cschleic
Posts: 1579
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 10:47 pm

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:48 am

DfwRevolution wrote:
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.


Wall Street cares about money. If Boeing can prove that it would work and provide the economics benefits, and secure sufficient orders prior to launch, investors should be happy. Then it becomes a matter of execution.
 
F27500
Posts: 606
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:52 am

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:58 am

…… Right … the same way the UDF Propfan was going to revolutionize the airline industry. Memba that?
 
flightless
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:57 pm

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Thu Jan 10, 2019 2:11 am

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


Not a designer, but a first rough pass of the math looks like there would be very little bending moment to be handled by the wing boxes; it's all just tension and compression loads. I'd not be surprised if the two wing boxes totaled less mass than an equivalent single.
 
AvObserver
Posts: 2604
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Thu Jan 10, 2019 2:20 am

F27500 wrote:
…… Right … the same way the UDF Propfan was going to revolutionize the airline industry. Memba that?

With the pressure on to drastically reduce C02 emissions, this looks like a promising avenue to take smaller transport design. The prop-fan was too but there were a few issues such as high noise levels of the scimitar shaped blades, safety questions of what happens if uncontained fan blades fail and the projected slower cruise speed of the prop-fan surely conspired to make it less desirable to airlines, despite the impressive projected fuel savings (up to 35%).
 
Areopagus
Posts: 1332
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 12:31 pm

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Thu Jan 10, 2019 2:36 am

It looks like a modern descendant of the Hurel-Dubois HD.31.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 2879
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:44 am

Image

Now the pieces are starting to fit. Remember the high wing patent drawing years ago?
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1062
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:53 am

lightsaber wrote:
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.

New subsystems on a 737 would bring a 3% improvement.

That conventional replacement doesn't have a CFRP wing. I consider folding wingtips a given to enable more underside laminar flow for another 3% improvement beyond the aspect ratio improvement.

Lightsaber


Boy, there is a lot to unpack there.

Can you explain how improves subsystems might get a 3% improvement? It's really not obvious.

And why do you think the NSA would have a metal wing? I don't think Boeing has ever said that (but I could be wrong). Isn't the A220 wing composite, and the 787. It's well within state of the art.
 
1989worstyear
Posts: 291
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:53 pm

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Thu Jan 10, 2019 4:24 am

kitplane01 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
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.

New subsystems on a 737 would bring a 3% improvement.

That conventional replacement doesn't have a CFRP wing. I consider folding wingtips a given to enable more underside laminar flow for another 3% improvement beyond the aspect ratio improvement.

Lightsaber


Boy, there is a lot to unpack there.

Can you explain how improves subsystems might get a 3% improvement? It's really not obvious.

And why do you think the NSA would have a metal wing? I don't think Boeing has ever said that (but I could be wrong). Isn't the A220 wing composite, and the 787. It's well within state of the art.


The mostly Al A320 wing hasn't changed in 30 years - and is still considered the best currently available (despite offering the best in Al alloys 1988 had to offer).

I don't see the current NB designs going away within my lifetime - not enough incentive and not enough innovation following the '87-88 peak.
Stuck at age 15 thanks to the certification date of the A320-200 and my parents' decision to postpone having a kid by 3 years. At least there's Dignitas...
 
YYZLGA
Posts: 236
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 4:28 am

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:54 am

cschleic wrote:
DfwRevolution wrote:
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.


Wall Street cares about money. If Boeing can prove that it would work and provide the economics benefits, and secure sufficient orders prior to launch, investors should be happy. Then it becomes a matter of execution.


Wall Street cares about quarterly or annual earnings. A multi-billion-dollar investment that won't pay off for many years if it ever does is not something that they'd generally be interested in, maybe unless it's in some new industry experiencing exponential growth. They're not thrilled with Boeing for the 787. The re-engining programs are the kind of short-term, quick return projects that they love.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 977
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:48 am

Structurally this is very efficient, hanging the engines at the intersection adds no bending in the wing, just axial.

My first thought is when will be seaplane version be released. A return to the PBY Catalina - just a neo or two on the engines.

Image
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1000
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:09 am

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


It's very high aspect ratio, and quite thin for its span.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Is there any reason the MLG cannot be configured in exactly the same pattern as the current 737?


The 737 MLG stows into wells in the fuselage, but the main strut is attached to the wing along the rear spar, so the same structure that already has to be very beefy to take the lift loads and resolve the torque generated by swept wings also handles the landing loads.

For a high wing design, if the gear don't stow in pods like the DH-8 or ATR-72, the landing gear typically extend sideways somewhat from the fuselage to increase the track width. It's a little more dramatic in this example than seen in common cargo aircraft:

Image
 
BubbaYugga
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 10:51 am

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:18 am

iamlucky13 wrote:
enilria wrote:
All that wing looks like a lot of drag/fuel burn to me.


It's very high aspect ratio, and quite thin for its span.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Is there any reason the MLG cannot be configured in exactly the same pattern as the current 737?


The 737 MLG stows into wells in the fuselage, but the main strut is attached to the wing along the rear spar, so the same structure that already has to be very beefy to take the lift loads and resolve the torque generated by swept wings also handles the landing loads.

For a high wing design, if the gear don't stow in pods like the DH-8 or ATR-72, the landing gear typically extend sideways somewhat from the fuselage to increase the track width. It's a little more dramatic in this example than seen in common cargo aircraft:

Image


In my best Rod Serling voice: "Imagine if you will, a Mach .80 Shorts 330..."
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2323
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:56 am

Fun! If we ignore the shock waves this is a great idea!

I'm sure there is lots of research going in to how to allow a strut braced wing to achieve subsonic speeds but every time you see one of these proposals they conveniently ignore the reason why its difficult and delve right in to what would be good about it if the issues are solved.

When the structures guys look at the aerodynamics text book rather than speaking to theaero people, this is what you get.

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 19335
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:52 pm

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.

I don't know about that. Their defense side has taken some big gambles recently, winning the navy stealth tanker and joint trainer competitions, and Wall Street didn't withhold any permission or anything like that.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
parapente
Posts: 3040
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:25 pm

We don't know if the 220-270 pax MOM will be launched - but it appears increasingly likely according to press reports 2025/6 EIS
We do know that the 200-230 pax MAX10 won't even start to enter service until 2020.
We do know that ( although not signed I believe) Boeing will take a controlling interest in Embraer's new E2 75-115 seater aircraft 2019 EIS

Surely all this means that nothing will be coming in the near future.So yes it remains design study based.
But come 2026-30 they will get very serious about replacing the 737.Clearly this totally depends on the MOM launch or not.

Imho Boeing have been adventurous.Yes sometimes -short term - they pay the price (787) but I believe that spirit exists within the organisation.So it's entirely possible that a 737 replacement may well look radically different.In some ways it simply has to ,to get the leap in efficiencies they will need to achieve.
The timing may work well with second generation geared engines (x5?) with a super high bypass ratio.Looking at the GE9 fan blades they have the ability!
If they believe that this is the SUGAR design that is best taking forwards ( they seem to) then good for them.The right spirit of innovation.
It also appears to be a design that has enough 'conventionally ' to be mass manufactured economically which of course is critical.

Question .I assume the struts are designed for min drag rather than adding any lift themselves.
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 874
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:40 pm

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.


Biggest roadblock to any radical change is right here. The airport infrastructure. That said, if they can get the wingspan to fold small enough, this design could actually work. Just don’t know how much it would need to fold.
Everything is chits and giggles until you get old enough to giggle and then you chit.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 1140
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Thu Jan 10, 2019 2:01 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Fun! If we ignore the shock waves this is a great idea!

I'm sure there is lots of research going in to how to allow a strut braced wing to achieve subsonic speeds but every time you see one of these proposals they conveniently ignore...

As you seem to know your onions; why is it identified as TTBW = Transonic Truss-based Wing.
What does transonic refer to here?

This a/c is designed to cruise at Mach 0.80 - that's not even high sub-sonic. Will there be shock-wave problems at this relatively slow speed?
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2323
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Thu Jan 10, 2019 2:13 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Fun! If we ignore the shock waves this is a great idea!

I'm sure there is lots of research going in to how to allow a strut braced wing to achieve subsonic speeds but every time you see one of these proposals they conveniently ignore...

As you seem to know your onions; why is it identified as TTBW = Transonic Truss-based Wing.
What does transonic refer to here?

This a/c is designed to cruise at Mach 0.80 - that's not even high sub-sonic. Will there be shock-wave problems at this relatively slow speed?
The problems will arise at the join between the strut and the wing, as the local airflow goes sonic the shockwaves on each of the sections will encounter shock interference, the bigger the shock the bigger the interference. There are significant shock waves at M0.8.

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 1140
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Thu Jan 10, 2019 2:41 pm

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.

DL717 wrote:
Bggest roadblock to any radical change is right here. The airport infrastructure. That said, if they can get the wingspan to fold small enough, this design could actually work. Just don’t know how much it would need to fold.

Let's put some flesh on those bare bones.
The proposal is for a wingspan of 170 ft (51.8m)
Without even considering the possibility of folding wings, this is more than the current generation of small airliners (737, A320), but substantially less than...
A330 (60.3m)
B777 (60.9m)
B787 (60.1m)
(I'm not even going to mention A380 & B747)
So, any airport that can handle the above, or indeed B767 size a/c, should be ok with the new design, although they might only have a limited number of gates available.

I have so far failed to find a listing for ICAO category 4D airports, Perhaps someone else has access to a better database....
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
User avatar
enilria
Posts: 8855
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Thu Jan 10, 2019 2:45 pm

BubbaYugga wrote:
iamlucky13 wrote:
enilria wrote:
All that wing looks like a lot of drag/fuel burn to me.


It's very high aspect ratio, and quite thin for its span.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Is there any reason the MLG cannot be configured in exactly the same pattern as the current 737?


The 737 MLG stows into wells in the fuselage, but the main strut is attached to the wing along the rear spar, so the same structure that already has to be very beefy to take the lift loads and resolve the torque generated by swept wings also handles the landing loads.

For a high wing design, if the gear don't stow in pods like the DH-8 or ATR-72, the landing gear typically extend sideways somewhat from the fuselage to increase the track width. It's a little more dramatic in this example than seen in common cargo aircraft:

Image


In my best Rod Serling voice: "Imagine if you will, a Mach .80 Shorts 330..."

ROTFL
 
User avatar
enilria
Posts: 8855
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Thu Jan 10, 2019 2:54 pm

iamlucky13 wrote:
enilria wrote:
All that wing looks like a lot of drag/fuel burn to me.


It's very high aspect ratio, and quite thin for its span.

I guess, but they still need the wing to hold things like flaps and ailerons, don't they? Fuel tanks? Seems like a lot of frontal surface area to push through the air. Perhaps it needs to fly higher to fix the fuel burn of all that wing in a less dense atmosphere?

I suspect this design has lots of real-world operational problems. The fuel one is big. If the wings are so thin as to not provide space for fuel storage that's a killer as the fuselage rarely has much extra space for fuel storage.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 1140
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Thu Jan 10, 2019 4:16 pm

enilria wrote:
All that wing looks like a lot of drag/fuel burn to me.
enilria wrote:
Seems like a lot of frontal surface area to push through the air. Perhaps it needs to fly higher to fix the fuel burn of all that wing in a less dense atmosphere?

iamlucky13 wrote:
It's very high aspect ratio, and quite thin for its span.

Since you were reluctant to accept lucky13's answer, allow me to add that this is absolute basic aerodynamics. 1-2-3
Wikipedia wrote:
{1}...a long, narrow wing has a high aspect ratio,
{2} ….the lift-to-drag ratio increases with aspect ratio
{3} ....improving fuel economy in aircraft.
These are not matters of opinion; they are facts.

enilria wrote:
I suspect this design has lots of real-world operational problems. The fuel one is big. If the wings are so thin as to not provide space for fuel storage that's a killer as the fuselage rarely has much extra space for fuel storage.
There is a very simple solution to that; stop relating to existing fuselage designs, and make the fuselage big enough to store fuel.
In essence I will agree you are correct (even Wikipedia concedes this point); a high aspect wing presents you with a fuel storage problem. But it's not an insurmountable problem, and perhaps, just possibly, the Boeing team already considered this...

Before anybody attempts to make a mountain out of this molehill, it pays to consider some numbers.
For an A320, 33% of the fuel load is already stored in the center tank (8250 liters). To the best of my knowledge, this does not intrude into the passenger cabin at all. If this tank is extended along the fuselage, still underneath the passenger cabin, the only loss is a small proportion of baggage volume.

Alternatively, an average passenger weighs in at 70kg (or 80kg in US dollars). This body occupies a little less than 70 liters of space, except that is simply not possible, even for a contortionist. The real test is the amount of cabin space allocated to each single passenger.
Allowing 8150 cu ft total cabin volume for 189 pax (B707-320), each passenger actually utilises 1220 litres of space, which I agree sounds absurd, and probably includes a percentage allocation of the aisle, toilets, galley, overhead luggage bins etc. I'm sure I've never enjoyed that much space on a flight....
However, it is still ball park accurate, because if you remove a row of seats, you also remove the aisle space, the overhead bins, etc
So, if you convert this passenger space to fuel capacity, recognising that a fuel tank and pipework makes up less than 2% of fuel volume, you can quickly see that removing one row of passengers gives you maybe 7,000 litres of additional fuel capacity.

It is a small problem to be traded off versus the gains from a radically different wing. It is not a "killer"
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
YYZLGA
Posts: 236
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 4:28 am

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Thu Jan 10, 2019 4:36 pm

Revelation wrote:
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.

I don't know about that. Their defense side has taken some big gambles recently, winning the navy stealth tanker and joint trainer competitions, and Wall Street didn't withhold any permission or anything like that.


Defense is a bit different since all cost overruns are covered by the government.
 
User avatar
enilria
Posts: 8855
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:53 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
enilria wrote:
All that wing looks like a lot of drag/fuel burn to me.
enilria wrote:
Seems like a lot of frontal surface area to push through the air. Perhaps it needs to fly higher to fix the fuel burn of all that wing in a less dense atmosphere?

iamlucky13 wrote:
It's very high aspect ratio, and quite thin for its span.

Since you were reluctant to accept lucky13's answer, allow me to add that this is absolute basic aerodynamics. 1-2-3
Wikipedia wrote:
{1}...a long, narrow wing has a high aspect ratio,
{2} ….the lift-to-drag ratio increases with aspect ratio
{3} ....improving fuel economy in aircraft.
These are not matters of opinion; they are facts.

enilria wrote:
I suspect this design has lots of real-world operational problems. The fuel one is big. If the wings are so thin as to not provide space for fuel storage that's a killer as the fuselage rarely has much extra space for fuel storage.
There is a very simple solution to that; stop relating to existing fuselage designs, and make the fuselage big enough to store fuel.
In essence I will agree you are correct (even Wikipedia concedes this point); a high aspect wing presents you with a fuel storage problem. But it's not an insurmountable problem, and perhaps, just possibly, the Boeing team already considered this...

Before anybody attempts to make a mountain out of this molehill, it pays to consider some numbers.
For an A320, 33% of the fuel load is already stored in the center tank (8250 liters). To the best of my knowledge, this does not intrude into the passenger cabin at all. If this tank is extended along the fuselage, still underneath the passenger cabin, the only loss is a small proportion of baggage volume.

Alternatively, an average passenger weighs in at 70kg (or 80kg in US dollars). This body occupies a little less than 70 liters of space, except that is simply not possible, even for a contortionist. The real test is the amount of cabin space allocated to each single passenger.
Allowing 8150 cu ft total cabin volume for 189 pax (B707-320), each passenger actually utilises 1220 litres of space, which I agree sounds absurd, and probably includes a percentage allocation of the aisle, toilets, galley, overhead luggage bins etc. I'm sure I've never enjoyed that much space on a flight....
However, it is still ball park accurate, because if you remove a row of seats, you also remove the aisle space, the overhead bins, etc
So, if you convert this passenger space to fuel capacity, recognising that a fuel tank and pipework makes up less than 2% of fuel volume, you can quickly see that removing one row of passengers gives you maybe 7,000 litres of additional fuel capacity.

It is a small problem to be traded off versus the gains from a radically different wing. It is not a "killer"

The question really is where in the fuselage can you put that much fuel...because it would be a lot. You probably can't put it along the bottom of the fuselage because it will increase the door sill height and make the aircraft very hard to load. You might be able to put it between the cabin and the lower hold, although I'm not sure about the safety aspects of that solution as well as the weight of all the fuel being suspended by the aircraft floor.. It doesn't seem great to me.

The final obvious option would be to do what they now do with auxiliary fuel tanks and just block a section of the hold space for fuel from the cabin floor to the bottom of the aircraft. That seems problematic because of the volume of fuel, the potential CG impacts, and the massive loss of cargo and bag storage space. You could theoretically put the bag storage space at the back of the cabin like on CRJ-200, but that has proven a VERY poor location in practice both because of CG and the loss of cabin space that could otherwise be occupied with seats making the CRJ-200 ultimately cost uncompetitive.

So, I still say the design may be perfectly feasible, but I'm not sure whether operationally it would be practical for an airline.

Apart from all of that, I've wondered why aircraft wing design has not evolved more exotically like F1 wings have, to include a lot more sweeps and bird-like curves. The winglet is about the only example of these more exotic aerodynamic trends. I have to think F1 as an industry spends more on aerodynamic R&D than pretty much anybody. The wings in this prototype seem more reminiscent of the past than cutting edge aerodynamics. Just my 2 cents.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 19335
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:22 pm

YYZLGA wrote:
Revelation wrote:
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.

I don't know about that. Their defense side has taken some big gambles recently, winning the navy stealth tanker and joint trainer competitions, and Wall Street didn't withhold any permission or anything like that.

Defense is a bit different since all cost overruns are covered by the government.

That's true on some contracts, but not all.

For instance Airbus is absorbing the overruns on the A400M and Boeing is absorbing the overruns on the KC-46A.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
SXDFC
Posts: 1865
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 6:07 pm

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:44 pm

Which airline(s) would be likely to order this plane?
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 1140
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:52 pm

Ok, I'm going to try one more time, and then I give up.
enilria wrote:
The question really is where in the fuselage can you put that much fuel...because it would be a lot.
Yes, I am aware exactly how much it is, and I stated the exact numbers in my previous answer to you. You continue to vaguely say it is "a lot", whereas I say it is 24,750 litres. Take note of the difference!
I also specified exactly where it should go.
Strangely, Airbus have already performed the same exercise with their ACTs (Additional Center Tanks)
And, to be fair, you took my hint and eventually came up with that solution too (with reservations).
enilria wrote:
The final obvious option would be to do what they now do with auxiliary fuel tanks and just block a section of the hold space for fuel from the cabin floor to the bottom of the aircraft. That seems problematic because of the volume of fuel, the potential CG impacts, and the massive loss of cargo and bag storage space.
Er… "massive loss of cargo space"? Would you like to quantify that? Like what I did?

I believe Finnair operate their A321s with one or two ACTs in place of ULDs, enabling a full load of passengers (& baggage) between Helsinki and the Canary Islands. The downside is that the return flight is unable to carry as much extra cargo, such as fresh flowers or ready-to-eat avocado pears (mmmmm). The link will show you that each ACT directly replaces one ULD.

Qatar A319LR have provision for up to six ACTs, adding 18,000 liters capacity to the existing 8,250 liter fixed center tank.
Unless my math is wrong, this equates to having the wing tanks empty, and is exactly the solution we need for Boeing's proposal. I haven't heard anybody suggest Qatar's aircraft are unable to perform their role, although it is certainly a fact that their cargo capacity is reduced.
As regards potential CG problems - you'll have to take that up with Airbus in case they overlooked that small detail.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/30183955/All ... 320-Family

All the above is based on existing adaptations to existing airframes. Imagine what we could achieve if we opened our minds to a totally new airframe, designed from the outset to carry all it's fuel within the fuselage! (Yes, I suggested that too... but I cannot claim all the credit; I believe Boeing also have that in mind)

Finding storage space for fuel is a small problem to be traded off versus the gains from a radically different wing. It is not a "killer"

enilria wrote:
So, I still say the design may be perfectly feasible, but I'm not sure whether operationally it would be practical for an airline.

If governments legislate to make less fuel efficient designs unwelcome, if airports cost their landing fees to penalise higher pollution from less fuel efficient designs, and if the price of oil goes up, then the airlines will not have a choice, it will become the ONLY practical solution. It will not be cost uncompetitive, because every airline will be obliged to fly something similar, one model designed by A, another designed by B, and probably a third offering from China, if they ever get their act together.
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1000
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Thu Jan 10, 2019 8:41 pm

enilria wrote:
iamlucky13 wrote:
enilria wrote:
All that wing looks like a lot of drag/fuel burn to me.


It's very high aspect ratio, and quite thin for its span.

I guess, but they still need the wing to hold things like flaps and ailerons, don't they? Fuel tanks? Seems like a lot of frontal surface area to push through the air. Perhaps it needs to fly higher to fix the fuel burn of all that wing in a less dense atmosphere?

I suspect this design has lots of real-world operational problems. The fuel one is big. If the wings are so thin as to not provide space for fuel storage that's a killer as the fuselage rarely has much extra space for fuel storage.


Yes, fuel volume, flap actuators and mounting structure, and other factors could become more challenging in a wing like this.

This kind of design study is never all-encompassing. They usually focus on a couple specific factors and work on optimizing those.

The information generated by this kind of study can then be used to trade configurations like this against other options when considering a new program. I'm confident this is not being shown as work particular to any specific program, such as NSA.

enilria wrote:
Apart from all of that, I've wondered why aircraft wing design has not evolved more exotically like F1 wings have, to include a lot more sweeps and bird-like curves.


Formula 1 has arbitrary (in a physics sense, not from a competitive sense) rules limiting wing dimensions and placement, and the layout of a Formula 1 car results in the wings interacting aerodynamically with a lot of parts compared to the wing of a commercial airliner. My understanding is a lot of the contours and appendages of a Formula 1 front wing are not there to optimize the lift/drag, but to maximize downforce within the allowed dimensions, and to shape the downstream airflow for better interaction with the tires, suspension, cockpit, etc.

Basically, it is not valid to assess level of optimization based on the number of visible features. In fact, no small part of the optimization that has happened within aviation has reduced visible features by finding better ways to accomplish a need originally served by features such vortex generators, mid-span fences, flap slots, etc.

Airbus for example, very subtly changed the twist of the wing from inboard to outboard end between the A350-900 and A350-1000. The benefits were enough they then updated the A350-900 design, gaining around 1% reported fuel savings. I'd doubt anybody outside of the A350 wing team could spot the differences visually (I know I can't), but over the life of the program, it probably amounts to several billion dollars in fuel savings. I wouldn't be surprised if more engineering hours went into that effectively invisible change than all the Formula 1 teams spend combined on their wing designs over multiple seasons.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1062
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Fri Jan 11, 2019 7:28 am

enilria wrote:
iamlucky13 wrote:
enilria wrote:
All that wing looks like a lot of drag/fuel burn to me.


It's very high aspect ratio, and quite thin for its span.

I guess, but they still need the wing to hold things like flaps and ailerons, don't they? Fuel tanks? Seems like a lot of frontal surface area to push through the air. Perhaps it needs to fly higher to fix the fuel burn of all that wing in a less dense atmosphere?

I suspect this design has lots of real-world operational problems. The fuel one is big. If the wings are so thin as to not provide space for fuel storage that's a killer as the fuselage rarely has much extra space for fuel storage.


It's reasonable to suppose that if one of us has thought of it in less than 5 minutes, Boeing is already aware.
 
User avatar
Carlos01
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 11:52 am

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:16 am

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
I believe Finnair operate their A321s with one or two ACTs in place of ULDs, enabling a full load of passengers (& baggage) between Helsinki and the Canary Islands. The downside is that the return flight is unable to carry as much extra cargo, such as fresh flowers or ready-to-eat avocado pears (mmmmm).


That is a fact. Finnair got the newer generation A321s starting in 2013 to replace the B757s on routes to Canary Islands and similar distance destinations like Dubai. They were actually ridiculed at the time in Finland, as people were saying "don't they know that it doesn't have enough range"? Well, with the sharklets, the new IAE V2500 engines, and the additional fueltanks - it turned out it does. Even up to 203 passengers (if my memory serves me correct).

On a sidenote, us, the regular Joes, benefit from this type of solutions. I just bought tickets for me and my better half HEL-DXB-HEL, we pay combined 60000 points +89EUR for taxes. Thanks to the plane type and the ACTs, they consider this an intra-European flight! I cannot believe it.

And regarding this topic, I suppose it would be time for some new breakthroughs in aviation industry. Like someone pointed out, us newer generation avgeeks have never been treated with proper alternative designs.
 
Noshow
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:22 am

What is the point of first designing some "super efficient" straight wing for slow flight with open struts and such and then finetune it to fly faster afterwards? Wouldn't it be better to design some cleaner wing with more sweep for faster flight from the beginning? It feels like they want to do two oppposite things at the same time with none being reached.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 7706
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:26 am

iamlucky13 wrote:
enilria wrote:
iamlucky13 wrote:

It's very high aspect ratio, and quite thin for its span.

I guess, but they still need the wing to hold things like flaps and ailerons, don't they? Fuel tanks? Seems like a lot of frontal surface area to push through the air. Perhaps it needs to fly higher to fix the fuel burn of all that wing in a less dense atmosphere?

I suspect this design has lots of real-world operational problems. The fuel one is big. If the wings are so thin as to not provide space for fuel storage that's a killer as the fuselage rarely has much extra space for fuel storage.


Yes, fuel volume, flap actuators and mounting structure, and other factors could become more challenging in a wing like this.

This kind of design study is never all-encompassing. They usually focus on a couple specific factors and work on optimizing those.

The information generated by this kind of study can then be used to trade configurations like this against other options when considering a new program. I'm confident this is not being shown as work particular to any specific program, such as NSA.

enilria wrote:
Apart from all of that, I've wondered why aircraft wing design has not evolved more exotically like F1 wings have, to include a lot more sweeps and bird-like curves.


Formula 1 has arbitrary (in a physics sense, not from a competitive sense) rules limiting wing dimensions and placement, and the layout of a Formula 1 car results in the wings interacting aerodynamically with a lot of parts compared to the wing of a commercial airliner. My understanding is a lot of the contours and appendages of a Formula 1 front wing are not there to optimize the lift/drag, but to maximize downforce within the allowed dimensions, and to shape the downstream airflow for better interaction with the tires, suspension, cockpit, etc.

Basically, it is not valid to assess level of optimization based on the number of visible features. In fact, no small part of the optimization that has happened within aviation has reduced visible features by finding better ways to accomplish a need originally served by features such vortex generators, mid-span fences, flap slots, etc.

Airbus for example, very subtly changed the twist of the wing from inboard to outboard end between the A350-900 and A350-1000. The benefits were enough they then updated the A350-900 design, gaining around 1% reported fuel savings. I'd doubt anybody outside of the A350 wing team could spot the differences visually (I know I can't), but over the life of the program, it probably amounts to several billion dollars in fuel savings. I wouldn't be surprised if more engineering hours went into that effectively invisible change than all the Formula 1 teams spend combined on their wing designs over multiple seasons.


The wings on a F1 produce relatively little downforce especially if you are in the dirty air behind another car. The main focus is on the front wing and the diffusor. The complicated design of the wing, mirrors and badge boards primarily aims to create airflow and vortexes that seal the underbody against air inflow from the sides, as this makes your diffusor more efficient. On a plane you do not want to create vortexes if you do not have to, as this creates drag. On a F1 car downforce is dominant over drag, when it comes to design choices, on a plane drag and lift are at least equally important.
Last edited by seahawk on Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
ELBOB
Posts: 126
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:56 am

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:27 am

BubbaYugga wrote:
In my best Rod Serling voice: "Imagine if you will, a Mach .80 Shorts 330..."


And to track that design back to its origin, the HD.10 of 1948:

Image

Which led to the HD.45 jet proposal, lost against the Caravelle:

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFA ... 203414.PDF
Last edited by ELBOB on Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:46 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
OlafW
Posts: 235
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:15 pm

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:35 am

Not an aerospace engineer, so maybe I have a misconception here, but I wanted to share a thought that just crossed my mind:

If we take the rendering from the starting post just looking at the wing and combine it with the ovoid shape of the NMA that is widely believed to come (or even confirmed?), maybe that leads us to the solution. As far as I understood until now, the NMA cargo hold could hold two LD3s side by side, but those wouldn't fill the compartment completely. Now what if the containers do not meet in the middle of the frame, but rather are offset to the sides, and the space in between could be used for fuel tanks? I think the holds are loaded from both port and starboard sides anyway, so even if the tanks would run along the full length of the airplane, this wouldn't cause much trouble in regards to loading times. Maybe someone can put this thought into a picture, I'm no good at that.

Do you think that would be feasible?
 
StTim
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:40 am

RJMAZ wrote:
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.


I wonder what coffin corner would look like at 50,000’
 
parapente
Posts: 3040
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:29 am

On the article linked on the other thread started on this subject it stated ( NASA/Boeing) that they were looking at a79% reduction in fuel burn.I and others here questioned this - it must be a typo.However...
We can assume that it will deliver a massive fuel burn delta.Particularly when combined with second gen' super high bypass geared fans.
So you need to store far less fuel anyway.Furthermore even though the wings are thinner they are longer.the area inside the struts is a fully loaded structure so happily take fuel tanks.As above A320's take 30% plus held in central belly box section tanks.
Together can't see why fuel would be an issue at all.What is the optimal max range of such a craft? 3,500nm?
 
parapente
Posts: 3040
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:57 am

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... et-454898/

Ahhh that's better and more logical.Flight has just released an article on the subject.The new wing will deliver fuel savings of 8-10%. Now I can believe that!
Add to that that an aircraft such as this is not likely to emerge for ( say) 10 years min then one will get fuel savings from a lighter carbon fibre body and second gen GTF engines combined perhaps delivering a further 5-10%. If the whole package can deliver a solid 15% sfc saving and perhaps up to 20% max ,then it's becomes a real commercial possibility down the line.
No LCC operator could compete against another company that was using this as their main aircaft Vs conventional.
Btw am assuming this design envisages 3X3 seating - looks like it but impossible to tell.
 
RJMAZ
Topic Author
Posts: 1122
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Fri Jan 11, 2019 11:00 am

StTim wrote:
I wonder what coffin corner would look like at 50,000’

That is definitely outside of my pay grade.

Such an extremely high aspect ratio design might have a coffin corner up near 60,000ft. Flight would be limited to say 50,000ft due to pressurisation stress and descent speed in emergencies.
 
User avatar
enilria
Posts: 8855
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:57 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
It's reasonable to suppose that if one of us has thought of it in less than 5 minutes, Boeing is already aware.

I did notice they aren't building this. It's a concept. There's a reason for that. Being impractical is a common reason for not building concepts. Ever been to an auto show?
 
User avatar
enilria
Posts: 8855
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:59 pm

seahawk wrote:
iamlucky13 wrote:
enilria wrote:
I guess, but they still need the wing to hold things like flaps and ailerons, don't they? Fuel tanks? Seems like a lot of frontal surface area to push through the air. Perhaps it needs to fly higher to fix the fuel burn of all that wing in a less dense atmosphere?

I suspect this design has lots of real-world operational problems. The fuel one is big. If the wings are so thin as to not provide space for fuel storage that's a killer as the fuselage rarely has much extra space for fuel storage.


Yes, fuel volume, flap actuators and mounting structure, and other factors could become more challenging in a wing like this.

This kind of design study is never all-encompassing. They usually focus on a couple specific factors and work on optimizing those.

The information generated by this kind of study can then be used to trade configurations like this against other options when considering a new program. I'm confident this is not being shown as work particular to any specific program, such as NSA.

enilria wrote:
Apart from all of that, I've wondered why aircraft wing design has not evolved more exotically like F1 wings have, to include a lot more sweeps and bird-like curves.


Formula 1 has arbitrary (in a physics sense, not from a competitive sense) rules limiting wing dimensions and placement, and the layout of a Formula 1 car results in the wings interacting aerodynamically with a lot of parts compared to the wing of a commercial airliner. My understanding is a lot of the contours and appendages of a Formula 1 front wing are not there to optimize the lift/drag, but to maximize downforce within the allowed dimensions, and to shape the downstream airflow for better interaction with the tires, suspension, cockpit, etc.

Basically, it is not valid to assess level of optimization based on the number of visible features. In fact, no small part of the optimization that has happened within aviation has reduced visible features by finding better ways to accomplish a need originally served by features such vortex generators, mid-span fences, flap slots, etc.

Airbus for example, very subtly changed the twist of the wing from inboard to outboard end between the A350-900 and A350-1000. The benefits were enough they then updated the A350-900 design, gaining around 1% reported fuel savings. I'd doubt anybody outside of the A350 wing team could spot the differences visually (I know I can't), but over the life of the program, it probably amounts to several billion dollars in fuel savings. I wouldn't be surprised if more engineering hours went into that effectively invisible change than all the Formula 1 teams spend combined on their wing designs over multiple seasons.


The wings on a F1 produce relatively little downforce especially if you are in the dirty air behind another car. The main focus is on the front wing and the diffusor. The complicated design of the wing, mirrors and badge boards primarily aims to create airflow and vortexes that seal the underbody against air inflow from the sides, as this makes your diffusor more efficient. On a plane you do not want to create vortexes if you do not have to, as this creates drag. On a F1 car downforce is dominant over drag, when it comes to design choices, on a plane drag and lift are at least equally important.

But you do need to transition from the need for lift to the the need for low drag. I'm a little surprised that the flap, for example, has not gotten aerodynamically more complex. It's not as if there is a single wing configuration on an airplane.
 
User avatar
QuarkFly
Posts: 336
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:27 pm

Not the first time we have seen this concept...but it is impractical for a modern airliner. This design allows a higher aspect-ratio wing and lower weight for induced drag reduction,...and maybe even some laminar flow on the wing. But, once an airliner is at cruise speed and altitude, most drag is coming from skin friction, over half, and this design won't help -- it could make it worse with the lower support struts.

The high mounted engines would allow larger bypass ratios...but for maintenance, now you have to work at least five meters in the air to get at the engines. Apparently the horizontal stabilizer needs to be a T-Tail, a larger cherry picker to work on that too. I'm sure the high wing and jet wash causes aerodynamic effects at the tail. Practicality sells, this is too awkward for a larger transonic airliner.

This concept could make it, perhaps on a ATR or Q400 replacement, with a turbo prop.
Always take the Red Eye if possible
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 6407
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:39 pm

Let's hope they will tell all operators they need a crane to remove/replace the engine anywhere, not just within mx hangars. Don't want some operator to learn the hard way trying to drop the engine.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21215
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:26 pm

Aquila3 wrote:
And, notably it is a T-tail.
Maybe MD having some say in Boeing design?


If the engines are mounted high because of a high-mount wing, then there just isn't a good place to put the horizontal stabilizer other than at the top of the tailfin where it's out of the engine exhaust path.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 1140
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:37 pm

QuarkFly wrote:
But, once an airliner is at cruise speed and altitude, most drag is coming from skin friction, over half, and this design won't help -- it could make it worse with the lower support struts.
Quick, somebody e-mail the chumps at Boeing - they must have somehow overlooked this aspect of the design..... :roll:

QuarkFly wrote:
The high mounted engines would allow larger bypass ratios...but for maintenance, now you have to work at least five meters in the air to get at the engines.

Five meters? I guess you mean like these poor souls..


Wow, it's funny how these platforms and ladders don't look anywhere near that height, unless you are working on the top-side of the engine. Perhaps the maint men working on them are all 12' tall? :shakehead:
And yet somehow for years they managed.
Go on, tell me the engines on an MD-80 are totally different and not at the same height - I dare you!

QuarkFly wrote:
Apparently the horizontal stabilizer needs to be a T-Tail, a larger cherry picker to work on that too.
That's it then; we'll have to cancel everything.

I have a large number of tall trees on my property, so a few years back I looked into buying an old cherry picker so I could trim them more easily. One of my options was a 5-ton truck based ex-airport machine, with a 60' reach to enable access to 747 tails. It really wasn't that expensive, but I had other fish to fry and let it pass. :cry:
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
User avatar
neutrino
Posts: 1502
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 5:33 pm

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:11 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
QuarkFly wrote:
But, once an airliner is at cruise speed and altitude, most drag is coming from skin friction, over half, and this design won't help -- it could make it worse with the lower support struts.
Quick, somebody e-mail the chumps at Boeing - they must have somehow overlooked this aspect of the design..... :roll:

What, and steal the credit from the knowledgeable Mr Right Honorable QuarkFly? ;)
Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 6407
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:29 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
QuarkFly wrote:
But, once an airliner is at cruise speed and altitude, most drag is coming from skin friction, over half, and this design won't help -- it could make it worse with the lower support struts.
Quick, somebody e-mail the chumps at Boeing - they must have somehow overlooked this aspect of the design..... :roll:

Relax, they have MCAS.
 
User avatar
monomojo
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2018 12:39 pm

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:57 pm

Revelation wrote:
YYZLGA wrote:
Revelation wrote:
I don't know about that. Their defense side has taken some big gambles recently, winning the navy stealth tanker and joint trainer competitions, and Wall Street didn't withhold any permission or anything like that.

Defense is a bit different since all cost overruns are covered by the government.

That's true on some contracts, but not all.

For instance Airbus is absorbing the overruns on the A400M and Boeing is absorbing the overruns on the KC-46A.


Both the MQ-25 and T-X contracts are fixed price, as well.
 
User avatar
monomojo
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2018 12:39 pm

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:02 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Fun! If we ignore the shock waves this is a great idea!

I'm sure there is lots of research going in to how to allow a strut braced wing to achieve subsonic speeds but every time you see one of these proposals they conveniently ignore...

As you seem to know your onions; why is it identified as TTBW = Transonic Truss-based Wing.
What does transonic refer to here?

This a/c is designed to cruise at Mach 0.80 - that's not even high sub-sonic. Will there be shock-wave problems at this relatively slow speed?
The problems will arise at the join between the strut and the wing, as the local airflow goes sonic the shockwaves on each of the sections will encounter shock interference, the bigger the shock the bigger the interference. There are significant shock waves at M0.8.

Fred


The US manufacturer says its new version of the Transonic Truss-based Wing will offer unprecedented aerodynamic efficiency while flying at Mach 0.8.

It has been developed through a collaboration with NASA as part of the Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research (SUGAR) program.

...

The new design came after extensive wind tunnel testing at NASA Ames Research Center.



So both Boeing AND NASA are just conveniently ignoring that obvious problem that you spotted within seconds of looking at a rendering. I sure hope the aerospace industry is paying you good money for your talents!
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2323
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:17 pm

monomojo wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
As you seem to know your onions; why is it identified as TTBW = Transonic Truss-based Wing.
What does transonic refer to here?

This a/c is designed to cruise at Mach 0.80 - that's not even high sub-sonic. Will there be shock-wave problems at this relatively slow speed?
The problems will arise at the join between the strut and the wing, as the local airflow goes sonic the shockwaves on each of the sections will encounter shock interference, the bigger the shock the bigger the interference. There are significant shock waves at M0.8.

Fred


The US manufacturer says its new version of the Transonic Truss-based Wing will offer unprecedented aerodynamic efficiency while flying at Mach 0.8.

It has been developed through a collaboration with NASA as part of the Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research (SUGAR) program.

...

The new design came after extensive wind tunnel testing at NASA Ames Research Center.



So both Boeing AND NASA are just conveniently ignoring that obvious problem that you spotted within seconds of looking at a rendering. I sure hope the aerospace industry is paying you good money for your talents!

Or the guys at NASA and Boeing are studying the integration of adjoining lifting surfaces at these speeds to aid in thing like engine/wing integration to enable a 0.25% fuel saving during cruise and that just doesn’t make as sexy a picture! They aren’t ignoring an obvious problem they are likely working on the problem that is at hand but you’d be a fool to think that it will manifest itself in the rendering shown. Keesjes picture showed the format that this marketing takes and how the end result is largely unchanged to the untrained eye.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
parapente
Posts: 3040
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing unveils new version of radical wing design

Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:45 pm

I think there are those who just love the status quo - bring back the 757!

The idea that Boeing engineers just ignore all the practical aspects of commercial aircaft is simply ludicrous.
Of course this design does show how hard it's getting to improve.This is how far you clearly need to go to get an additional 8-10% saving.
( at the accepted commercial cruising speed - slower would be too easy!).
Nothing's going to happen for 5-10 years anyway but good that they are exploring all the avenues.Wonder what Airbus' guys/ girls think the next step might be?

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

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