It looks very much like Boeing BWB design of a few years back. I'm guessing that great minds think alike? There was a lot of discussion on A-Net and other places that it might not be much fun to be a passenger sitting so far from the centerline and the center of gravity in turns and such, but that it might be okay for cargo, assuming the body is thick enough to accommodate enough pallets.

This is all from memory, of course, and my brain cells are getting more ancient by the moment! Either way, its great to see some innovation. I'm hoping that we'll see something other than a tube with wings in the near future. I've always wondered why we don't at least see leading edge to fuselage chines or LERXs that could accommodate more fuel and perhaps add some lift in new designs. Again, here's hoping for more innovation!

Did they release any specs/dimensions?

Saying that they have been flying a 2 meter long RC scale model doesn't say much.

itisi wrote:

afgeneral wrote:

alberchico wrote:

You do realize that on most flights, even those taking place during daylight hours, flight attendants will insist that the window shades stay closed for almost the entire trip so people can sleep and watch the seatback entertainment. So. In a way we're already flying in dark windowless tubes.

I've had 0 occasions of FAs asking passengers to close window shades in the past ~150 flights I've been on as a passenger.

It's normal on longhaul, I think it's so the pax sleeping time is from where they left but its light outside is not effected. You are NOT allowed to open them or you wake everyone up.

The original poster claimed it happens on MOST flights. Clearly false.

VV wrote:

Do they put the vertical fins on the nacelle?
That's interesting because I wouldn't do it.

That is the first thing that struck me when I saw the video. After the UA DC-10 crash in Iowa, I think combining the vertical fin with the engine nacelle is a potential disaster waiting to happen.

Boeing and NASA have been researching a blended wing aircraft for years. Here's Boeing's version https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28blrKKg0Uo

It is difficult to see from the video, but it appears Boeing's version has a central tube design that is blended into the wings. This might solve the center axis/turbulence concerns if so. It is also interesting that that the engines on Boeing's BWB are mounted above the aircraft separate from the vertical fins. My concern again is the effect of an uncontained engine failure on control surfaces. The vertical fins are in back of the engines which could be problematic, yet it appears the fins do not have any flaps or other controls. Schrapnel hitting a fin may not be catastrophic if no hydraulics or electrical cables are located within. But what of other areas directly below and behind these engines?

Will these planes, if built, be limited to the large wide body category aircraft we have today or would all aircaft -- 220 and 737 sized craft sport this new design.

And will these BWBs fit in currently configured gates or will airports need to space gates further apart?

My final thought with respect to Boeing's design is the challenge of keeping the aircraft from titling backwards given the two sizeable engines mounted high on the rear of the aircraft.

I am in the "Give Me Windows or I'm Not Going" camp. I'm sure they can design some windows someplace -- perhaps towards the front of the plane -- windows facing forward would give passengers an exciting new perspective.

Lots to think about with these new planes!

JAAlbert wrote:

I am in the "Give Me Windows or I'm Not Going" camp. I'm sure they can design some windows someplace -- perhaps towards the front of the plane -- windows facing forward would give passengers an exciting new perspective.

Glass bottoms with a view down to the ground would also be nice. Seriously: Give me a good screen and some nice camera views, particularly one from a tail, and I can do without any windows.

Aptivaboy wrote:

It looks very much like Boeing BWB design of a few years back. I'm guessing that great minds think alike?

very small wingtip devices, a much fuller center body. is my observation correct: flexible leading edge flaps?

is my observation correct: flexible leading edge flaps?

On the video of the flying model that Airbus posted on Youtube, it seems to have leading edge devices, yes.

I could actually see the passengers being seated forward where the fuselage is narrower. Windows there would give a partial forward view, a very unique perspective. And, being narrower there, they wouldn't be subject to as severe dynamic forces as passengers seated further outboard. Time will tell...

I'd be curious to see the industrial scheme that Airbus would adopt for a blended wing aircraft. I mean, the frontiers between outer wings / center wingbox / fuselage / HTP wouldn't be so obvious anymore. The legacy work sharing between the different Airbus factories would probably need to be amended in order to get the most rational manufacturing plan for such an aircraft. Interesting times ahead.

FlyRow wrote:

LaunchDetected wrote:

TMccrury wrote:

It seems that KLM has been working on one as well or funding someone who is and it doesn't look like the one from Airbus. Here is a link from Sam Chui on Youtube as well as a link from Flight Global about it.

It's nearly this exact plane in KLM branding.

Except the KLM one is much better looking... the original McDonnell Douglas BWB design with winglets

keesje wrote:

A bit of PR Greenwashing, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/greenwashing.asp spending R&D money, something usefull might get out of it. we are really commited to sustainability.. while growing air traffic 5% / yr.

Meanwhile typical BWB challenges remain (flat heavy pressure vessels, emergency evacuation requirements, stretching/ capacity customization, passenger accelaration in turns, yawing.

The engine configuration on this concept would be certified as single engine. (one uncontained engine failure taking out the other).

A few years back during NMA discussion I cut and pasted what Boeing is doing, and even so proved overly optimistic. Airbus does the same..

I believe this is the 4th 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?

alberchico wrote:

Yonderlust wrote:

rigo wrote:

To hell with this. I won't be flying on anything that does not have windows (not screens).

Exactly! And we thought 10 across was bad...LOL

You do realize that on most flights, even those taking place during daylight hours, flight attendants will insist that the window shades stay closed for almost the entire trip so people can sleep and watch the seatback entertainment. So. In a way we're already flying in dark windowless tubes.

It’s a question of situational awareness in the event of an emergency. Without windows it would be impossible, for instance, to determine which side of the aircraft is safe for evacuation.

Beech

rigo wrote:

To hell with this. I won't be flying on anything that does not have windows (not screens).

Likewise. It's part of the joy of flight to look out a window for me.

"You do realize that on most flights, even those taking place during daylight hours, flight attendants will insist that the window shades stay closed for almost the entire trip so people can sleep and watch the seatback entertainment. So. In a way we're already flying in dark windowless tubes."

I have had attendants on Cathay and Singapore insist that the shades stay down. One one, can't remember which, they would go down the aisles with a wood clothes hangers and slam them down hard. On a couple of other flights (on U.S. and European airlines) they have asked over the PA that the shades stay down and of course in some hot cities they've asked to keep them down until takeoff to help keep the cabin cooler.
Not having a real window would be an issue to those with inner ear problems too.

itisi wrote:

afgeneral wrote:

alberchico wrote:

You do realize that on most flights, even those taking place during daylight hours, flight attendants will insist that the window shades stay closed for almost the entire trip so people can sleep and watch the seatback entertainment. So. In a way we're already flying in dark windowless tubes.

I've had 0 occasions of FAs asking passengers to close window shades in the past ~150 flights I've been on as a passenger.

It's normal on longhaul, I think it's so the pax sleeping time is from where they left but its light outside is not effected. You are NOT allowed to open them or you wake everyone up.

What utter nonsense ... 1500 + flights with window seats since the 1960's ... times told to close the shades by anyone ... ZERO

gloom wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

Bingo.

Along with evac - and of course pressurising the thing.

But if the latter two can be worked around with design, the first is intrinsic to the concept. How do you avoid passengers falling ill as a result of manoeuvres?

How bad the effect really is?

I would think it's not as bad as some people think. We already have a long planes in X axis (forward-back), some as long as 80m. It means there are passengers as far as about 30m from CoL, and they are moving up and down during all maneuvres, from takeoff (rotation) to climb adjustments, to descend and landing, and also during turbulence which often raises/lowers nose. Did you hear much about people compleining of that? I haven't.
So, why do you think it would be much worse in Y axis (wing to wing)?

Cheers,
Adam

I had the same point, but also keep in mind that peak roll rate is not the same as peak pitch rate. I think aircraft can usually roll faster than they can pitch. However, some "envelop encouragement" in the fly-by-wire design should be possible to help flight crews keep the experience comfortable with respect to both axes.

TMccrury wrote:

It seems that KLM has been working on one as well or funding someone who is and it doesn't look like the one from Airbus. Here is a link from Sam Chui on Youtube as well as a link from Flight Global about it.

https://youtu.be/cZJzD7bhE_Y

https://www.flightglobal.com/programmes ... 42.article

I've always liked the Tu-114's tall gear, but don't see what purpose it serves on this concept. The engines are high mounted, and the lack of a normal tail should mean extremely low tail strike risk from shorter gear.

Ishrion wrote:

Unfortunately, windows, like seat-back video screens, cushioned seats, and real inflight meals all will be a thing of the past with this aircraft. Airline marketers will FOCUS GROUP the question;

“would you as traveler forgo a TINY little window to help create a GREENER more environmentally friendly world, allowing a more carbon neutral footprint so the whales and your children will have more air to live!” HOW DARE YOU want a window rather than allowing miracle children like Greta to live and breathe clean air. HOW DARE YOU!

Later to save weight, simplify, and reduce maintenance costs; the “bean counters” will remove the projected views from the faux windows too; after FOCUS GROUPING that too and creating fake social media buzz on websites to shape policy and opinion as is currently done!

It’s a great looking plane!

rigo wrote:

PepeTheFrog wrote:

rigo wrote:

To hell with this. I won't be flying on anything that does not have windows (not screens).

They can make fake windows on the the inside, then camera's project the outside on the fake windows.

You won't notice the difference.

That's the strawman once used by Tim Clark but it's nonsense. Seeing something with my own eyes as opposed to watching it on a tv screen makes all the difference in the world. Especially a tv screen interrupted every two minutes by announcements and ads.

Right. But Average Joe doesn't care, and aviation enthusiasts like you and me are just a tiny small number of the airline's revenue.

Well, to get the discussion moving a bit beyond the windows (the Hyperloop wouldn't have windows either, it doesn't stop its fans to be ecstatic about it), I must say that I remain a bit sceptical about the ability of a blended wing aircraft to easily blend into airport operations and even into a passenger aircraft. Here are a few points that come to my mind:

1) doors: they need to remain a usable evacuation path in case of belly landing. This precludes hinged stairs on the lower side of the cabin. That sort of stairs would also eat a significant floor area. On the other hand, installing doors on the leading edge of the wing would expose them to bird strikes. While they could probably sustain the impacts, they would need to remain functional after an impact in order to be available for an emergency evacuation. I'm not sure how easy it would be to design such doors. Would the door integration reveal too challenging, one could imagine a simplified blended wing aircraft in the shape of a delta-canard type of aircraft. This would allow to install the doors on a classical fuselage tube while the end of the fuselage would be blended into the delta wing or most probably just a swept wing.

2) In direct relation with the doors configuration there is the airport integration issue and in particular, the gate integration. In order to keep using boarding bridges, doors will be required on the leading edge. This brings us back to 1). On the other hand, the catering loading could be managed via integrated elevators located in the vicinity of the galleys. This would require the catering carts to be rolled on the tarmac into the elevator. An elevator door would be installed on the lower surface of the body.

3) pressurized compartment: as other have already mentioned it, going for a wide, flatish pressurized compartment poses some structural challenges, offsetting some benefits of the blended wing concept.

4) Risk of double engine failure in case of uncontained engine failure. I believe that the target is not to prevent any risk of double failure but to limit the risk of occurrence to the same rate than on the current twin engine aircraft. That means installing the engine as far apart from each other as possible (in order to minimize the angle of exposure of one engine to the debris of the other engine). Besides this optimized configuration, we could consider local reinforcement of the engine casing to minimize the risk of uncontained debris in the direction of the other engine as well as minimize the chances of penetration of uncontained debris in the intact engine. It would be a small penalty to pay in comparison with the benefits of a blended wing aircraft.

All in all, I'm not convinced yet that the blended wing concept can work. I remain more bullish on the slightly asymmetric twin-fuselage concept, the right-side fuselage being a few meters longer than the left one in order to allow the boarding bridge to connect to it from the left side. The twin-fuselage concept brings some benefits of the blended-wing concept, mainly to better spread the payload along the span, without the challenges of the pressurized flat-compartment. I believe that it would also allow to increase the payload/fuel-volume ratio compared to today's single fuselage configuration which should be stretched to unpractical lengths in order to achieve the same ratio. I would see those twin-fuselage aircraft featuring 5 or 6 abreast twin-fuselages set 10 to 12 m apart. The main wing would be equipped with fairly long folding wing-tips in order to still fit in Code-C gates. This concept would allow to park the equivalent of 2 A220 at a single gate.

Just wait till SqueezyJet gets hold of them and you'll be able to enjoy 40-abreast and play Chinese whispers to get a pot noodle.

NeBaNi wrote:

keesje wrote:

A bit of PR Greenwashing, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/greenwashing.asp spending R&D money, something usefull might get out of it. we are really commited to sustainability.. while growing air traffic 5% / yr.

Meanwhile typical BWB challenges remain (flat heavy pressure vessels, emergency evacuation requirements, stretching/ capacity customization, passenger accelaration in turns, yawing.

The engine configuration on this concept would be certified as single engine. (one uncontained engine failure taking out the other).

A few years back during NMA discussion I cut and pasted what Boeing is doing, and even so proved overly optimistic. Airbus does the same..

I believe this is the 4th 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?

Fundamental problems to be solved just over the horizon. Or not, the problems refuse to go away. That's why we don't have passenger BWB's as presented over the last 50 years. Aerodynamics are just 1 of many enablers of a usefull concept. Sweet dreaming is fine as long as we don't fool the bigger public.

mileduets wrote:

JAAlbert wrote:

I am in the "Give Me Windows or I'm Not Going" camp. I'm sure they can design some windows someplace -- perhaps towards the front of the plane -- windows facing forward would give passengers an exciting new perspective.

Glass bottoms with a view down to the ground would also be nice. Seriously: Give me a good screen and some nice camera views, particularly one from a tail, and I can do without any windows.

No way.

When the pilot misjudges the flare the view of that may be horrifying.

tomcat wrote:

1) doors: they need to remain a usable evacuation path in case of belly landing. This precludes hinged stairs on the lower side of the cabin. That sort of stairs would also eat a significant floor area. On the other hand, installing doors on the leading edge of the wing would expose them to bird strikes. While they could probably sustain the impacts, they would need to remain functional after an impact in order to be available for an emergency evacuation. I'm not sure how easy it would be to design such doors. Would the door integration reveal too challenging, one could imagine a simplified blended wing aircraft in the shape of a delta-canard type of aircraft. This would allow to install the doors on a classical fuselage tube while the end of the fuselage would be blended into the delta wing or most probably just a swept wing.

.
.

If a door is damaged then its unusable. Same as today. Doors can be damaged or an entire side be unusable. I

beechnut wrote:

It’s a question of situational awareness in the event of an emergency. Without windows it would be impossible, for instance, to determine which side of the aircraft is safe for evacuation.

Beech

You're either going forward or backward, I'd assume it would be easy to tell.

I started following aviation seriously when i was around 12 so late 90s. I"m pretty sure the BWB concepts of back then looked more or less exactly what this looks like. Until I see one built it's exactly that...a concept. But I like how most of the thread has now been devoted to windows.

WIederling wrote:

Aptivaboy wrote:

It looks very much like Boeing BWB design of a few years back. I'm guessing that great minds think alike?

very small wingtip devices, a much fuller center body. is my observation correct: flexible leading edge flaps?

Years ago, I recall seeing a BWB concept by Dassault in Aviation Week. Even though Airbus now owns just under 10 percent of that concern, it's possible this design is an evolution of that concept. Similar to the way Boeing essentially inherited its BWB design from McDonnell-Douglas. Sheer speculation of course but I somehow doubt it's an entirely new design but rather an outgrowth of some of Dassault's R&D. I can't find a link to prove or disprove that, however.

afgeneral wrote:

alberchico wrote:

Yonderlust wrote:

Exactly! And we thought 10 across was bad...LOL

You do realize that on most flights, even those taking place during daylight hours, flight attendants will insist that the window shades stay closed for almost the entire trip so people can sleep and watch the seatback entertainment. So. In a way we're already flying in dark windowless tubes.

I've had 0 occasions of FAs asking passengers to close window shades in the past ~150 flights I've been on as a passenger.

Yeah, on longhaul outside the US it happens all the time. They'll tell you that the sun is coming up at some point and you may fall asleep so please close the window. Cathay will give you about two hours of the window open after takeoff. Of course if you are 6 ft 2 in and built like a rugby fullback they won't ask.

I like KLM/TU Delft Flying-V interior concepts. Airbus Maveric and others should bring those concepts to production.

rigo wrote:

To hell with this. I won't be flying on anything that does not have windows (not screens).

OK boomer.

BTT this becomes reality we all will have chips in our heads and crew can send sleep signal. No windows or cabin service would be necessary.

Windows are overrated anyway. Only a tiny portion of pax have access to them and those who have access keep hurting their neck.

A 360 degree camera view is much better. VR headsets can replace both IFE and windows.

You can be my blended wingman any day...

Starfuryt wrote:

I started following aviation seriously when i was around 12 so late 90s. I"m pretty sure the BWB concepts of back then looked more or less exactly what this looks like. Until I see one built it's exactly that...a concept. But I like how most of the thread has now been devoted to windows.

Hilarious! A and B should take note - at the end of the day, everyone is thinking about windows. Design accordingly.

I agree that the BWB has been around forever, studied, government funds used to promote the concept, yet after decades A and B have very impressive model airplanes. A.net folks have discussed the pros and cons of this concept for just about as long, with concerns about turbulence and turning for seats situated farther out on the wing, and the benefits of substantially increased fuel efficiency touted as benefits. I wonder what A and B officials really think about the BWB concept. My sense is that the turbulence issue can be addressed in the design process, so what is really hampering introduction of a BWB aircraft is concern over the public perception of such a dramatically different looking plane. Airlines don't want to invest in such a plane out of fear the consumers will refuse to fly it, and if the airlines won't buy it, A and B won't build it.

Perhaps this is an occasion where A and/or B just need to commit to the project, demonstrate the BWB's superior qualities, and aggressively market the plane. It could be an instance of if they build it they will come.

Fascinating that this kind of testing is done by scaled drone, essentially. How recent is that development?

Given all the passenger safety and comfort challenges mentioned above, I would think that the first development for a BWB would be as a cargo freighter, which makes those concerns moot. Even so, there would be challenges there too, like ramps configured to optimize space around legacy freighters, and the loss of commonality with containers. If those could be overcome, and I can't imagine that large cargo airlines wouldn't at least be interested, then the next obvious development is a military MRTT. Maybe an inside-outside combi configuration could be possible, although you'd lose a lot of space to cross-passages required for evacuation.

rigo wrote:

To hell with this. I won't be flying on anything that does not have windows (not screens).

X2

PHLCVGAMTK wrote:

Fascinating that this kind of testing is done by scaled drone, essentially. How recent is that development?

Impression is a bit in the direction of "hands on student projects" and some value PR to raise interest in engineering as a career path?

PHLCVGAMTK wrote:

Fascinating that this kind of testing is done by scaled drone, essentially. How recent is that development?

Given all the passenger safety and comfort challenges mentioned above, I would think that the first development for a BWB would be as a cargo freighter, which makes those concerns moot. Even so, there would be challenges there too, like ramps configured to optimize space around legacy freighters, and the loss of commonality with containers. If those could be overcome, and I can't imagine that large cargo airlines wouldn't at least be interested, then the next obvious development is a military MRTT. Maybe an inside-outside combi configuration could be possible, although you'd lose a lot of space to cross-passages required for evacuation.

The problem is that the military doesn't care enough about fuel efficiency to fund the development. There isn't enough large freighter demand to fund the development. You need to have viability as a passenger plane to fund the development.

Forgetting about the window issue (which can certainly be solved with large OLED screens and high resolution cameras with a few real windows just for evacuation situational awareness), the only way that a BWB is viable as a passenger plane is if the weight associated with the not close to circular cross section doesn't eat up most of the efficiency gains. Also, the evacuation issue must also be solved. Without solving those issues, a BWB is DOA except as a very cool model plane.

BTW, I don't know why this is such big news when Boeing flew their model plane 6 years earlier. I guess Airbus' marketing team did a good job revealing a "secret" project like it was the Stealth Bomber.

tomcat wrote:

1) doors: they need to remain a usable evacuation path in case of belly landing. This precludes hinged stairs on the lower side of the cabin. That sort of stairs would also eat a significant floor area.

Simple solution; emergency doors both in the floor, and the roof.
First choice, the lower doors, with "magic" steps that turn into a slide if required.
When not in use, the internal floor area would be... the aisles.

Second choice (in case of belly landing); the roof exits. As the aircraft is now lower to the ground, there will be no problem walking across the wing and dropping straight down to the ground. There will be issues regarding the minority of passengers who are disabled and unable to climb the steps onto the roof, but they can be directed towards additional exits at the rear - somewhere between the twin tails (well protected from bird strikes and crash damage)

On the other hand, installing doors on the leading edge of the wing would expose them to bird strikes. While they could probably sustain the impacts, they would need to remain functional after an impact in order to be available for an emergency evacuation. I'm not sure how easy it would be to design such doors.

Why struggle with the leading edge, when you have all that lovely space between the tails? You could install an emergency exit the width of a cargo door, and have people exiting down a shallow ramp, eight-abreast. Something akin to the rear stairs on the old 727, DC-9, Caravelle & others, but much better.


Obviously this could not be the only exit available, in case it directed people into a fire zone, but it would be the primary route in most cases.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

tomcat wrote:

1) doors: they need to remain a usable evacuation path in case of belly landing. This precludes hinged stairs on the lower side of the cabin. That sort of stairs would also eat a significant floor area.

Simple solution; emergency doors both in the floor, and the roof.
First choice, the lower doors, with "magic" steps that turn into a slide if required.
When not in use, the internal floor area would be... the aisles.

Second choice (in case of belly landing); the roof exits. As the aircraft is now lower to the ground, there will be no problem walking across the wing and dropping straight down to the ground. There will be issues regarding the minority of passengers who are disabled and unable to climb the steps onto the roof, but they can be directed towards additional exits at the rear - somewhere between the twin tails (well protected from bird strikes and crash damage)

On the other hand, installing doors on the leading edge of the wing would expose them to bird strikes. While they could probably sustain the impacts, they would need to remain functional after an impact in order to be available for an emergency evacuation. I'm not sure how easy it would be to design such doors.

Why struggle with the leading edge, when you have all that lovely space between the tails? You could install an emergency exit the width of a cargo door, and have people exiting down a shallow ramp, eight-abreast. Something akin to the rear stairs on the old 727, DC-9, Caravelle & others, but much better.


Obviously this could not be the only exit available, in case it directed people into a fire zone, but it would be the primary route in most cases.

And would double as a great way to load Cargo as a Freighter.

M564038 wrote:

I would never fly on anything that have Windows.
Not even Boeing have windows, and they are from Seattle!

rigo wrote:

To hell with this. I won't be flying on anything that does not have windows (not screens).

A350 OIS system uses Windows

kyu wrote:

rigo wrote:

PepeTheFrog wrote:

They can make fake windows on the the inside, then camera's project the outside on the fake windows.

You won't notice the difference.

That's the strawman once used by Tim Clark but it's nonsense. Seeing something with my own eyes as opposed to watching it on a tv screen makes all the difference in the world. Especially a tv screen interrupted every two minutes by announcements and ads.

Plus, the change in perspective when the position of the eyes moves can hardly be mimicked by the screen. If that's not done, you will notice the difference instantly.

True....no screen in existence today can replace seeing with your own eyes.....also, I don't understand this discussion of 20%, etc. Even passengers who are away from the window seat still do get a degree of comfort from looking over to the window and seeing blue sky or clouds or blackness outside.....it gives one a sense of perspective and reality, even if sitting on an inside seat.....while natural light may be disturbing at times when passengers are sleeping, it lends some cheer to an otherwise drab cabin....in these concept planes, the hypothetical screens would be just another set of screens in our lives (adding to the phones and laptops and tablets that we stare at all day long)….and even the so-called "screen" windows would have to be "turned off" when passengers are sleeping.....so then, instead of cabin attendants coming around and telling you to lower the shades, they will just turn off your screen from a central location......hope I don't ever have to fly on one of those.....

keesje wrote:

NeBaNi wrote:

keesje wrote:

A bit of PR Greenwashing, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/greenwashing.asp spending R&D money, something usefull might get out of it. we are really commited to sustainability.. while growing air traffic 5% / yr.

Meanwhile typical BWB challenges remain (flat heavy pressure vessels, emergency evacuation requirements, stretching/ capacity customization, passenger accelaration in turns, yawing.

The engine configuration on this concept would be certified as single engine. (one uncontained engine failure taking out the other).

A few years back during NMA discussion I cut and pasted what Boeing is doing, and even so proved overly optimistic. Airbus does the same..

I believe this is the 4th 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?

Fundamental problems to be solved just over the horizon. Or not, the problems refuse to go away. That's why we don't have passenger BWB's as presented over the last 50 years. Aerodynamics are just 1 of many enablers of a usefull concept. Sweet dreaming is fine as long as we don't fool the bigger public.

But half of the designs in your picture aren't BWBs...

NeBaNi wrote:

keesje wrote:

NeBaNi wrote:

I believe this is the 4th 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:

Fundamental problems to be solved just over the horizon. Or not, the problems refuse to go away. That's why we don't have passenger BWB's as presented over the last 50 years. Aerodynamics are just 1 of many enablers of a usefull concept. Sweet dreaming is fine as long as we don't fool the bigger public.

But half of the designs in your picture aren't BWBs...

Well, if you want more awesome innovation,
that is gonna change the way we travel,
while preserving the environment for our
grandchildren, just google around a bit
to get what you want

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/mach/these ... ncna745806
https://www.google.com/search?q=blended ... 0&bih=1057

UPS757Pilot wrote:

Good for freight.

You’d need tapering containers from the shape of the fuselage? Hard to see any interest. I just don’t see PAX wanting to fly in these windowless frames on long haul flights.

Just not the right time.

keesje wrote:

NeBaNi wrote:

keesje wrote:

Fundamental problems to be solved just over the horizon. Or not, the problems refuse to go away. That's why we don't have passenger BWB's as presented over the last 50 years. Aerodynamics are just 1 of many enablers of a usefull concept. Sweet dreaming is fine as long as we don't fool the bigger public.

But half of the designs in your picture aren't BWBs...

Well, if you want more awesome innovation,
that is gonna change the way we travel,
while preserving the environment for our
grandchildren, just google around a bit
to get what you want

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/mach/these ... ncna745806
https://www.google.com/search?q=blended ... 0&bih=1057

And none of them are projected to enter into service at the same time as the NMA, which is what your picture was implying... So I don't see how those two additional articles prove your point.

If it is much more efficient for the same interior volume then aim it at freight and 1 pilot is obviously more attractive than two.
If it gains traction in the freight market then passenger airlines will be unable to ignore the cost benefits to them later.
Freight companies have the money to buy these new if they are cheaper to run in the long term.

gloom wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

Bingo.

Along with evac - and of course pressurising the thing.

But if the latter two can be worked around with design, the first is intrinsic to the concept. How do you avoid passengers falling ill as a result of manoeuvres?

How bad the effect really is?

I would think it's not as bad as some people think. We already have a long planes in X axis (forward-back), some as long as 80m. It means there are passengers as far as about 30m from CoL, and they are moving up and down during all maneuvres, from takeoff (rotation) to climb adjustments, to descend and landing, and also during turbulence which often raises/lowers nose. Did you hear much about people compleining of that? I haven't.
So, why do you think it would be much worse in Y axis (wing to wing)?

Cheers,
Adam

Because typical pitching of the plane does not happen quickly. I think the most a plane typically pitches is during rotation and climb out, where a pilot takes a good 4 seconds or more to rotate the plane from 0* to 15-20*, then holds in that pitch for a while. There is no oscillation. So, the dude sitting in the very front of the 346, 35m in front of the center of gravity, only "rises" 12m from the rotation alone, about 3 m/s.That's less than an elevator in a high-rise building.

Let's say the Airbus BWB has a wingspan similar to a 346 - about 60 meters. That places the passengers furthest away from the centerline around 25m out. For a typical 20* bank maneuvering near takeoff or landing, that passenger would rise or fall 8.5m from the horizon. That by itself is a bit much, considering that it might take less than 2 seconds to get there. Then what about an S-turn? Now, you're going from 8.5m below to maybe 8.5m above the horizon in 3-4 seconds. I don't know about you, but I'd vomit.

I'm not a pilot, so this my math is probably crude AF. I'd love to hear a counter though!

D L X wrote:

I'm not a pilot, so this my math is probably crude AF. I'd love to hear a counter though!

Your math seems to me going one side, yours , but it's not the point here. See some points from other side, though: if it gets difficult for people, you can restrict roll rate on most cases; People will not all seat on the end of wing, if any; X axis oscillations (especially when starting descend) are restricted only by effectivity and inertia, so I'd say descend start is pretty much what you could expect from BWB.

I'd rather opposite with this one: it's not the av speed that counts, but an acceleration rather. Even if we accept roll rate to be 8m in 2secs, be it more-or-less for estimation constant acceleration, it gives change from 0.6 to 1.4g (4m/ssq, if my math serves me well). And that's on tip of wing, which will not be the case, in the end you'll have likely around half of it. This is almost exactly the acceleration in hold (up to 1.3g on 30deg bank, 1.2g on 25deg bank), where you have it for 60seconds every 2 minutes (say this is the holding path; 1 min leg).

Do you get sick on holdings? It's not what I particularly like, but nonetheless I have not seen anyone get sick.

Still, it's just arguments based on current planes, so unless someone gets a real sim for that, we're not gonna know 100%.

Cheers,
Adam

pasen wrote:

Airbus has posted a video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgDRkNseNxU

I would love to be in that cabin. The 22nd century is calling!

planecane wrote:

Didn't Boeing show this concept like 15 years ago and do some flight tests with a scale model?

Not saying a BWB will never happen but the concept isn't exactly speeding towards production.

IIRC, one of the biggest issues with the concept (besides evac) is the movement experienced by the passengers in the outboard seats when in a bank.

Yes Boeing had a scale model. Check: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/file ... 201-01.jpg

But Boeing believes BWB is an unpractical design:

Don’t look for commercial BWB airplane any time soon, says Boeing’s future airplanes head

PepeTheFrog wrote:

pasen wrote:

Airbus has posted a video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgDRkNseNxU

I would love to be in that cabin. The 22nd century is calling!

So where do you want to seat ? For me, in the front left corner seat, please !