https://www.airlineratings.com/news/boe ... ng-design/

Boeing has unveiled a new truss-braced folding wing design it says will fly faster and higher than previous concepts.

Folding wingtips, ultra high aspect ratio wing, truss to help with wing flex.

Is this the future NSA project?

Looking at the latest image, if that fuselage is 737 sized then the wingtips folded should fit 737 gates.

Well Boeing has always said that the problem for a new conventional NSA is that it would only be 3-5% more efficient than the present re-engined models IE not nearly enough to warrant the considerable investment.Indeed one might say pointless.
So yes something like this might well be the way forward.Clearly it could transform efficiency with super high aspect ( laminar) wings.
Also plenty of clearance for super high bypass engines or OR even.
Would be nice to have something different looking in the air for a change.

Hey RJMAZ,
Great catch, mate!
I agree with your suggestion that this could be one line of Boeing NSA thinking. Certainly engineering the 777X's wingtip folding mechanism would be a part of this study!?!?
Cheers
Bunumuring

Always interesting to see whether these concepts make it to reality.

Wonder if the position of the engines will require additional noise insulation for passengers behind.

2 wing boxes seem heavy, but could make an flat oval fuselage possible.

The amount of infrastructure changes made at airports to accommodate higher wings and engines for something of this scale would be more than or the same as the Airbus A380. I can't imagine many airlines wanting to redesign hangars and maintenance areas for something like this anytime soon.

YES, I understand this is a design concept, however if Boeing is serious about it, we will see it eventually.

The General Arrangement of this wing /aircraft design has been around for quite a long time. What has changed is that the aircraft can fly at Mach 0.8 and the design now uses a folding wing extension.

Will be interesting to see of this design ever materialises.

Until we start seeing flight tests of an equivalent design I suspect it is only a design concept. As such it is unlikely to be ready in time for the 737 replacement.

I am interested in how the flight testing Airbus is doing on Laminar flow is progressing and what changes that may make on their wing designs.

If what Boeing ( and Airbus?) say is true -about not being able to materially improve on the present designs (if one stays conventional) then I can see the MAX and NEO hanging around a very long time indeed - why not ,there is no competition anywhere else.Hell the new MAX10 isn't even out of the workshop any time soon!

The big advantage I see is that you could hang very big engines under that wing if you like. You have all the ground clearance. Super high bypass ratio and such. That will be a big advantage in the future as engine dimensions, especially diameters, get bigger and bigger.

Noshow wrote:

The big advantage I see is that you could hang very big engines under that wing if you like. You have all the ground clearance. Super high bypass ratio and such. That will be a big advantage in the future as engine dimensions, especially diameters, get bigger and bigger.

Interesting.
Where do you think they will fit the MLG?

I wonder if additional steps have been taken. The sugar volt reserach project been been around for a decade and we know long tin wing work since a century or so. https://newatlas.com/boeing-sugar-volt-hybrid-aircraft/15915/ Also drag grows quickly if you get faster & there will always be trade offs.

Don't underestimate the marketing / PR value of showing promising, clean inventions either.. Everybody knows something needs to happen and loves the perceptions of progress. So they get it.

Aquila3 wrote:

Where do you think they will fit the MLG?

ATR / Avro RJ style, in fairings under/built into the fuselage. You can see them in the CGI just aft of the struts.

LoganTheBogan wrote:

The amount of infrastructure changes made at airports to accommodate higher wings and engines for something of this scale would be more than or the same as the Airbus A380. I can't imagine many airlines wanting to redesign hangars and maintenance areas for something like this anytime soon.

What infrastructure changes would that be? The wingspan is greater, but that is almost guaranteed to be the case with all future aircraft designs. High-winged aircraft don't require significant changes, apart from maybe taller ladders for the refueling trucks (assuming the fueling panel isn't located in the gear-fairing like the ATR 72). If anything, sitting lower to the ground will require less equipment in terms of cargo loaders, stairs, jet-bridges etc.

Aquila3 wrote:

Noshow wrote:

The big advantage I see is that you could hang very big engines under that wing if you like. You have all the ground clearance. Super high bypass ratio and such. That will be a big advantage in the future as engine dimensions, especially diameters, get bigger and bigger.

Interesting.
Where do you think they will fit the MLG?

In the fuselage.

Regarding new wing designs, Airbus has been test flying on the A340 the new laminar wing design, the BLADE project. That is not just a drawing.

So, this is what it looks like when an Antonov 148 makes a baby with a Shorts Skyvan... I doubt this moves forward from research project, but it's neat to see what they might be testing.

Blankbarcode above started a thread on the same SUGAR subject linking to a separate article on the same aircraft concept.At the end it states Boeing/NASA's aim is reduce noise/gasses and fuel consumption all by circa 70%.70%?? I guess it's not a typo as it is in the article.But they cannot mean that surely? Guess it depends on their benchmark - but even then.
If one could reduce sfc by 25% airlines would be beating a path to your door!
Frankly if anything like that was possible it would be irresponsible not to do it.But can't see such numbers are remotely possible.

LoganTheBogan wrote:

The amount of infrastructure changes made at airports to accommodate higher wings and engines for something of this scale would be more than or the same as the Airbus A380. I can't imagine many airlines wanting to redesign hangars and maintenance areas for something like this anytime soon.

YES, I understand this is a design concept, however if Boeing is serious about it, we will see it eventually.

Why? If the wingtips fold like the article says, it will fit in the same gate space. I don’t see how a high wing is any different than a low wing from an airport infrastructure point of view. A high wing narrowbody will probably have the wing be the same distance off the ground as a low wing widebody.

parapente wrote:

Blankbarcode above started a thread on the same SUGAR subject linking to a separate article on the same aircraft concept.At the end it states Boeing/NASA's aim is reduce noise/gasses and fuel consumption all by circa 70%.70%?? I guess it's not a typo as it is in the article.But they cannot mean that surely? Guess it depends on their benchmark - but even then.
If one could reduce sfc by 25% airlines would be beating a path to your door!
Frankly if anything like that was possible it would be irresponsible not to do it.But can't see such numbers are remotely possible.

From my thermodynamics lectures many moons ago there are theoretical limits to any engine based on the top temperature, bottom temperature etc (sorry the details are fuzzy now). This is why so much is being expended to increase the top temp (ceramics) and pressures. No engine will beat that and thus I wonder how these spectacular and continued power plant reductions in sfc are expected to happen. Thus I do not see how 70% improvement is sfc can be the case.

parapente wrote:

Clearly it could transform efficiency with super high aspect ( laminar) wings.

Laminar flow is still a dicey proposition...refer to the following quote in Reply #17 of the following thread from Lightsaber re the Global Hawk which has appreciable laminar flow compared to contemporary wings:

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=776637

Take the Global Hawk, it has normal bottom -side laminar and about two thirds top-side. When the Global Hawk stalks, it will spin and crash. Stall recovery is incredibly difficult and flight control soft spends an incredible amount of time avoiding stalling. No human pilot could fly a Global Hawk and no service would accept that wing's risk in a manned plane.

Faro

Wingtips would sweep up during a hard landing

Engines look a bit small no?

My understanding too, aerodynamically speaking, is that a wing like this would be super-efficient at cruise but wouldn’t realize the same benefits in other flight regimes (takeoff, landing, climb, etc). Perhaps an engineer can weigh in here, but similar to a winglet and some of the very in-depth discussions that have gone on here, but there are always tradeoffs. Obviously, the functionality of having an extremely long wing (folding) that raises practical airport access issues and such among them. Still, the design is visually beautiful.

What kind of MCAS system would be needed on this one to prevent uncontrolled pitch up at high AoA. Those double wings would have constantly changing lift interactions depending on angle.

The 70% is only the number in the other article linked.I think it must be a typo.

Regarding laminar flow.In ( many) years gone by I used to fly sailplanes with high aspect ratio's ( but by no means the highest).It was/is well known that rain and ( worst of all) fly's attaching themselves to the wing can quickly ruin performance as the air detaches from the wing so pretty tricky to manufacture wings for commercial aircraft i imagine.

slider wrote:

My understanding too, aerodynamically speaking, is that a wing like this would be super-efficient at cruise but wouldn’t realize the same benefits in other flight regimes (takeoff, landing, climb, etc). Perhaps an engineer can weigh in here, but similar to a winglet and some of the very in-depth discussions that have gone on here, but there are always tradeoffs. Obviously, the functionality of having an extremely long wing (folding) that raises practical airport access issues and such among them. Still, the design is visually beautiful.

And, notably it is a T-tail.
Maybe MD having some say in Boeing design?

mjoelnir wrote:

Aquila3 wrote:

Noshow wrote:

The big advantage I see is that you could hang very big engines under that wing if you like. You have all the ground clearance. Super high bypass ratio and such. That will be a big advantage in the future as engine dimensions, especially diameters, get bigger and bigger.

Interesting.
Where do you think they will fit the MLG?

In the fuselage.

Regarding new wing designs, Airbus has been test flying on the A340 the new laminar wing design, the BLADE project. That is not just a drawing.

Yeah, I guessed that, too.
OK, 737s are famous to be a piece of cake to land, but still instinctively I would feel a little in trouble landing that thing in crosswind with so narrow wheel base.
Would you think that Boeing would implement some specific electronics aid? Or, as someone else suggested, the folding wingtips would fold upwards to give more clearance?

hotelbravo wrote:

Engines look a bit small no?

For sure, but then again if the target of this study was to save up to 70% in fuel - for sure the thrust requirement must also be less than half of a 737. Which would mean a smaller fan will do just fine.

But somehow to me all of that sounds like they need to first make an amendment to the laws of physics. Which country regulates them btw?

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

OMG - I think I'm in love.

This is what happens when 737 MAX and ATR72 mate . . .

Aquila3 wrote:

slider wrote:

My understanding too, aerodynamically speaking, is that a wing like this would be super-efficient at cruise but wouldn’t realize the same benefits in other flight regimes (takeoff, landing, climb, etc). Perhaps an engineer can weigh in here, but similar to a winglet and some of the very in-depth discussions that have gone on here, but there are always tradeoffs. Obviously, the functionality of having an extremely long wing (folding) that raises practical airport access issues and such among them. Still, the design is visually beautiful.

And, notably it is a T-tail.
Maybe MD having some say in Boeing design?

Given the placement of the wing end engines only a T-Tail is possible.

So I'm assuming we can expect the 797 to be an over-wing aircraft with this new wing design?

hotelbravo wrote:

Engines look a bit small no?

It doesn't matter. It's just concept art.

parapente wrote:

If what Boeing ( and Airbus?) say is true -about not being able to materially improve on the present designs (if one stays conventional) then I can see the MAX and NEO hanging around a very long time indeed - why not ,there is no competition anywhere else.Hell the new MAX10 isn't even out of the workshop any time soon!

Boeing and Airbus do not compete like many on A.net believe. They collude to keep other market entrants out. Airlines hate it.

There is nothing "radical" about this. Many high wing, high aspect ratio, trussed wings out there. The ANs the Cessna Caravan, Cessna Skycourier (in development). Etc.

That being said, this could be a good leap forward thanks to the folding wingtip design. Plus, the truss design allows for your wing root to be considerably lighter due to lower loads (yes you're redistributing them to the main landing gear area - but here's the bonus, you're using structure you already needed for landing loads to carry flight loads so its win-win). The main reason truss designs don't make it into commercial designs very often is the added drag. But if you can extend the wing using folding wingtips you can gain that back, and then some.

I like it.

Can anyone see what is written on the tail?

keesje wrote:

I wonder if additional steps have been taken. The sugar volt reserach project been been around for a decade and we know long tin wing work since a century or so. https://newatlas.com/boeing-sugar-volt-hybrid-aircraft/15915/ Also drag grows quickly if you get faster & there will always be trade offs.

Don't underestimate the marketing / PR value of showing promising, clean inventions either.. Everybody knows something needs to happen and loves the perceptions of progress. So they get it.

I believe this is the 3rd time I'm responding to this image/post of yours for trying to be misleading, so I'll just leave the same response as the last time you posted this:

NeBaNi wrote:

And once again, I'll repeat my answer to you the last time you posted this:
Literally all of the "green" designs in the pic you posted are NOT envisioned to enter into service next decade. They were designed with the technology (assumptions/ predictions) of 2030s in mind.
So why are you trying to mislead with that picture?

trpmb6 wrote:

Can anyone see what is written on the tail?

TTBW, for Transonic Truss-based Wing

mham001 wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

Can anyone see what is written on the tail?

TTBW, for Transonic Truss-based Wing

Thanks, there was some confusion here as we thought it might be "778W"

Varsity1 wrote:

parapente wrote:

If what Boeing ( and Airbus?) say is true -about not being able to materially improve on the present designs (if one stays conventional) then I can see the MAX and NEO hanging around a very long time indeed - why not ,there is no competition anywhere else.Hell the new MAX10 isn't even out of the workshop any time soon!

Boeing and Airbus do not compete like many on A.net believe. They collude to keep other market entrants out. Airlines hate it.

They don't? Really???

I'll agree on the WB side that their products is more complementary; but on the NB wide, they do compete head-to-head.

StTim wrote:

Until we start seeing flight tests of an equivalent design I suspect it is only a design concept. As such it is unlikely to be ready in time for the 737 replacement.

At the monoplegic snail’s pace Boeing is currently going with the NSA/MOM/797 it might be....

Varsity1 wrote:

Boeing and Airbus do not compete like many on A.net believe. They collude to keep other market entrants out. Airlines hate it.

The A350 only exists because of the 787. The 747-8 only exists because of the A380. The 737MAX and A320neos only exist because of each other. If that isn’t competition, nothing is.

parapente wrote:

Well Boeing has always said that the problem for a new conventional NSA is that it would only be 3-5% more efficient than the present re-engined models IE not nearly enough to warrant the considerable investment.Indeed one might say pointless.
So yes something like this might well be the way forward.Clearly it could transform efficiency with super high aspect ( laminar) wings.
Also plenty of clearance for super high bypass engines or OR even.
Would be nice to have something different looking in the air for a change.

All that wing looks like a lot of drag/fuel burn to me.

hotelbravo wrote:

Engines look a bit small no?

I think the new generation of engines with larger fan diameters and ultra high bypass ratios have kind of warped many of our perceptions of what an appropriate engine size is. The A320 Neo, 737 MAX, and especially the Embraer E2 family almost look cartoonish with their massive engines. But, over time we get used to it. Now the engines on the A320 ceo, 737 NG, and Embraer E Jet family look hilariously tiny in comparison. Even the 757's engines look tiny to me these days.

enilria wrote:

All that wing looks like a lot of drag/fuel burn to me.

Big wings reduce fuel burn.

Lift to drag ratio plays a big part in your fuel burn. The 777X for examples requires less thrust than the 777W despite being heavier. This is because the greater span improved lift to drag ratio 17 to around 20.

Ideally you want a wing as long as possible but what stops this is weight grows exponentially with span. Carbon fibre allows for greater span with the same weight which is what made the 777X possible.

This design uses a truss brace to strengthen the wing. A very simply design allowing the wing to be much longer. The lower truss has also be designed to provide its own lift as well. This design would easily achieve a lift to drag ratio of 25 which is similar to the U-2 spy plane.

I estimate thrust requirenents would be reduced by around 30% compared to a 737 at the same flying weight.

This design could also easily fly 10,000ft higher than a 737 design reducing fuel burn by another 10+%. Fuel burn of the 77W imporoves significantly when it moves from 30,000ft to 40,000ft. This going to 50,000ft would have a similar imprivement.

Add new engines in 20 years time with a 20% fuel burn improvement and we now have a total of 30%, 10% and 20%. So the 70% number is realistic.

hotelbravo wrote:

Engines look a bit small no?

Less thrust required. Plus the big wing will make them look smaller.

parapente wrote:

It was/is well known that rain and ( worst of all) fly's attaching themselves to the wing can quickly ruin performance as the air detaches from the wing so pretty tricky to manufacture wings for commercial aircraft i imagine.

The Clean Skies II Blade program is looking at exactly this. They have two sections of (more) laminar flow outer wings, one each side, manufactured by different tier 1 suppliers - SAAB is definately one - is GKN or Premium Aerotec the other? Aerodynamically identical but constructed differently. Anyway, the focus is on how you manufacture them in volume, and how they maintain their laminar flow properties.

I love these respective programs, I know the Laminar Flow people at Airbus thought 2025 was pushing it, and were quite relieved when the NEO came out, pushing things back into the 2030 time frame. I've heard NASA people at airshows talking about game changing technology being ready for the second half of the 2020's. About time we saw some step changes. Fuel cell APU's providing potable water, integrated electic drive in the landing gear for taxiing, novel engine positioning and wing configurations, maybe even novel empenage designs shielding engine noise from the ground.

Probably end up with underslung wing mounted engines on a conventional tube with wings, but we can hope.

LoganTheBogan wrote:

The amount of infrastructure changes made at airports to accommodate higher wings and engines for something of this scale would be more than or the same as the Airbus A380. I can't imagine many airlines wanting to redesign hangars and maintenance areas for something like this anytime soon.

YES, I understand this is a design concept, however if Boeing is serious about it, we will see it eventually.

The engines wouldn't be higher than the T tail. Should fit into a normal sized hanger.

YYZLGA wrote:

I very much doubt Wall Street would ever allow Boeing to pursue something this radical, no matter how beneficial it might be in the end.

This conceptual design would represent less technical risk than Boeing accepted on recent major programs.