Pihero
Topic Author
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:18 am

It's Tuesday eve and it's time for a trip to Leeham.net.
I wasn't disappointed as some commentaries are worth sharing.
This article is a lesson by Rudy Hillinga - the ex-Boeing salesman - in the strategy of our favoutite airplane makers and reminds me a bit of the old "Sporty Game " book that came ouit some years ago : how the manufacturers place their planes as pawns in order to check the opponent, how to play the spin game -"...while Boeing predicted a market for no more
than 350 A380s during the next 20 years, after Airbus launched the aircraft in 2001,
Boeing is suddenly forecasting a market for 960 aircraft in the 450+ seat category, in the
same time period, after the launch of the 500-seat 747-8..."

His reasons for forecasting the success of a VLA :"...Yes, the relative number of 747 aircraft did also decline in the long range market over the
same 20 years, as Boeing claims.
However, the following major changes have already taken place and will continue to get
worse during the foreseeable future, which I believe will drastically reverse the above
trend because of the rapidly worsening levels of congestion already being experienced at
the major hubs..."

Then a few comments on the co-existence of both the VLA and the P to P airplanes...
and :..."The latest publicly released data on BWB developments at Boeing confirm that a 550-
seat BWB, with a capacity identical to the A380, will have a minimum 30% lower fuel
burn/operating cost advantage over the "tube and wing" configured A380 from Airbus.
This data was published before the development of the much more fuel-efficient engines
for the 787/A350, as well as their carbon fiber structures. This new technology is now
also available for application to the BWB, making this airplane even more efficient than
the A380 compared to what it was on the drawing board only a few years ago...
"

The rest of the article is HERE
Contrail designer
 
D L X
Posts: 12512
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:23 am

The BWB rears its head again. But, can someone tell me two points from a passenger experience standpoint:
1) how are they going to make this thing work when there will be passengers 50+ feet from the nearest window, and
2) won't the people who are further away from the centerline of the aircraft experience incredible motion sickness each time the plane rolls?

The technology seems pretty impressive, and I believe Boeing and other BWB cheerleaders when they talk about efficiency gains. But I just don't see this thing working with animate creatures as the cargo. And if it did, wouldn't Airbus have thought of it also? I mean, they've got some pretty smart people over in Toulouse and Hamburg, don't they?
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9267
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:23 am

I sincerely doubt Boeing will build an airplane that will seat 550+ people in the conceivable future. However, a 375-500 seat airplane is a distinct possibility given the need for a long-long-term 773ER and 747-8 replacement. If Boeing could finally take advantage of the BWB's theoretical benefits, it could have a serious implications on the Airbus' hopes to use the A380-800 as a platform for subsequent generations of VLA.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
CJAContinental
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 9:03 pm

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:31 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 1):
50+ feet from the nearest window

In nearly every wide body aircraft, most of the passengerrs do not have a window relatively near to them, such that they cannot really see whats goind on outside anyway. I do not think it will make much of a difference.

However, with stronger transparent meterials, and innovative minds, I'm sure boeing would want to solve this problem as a major priority if the program ever did launch, for the sake of passenger comfort.

[Edited 2007-07-10 23:33:24]
Work Hard/Fly Right.
 
eatmybologna
Posts: 375
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 3:21 am

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:39 am

Quoting CJAContinental (Reply 3):
In nearly every wide body aircraft, most of the passengerrs do not have a window relatively near to them, such that they cannot really see whats goind on outside anyway. I do not think it will make much of a difference.

However, with stronger transparent meterials, and innovative minds, I'm sure boeing would want to solve this problem as a major priority if the program ever did launch, for the sake of passenger comfort.

I believe that if Boeing were to go with a commercial BWB, they'd most likely install large PVDs that would give passengers access to multiple outside cameras. How cool would it be to have a view point straight to the ground? Or even from the captain's perspective?
Isn't knowledge more than just the acquisition of information? Shouldn't the acquired information be correct?
 
ikramerica
Posts: 14955
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:40 am

Quoting CJAContinental (Reply 3):
In nearly every wide body aircraft, most of the passengerrs do not have a window relatively near to them, such that they cannot really see whats goind on outside anyway. I do not think it will make much of a difference.

There is a big difference between sitting in your living room and sitting an an auditorium even if you sit in the middle of both rooms...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26505
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:46 am

I knew I guy in 777 Structures who looked into not having windows at all on the 777, but instead project the "sky outside" onto the interior walls. However, the cost and weight of the equipment was well beyond what the windows themselves were, so it was abandoned.

With the technology advances in audio/video the past decade, this might no longer be so crazy. I know BMW projected a "sky" onto the ceiling of their original A350 cabin mock-up proposal. And things like mood lighting and the fiber-optic "stars" EK uses on their A345 in First Class could all be used to add to the effect, in addition to the fancy multi-angle camera views available via IFE. And something like the Japanese "himaware" sunlight transmission system could be used to bring in natural light.

As to body roll, that can be handled by computerized flight control and motion-dampening systems, I imagine.

Still, I remain skeptical about the flying public's readiness to take to a BWB. I also wonder how well one would integrate into existing airport gate areas and such.
 
SirDeath
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:45 am

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:47 am

I've thought for a long time that cameras all over the aircraft could not only let pax see some really awesome views of the ship, but help the pilots see the status of the ship in case of an emergency. My biggest concern about the BWB concept is emergency exits. The current way emergency exits art rigged, one has to be close to a window, i.e., the side of the fuselage, where on the BWB, most people won't be. If you have exits only on the top, what happens if landing takes place inverted. Exits in the floor present a problem because you'd have to go through the fuel tanks or the cargo hold. If the ship lands at an angle like and the bottom exits are blocked, survivors at the bottom are boned. Not insurmountable problems, but I've yet to hear any positive solutions...
 
HAL
Posts: 1773
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 1:38 am

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:47 am

Quoting CJAContinental (Reply 3):
In nearly every wide body aircraft, most of the passengerrs do not have a window relatively near to them, such that they cannot really see whats goind on outside anyway. I do not think it will make much of a difference.

There is a big difference between being 10 feet away from a window in a 747 vs. 50+ feet away in a BWB aircraft. But beyond that, DLX hit the mark when he said:

Quoting D L X (Reply 1):
2) won't the people who are further away from the centerline of the aircraft experience incredible motion sickness each time the plane rolls?

Airline passengers (and crew) are used to being very close to the centerline of the roll axis in today's aircraft. In a BWB they could be a fairly large distance from that centerline and feel larger movement every time the plane rolls into or out of a turn. Unlike the brief (and minimal) up/down sensations felt when today's planes pitch up or down, aircraft do much more movement in roll. That would be felt much more frequently by passengers out at the ends of the passenger cabin in a BWB as rapid up/down movement combined with roll - not something to experience if you have a motion-sensitive stomach.

HAL
One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
 
Thorny
Posts: 1508
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 8:44 am

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:50 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 1):
The BWB rears its head again. But, can someone tell me two points from a passenger experience standpoint:
1) how are they going to make this thing work when there will be passengers 50+ feet from the nearest window, and
2) won't the people who are further away from the centerline of the aircraft experience incredible motion sickness each time the plane rolls?

1) With the enormous savings from the BWB design, they could splurge and put lightweight monitors in the seatback in front of them with cameras showing what's going on outside. That could actually result in more people having a view than on tube-and-wing designs (middle aisles, for example, are no better off than a BWB would be.)

2) Cargo and fuel will be outboard, passengers in the center. The bigger problem will be evacuation so far from the doors.
 
CJAContinental
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 9:03 pm

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:51 am

Quoting Eatmybologna (Reply 4):
I believe that if Boeing were to go with a commercial BWB, they'd most likely install large PVDs that would give passengers access to multiple outside cameras. How cool would it be to have a view point straight to the ground? Or even from the captain's perspective?

I was thinking along the same lines. Maybe they'll place huge windows in areas that a lot people can easily access at one time.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 5):
There is a big difference between sitting in your living room and sitting an an auditorium even if you sit in the middle of both rooms...

Sure, if the inside of the aircraft is very open, and you are aware of the 20 or so passengers either side of you, then yeah that would feel very weird. Though I could imagine areas to be "walled off", to make it seem more like the tube design to passengers, so the interior of the aircraft does not necessarily need to have the dimensions of an auditorium, making it seem more normal.
Work Hard/Fly Right.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26505
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:56 am

I imagine the evacuation problems are not nearly so difficult. In fact, it may not be necessary to evacuate a BWB in only 90 seconds since the passenger cabin would be "enclosed" inside much of the structure which, properly designed, could allow the cabin to absorb more crash energy without rupturing and new fire-resistant materials inside, plus external extinguishing systems to protect the cabin exterior, might allow significantly more time for evacuation.
 
Pihero
Topic Author
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:02 am

So nobody believes in a passenger-carrying BWB then ?
Did I hear a sigh of relief from Toulouse and Bremen ?  Wink
Contrail designer
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26505
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:03 am

Quoting Pihero (Reply 12):
So nobody believes in a passenger-carrying BWB then?

Will it happen? I imagine it will.

Will it happen by the end of the next decade? I imagine it won't.
 
EI321
Posts: 4998
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:11 am

Why would Boeing need to spend billions on an aircraft to take on an aircraft that they say is not worth doing?

Quoting D L X (Reply 1):
1) how are they going to make this thing work when there will be passengers 50+ feet from the nearest window

They wont. Unless everybody has ejection seats. The evacuation problem alone is enough to kill the idea IMO.

Quoting D L X (Reply 1):
2) won't the people who are further away from the centerline of the aircraft experience incredible motion sickness each time the plane rolls?

Not as big an issue as your first point.
 
D L X
Posts: 12512
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:18 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
As to body roll, that can be handled by computerized flight control and motion-dampening systems, I imagine.

I'm not talking about turbulence, but rather simple aileron turns. Think about it: a 777 has a 200' wingspan. When doing a 45 degree bank, one wing drops 70 feet while the other rises 70 feet. All in about a second and a half. That's greater than 1 G. In other words, that's faster than an object would fall if it were simply dropped and gravity took over.

Quoting Thorny (Reply 9):
2) Cargo and fuel will be outboard, passengers in the center. The bigger problem will be evacuation so far from the doors.

If cargo and fuel is outside the wings, I'm pretty sure the physics suck all the efficiency away. You want the heavy stuff near the middle of the plane. (Think about this: with the heavy cargo and fuel far from the center, instead of dropping and raising people 70' in just over a second, causing them to puke, you're raising and dropping much heavier cargo and fuel 70' in just over a second, which takes a whole lot of energy, and will stress the frame.

Quoting EI321 (Reply 14):
Not as big an issue as your first point.

I don't know. I'm pretty hardy, but I'm certain that would be cleanup on aisle 3 the first time the plane turns.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26505
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:25 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 15):
I'm not talking about turbulence, but rather simple aileron turns. Think about it: a 777 has a 200' wingspan. When doing a 45 degree bank, one wing drops 70 feet while the other rises 70 feet. All in about a second and a half. That's greater than 1 G. In other words, that's faster than an object would fall if it were simply dropped and gravity took over.

I understand that. My argument is that those systems won't allow banking maneuvers of more then 1G (or so) within normal flight envelopes to keep the passengers comfortable. In other words, BWBs won't bank at the rate current airliners do, but will do so slower and more gently.
 
D L X
Posts: 12512
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:31 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 16):
In other words, BWBs won't bank at the rate current airliners do, but will do so slower and more gently.

That sounds really dangerous -- limiting what the plane can do, for passenger comfort. That would mean cross-wind landings are out, and taking evasive action to avoid a collision is also out.

[Edited 2007-07-11 00:39:32]
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:35 am

How about this... put the fuel and the bags near the outside of the axis. Keep the passengers closer in.
 
EI321
Posts: 4998
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:43 am

Quoting Flighty (Reply 18):
How about this... put the fuel and the bags near the outside of the axis. Keep the passengers closer in.

But then where do you put the windows and doors?

Boeing has been proposing passenger BWBs since the 60s. There is even a promotional video floating about from back then.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:57 am

So far, I haven't seen any data about the forces that would be acting upon passengers in a BWB and how those forces would compare to those in the nose and tail of the current longest planes.

I don't think they would be all that bad. You would only have to go six seats wider to make a BWB carry the same as a 380, provided the rows were the same. That's 3 per side...4 if you count aisles. I can't see how that would make much of a difference. Passengers wouldn't even be as far out from center as the engines in a 787.

I think the exit thing would be more of a stickler. Still, I can't imagine that Boeing will be willing to pony up the tens of billions of dollars required for another tube with wings, unless the experience with the 787 makes it super cheap. The efficiencies of a BWB totally beat the crap out of the tube/wings.

I would not be surprised at all to see Boeing do a bit of a push on the BWB concept.
What the...?
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9267
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:04 am

This topic is constantly regurgitated. This is the NW DC-9 of theoretical aircraft....

Quoting EI321 (Reply 14):
Why would Boeing need to spend billions on an aircraft to take on an aircraft that they say is not worth doing?

Because you touch yourself instead of reading what Boeing's market outlook actually says? Boeing has a market outlook that justifies the need for VLA through 2020-2030. However, neither Airbus nor Boeing predict a market large enough to justify two new airplanes. Once Airbus launched the A380, it was pointless for Boeing to launch a new VLA unless they wanted to be the stronger of two losers. Two decades from now, it could be a different story especially if Boeing has a design that trumps Airbus ability to modernize the A380.

Quoting D L X (Reply 15):
I'm not talking about turbulence, but rather simple aileron turns. Think about it: a 777 has a 200' wingspan. When doing a 45 degree bank, one wing drops 70 feet while the other rises 70 feet. All in about a second and a half. That's greater than 1 G

A BWB doesn't need a passenger cabin 200' wide. While some concepts show up to 30 abreast in economy with five isles, just 12-16 (2+4+4+2 or 2+4+4+4+2) abreast would be sufficient to gain the some of the advantages of a BWB. That only puts the window passengers a few more feet from the roll axis than today's widebodies.

Quoting D L X (Reply 17):
That sounds really dangerous -- limiting what the plane can do, for passenger comfort.

Then don't fly on the 777, 787, A320 A330/A340, A380. All have various automated systems and control restrictions for the purpose of comfort and safety.

Quoting D L X (Reply 15):
If cargo and fuel is outside the wings, I'm pretty sure the physics suck all the efficiency away. You want the heavy stuff near the middle of the plane. (Think about this: with the heavy cargo and fuel far from the center, instead of dropping and raisin people 70' in just over a second, causing them to puke, you're raising and dropping much heavier cargo and fuelg 70' in just over a second, which takes a whole lot of energy, and will stress the frame.

No, not necessarily. A BWB airliner might still have cargo containers under the passenger floor and fuel in the wings like conventional airplanes. It's probably not going to look like a Popular Science fold-out. It's going to look like a very stumpy fuselage that blends into a lifting body.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
MD-90
Posts: 7836
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:17 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 15):

I'm not talking about turbulence, but rather simple aileron turns. Think about it: a 777 has a 200' wingspan. When doing a 45 degree bank, one wing drops 70 feet while the other rises 70 feet. All in about a second and a half. That's greater than 1 G. In other words, that's faster than an object would fall if it were simply dropped and gravity took over.

Airliners never bank 45 degrees with passengers aboard and they never do any sort of banking quickly (15-20 deg, not 45!), to avoid scaring the passengers. This problem could most likely be solved by FBW limits.
 
Wsp
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 7:43 am

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:44 am

I wonder how they keep the CG under control when the wings are filled with passengers instead of kerosene...
 
ZiggyStardust
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:37 am

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:45 am

Long time reader. Finally joined.

I was reading the BWB debate and was wondering what if instead, it looked like a B2 instead of just a flat wing. Then you passengers can sit in the centre without having to worry about airsickness. The body and the wing can form a lifting body. Another advantage is it makes evacuations easier.
 
nosedive
Posts: 2176
Joined: Sun May 23, 2004 2:18 pm

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:44 am

Quoting CJAContinental (Reply 10):
Though I could imagine areas to be "walled off", to make it seem more like the tube design to passengers, so the interior of the aircraft does not necessarily need to have the dimensions of an auditorium, making it seem more normal.

That's just what I want when the plane is on fire, more fire proof material that will burn after about 10 minutes. That, and the inability to keep smoke out of my "compartment."

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
In fact, it may not be necessary to evacuate a BWB in only 90 seconds since the passenger cabin would be "enclosed" inside much of the structure which, properly designed, could allow the cabin to absorb more crash energy without rupturing and new fire-resistant materials inside, plus external extinguishing systems to protect the cabin exterior, might allow significantly more time for evacuation

Ok, so lemme get this strait, you'd seal off part of the plane in an emergency. Just how would you do that and not kill people? Let's say compartment J is on fire. Compartment J has 30 people. Your options will quickly become, seal off Compartment J ASAP, killing everyone in compartment J to save the other compartments, or keep compartment J open to get the passengers out, only to have the fire spread. Sounds like this plane would be so over engineered that it'd just be do heavy to fly.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 22):
Airliners never bank 45 degrees with passengers aboard and they never do any sort of banking quickly (15-20 deg, not 45!), to avoid scaring the passengers. This problem could most likely be solved by FBW limits.

Fine, 35 feet, still causing grandma to puke.

Quoting ZiggyStardust (Reply 24):
Another advantage is it makes evacuations easier.

Welcome to a.net, but how is this possible?

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 21):
It's going to look like a very stumpy fuselage that blends into a lifting body.

True, but I guess my issue here is what happens when the left wing tanks rupture and only 1/2 the exits can be used?
 
drexotica
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 3:44 am

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:53 am

From my perspective, this is the next generation of commercial aviation. Boeing, Airbus, and others will engineer the problems (evacuation, flight control, personal exterior views, etc.). Such an aircraft may not be proposed in the next five years, but we will see something proposed before 2020 in this regard. I am always amused at the Luddites on this forum that occasionally raise their heads.

On a related note - this reminds me of heated bar room conversations (circa early 1990s) that I had with young USAF Academy cadets (I was living south of Denver near the Springs at the time) regarding future fighters. The development of the Lockheed YF-22 was the rage at that time. My contention was that it was only a matter of time before fighter pilots sitting in aircraft were obsolete. Seems that UCAV research and development are the hot topics in military aviation at present.

It is all progress.
N707PA - Best looking commercial aircraft ever.
 
ZiggyStardust
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:37 am

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:54 am

Quoting Nosedive (Reply 25):

Welcome to a.net, but how is this possible?

I'm thinking that passengers sit in the middle, where the "hump" in the B2 is. For evacuations, there are doors that passengers can open to escape onto the wing.

After my last post, I thought of another disadvantage with a BWB. How would one be stretched/shrunk to create other members of the family? On a tube plane, just add frames, but doing that to a BWB will destroy the aerodynamics. Is it feasible to increase/decrease capacity by making the plane wider/narrower?
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1666
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:55 am

Quoting Nosedive (Reply 25):
True, but I guess my issue here is what happens when the left wing tanks rupture and only 1/2 the exits can be used?

The exits aren't on the side of the passenger cabin.

Cheers
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1666
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:19 am

Quoting Pihero (Thread starter):
how the manufacturers place their planes as pawns in order to check the opponent, how to play the spin game -"...while Boeing predicted a market for no more
than 350 A380s during the next 20 years, after Airbus launched the aircraft in 2001,
Boeing is suddenly forecasting a market for 960 aircraft in the 450+ seat category, in the
same time period, after the launch of the 500-seat 747-8..

Lets look at this a little closer.

8 years ago Boeing foracast 350 A380s (your number) in 20 years. We have gone thru 8 of those 20 years, and have approx 160 on order. Therefore, Airbus need to sell 200 more in the next 12 years to make Boeing's number come true.

On the other hand, Airbus said there was a need for 1500 or so A380s in 20 years, therefore they need receive orders for approx 1350 new frames in the next 12 years.

I wonder which is more likely.

Cheers
 
ORDfan
Posts: 567
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 6:02 am

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:20 am

Quoting ZiggyStardust (Reply 27):
I'm thinking that passengers sit in the middle, where the "hump" in the B2 is. For evacuations, there are doors that passengers can open to escape onto the wing.

This is a very interesting concept. The only BWB images I've seen seem to indicate a triangular-shaped cabin, and I think a lot of a.netters have this same interpretation of the BWB concept, which would create an unfamaliar cabin for modern-day passengers, and is obviously a source of contention among the above posters.

But upon futher examination of the B-2 aircraft, it is true that the B-2 has a noticeable "hump" which runs nearly 3/4 of the length of the plane. Maybe something along these lines would prove a good compromise, whereby the interior cabin can retain its tube-like shape (or at least a half-oval), simply mounted into a BWB design. It could have two aisles and windows on both sides, just like modern aircraft.

By the way, why is it assumed that the blended-wing design is so efficient and the next design direction for civilian airliners. The B-2 was designed in the 80s, and it is the only BWB aircraft widely-used today (does the F-117 count??). There have been no other military or cargo aircraft that have employed this design concept since -- so why are so many posters so sure that this is going to be he next generation of aircraft design. Futhermore, if I remember correctly, the blended-wing concept itself dates back to the late 40s with the YB-49. There have been plenty of opportunities for the design to work its way into military and civilian designs since, but the concept really hasn't taken-off, so I guess I'm not so certain that this is definitely the way airliners are going to look in our lifetimes....

[Edited 2007-07-11 03:21:13]
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26505
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:46 am

Quoting Nosedive (Reply 25):
Ok, so lemme get this strait, you'd seal off part of the plane in an emergency. Just how would you do that and not kill people? Let's say compartment J is on fire. Compartment J has 30 people. Your options will quickly become, seal off Compartment J ASAP, killing everyone in compartment J to save the other compartments, or keep compartment J open to get the passengers out, only to have the fire spread. Sounds like this plane would be so over engineered that it'd just be do heavy to fly.

My argument is compartment J won't catch on fire in the first place... Nor will any other passenger compartment... At least not within the first 90 seconds of impact (said impact being deemed a "survivable" one).

[Edited 2007-07-11 03:47:11]
 
azhobo
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:52 pm

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:11 am

as far as BWB design issues ...30-40% more fuel efficient than the A380 gives you plenty of leeway for design engineers to overcome these obstacles. And if A thinks Boeing does not have the know how to overcome this, then they may be caught napping once again.

Windows is really a non issue. Gives you alot more aisle seats I would imagine, which are probably more sought after than window seats anyways. some of the 30-40% efficiency improvements could easily be translated into more luxurious seats and entertainment systems.

Got to put the gas somewhere. Start the tanks at the tip of the wings and increase going inward till you reach range you need. Take away from some of the concerns about passengers on the outward edges. I think the sea sickness argument will easily be overcome with flight controls.

Exits. Dont need them, noone going to get on one, much to scary to get on that strange beast.

HOBO
 
khobar
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:12 am

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:12 am

Quoting Pihero (Thread starter):
Boeing is suddenly forecasting a market for 960 aircraft in the 450+ seat category

Over the next 20 years, passenger and cargo airlines will take delivery of approximately:

* 3,700 regional jets - below 90 seats
* 17,650 single-aisle airplanes - 90-240 seats, dual-class
* 6,290 twin-aisle airplanes - 200-400 seats, tri-class
* 960 airplanes 747-size or larger - more than 400 seats, tri-class

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/news/2007/q2/070613a_nr.html

The 960 number includes freighters. The number of seats is simply a size classification.
 
User avatar
malaysia
Posts: 2644
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 1999 3:26 am

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:36 am

This definitely is what I rather hope to see, Id rather be on a BWB airliner than on those silly rockets that land with a propeller
There Are Those Who Believe That There May Yet Be Other Airlines Who Even Now Fight To Survive Beyond The Heavens
 
PVG
Posts: 465
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 7:39 pm

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:13 pm

I think that the issue of having windows on a plane is a non-issue. I've been on 2 flights recently in the middle of the day. As soon as we got to cruising altitude, the shades came down and 80% of the passengers fell asleep. I'm fairly certain that a solution can be found if this is the only issue that holds the BWB back.
 
fridgmus
Posts: 1296
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:28 am

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:21 pm

What about an Oval shaped fuselage? Kind of like a cross between a BWB and what we have today?

Any of you with the knowledge care to speculate?

Thanks,

Marc
The Lockheed Super Constellation, the REAL Queen of the Skies!
 
bigjku
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:42 pm

Quoting EI321 (Reply 14):
Why would Boeing need to spend billions on an aircraft to take on an aircraft that they say is not worth doing?

I think the only way Boeing plays with an all new aircraft in the A380 market is if they decide to build an 11 or 12 wide 777 replacement that starts out with a capacity around the 777-300. Then they could stretch it out to cover the 500 plus market.

However I don't think they are going to do that in the near term. If they do I could still see them building 787-10 and possibly even the 11 as it would probably offer a better CASM if not nearly the cargo capacity.
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:46 pm

Quoting Pihero (Thread starter):
Boeing is suddenly forecasting a market for 960 aircraft in the 450+ seat category

Rudy Hillinga doesn't read the CMO closely enough. 960 over the next 20 years includes a large number of cargo aircraft in the 748F / A380F class. And he also mis-identifies the 748I as a 500-seat aircraft. IMHO, a disjointed and poorly argued piece of commentary that makes no "dollars and sense".

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
As to body roll, that can be handled by computerized flight control and motion-dampening systems, I imagine.

 checkmark  The bank profile can be tailored to minimize the "jerk" (third derivative of position) and limit the vertical acceleration to less than a tenth of a G. That is hardly limiting the maneuverability of the aircraft.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 12):
So nobody believes in a passenger-carrying BWB then ?

I do! The thing I wonder about most is this: why would a BWB necessarily be a VLA? Are there obstacles to scaling down this architecture? Could one build a 737/A320 sized BWB?
 
BlueSkys
Posts: 286
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:58 am

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:47 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
As to body roll,

Everyone is using "Body Roll" as an excuse to say BWB would not work for passengers.... I do not think that it is a problem because there is a concept called YAW... New computer flight systems could virtually eliminate roll during cruise flight.. Or at least i would think that would be possible... Obviously during lower altitudes there would be more roll, for example right after take off and right after landing... But Roll can be largely eliminated.


Any Opinions?
 
Markhkg
Posts: 838
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 4:13 pm

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:58 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
I imagine the evacuation problems are not nearly so difficult. In fact, it may not be necessary to evacuate a BWB in only 90 seconds since the passenger cabin would be "enclosed" inside much of the structure which

Unfortunately, even if the cabin could survive for >90 seconds, you would still need to evacuate the aircraft in <90 seconds with half the exits blocked due to FAA certification requirements. This is merely a regulatory step and as pointed out by many board members in the past, the time requirement is not necessarily realistic ; in "real life" a flashover can most certainly occur in less than 90 seconds. However, it is unlikely the FAA will provide a waiver allowing for more time even with "better" technology.
Release your seat-belts and get out! Leave everything!
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:14 pm

Quoting BlueSkys (Reply 39):
Everyone is using "Body Roll" as an excuse to say BWB would not work for passengers.... I do not think that it is a problem because there is a concept called YAW...

Are you suggesting that BWBs should turn by yawing? That is a terrible idea, not only from the stall/spin risk of a skidding turn (which admittedly can be mitigated somewhat by FBW), but you've just replaced some fairly gentle vertical accelerations on the passengers with some fairly strong, and sustained lateral accelerations. IOW, instead of a fairly gentle up-and-down motion at the start and end of a turn, you're going to be thrown side-to-side, and left there for the duration.

And sustained changes in yaw are *really* good at whacking your inner ear and causing your passengers to loose their bags of peanuts. Most passenger aircraft with even a slight tendency to dutch roll have a yaw damper installed for just that reason.

The understanding that airplanes turn by banking and *not* yawing is the Wright Brother’s greatest contribution to flight.
 
ComeAndGo
Posts: 815
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:35 pm

Quoting Wsp (Reply 23):
I wonder how they keep the CG under control when the wings are filled with passengers instead of kerosene...

especially when everybody goes to the restroom at the same time.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:38 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 21):
It's probably not going to look like a Popular Science fold-out. It's going to look like a very stumpy fuselage that blends into a lifting body.

Well there goes my enthusiasm. I like those fold-outs.

Quoting DrExotica (Reply 26):
Such an aircraft may not be proposed in the next five years, but we will see something proposed before 2020 in this regard.

No need. According to Sylvia Brown, aliens are bringing anti-gravity technology in 2010.  Smile

Quoting ORDFan (Reply 30):
Futhermore, if I remember correctly, the blended-wing concept itself dates back to the late 40s with the YB-49. There have been plenty of opportunities for the design to work its way into military and civilian designs since, but the concept really hasn't taken-off, so I guess I'm not so certain that this is definitely the way airliners are going to look in our lifetimes....

It's always interesting to see how we envision the not-so-distant vision of the future, then when it rolls around we find we're still driving the same damn cars and flying the same damn planes. I guess for me the reality is that in a free-market economy, radical changes need to have an immediate payoff or they die on the vine. While we could have seen a BWB-type aircraft in service before now, was the cost-benefit comparison to a standard tube-and-wings design that compelling? Particularly when you compare the historic cost of fuel and the incredible investment in infrastructure to support the status quo?

I guess when the benefits outweight the challenges, we'll move forward. We may be much nearer to that point now than ever before, with fuel costs so high (and getting higher) and technology rapidly progressing forward.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 37):
I think the only way Boeing plays with an all new aircraft in the A380 market is if they decide to build an 11 or 12 wide 777 replacement that starts out with a capacity around the 777-300.

Would that be cost-effective? Seems like it would be similar to Airbus with the 380-800, where the -900 is where the real cost benefits would kick in. They would be vulnerable to a next-gen attack from Airbus (or China, Brazil, whoever) that could turn around and pull the rug out from under the baseline model the way that the smaller widebodies have to the potential 380 market.

Anyhoo...

-Dave
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:42 pm

Quoting Wsp (Reply 23):
I wonder how they keep the CG under control when the wings are filled with passengers instead of kerosene...

...actually the wings would be filled with kerosene while pax would be in the middle forward section and cargo, ect. would be in the aft section....
"Up the Irons!"
 
AVinutso
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:34 pm

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 4:08 pm

Quoting HAL (Reply 8):
2) won't the people who are further away from the centerline of the aircraft experience incredible motion sickness each time the plane rolls?

I was talking to a friend of mine who is an aerospace engineer about this very thing and he told me that one of the solutions that has been going around is using gimbals on the outboard seats. When the plane banks, the seats stay relatively in the same position. On a BWB, the bank angle would be minimal anyway so the passengers would not get the feeling of roll.
Maybe we shoulda thought of that FIRST
 
764
Posts: 502
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 6:34 pm

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:58 pm

A few years back I spoke to somebody from Airbus on the ILA (I believe it must have been in 94 or so). He said that Airbus was not planning anything concrete in the blended wing area, but some studies had been conducted. Apparently they had determined that rather than building the plane in the Delta shape oftentimes suggested for blended wings, a type of boomerang shape would be more likely to actually be built. It made sense to me then and it still does now.

Not too many passengers would be far from the nearest window, in fact probably more people could get a nice view, since they could have windows facing forward and possibly aft as well rather than just sideward. You'd probably deal with only five or ten rows, but thirty or so "abreast", although that term wouldn't really apply since seating would be somewhat diagonal.
 
cloudyapple
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 7:01 am

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:04 pm

Quoting Pihero (Thread starter):
Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Such a plane will more than likely take out Boeing than the A380.

And who cried foul when the A380 triggered airports to modify their runways, taxiways, gates and ground equipment? A BWB will be incompatible with ALL gates at ALL airports in use. Who's gonna pay for the mods this time?
A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5497
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:15 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 21):
This topic is constantly regurgitated. This is the NW DC-9 of theoretical aircraft....

And like the NW DC-9's it will never die...

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 21):
No, not necessarily. A BWB airliner might still have cargo containers under the passenger floor and fuel in the wings like conventional airplanes. It's probably not going to look like a Popular Science fold-out. It's going to look like a very stumpy fuselage that blends into a lifting body.

This is what I've envisioned; a cabin width maybe 30-40 seats wide in the center of the aircraft.

Quoting ZiggyStardust (Reply 27):
After my last post, I thought of another disadvantage with a BWB. How would one be stretched/shrunk to create other members of the family?

This is certainly one aspect of the BWB; it will be what it will be, and another size is another aircraft.

Quoting ORDFan (Reply 30):
By the way, why is it assumed that the blended-wing design is so efficient and the next design direction for civilian airliners. The B-2 was designed in the 80s, and it is the only BWB aircraft widely-used today (does the F-117 count??). There have been no other military or cargo aircraft that have employed this design concept since -- so why are so many posters so sure that this is going to be he next generation of aircraft design.

The key is that in order to get a BWB to be safe bulletproof FBW is absolutely mandatory, as a BWB cannot recover from a stall, as was discovered by Northrup with the original Flying Wing. This has meant that it has really only been practical since 1980, and the problems with passenger comfort and evacuation have so far prevented serious consideration for civilian transports. To look at military applications, first of all efficiency is rarely high on military priorities. The B2 was a very good application for the BWB, and it has worked very well there. Fighters are much more concerned with maneuverability, and they don't need much of a fuselage anyway, and so it doesn't really help them much. Having a conventional fuselage enables them to put the control surfaces farther from the CG and give them the control authority they need, so that is a better way to go. As to cargo planes, the only new military cargo plane in recent history is the C-17 (and the A400M), and a BWB might have worked, but with so little experience with it available it was probably not seriously considered out of occupational inertia as much as anything else. And since the 748F is the first civilian transport to be launched as a freighter, and even there the intention was to launch a passenger version as well, which of course has happened. So the next problem to solve is the evacuation problem, which I believe is the biggest stumbling block towards having a BWB. Will this be solved? I don't know; but I hope so. The other problem, which is less severe, is the airport/gate problem; but if the evacuation issue is solved that could be. Would there be a possibility of a freighter-only BWB? Perhaps, but due to the incredible amount of money to develop it, I consider it unlikely, but not impossible.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13308
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:37 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 48):
To look at military applications, first of all efficiency is rarely high on military priorities. The B2 was a very good application for the BWB, and it has worked very well there.



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 48):
Would there be a possibility of a freighter-only BWB? Perhaps, but due to the incredible amount of money to develop it, I consider it unlikely, but not impossible.

I can see appliance for BWB in the militairy / cargo area. If a BWB can e.g. offer unsurpassed range / time on station it could be usefull for future world wide conflights areas. The exact size TBD but likely smaller then models I have seen recently. For Cargo the same, if it can e.g. do China-US East coast non stop with 100t at costs 30-40% lower then the current 747s it might have a chance.

A further big NASA/DARPA/USAF development contract will be neccessary to get the project rolling..

The is a discussion group for those really interested in BWB: http://aero.stanford.edu/BWBProject.html

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway

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