this article. What do you all think?

http://www.newtechspy.com/articles06/boeing797.html

In a word; bullshit.
 
cobra27
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:57 pm

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Thu Aug 10, 2006 5:49 pm

I think this was already posted.
 
starrion
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 1:19 pm

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Thu Aug 10, 2006 5:51 pm

In another word: OLD

This rumor with pictures has been bandied about for years, since Boeing abandoned the 747x.

Boeing is developing the 747-8. When Y3 comes along, then we can talk.
Knowledge Replaces Fear
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1460
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Thu Aug 10, 2006 6:24 pm

Funny how things can change... this design was interesting altough not ready for this Times.
It would have been sure a efficient Aircraft, but with more problems in Airports then the A380.
Passenger in the middle would be cramped  crowded  and IMO it was to big.
However not only Airbus did mistakes with designs as this clearly shows.
“Faliure is not an option.”
 
viv
Posts: 2953
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:17 pm

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Thu Aug 10, 2006 6:55 pm

Blended wing research is nothing new.

Don't expect to fly in such a passenger aircraft any time soon.

[Edited 2006-08-10 11:56:24]
Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
 
User avatar
solnabo
Posts: 5021
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Thu Aug 10, 2006 6:58 pm

OMG!!

Look at those winglets on 797!!

Must be 4-5 meters high....

Maybe the BWB/797 will be a reality in 15-20 years IYAM.

Micke//SWE  Smile
Airbus SAS - Love them both
 
deltadc9
Posts: 2788
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Fri Aug 11, 2006 2:37 am

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 4):
but with more problems in Airports then the A380.
Passenger in the middle would be cramped and IMO it was to big.

none of those is a given at all.

These designs are from the 1990s, but Boeing is doing wind tunnel research in conjunction with NASA/Langley and recent announced that the results will lead to design studies. Cant remember exactly but I think the number was 40% more efficient.

Here is one I have had since Clinton was pres.

Big version: Width: 650 Height: 432 File size: 48kb
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
 
firennice
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 10:55 pm

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:10 am

No doubt they play with the ideas. You allways have engineers whose job is to sit in corners and play with obscure ideas. Eventually they come true like the composite barrells on the 787. Engineers allways want something bigger, faster, stronger, not allways what is practical, cost effective or needed.

Kind of like the 'concept car' at autoshows. But Boeing sales/marketing forcast the need for such planes. Then the 'rubber hits the road' and the they get told.... "a 1000 seat would really be 750 (comfortably) and after the A380 and Boeings large planes we might sell 100-300 ...break even at 200...too much of a risk. Thank you engineer play with your next project..." Perhaps a plane that goes faster
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:49 am

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 4):
Funny how things can change

What can change?

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 4):
However not only Airbus did mistakes with designs as this clearly shows.

This is not even a design yet. It's merely a concept. There are tons of aircraft concept out there. Most of them look unconventional. Boeing is not immune from design failure such as the sonic cruiser, but this is not one of them.

On a side note, what kind of efficiency gain from a radical design do you guys think that will allow these kind of unconventional design to be actually used. For example how much efficiency gain does this blended wing design need to have in order to force major airports reconstructions.

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
Jpax
Posts: 715
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 5:01 am

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Fri Aug 11, 2006 4:04 am

I love the quote at the bottom, "This is a great advancement in commercial aviation and a huge win for boeing"

Another huge win for Boeing, in your face, Airbus! Fear the old-news paper airplane.  Wink
 
deltadc9
Posts: 2788
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Fri Aug 11, 2006 5:32 am

Quoting Firennice (Reply 8):
we might sell 100-300 ...break even at 200...too much of a risk

1) This has been ongoing and is still an active project that has picked up steam now that the wind tunnel research was far better than expected
2) Freight implications are major here
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
 
deltadc9
Posts: 2788
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Fri Aug 11, 2006 5:47 am

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 9):
This is not even a design yet. It's merely a concept

Do you not need a design to test it in the Langley wind tunnel for weeks?

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 9):
For example how much efficiency gain does this blended wing design need to have in order to force major airports reconstructions.

Like I said above, the gain shocked NASA and Boeing last just last year after wind tunnel tests concluded. And I do remember seeing an article that talked about the fact that this design fits in the box and can use existing ramps and jetways. This was before the 380 too.
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Fri Aug 11, 2006 5:54 am

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 12):
Do you not need a design to test it in the Langley wind tunnel for weeks?

I was referring to the supposedly 797's airplane design. Not the blended wing aerodynamic design in general.

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 12):
Like I said above, the gain shocked NASA and Boeing last just last year after wind tunnel tests concluded. And I do remember seeing an article that talked about the fact that this design fits in the box and can use existing ramps and jetways. This was before the 380 too.

That would be interesting. How about the taxiway? One of the problem that 380 faces is the taxiway width, since it can basically land on 747 capable runways.

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
AerospaceFan
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:48 am

The design in DeltaDC9's pic looks a bit like the B-2 from the side.
What's fair is fair.
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Fri Aug 11, 2006 7:09 am

I say it looks great and it'd be an incredible leap forward when the tech is ready.

Passengers don't need a window if they have a view of the outside one way or another, and the airplane's inherent efficiencies are impossible to ignore. We're a decade away from an airframe OEM taking this plunge, perhaps less.

The article is fantasy/BS for now, but the future is coming.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
AerospaceFan
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Fri Aug 11, 2006 7:29 am

I, too, like the idea of a blended-wing design. Very futuristic, and if, as it seems, it makes economic sense, then why not? Here's hoping.
What's fair is fair.
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Fri Aug 11, 2006 1:34 pm

To me, the greatest thing about a design like this is how it is easily adaptable to a variable number of engines.

Adding a third engine to a 777 or 787 is impossible. Having a BWB start with two engines then adding a third for a strech or ER version would be a snap. Adding a forth for a second strech or ULR also easy. It could be the shape that enables a single wide-body family from 200-600 passangers. 1000 will never happen.
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
jmhLUV2fly
Posts: 539
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 1999 4:15 pm

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Fri Aug 11, 2006 4:31 pm

Couple questions I would have are, how exactly would such an aircraft be evacuated in an emergency, I believe most F/A are trained to evacuate an airplane in 90 seconds, 1000 passengers in 90 seconds, yeah right.
Second, I would wonder where you would park such an airplane, thing looks like its like 500 feet wide, yikes, think there would be a problem in Atlanta at concourse T, probably take up three or four gates.
Its fun to imagine such an interesting looking airplane, but I think we are decades away from being ready for a "797".

JMH-Pensacola, Florida!
 
User avatar
solnabo
Posts: 5021
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:51 pm

Airbus better hurry up building the 380-900, but the -900 wont take 1000 pax, or will it??

Oh well, time will tell.....

Micke/SWE  wave 
Airbus SAS - Love them both
 
deltadc9
Posts: 2788
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Fri Aug 11, 2006 9:51 pm

Quoting Jmhluv2fly (Reply 18):
1000 passengers in 90 seconds, yeah right.

The A-380 did over 850, so is 150 more really that much?

Here is more info from the horses mouth. The last link has an actual flying prototype pictured. Like I siad, it is not just an idea they are kicking around. NASA, Boeing Phantom Works, the USAF, and others are all involved.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/...factsheets/FS-2003-11-81-LaRC.html

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/improvingflight/bwb_main.html

http://www.boeing.com/phantom/news/2006/q2/060504b_nr.html

http://www.nasaexplores.com/show2_articlea.php?id=01-007

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/x-48.html
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
 
DAYflyer
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Fri Aug 11, 2006 10:02 pm

Every company plays with ideas like this. This is nothing new. However, I seriously doubt that since a 550 seat airplane is struggling to make it in the market, a 1000 pax aircraft would have a very difficult time.
One Nation Under God
 
deltadude
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 11:53 pm

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Fri Aug 11, 2006 10:25 pm

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 13):
That would be interesting. How about the taxiway? One of the problem that 380 faces is the taxiway width, since it can basically land on 747 capable runways.

Why can't the wings fold after landing? You'd only need to fold the outer 30 feet or so. That's what jets on aircraft carriers do.

Don't get complacent guys. Boeing is making tons of money these days and with fuel prices the way they are I would not be surpised if you see some giant leeps in aircraft technology very, very soon. The twin engine tube won't last forever.
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Sat Aug 12, 2006 12:01 am

Quoting Deltadude (Reply 22):
Why can't the wings fold after landing? You'd only need to fold the outer 30 feet or so. That's what jets on aircraft carriers do.

That will only happen if the real estate of the airport is very expensive. Very good example is B777, nobody has ordered 777 with wing fold option. Because it's probably cheaper to renovate the airport than carring the several hundred pounds of extra weight on the aircraft everyday.

But again, airport modification will only happen if the benefits of the BWB are significantly higher than the cost of the work.

Quoting Deltadude (Reply 22):
Don't get complacent guys. Boeing is making tons of money these days and with fuel prices the way they are I would not be surpised if you see some giant leeps in aircraft technology very, very soon. The twin engine tube won't last forever.

I don't know about this. Research is not solely based on how much money it's poured in. The fact is that the aerodynamic of tube and twin is very well studied now, and the most efficient design can be easily achieved, while with the other design, it still takes a long time to fully understand the aerodynamics.

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
deltadc9
Posts: 2788
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Sat Aug 12, 2006 12:54 am

They have been researching BWB for half a century, and this R&D push has been going on for almost 15 years. It is more about market need and acceptance than the technology, which is well understood at this point.

Boeing has stated that they want to field a BWB before mid-century.
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
 
thebry
Posts: 333
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 7:50 am

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Sat Aug 12, 2006 1:27 am

Hah! Maybe Airbus was on to something with the re-branding of the A350 to the A350XWB. Maybe this blended wing thing could become the successor to the 747-8i but would be called the B747BWB  Smile
 
deltadude
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 11:53 pm

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Sat Aug 12, 2006 4:41 am

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 23):
That will only happen if the real estate of the airport is very expensive. Very good example is B777, nobody has ordered 777 with wing fold option. Because it's probably cheaper to renovate the airport than carring the several hundred pounds of extra weight on the aircraft everyday.

You think? Dunno, that sounds like BS to me.
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Sat Aug 12, 2006 7:41 am

Quoting Deltadude (Reply 26):
You think? Dunno, that sounds like BS to me.

What? what's bullshit? nobody orders B777 with the wing fold option and it's a fact. If there is then please show me.

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
rootsair
Posts: 4012
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 3:25 am

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Sat Aug 12, 2006 7:28 pm

I thought 797 was to be an eventual 737 replacement. Correct me if I'm wrong !
A man without the knowledge of his past history,culture and origins is like a tree without roots
 
Areopagus
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 12:31 pm

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Mon Aug 14, 2006 3:54 pm

My friends, I thought you might like to see this news item I scanned from the June 1996 issue of Popular Science.
 
parapente
Posts: 1293
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:41 pm

"Here is more info from the horses mouth. The last link has an actual flying prototype pictured. Like I siad, it is not just an idea they are kicking around. NASA, Boeing Phantom Works, the USAF, and others are all involved."

Quite right.
Indeed the 2 scale prototypes built by Cranfield (plus ground control hardware and software) are flying as we speak. It is hard to get the latest on this project as Boeing are being very "coy" for very good reasons. The latest design that I saw from them was a "single" passenger deck not double. There was a article that picked up on a recent patent they took out. It was very clever .The patent was for "slottong" a new center piece to the plane -to a single design. What they realised is that for a BWB when you increase capacity in this way you are also increasing lift (rather than deadweight as in traditional wing and tube designs) as such the primary structures stay the same you just add in the new centre section plus an engine. Boeing are deadly serious about this craft. The 747-800 is just there to get them through the testing phase. They will not rush this as a tailless design is so much harder to build commercially.But if there is one company that has the know how it is Boeing. All the studies show a 25% to 30% improvement in efficiency.They are now flying scaled prototypes having finished the "flying" wind tunnel tests.
Yes the 737 replacement comes first.They will cede the large sector to Airbus in the short term and get as much as they can from the 747-800. They will then take the whole market with the BWB. Timing ??? 2020?
 
deltadc9
Posts: 2788
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Tue Aug 15, 2006 12:46 am

About the wingspan, why are you guys assuming it will be greater than the 380? Now those are seriously big wings, and yet we are accomodating them.
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
 
FlyGuyDTW
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 9:03 am

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Tue Aug 15, 2006 4:06 am

Quoting RootsAir (Reply 28):
I thought 797 was to be an eventual 737 replacement. Correct me if I'm wrong !

I did hear from an insider that the 797(number given but not this design pictured) is a replacement being designed with 787 technology to replace the 737 and that WN has also said it would sign on to purchase if and when Boeing did finalize a design.
 
User avatar
zippyjet
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2001 3:32 pm

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Thu Aug 24, 2006 2:34 am

Folks, this one circulates throughout the world wide web like the Bonzai Kittens and the lets tax your e-mail/Internet. It would be cool, if this were true but, with Boeing having to watch their bottom line, developing a blended wing bird along with the 787, 737 replacement and uber 747-800 would be like having a Champaigne taste on a Logger beer pocket book! bouncy 
I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Thu Aug 24, 2006 3:13 am

Quoting Zippyjet (Reply 33):
the lets tax your e-mail/Internet

which is actually a current EU proposal (and of course my internet access is already taxed as I pay VAT on it).
I wish I were flying
 
User avatar
zippyjet
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2001 3:32 pm

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Sat Aug 26, 2006 1:01 pm

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 34):
which is actually a current EU proposal (and of course my internet access is already taxed as I pay VAT on it).

Which is why I sure as hell don't want the USA to become part of the proposed by the New World Order Elite North American Union. vomit 
More ways for us to have to bite the pillow and take our screwings!
I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
 
rampart
Posts: 1798
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:58 am

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Sat Aug 26, 2006 3:25 pm

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 17):
1000 will never happen.

Because it's appropriate again, I quote myself from an archived thread (same exact topic, but last April...)

"You'd be daft to think that any airline would want anything more than 2 engines. Think how complicated that would be! And how would they evacuate all those people if it had a belly landing? Particularly if that crazy nose wheel failed. No, I can't see anyone needing anything bigger or more revolutionary than a DC-3. Look at the proof, airlines are ordering them in droves."

-A.net skeptic, ca. 1938
RE: Boeing 797 To Be Blended Wing (by Rampart Apr 25 2006 in Civil Aviation)#ID2738476
 
socal
Posts: 464
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 9:20 pm

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Sun Aug 27, 2006 7:27 am

Cheasy article...!!!
I Love HNL.............
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Sun Aug 27, 2006 8:56 am

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 7):
Here is one I have had since Clinton was pres.

Now if I am not mistaken, Clinton left the White House in 2001... so you are a bit confused on that one since that picture was first published TWO years after he left office! It is from Popular Science, Nov. 2003 and was part of the “7 Flights Into the Future” article clebrating the centenary of powered flight. Here's the BWB extract:

Boeing's Muellner imagines a far more radical aircraft: Engineers will finally embrace blended-wing-body (BWB) design. Imagine a giant, double-decker flying triangle, engines incorporated into the back of the aircraft, with passengers sitting in an enormous space dozens of rows wide. The concept is decades old, and one version appeared on the cover of Popular Science in 1995. The wide, aerodynamic fuselage is just as safe as tube-and-wing, Muellner says, and more efficient. "I've been trying to push blended-wing-bodies for the four-plus years I've been with Boeing," Muellner says. "I have to tell you, I don't get a positive response from my Seattle community. [But] we go out and do passenger acceptance tests, and nobody [objects]. We do emergency evac tests and it turns out you can actually evacuate it faster than you can a tube. But at Boeing—and I don't know about Airbus, but I wouldn't be surprised to find the same thing—we have a tube-and-wing mentality."

Brown says Airbus won't build a BWB aircraft because of scale challenges: Wingspans would be too big for airports. But Muellner says new research shows that BWB wingspans can be smaller than those of conventional aircraft. In spite of Boeing's current reluctance (and its focus on developing the efficient 7E7 airliner), he predicts BWB aircraft will enter service in this century, first as military and cargo aircraft, and then as commercial air transports—complete with high-resolution video screens that allow the passengers in the middle of the aircraft to see the world outside."


Full article is at:
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/automot...010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd/5.html

I got a great chuckle form Burt Rutan's prognosis... I started a thread about it when the article appeared in 2003:

The idea is that much commercial travel will become irrelevant thanks to high-fidelity virtual reality networks. "In only 20 years, we're going to have systems where we can 'sit down' with someone and it will be indistinguishable from being there," Rutan continues. "There is such an enormous demand to do that, to get rid of this quagmire of gridlock—and these enormous airplanes aren't going to solve the problem of getting to the airport. You might ask where the money is going to come from to make this technology flourish. It'll come from the porn industry.

"The ability to go out and buy an orgasm with a beautiful woman with no risk of disease will also create the kinds of things that you will need to truly make it so that you don't have to take a business trip—the feel of that handshake, all the senses you have of knowing that you are there. Phenomenal amounts of money will be dumped into phenomenally good virtual reality, so we won't have to go to the damn airport in the first place."


Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 21):
Every company plays with ideas like this. This is nothing new. However, I seriously doubt that since a 550 seat airplane is struggling to make it in the market, a 1000 pax aircraft would have a very difficult time.

You are so correct. Flying wings were researched even before the Northrop YB-49 in 1947. And, in fact, Boeing inherited this BWB program from McDonald Douglas. I agree with you that it just won't happen for a very long time, if at all, and certainly not in a pax version! It just won't be needed!
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:07 pm


  • People that know of aviation want 737 to be replaced by a 797, even "respected" editors of publications want it, but Boeing has not set anything in stone. From a time frame perspective, if something is to replace 737, it in the most infant prelimary stage, one with no shape, it is just numbers now. All we have is speculation. Anything, any shape (since a VAST number of people on this forum are so shallow and expect everything to look like 787), can qualify.

  • All markets are niche when they begin and grow, but how they grow is more important that what they end up. Example, early on when the 747 first came out, the flights were limited by those that could afford to fly, that it could make flying cheaper had yet to be proven. Technically, for the technology available at the time, there wasn't enough people for the frequency, so flights were consolidated for a particular route by large airplanes. As more and more people came in, that justified making the planes smaller and making flights more frequent, to accomidate everyone. The current market environment is that we do what works, just about every new product that sells well is for an existing market such that marginal differences separate products from each other. Now, why do I get the impression that most of you folks are too used to this market?

  • BWB are definitions, not imagines, the concepts by different companies you've all seen are not the only ways to design the concept. There are MANY ways of doing the same damn thing, and only engineering can single out the one candidate that works for the mission.

    Quoting Firennice (Reply 8):
    Engineers allways want something bigger, faster, stronger, not allways what is practical, cost effective or needed.

    Instead of slamming on your ignorance, I am going to inform you. Please highlight to me where exactly where "Engineers allways want something bigger, faster, stronger" and then tell me who is responsible for "what is practical, cost effective or needed"http://www.erau.edu/pr/degrees/b-aeroengineering.html
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Sun Aug 27, 2006 1:16 pm

BWB is nothing new. Both the 1950s technoligy SR-71 and the 1970s technoligy F-16 designs are actually BWB airplanes. They just don't carry any passengers.
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Sun Aug 27, 2006 1:35 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 40):
Both the 1950s technoligy SR-71 and the 1970s technoligy F-16 designs are actually BWB airplanes. They just don't carry any passengers.

thank you for that, I hope people can understand that blending the wing and body is just a 3D fillet that reduces the drag interaction between the two. Increasing the radius of the fillet to infinity would be a flying wing.
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:15 pm

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 39):
From a time frame perspective, if something is to replace 737, it in the most infant prelimary stage, one with no shape, it is just numbers now.

Certainly the launch time frame of the 737 replacement is going to influence the 737 replacement final design but, currently, it is more than just numbers.

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 39):
Anything, any shape (since a VAST number of people on this forum are so shallow and expect everything to look like 787), can qualify.

No, not anything nor any shape - it is not going to be a BWB.

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 39):
Example, early on when the 747 first came out, the flights were limited by those that could afford to fly, that it could make flying cheaper had yet to be proven.

No, it was known that the 747 would make flying cheaper otherwise it would not have been built. Obviously, Juan Trippe wasn't going to order an aircraft that was going to increase CASM.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Mon Aug 28, 2006 3:51 am

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 42):
No, not anything nor any shape...

You did not get my point as you focused on image rather than definition, i.e. the math. A high aspect ratio wing can be anything from an ellipse to a high-sweep wing with a short chord. While parasite drag is shape dependent, did you know the value for a Cessna 172 and a Boeing 767 are extremely close, on the order of 0.02? My point is that a plane can survive without shape in the preliminary stage, who knows how many proposals have been submitted for 737RS, it is not just one shape. From there a proposal is chosen and the detailed project begins, that is when Boeing will show off pictures -- until then we just do not know. If you want to base it off of previous shapes say so, if you want it to be something say so, but do not assume/expect.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 42):
...it is not going to be a BWB

I didn't say it would, but since I do not know what you think a BWB is, nor do I feel you either read or understood either reply #40 or #41, I don't know where to start.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 42):
it was known that the 747 would make flying cheaper otherwise it would not have been built.

No, that was what Boeing was betting on to happen thinking at the time that SST's would take over the world and those who wanted to fly cheap would do so on a 747. We now have the luxury of hindsight, keep that in mind when you use word like "obviously" in relation to events in the past; in fact I suggest not using the word, it expects people know what you mean:

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 42):
Obviously, Juan Trippe wasn't going to order an aircraft that was going to increase CASM.

Not proven doesn't conclude anything, meaning such devices have yet to demonstrate themselves in application. How do you figure not proven results in doing the exact opposite that something is supposed to do? Give me an example. Is it possible that with Boeing's prior successes, that airlines believed in Boeing's bet? Seems to me that Boeing was in control of the market.

While I'm not surprised, I get the impression that while everyone believes something called a 'market' determines the life of a product, I have yet to see any acknowledgement that the people who make those decisions do so based on their beliefs of what that product can do for them. Airlines believed in Boeing's bet and won, some airlines didn't believe in Concorde and that plane lost, per se. Trends are not set in stone, they vary constantly, but if some portion is constant and those making the decisions believe it will stay that way long enough for them to make a profit out of it, that is how purchase decisions are made. Airlines don't order airplanes for themselves, they do it because of us.

[Edited 2006-08-27 21:06:46]
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Boeing B797? Any Comments?

Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:40 pm

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 43):
You did not get my point as you focused on image rather than definition, i.e. the math.

No, the basic "math" is already well known.

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 43):
My point is that a plane can survive without shape in the preliminary stage, who knows how many proposals have been submitted for 737RS, it is not just one shape.

No, the 737RS shape will be a tube and wing aircraft. Boeing is looking at is single aisle or twin aisle, high wing or low wing, etc. but it will still be a tube and wing.

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 43):
No, that was what Boeing was betting on to happen

No, that is what Boeing and Juan Trippe knew... that CASM was going to be significantly lower than the 707. That fact is obvious with a basic understanding of aircraft design and performance.

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 43):
No, that was what Boeing was betting on to happen thinking at the time that SST's would take over the world and those who wanted to fly cheap would do so on a 747.

No, Boeing firmly believed that SSTs were going to dominate pax traffic when they entered service and then the 747 was going to be relegated to just being a cargo carrier... that is why Boeing built the 747 cockpit upstairs... because that the 747 was just going to be a freighter.

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 43):
Airlines believed in Boeing's bet and won, some airlines didn't believe in Concorde and that plane lost, per se.

It was never a case of airlines chosing "Boeing's bet " or the Concorde... and it was politics, and then oil prices, why Concorde "lost."

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 43):
Airlines don't order airplanes for themselves, they do it because of us.

Obviously. No one on this thread has suggested otherwise!
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein