StickShaker
Posts: 620
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 7:34 pm

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:49 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
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.

 checkmark   checkmark 

If a BWB requires new gates along with a new generation of ramp/service vehicles then those issues could be bigger stumbling blocks than the technology required to make the aircraft work. Look at the reluctance of major airports to make a few mods to accomodate the 380. While Boeing made major advances with technology in the 787 the aircraft can be serviced with existing ground facilities.


Cheers,
StickShaker
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26495
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:07 pm

Quoting MarkHKG (Reply 40):
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.

If a BWB has seating and doors at the outer edge of the fuselage, then I agree with you. But if the seating is located towards the "center" of the plane, well away from the outer edge of the fuselage, crash dynamics and survivability systems might be changed to the point that the FAA/JAA/EASA decide that new evacuation protocols would apply.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5495
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:07 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 49):
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.

I totally agree that both of these applications are practical; the real question is where is the $10-15 billion that it will probably cost to bring it about going to come from. With the current military situation in the US being tied up in the war, as well as the Democratic Congress being basically unfriendly towards military spending I don't see the military doing it anytime soon. For Boeing or Airbus to do it they would have to price it so high to recover the development costs that they would have a hard time selling it, especially since there are going to be an awful lot of 767's, 777's, A330's, A340's and 744's available in the coming years as the 787's and A350's take hold. Even though the operating costs of these converted airliners will be quite a bit higher than the proposed BWB you still can buy an awful lot of fuel on the price difference.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
dimoko
Posts: 273
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 10:44 pm

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:14 pm

here is a photoshop mockup i saw, looks kinda cool

"I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be." -- Douglas Adams
 
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 9:32 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 21):
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.

Right, but how many of them prevent the pilot from rolling the plane? No Boeing, and Airbus only does it to the extent that it keeps the plane in the flight envelope. Correct? No manufacturer would limit their plane's ability to do evasive maneuvering.

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!)

Are you sure? I see and experience 45 degree banks near landing at Dulles frequently. But admittedly, I chose 45 degrees more because it made the math easier. It certainly happens though. But if you're not satisfied by that, consider an S turn, where the plane switches from a 20 degree roll to the right to a 20 degree roll to the left. 70' drop.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 38):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
As to body roll, that can be handled by computerized flight control and motion-dampening systems, I imagine.

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.

Again, we're talking about intentional rolls to manuever the plane. And as for jerk, that's not the concern at all. It's acceleration (the second derivative of position) that makes people puke. And acceleration is something that is required to maneuver the aircraft. I wouldn't feel good at all getting on a plane where the manufacturers prevented it.

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... New computer flight systems could virtually eliminate roll during cruise flight..

Not worried about cruise. The steep rolls happen at slower speeds, closer to the ground.

Quoting BlueSkys (Reply 39):
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.

How are you going to largely eliminate roll when you say that obviously there would be more rol during lower altitude maneuvering?
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5495
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:32 pm

Quoting Dimoko (Reply 53):
here is a photoshop mockup i saw, looks kinda cool

I've seen that before; I do believe it could be done. If every window shown had an escape slide even the evacuation could be possible. The landing gear could even be a little shorter; maybe add a little dihedral to improve cross-wind landing ability. If the wingspan does not exceed 80M it could even use the same gates as the A380. Let's build it!
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:20 pm

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 43):
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.

Aviation has to be one of the most heavily regulated, heavily taxed, heavily "protected" industries there is. "Free market" is definitely not the cause of its lack of innovation.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3202
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:23 pm

All I have to say on the subject is Boeing is talking to FDX and UPS about such an aircraft for a reason. With FDX and UPS on board plus orders from the international airlines.........I could see this recouping its initial large developement costs.

I too think it will be more of a hybrid BWB than the one pictured above. Here an example at this link,notice the drawing on the right side.....

http://www.twitt.org/bldwing.htm

And let us not forget the R&D work that went into the Sonic Cruiser. Do not be surprised if the 747/777-300 replacement look similar to it.....
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5495
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:49 pm

Quoting William (Reply 57):

http://www.twitt.org/bldwing.htm

Very interesting-thanks for posting it. I do think that a BWB will emerge at some point; the question is when. I am aware of the talks Boeing is having with FedEx and UPS; but I don't believe that Boeing will undertake a project of this magnitude if they are the only ones who want it. As mentioned earlier I don't believe that freighter sales alone can sustain it, because of the large numbers of relatively cheap used planes available. But the concepts in this paper certainly are interesting, and I think it likely that Y3 will follow something like these rather than a tube with wings.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
zak
Posts: 1926
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 12:17 pm

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:57 pm

The BoeingBWB and Airliners.net Forums are a good empirical example that the quantity of virtual debate on a topic do not correlate with the real feasibility of something.

if that was the case, the whole world would fly point to point connections like u.s. majors, there would be no airbus 340s in existence at all, millions of passengers would have died in a380 that were hijacked whilst never leaving since even with free government money french planes dont fly, and nw would still fly dc'9s when the first dreamliners end up in the desert.
10=2
 
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 11:21 pm

Quoting Zak (Reply 59):
there would be no airbus 340s in existence at all



Quoting Zak (Reply 59):
nw would still fly dc'9s when the first dreamliners end up in the desert.

Given time, I think both of the prophecies will be true.  Smile
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5495
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:55 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 60):
nw would still fly dc'9s when the first dreamliners end up in the desert.

Given time, I think both of the prophecies will be true.

This one is guaranteed! Big grin
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
drexotica
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 3:44 am

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:20 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 54):
Are you sure? I see and experience 45 degree banks near landing at Dulles frequently. But admittedly, I chose 45 degrees more because it made the math easier. It certainly happens though. But if you're not satisfied by that, consider an S turn, where the plane switches from a 20 degree roll to the right to a 20 degree roll to the left. 70' drop.

Why not spin this into a 'new feature' of the aircraft - instead of people asking for window or aisle seats, they could also ask for centerline or exterior (bad term) seats. Sounds kind of fun - 70' drops. There are a lot of people out there that enjoy rollercoasters. Personally, I really enjoy it when an aircraft that I am flying on performs steep banks, etc.
N707PA - Best looking commercial aircraft ever.
 
BlueSkys
Posts: 286
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:58 am

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:54 am

Quoting Rwessel (Reply 41):
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.

I guess it might not be such a good idea then... I have flown a few flights just using rudder (in a Cessna mind you) practicing rudder control and emergency aileron failure and it was a bit awkward, but i managed to take off and land without using ailerons at all. (of course that would have been impossible in windy conditions.)


I just thought there would be a possiblility of incorporating more yaw for turning to eliminate roll and uncomfort to the passengers in a BWB design.


Cheers!
 
rampart
Posts: 1800
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:58 am

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Thu Jul 12, 2007 1:00 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 48):
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.

Recalling old Popular Science articles again (late 70's early 80's?), there was one concept that considered an elliptical or oval cross section fuselage that could be expanded sideways by inserting plugs in the cross-section center. In a sense, extra capacity was provided by making the fuselage broader, or more elliptical or oval, through inserts. Hard to verbalize, maybe i have to draw a picture.

IIRC, the article stated something like "future technology, employing advance polymer materials" could make these fuselage inserts practical. Looks like we may be there! So, if this could come true, families of BWB aircraft could be made in a variety of capacities by adjusting the fuselage diameter. (I can't say how this would impact aerodynamics, however.)

-Rampart
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5495
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Thu Jul 12, 2007 1:00 am

Quoting BlueSkys (Reply 63):
I just thought there would be a possiblility of incorporating more yaw for turning to eliminate roll and uncomfort to the passengers in a BWB design.

It would do the opposite. A smooth coordinated turn actually would not cause all that much discomfort, IMHO. I do not think that it will be necessary or practical to locate passengers out at the wingtips, or even anywhere near them.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
BlueSkys
Posts: 286
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:58 am

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Thu Jul 12, 2007 1:02 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 54):
How are you going to largely eliminate roll when you say that obviously there would be more rol during lower altitude maneuvering?

I meant largley eliminating roll closer to cruise flight, not during low altitude manuvering. I still have not thought of a way to eliminate the majority during the critical stages of flight.. (Take off & landing) But i DO think it could be largley reduced.
 
ATCme
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 8:20 am

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Thu Jul 12, 2007 3:30 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 65):
A smooth coordinated turn actually would not cause all that much discomfort, IMHO. I do not think that it will be necessary or practical to locate passengers out at the wingtips, or even anywhere near them.

I agree, I don't see anything wrong with forcing a coordinated turn through FBW, pretty much eliminating pilot rudder inputs through normal flight. (Still used for crosswind landings etc).

I invision something of a cross between the B2 and the C-wing design from here:

Quoting William (Reply 57):
http://www.twitt.org/bldwing.htm

Thanks for the link William!
Anyway, I think all of these problems can be worked out through the normal troubleshooting, brainstorming and engineering process that all planes go through, abeit a little longer session.

ATCme spin 
I'm from the FAA, and I'm here to help. Really. Yes I'm serious, I'm here to help you.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5495
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Thu Jul 12, 2007 3:36 am

Quoting ATCme (Reply 67):
I agree, I don't see anything wrong with forcing a coordinated turn through FBW, pretty much eliminating pilot rudder inputs through normal flight. (Still used for crosswind landings etc).

Actually, most BWB's have very little rudder if any. So all turns MUST be coordinated. I wonder how the B2 handles crosswind landings, by the way?
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Thu Jul 12, 2007 4:58 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 68):
Actually, most BWB's have very little rudder if any. So all turns MUST be coordinated.

I suspect the lack of vertical stabilizers has more to do with stealth, and with true flying wing planforms where the overall length of the aircraft is minimal (so that there's no place to mount a vertical stabilizer that has a decent lever arm). The first case obviously does not apply to a civil aircraft, and the second doesn't apply so much to sharply swept flying wings (where the wingtips are usefully far back) or BWBs (where there's still a meaningfully sized centerbody).

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 68):
I wonder how the B2 handles crosswind landings, by the way?

Just fine. On one video I've seen it just crabbed in with a stiff crosswind, and then the drag rudders yawed it around smartly. The B-2 does not appear to have any control or stability issues in beta (yaw). How much of that is inherent and how much is artificial, I have no idea, but it clearly doesn't have the problems in that regard that the YB-49 did. My first reaction when I saw the drag rudders was that they would have to be pretty sloppy (there's a similar complaint about many aircraft that use spoilers for roll control), but that's apparently not the case.
 
User avatar
yellowtail
Posts: 3938
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:46 am

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Thu Jul 12, 2007 5:52 am

I got a suggesstion..build it for cargo....cargo doesn't complain about g's, windows etc......get a couple of hundred of these efficient babies going all over the world..public becomes more accepting of its abilities....then do a pax version....

The reverse of what happens today..but then again is cargo driving the 748?
When in doubt, hold on to your altitude. No-one has ever collided with the sky.
 
Pihero
Topic Author
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: Ex Boeing Salesman Urges BWB To Take Out 380

Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:48 am

Quoting BlueSkys (Reply 63):
I have flown a few flights just using rudder (in a Cessna mind you) practicing rudder control and emergency aileron failure and it was a bit awkward, but i managed to take off and land without using ailerons at all.

Congratulations ! You've just passed the -320 manual reversion test ! Big grin
Contrail designer

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