Tri-wing concept claims to cut fuel consumption by 70%

Western727 · Fri May 14, 2021 1:57 pm

Tri-Wing by SE Aeronautic, capable of hauling 264 pax over 10,500 miles. Is this something we should take seriously? https://robbreport.com/motors/aviation/ ... 234613101/

Fair use excerpt:

SE Aeronautic’s new SE200 prototype takes a disruptive approach to every metric in ultra-wide-body aircraft design and performance. The tri-wing design, with a double tail fin and two engines mounted to the rear, will be able to accommodate 264 passengers, but will consume 70 percent less fuel than a similar-sized jet.

Its projected range of 10,500 miles, with a top speed of Mach .90 (690.5 mph), is also greater than other jets in its class. The high-lift wing design gives the SE200 short takeoff and landing potential, thus increasing the number of smaller airports it could access.

Note: if this has been posted please advise. The news link was posted yesterday, so I may have missed a duplicate post here while searching earlier before making this post.

TWA302 · Fri May 14, 2021 2:06 pm

Interesting concept.

NOW HIRING! Wing-walkers. We'll need a lot of you!

Newark727 · Fri May 14, 2021 2:09 pm

The ghost of Manfred von Richtofen is pleased by this development

744SPX · Fri May 14, 2021 2:19 pm

My eyes are watering.

Western727 · Fri May 14, 2021 2:27 pm

TWA302 wrote:
Interesting concept.

NOW HIRING! Wing-walkers. We'll need a lot of you!

Haha, that's true! I wonder about its claimed 264-seat capacity. I wasn't able to find anything on 1/2/3 classes or seat width. So in the absence of further information at this point I'll guess that it's similar in capacity to a point between the 752 and 753. Its wingspan is less than that of the 757's wing at 116' vs 125'. If this were to happen, that'd allow it to park in 737NG gates (118 ft w/winglets).

And what's interesting is the claimed 1,500 ft takeoff performance and 50,000 ft ceiling. Of course, they're likely "just" marketing figures that don't reflect reality (e.g., MTOW on an 80F day from an elevation of, say, 1,500' MSL). I'm willing to bet it's closer to maybe 3,000 ft rwy performance with a real-world ceiling of perhaps 40,000-45,000 ft. Still impressive, if true.

Boeing757100 · Fri May 14, 2021 2:36 pm

How expensive would maintenance be on this design again?

IADCA · Fri May 14, 2021 2:47 pm

Why start at this size when you're trying to do single-barrel construction and things like fuel in a bladder in the crown of the fuselage, forked tail, three sets of wings? That's a lot of engineering challenges to roll in at once.

Why not start with a smaller plane - like a 50-seater or even smaller, where there's certainly a business opportunity for a jet with anything close to a 70% fuel savings - and scale up?

It's things like that that make me pretty suspicious here; perhaps they are looking for a big funder and hoping that showing a big-plane concept will get more attention, but we see a lot of these pie-in-the-sky designs and claims with no actual math behind them.

ILNFlyer · Fri May 14, 2021 2:51 pm

When they produce a prototype with actual numbers from flight testing, then the world will take notice. Until then, grain of salt.

admanager · Fri May 14, 2021 2:56 pm

Branniff Airlines said it in 1965. The end of the plain plane.

BooDog · Fri May 14, 2021 3:02 pm

Fuel is stored in the TOP of the fuselage? I don't think the FAA will be down with that.

GalaxyFlyer · Fri May 14, 2021 3:04 pm

Engineers fight over 2% improvements, no way did they miss a 70% improvement in fuel burns.

ER757 · Fri May 14, 2021 3:58 pm

I hope it comes to be just to see something this different than the endless parade of tube with wings twins at airports these days. When I read the OP before clicking the link, I was thinking more along the lines of the old Fokker Tri-Plane with the wings stacked one on top of the other. But linear wings....weird

morrisond · Fri May 14, 2021 4:11 pm

Yes 70% would be rather extreme and good luck on the fuel tank above as others have pointed out.

It kind of reminds me of this modified Cessna 182 with a Carnard. Way better take-off/landing performance and faster/more efficient in cruise.

https://www.katmai-kenai.com

Maybe a more interesting fuel source could be crown mounted battery for something like this - the wings could generate a lot of lift to help offset the weight - either that or build it like some of the Zero E concepts with the Fuel (Kerosene/Hydrogen) behind the passenger cabin before the engines.

DartHerald · Fri May 14, 2021 4:30 pm

morrisond wrote:
Yes 70% would be rather extreme and good luck on the fuel tank above as others have pointed out.

... but it would be a much smaller fuel tank! Which in turn raises the question why the wings couldn't still be used, even if their capacity is much lower., there woulld be three times as many, after all!

MrBretz · Fri May 14, 2021 5:03 pm

Does the lack of landing gear in the wings concern anyone?

morrisond · Fri May 14, 2021 5:06 pm

Looking through there website it really just seems like a pipe dream. I doubt they have even done any real analysis on the concept other than in something like X-Plane the video game.

They don't list any partners at all and they are going to get this done in 10 years? OK then. It seems like it really is just a promotion to try and get some suckers to pony up some capital that will end up in the 4 People identified on the website pockets.

Quite frankly - I'm sure if 4 or 5 of us put our heads together we could do better. If we managed to raise any capital we would have to make sure we set enough aside to pay for lawyers for the inevitable SEC investigation later.

IADCA · Fri May 14, 2021 5:10 pm

MrBretz wrote:
Does the lack of landing gear in the wings concern anyone?

You mean because there's 3 sets of wings, or what? I mean, A320 gear retracts into the wingbox under the center fuse and there are a couple of those around these days. From a single image, this looked pretty similar.

MrBretz · Fri May 14, 2021 5:24 pm

IADCA wrote:
MrBretz wrote:
Does the lack of landing gear in the wings concern anyone?

You mean because there's 3 sets of wings, or what? I mean, A320 gear retracts into the wingbox under the center fuse and there are a couple of those around these days. From a single image, this looked pretty similar.

The wings just look too flimsy to hang anything on them even if they were to retract under the fuselage. But what do I know.

Mat1776 · Fri May 14, 2021 5:33 pm

Given that the volume is proportional to cubic power of linear dimension, the smaller wings may yield less fuel tank volume than that of a single larger wing of similar lift capacity.

Gut feeling aside, I will have to do some analysis, though.

32andBelow · Fri May 14, 2021 5:42 pm

IADCA wrote:
MrBretz wrote:
Does the lack of landing gear in the wings concern anyone?

You mean because there's 3 sets of wings, or what? I mean, A320 gear retracts into the wingbox under the center fuse and there are a couple of those around these days. From a single image, this looked pretty similar.

ATR too

JoseSalazar · Fri May 14, 2021 5:42 pm

Good luck with that. Just like Zunum aero was gonna have flying electric RJs in a couple years. Pipe dream.

IADCA · Fri May 14, 2021 5:52 pm

MrBretz wrote:
IADCA wrote:
MrBretz wrote:
Does the lack of landing gear in the wings concern anyone?

You mean because there's 3 sets of wings, or what? I mean, A320 gear retracts into the wingbox under the center fuse and there are a couple of those around these days. From a single image, this looked pretty similar.

The wings just look too flimsy to hang anything on them even if they were to retract under the fuselage. But what do I know.

We're just going on eyeballs, but if you can hang engines plus gear from a Dash wing, gear alone probably works on something that looks like this. That strikes me as pie-in-the-sky issue 7,588 or so with this concept, but I get what you mean.

ikramerica · Fri May 14, 2021 6:02 pm

One must also remember that aircraft design is not just about what flies best, but what works on the ground.

These aircraft would be difficult to taxi, wouldn’t work at many rotunda style terminals, and would lead to many tip strike incidents.

Now maybe the leading wing could be shorter and also fold upward?

And with multiple wing boxes why wouldn’t fuel be stored there?

And with rear engines how do they balance the weight as fuel is depleted? And how do they overcome the engine maintenance issues of the DC10 et al?

VirginFlyer · Fri May 14, 2021 7:47 pm

The first thing I thought when I saw it was that it is a modern monoplane reimagining of this:

V/F

DocLightning · Fri May 14, 2021 7:58 pm

Two features will be especially excellent for aerodynamic efficiency:

1) Having the two trailing wings in the wake of the first.
2) Three times the wingtips.

From a structural standpoint, all the extra reinforcement in the fueslage to hold up the fuel tanks in the overhead space will most certainly lighten the airframe and also having the fuel tanks up there will present an optimal safety situation that the FAA will most certainly appreciate.

Finally, single-engine designs are a cutting-edge solution for optimum efficiency and safety. You don't even have to bother with a Vr!

:stirthepot:

SRQLOT · Fri May 14, 2021 8:06 pm

I wanted to say that maybe the Simpsons will be spot on on the future of airplanes, from the episode "Lisa's Wedding" into the future where Lisa finds a British fiancé!!

I can't find the image! But it had 10 or so wings stacked up! haha

FlyingHonu001 · Fri May 14, 2021 8:31 pm

Gonna be a challenge for pushback tugdrivers...

Pilot: Pushback approved and we need to do a U turn before going on the alleyway
Pushback: Uh oh... :crazy:

AEROFAN · Fri May 14, 2021 8:32 pm

MrBretz wrote:
Does the lack of landing gear in the wings concern anyone?

Who said landing gear have to be in the wings. Clearly, this is intended to be a rethink of the concept of an aircraft.

MrBretz · Fri May 14, 2021 9:00 pm

Re: VirginFlyer’s Caproni Ca.60, Wikipedia says “It proved unstable and crashed on its second flight.” I think I will retire my wet blanket.

btfarrwm · Fri May 14, 2021 9:26 pm

It will be fun to try and load/unload/fit cargo in a plane with 3 wingboxes.

A3bilbaNEO · Fri May 14, 2021 10:34 pm

6 wings? Structural redundancy...

IADCA · Fri May 14, 2021 11:04 pm

MrBretz wrote:
Re: VirginFlyer’s Caproni Ca.60, Wikipedia says “It proved unstable and crashed on its second flight.” I think I will retire my wet blanket.

To be fair, that's twice the longevity I'd have expected.

umichman · Fri May 14, 2021 11:11 pm

DocLightning wrote:

Finally, single-engine designs are a cutting-edge solution for optimum efficiency and safety. You don't even have to bother with a Vr!

There are actually two engines in the back. One in the tail and one above it.

VirginFlyer · Fri May 14, 2021 11:14 pm

MrBretz wrote:
Re: VirginFlyer’s Caproni Ca.60, Wikipedia says “It proved unstable and crashed on its second flight.” I think I will retire my wet blanket.

V/F

jagraham · Fri May 14, 2021 11:21 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Engineers fight over 2% improvements, no way did they miss a 70% improvement in fuel burns.

VirginFlyer · Fri May 14, 2021 11:34 pm

Here is the link to their website: https://www.seaeronautics.com/

Joking comparisons to the Ca.60 aside, it will be interesting to see if they are able to back up the concept with a working prototype.

Certainly the tandem triplane configuration is not completely unheard of:

You’ll note in all three of those cases the wings are of different spans, and for two of them are also on different vertical planes.

V/F

flyingclrs727 · Fri May 14, 2021 11:42 pm

Some of its secrets: Fuel storage will no longer take place in the wings, so the designers made them thinner and more aerodynamic. Instead, the fuel is stored on a bladder on top of the fuselage, part of the aircraft’s singular design.

So fuel is stored in bladders above the passengers. I would sure hate to be in one that crashes.

Devilfish · Sat May 15, 2021 1:11 am

Western727 wrote:
Is this something we should take seriously?

Aaah...the bleeding edge of staggered-wing design -- the wings do not have to be above each other anymore! :wideeyed:

MrBretz wrote:
The wings just look too flimsy to hang anything on them

Just imagine how many engines like these you can hang from three pairs of wings..... :crazy:

https://robbreport.com/wp-content/uploa ... jpg?w=1000

MrBretz wrote:
Does the lack of landing gear in the wings concern anyone?

Perhaps that's the reason why it is being proposed by a company called SEAeronautics -- it's meant to skim over the water? They should have named it SEA EAGLE instead :!:

VirginFlyer wrote:
The first thing I thought when I saw it was that it is a modern monoplane reimagining of this:

At least they wouldn't have had to move the IAF pedestrian bridge to accomodate the SE200..... :lol:

https://www.portseattle.org/sites/defau ... k=F056DV6N

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdEXEQHcDLo&t=32s

zuckie13 · Sat May 15, 2021 2:24 am

It's a concept - but with no sign of any actual engineering done yet. Probably took a couple hours to render that images, another couple hours to make the website, and boom - you are ready to go fishing for dollars.

DocLightning · Sat May 15, 2021 4:37 am

zuckie13 wrote:
It's a concept - but with no sign of any actual engineering done yet. Probably took a couple hours to render that images, another couple hours to make the website, and boom - you are ready to go fishing for dollars.

May they catch some! A fool and his money...

flyer56 · Sat May 15, 2021 6:14 am

Quirky design. Wing spans seem the same on all three wings though they are not on the same plane, especially the rear wing. In the video and on the company website the wing tips sometimes go up, sometimes down, sometimes split, and sometimes missing entirely. Possibly the secret to the 70% fuel savings? And 70% compared to which aircraft exactly?

pdxav8r · Sat May 15, 2021 7:20 am

MrBretz wrote:
Does the lack of landing gear in the wings concern anyone?

B-52?

rbavfan · Sat May 15, 2021 10:43 am

BooDog wrote:
Fuel is stored in the TOP of the fuselage? I don't think the FAA will be down with that.

What about the 146 jet, ATR-42/72, DO-328jet & prop & AN148/AN158.

HBJZA · Sat May 15, 2021 11:45 am

And ESOPS to be implemented then??!!

amstone17 · Sat May 15, 2021 1:02 pm

MrBretz wrote:
Does the lack of landing gear in the wings concern anyone?

why would it? There are a great many aircraft that have pulled this off, typically high wing aircraft from heavy transports and bombers, to turboprops and regionals.

amstone17 · Sat May 15, 2021 1:03 pm

Western727 wrote:
Tri-Wing by SE Aeronautic, capable of hauling 264 pax over 10,500 miles. Is this something we should take seriously? https://robbreport.com/motors/aviation/ ... 234613101/

Fair use excerpt:

SE Aeronautic’s new SE200 prototype takes a disruptive approach to every metric in ultra-wide-body aircraft design and performance. The tri-wing design, with a double tail fin and two engines mounted to the rear, will be able to accommodate 264 passengers, but will consume 70 percent less fuel than a similar-sized jet.

Its projected range of 10,500 miles, with a top speed of Mach .90 (690.5 mph), is also greater than other jets in its class. The high-lift wing design gives the SE200 short takeoff and landing potential, thus increasing the number of smaller airports it could access.

Note: if this has been posted please advise. The news link was posted yesterday, so I may have missed a duplicate post here while searching earlier before making this post.

So many concepts with great claims have fizzled out over the years that at this point i want to see it before I believe anything.
Supersonic concept companies still playing around years behind schedule and still making bold claims while failing to fly even tech demonstrators.

At a glance, I want them to first prove the wings don't completely mess with each other by creating all sorts of goofy turbulence that basically destroys any lift the second and third wings can generate.
People tried stuff like this in the early 1900s and there's a reason why we stopped.

amstone17 · Sat May 15, 2021 1:04 pm

flyingclrs727 wrote:
Some of its secrets: Fuel storage will no longer take place in the wings, so the designers made them thinner and more aerodynamic. Instead, the fuel is stored on a bladder on top of the fuselage, part of the aircraft’s singular design.

So fuel is stored in bladders above the passengers. I would sure hate to be in one that crashes.

Fuel or no fuel, people generally hate being in any aircraft that crashes.

FlyHossD · Sat May 15, 2021 1:49 pm

zuckie13 wrote:
It's a concept - but with no sign of any actual engineering done yet. Probably took a couple hours to render that images, another couple hours to make the website, and boom - you are ready to go fishing for dollars.

I understand that they have a major sponsor - some prince from Nigeria, I think.

zuckie13 · Sat May 15, 2021 1:50 pm

Wouldn't this design have a really bad tendency to want to roll. This puts the fuel weight at the top, and has the engine weight biased towards the top. Combined with lightweight construction, won't this thing just want to roll over?

zeke · Sat May 15, 2021 2:29 pm

No way that wing will do M0.9 without sweep

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net