VSMUT wrote:I don't see it happening ever.
Look at it like this: A BWB is going to be very short. It would be like the proposed 777-100, or the A350-800 or A330-800. They will be short and stubby. At a very minimum increase in weight you can add a length of fuselage in the front and back of the wing, and in the process increase the passenger count and lower the CASM. It's a no-brainer. It is essentially like the 777-300ER vs the 777-200, or even the proposed 777-100.
We might see wings that blend more into the fuselage, but a passenger BWB such as the X-48? Never.
SteinarN wrote:And how are you going to do the pressurization? It is easy to pressurize a tube but a more flat/oval structure needs much more strenghtening to sustain any pressurization, which adds a lot of weight.
MoonC wrote:There's just that "something" I can't point out in the design of a X-48-style BWB that just puts me off.
I wouldn't be able to step foot in one, no matter the advantages over the conventional wing-body-wing designs or how "cool" that would look, sorry.
Give me a 737 or 787 anytime.
Zkpilot wrote:Chances are a BWB would effectively have a side by side double-bubble pressurised passenger compartment inside the external body.
As for emergency exit requirements, I see no reason why new exits can't be invented (would likely be a combination of below and above wing.
Whether it is worth the expense of developing this aircraft or not is a whole different question. I think we are at least 2 decades away from this and by that time we might finally have hypersonic transport.
ual747den wrote:Doesn't your statement contradict itself or am I reading something wrong?
VSMUT wrote:What I suspect will happen is that the BWB will evolve in a similar manner to the 777. The base model was stretched into the 777-300, increasing seat-count and lowering the CASM. So the BWB will really evolve into something similar to this rough drawing I made:
Never, or at least not by Boeing.
For emergency exits both up (only on a water landing) and down you are vastly increasing exit time, potentially making egress impossible for wheelchair bound and the elderly (at least slowing their exits substantially). You may not be able to evacuate the aircraft in the required time (90sec?) no matter how many exits are installed due to the climb (water and belly on ground).
Boeing did a test mockup interior and many customers were visceral in their dislike of the theater style seating, lack of windows, claustrophobic/cramped feel. Many strongly indicated they would never fly on such an aircraft. The feedback was so negative that Boeing scrapped the idea of developing a passenger model.
It is also thought the seats furthest from centerline might be unsellable due to air sickness\injury prone conditions occurring with any wing roll.
Ultimately the design is much better suited as an unpressurized cargo carrier with individual pressure containers inserted when animals or other products that require a pressure environment are transported.
atsiang wrote:Can't see it ever happening, airports configurations would have to be redesigned.
NeBaNi wrote:VSMUT wrote:What I suspect will happen is that the BWB will evolve in a similar manner to the 777. The base model was stretched into the 777-300, increasing seat-count and lowering the CASM. So the BWB will really evolve into something similar to this rough drawing I made:
Not sure if you're joking with that smiley at the end but, in your drawing, where does the third engine go in the stretch? It looks like, in your picture, the third engine is half-embedded into the fuselage.
QuarkFly wrote:Also, engine placement on BWB is problematic. High BPR turbofans are so large, they have to be mounted on a BWB at the rear above the fuselage -- causing either boundary layer ingestion or high AOA air intake issues, not to mention maintenance difficulty just getting up to them.
airmagnac wrote:The structural weight to carry those engines so far outboard would probably cancel out any aerostructure gain you get from fusing wing & fuselage.
airmagnac wrote:And if the engines are closer in, then I guess sound-cancelling headphones become mandatory...
Evac with engine fire is going to be interesting. In particular if the fuel tanks are somewhere inboard as well
And designing around uncontained engine failure is going to be interesting.
airmagnac wrote:BWBs/flying wings make sense for carrying freight or bombs. I'd really like to see a drone BWB cargo plane, but nobody will design an all newfreighter these days, much less a very peculiar one. Unless Amazon add a small-sized one to their portfolio of ideas.
Once human passengers are thrown in, there are just too many constraints that remove any aerostructure efficiency gain.
Just in case it wasn't clear enough, this is what I meant:
The BWB will be a short and stubby aircraft. It will be like the 777-100. Short, heavy and with a poor CASM:
What I suspect will happen is that the BWB will evolve in a similar manner to the 777. The base model was stretched into the 777-300, increasing seat-count and lowering the CASM. So the BWB will really evolve into something similar to this rough drawing I made:
Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe
Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days
Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit
Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior
Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft
Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials
Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions
Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin
Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon
Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos
Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft
Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries
Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground
Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos