Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
TWA302 wrote:Interesting concept.
NOW HIRING! Wing-walkers. We'll need a lot of you!
morrisond wrote:Yes 70% would be rather extreme and good luck on the fuel tank above as others have pointed out.
MrBretz wrote:Does the lack of landing gear in the wings concern anyone?
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.
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.
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.
MrBretz wrote:Does the lack of landing gear in the wings concern anyone?
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.
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!
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.
GalaxyFlyer wrote:Engineers fight over 2% improvements, no way did they miss a 70% improvement in fuel burns.
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.
Western727 wrote:Is this something we should take seriously?
MrBretz wrote:The wings just look too flimsy to hang anything on them
MrBretz wrote:Does the lack of landing gear in the wings concern anyone?
VirginFlyer wrote:The first thing I thought when I saw it was that it is a modern monoplane reimagining of this:
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.
MrBretz wrote:Does the lack of landing gear in the wings concern anyone?
BooDog wrote:Fuel is stored in the TOP of the fuselage? I don't think the FAA will be down with that.
MrBretz wrote:Does the lack of landing gear in the wings concern anyone?
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.
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.
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.