Simps747
Topic Author
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 10:35 am

After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Sun Aug 12, 2007 9:53 am

I realize this has most likely been brought up before, but what the hell.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...y/2002973147_boeingconcepts05.html

I was linked to this article through Wikipedia, once again Boeing has come up with some more radical concepts. I wonder if in our lifetime (the next 50 years or so) we'll ever see anything like these concepts come to pass...In my opinion the commercial aviation indistry seems to be stuck in a rut. Concepts like these seem to pop up every few years, but when it comes down to it we see more of the same......

Does anyone think we'll actually see something along the lines of a sonic cruiser, or a large flying wing capable of carrying 500+ people?

How about a concorde replacement. It sure seems like a step backwards to go from developing a supersonic passenger aircraft in the 1960's, to not have anything close to matching it in 2007.

Just some thoughts, lets have the opinions!
 
JTR
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2007 3:45 pm

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Sun Aug 12, 2007 10:05 am

I would not be surprised at all if Y1 looked like the Honeydew concept.
 
futurecaptain
Posts: 1918
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 1:54 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Sun Aug 12, 2007 10:20 am

Quoting Simps747 (Thread starter):
It sure seems like a step backwards to go from developing a supersonic passenger aircraft in the 1960's, to not have anything close to matching it in 2007.

The 787 was born out of Boeing's sonic cruiser concept. They offered the airlines a choice of speed or efficiency and the airlines of the world obviously made their choice.

I'm betting the next generation on airliners will have significantly less total fuel burn due to new technology, but still basically be the tube and wings design. NIMBY's complain all the time about aviation's fuel usage, at least efficient planes will hopefully shut some of them up. Nobody it seems wants speed to return to the skies since Concorde retired.
AirSO. ASpaceO. ASOnline. ASO.com ASO. ASO. ASO. ASO. ASO.
 
Simps747
Topic Author
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 10:35 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Sun Aug 12, 2007 10:27 am

The HoneyDew concept looks like it was "concepted" by the Space Shuttle design team.
 
pnwtraveler
Posts: 1074
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:12 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Sun Aug 12, 2007 10:32 am

Since Boeing just tested something that looks a lot like Honey Dew I find that one particularly interesting. Perhaps a combo of the Sonic Cruiser with other technologies proven with the 787 will come forward. I don't think the Sonic Cruiser is dead just maybe a little ahead of its time.
 
SPREE34
Posts: 1732
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 6:09 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Sun Aug 12, 2007 10:35 am

The new BoeBus AB3XX. It will be a joint venture permitting the, once 2 leading manufacturers, to better compete against Embraer and Bombardier's offering.
I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
 
af773atmsp
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 1:37 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Sun Aug 12, 2007 11:12 am

What happened to the 1000 seat Boeing jet that was a giant wing? I believe some people called it the 797.
DC10-40,MD88,A319,A320,A332,717,722,733,737,738,752,ATR-72,736,788
SY,DL,FI,FL,BA,EI,NW,MG,DY,EZY,F9,WN,SN,ET,SK
Too many airports to fit in signature.
 
grantcv
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:28 pm

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Sun Aug 12, 2007 11:28 am

Quoting JTR (Reply 1):
I would not be surprised at all if Y1 looked like the Honeydew concept.

I don't believe that a delta wing like the Honeydew has would make sense for a small short range airliner at this point. The replacement for both the 737 and the A320 are going to be optimized for fuel usage and environmental impact - not speed which makes less sense over short ranges anyway. I think the Fozzie concept is closer to what will be next generation will look like - and so it seems does EasyJet - http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...co-friendly-aircraft-concept.html. Their concept is the same as Fozzie.

High speed, futuristic, supersonic airliners will only return when and if we come up with a sustainable fuel to power them. I don't think that will happen in our lifetime - which is a rather bothersome thought.
 
dl767captain
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:51 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Sun Aug 12, 2007 12:18 pm

how big is the honey dew? If it is large enough it could be a Y3 with the efficiency of the bwb but has somewhat of a conventional fuselage that would fix the problem of people getting sick when sitting out on the wings while turning
 
grantcv
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:28 pm

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Sun Aug 12, 2007 12:26 pm

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 8):
how big is the honey dew?

The Honeydew has thus far been presented as a concept for the 737RS rather than the Y3. There have been no public disclosures of any Y3 concept - that's probably still years away.
 
778NG
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 1:03 pm

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Sun Aug 12, 2007 12:42 pm

What's Next?  scratchchin 


 idea  350 XWB
AB3 319 320 707 721,2 732,3,4,5,7,8 742 752,3 762,3 772 DC8,9,10 L10 MD80,3,7,8
 
EA772LR
Posts: 1285
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:18 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Sun Aug 12, 2007 2:10 pm

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 7):
Quoting JTR (Reply 1):
I would not be surprised at all if Y1 looked like the Honeydew concept.

I don't believe that a delta wing like the Honeydew has would make sense for a small short range airliner at this point. The replacement for both the 737 and the A320 are going to be optimized for fuel usage and environmental impact - not speed which makes less sense over short ranges anyway. I think the Fozzie concept is closer to what will be next generation will look like - and so it seems does EasyJet - http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...co-friendly-aircraft-concept.html. Their concept is the same as Fozzie.

I think the 737RS will look like a shrunken down 787 that will incorporate many of the technologies that will have been proven on the 787. I think they will push for commonality and functionality which in my opinion will be achieved most effectively by doing a 787 shrink. Hey there is nothing wrong with that, I think the 787 is a really cool looking plane, even though people say it's 'too conventional."
We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
 
dl767captain
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:51 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Sun Aug 12, 2007 2:15 pm

Would a BWB be efficient for short haul routes?
 
Ken777
Posts: 9962
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Sun Aug 12, 2007 5:17 pm

It's interesting that all of the planes shown in the article have the engines in the rear - is this because they just happened to be selected out of all the options Boeing has, or is there a belief that there will be more fuel efficiency to be gained by the move?

Personally I like Fossie for the under 2 hour flights as long as it is a comfortable width in theback, like the Mad Dogs.

Honey is the other one that catches my eye for longer flights.
 
cobra27
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:57 pm

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Sun Aug 12, 2007 5:41 pm

Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 5):
once 2 leading manufacturers, to better compete against Embraer and Bombardier's offering.

Come on man! Who competes against who in this case?
 
EI321
Posts: 4999
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:03 pm

Quoting Simps747 (Thread starter):
After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

After the A350 we will see the 737 & A320 replacements. Dont expect anything radical visually.
 
Alessandro
Posts: 4961
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 3:13 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Nex

Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:40 pm

I dont think we ever return to the exciting days of the 1950-1970ies. I hope the pushprop technology like the McDonnell-Douglas converted testplane from the MD-90 will converted to cargohauler, Yakovlev also wanted and started to work on
a design, but both where for passengerplanes not cargo which I think this technology is more suited for.

[Edited 2007-08-12 13:40:40]
From New Yorqatar to Califarbia...
 
LHRBlueSkies
Posts: 321
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 4:23 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Sun Aug 12, 2007 9:55 pm

The likes of the 380, 787 & 350 XWB are not the radical new steps in aviation that everyone is saying, just logical next-steps that come with time.

Next generation 320's & 737's will simply be more of the same but better - more efficient, better performance, etc etc..

The only truly radical big leap will come with a renewable energy source, high capacity & high speed travel. problem is, you still got to check-in and get your (missing) bags at the end of it all....sigh...!!
flying is the safest form of transport - until humans get involved!
 
texl1649
Posts: 1079
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Sun Aug 12, 2007 10:32 pm

I think the tar sands will be renewable enough...and the UDF would sure be neat to see in the 737RS product.
 
LHRBlueSkies
Posts: 321
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 4:23 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Sun Aug 12, 2007 10:47 pm

Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 18):
tar sands

sorry, being dim, are you meaning the black stuff - oil? if so, then that's the problem we are experiencing now, everyone thinks it is a never-ending resource...people need to start thinking truly alternative....
flying is the safest form of transport - until humans get involved!
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Sun Aug 12, 2007 10:58 pm

Quoting Simps747 (Thread starter):
In my opinion the commercial aviation indistry seems to be stuck in a rut.

How so? There's been a steady improvement in range, fuel burn, environmental impact, safety, maintenance, etc. ever since jets came about and that trend shows no sign of stopping any time soon.

Yes, the tube/wing configuration has stayed pretty constant but that's hardly a rut...birds have been working on that one for millions of years and they all use the same configuration too.

Quoting Simps747 (Thread starter):
Does anyone think we'll actually see something along the lines of a sonic cruiser, or a large flying wing capable of carrying 500+ people?

Sonic cruiser is unlikely for commercial travel because you can save a lot of fuel by going just a little bit slower. Large flying wing might be a reality eventually.

Quoting Simps747 (Thread starter):
How about a concorde replacement.

There are supersonic bizjets in the works...supersonic flight is only really economical (with current power sources) for ultra-premium travellers. They're probably better served by the bizjet market than by commercial airliners.

Quoting Simps747 (Thread starter):
It sure seems like a step backwards to go from developing a supersonic passenger aircraft in the 1960's, to not have anything close to matching it in 2007

Why? Going fast when you have no budget, fuel, or environmental constraints is easy!

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 11):
I think the 737RS will look like a shrunken down 787 that will incorporate many of the technologies that will have been proven on the 787.

I agree. Especially because Herb Kelleher stood in front of Boeing last year and said he'd buy 250 of them tomorrow if Boeing said they'd build it.

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 12):
Would a BWB be efficient for short haul routes?

In as much as a BWB is, theoretically, more efficient than an equivalent tube-and-wing. The efficiencies are mostly in cruise drag so the advantage isn't as big for short haul, but it's still there.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
It's interesting that all of the planes shown in the article have the engines in the rear - is this because they just happened to be selected out of all the options Boeing has, or is there a belief that there will be more fuel efficiency to be gained by the move?

It's a fuel efficiency thing...one of the easier ways to improve fuel efficiency is to increase bypass ratio. That means bigger fans (or props). There's basically no more room under the wings of the smaller airplanes so you either put the engines somewhere where they have more ground clearance or you end up with incredibly long landing gear and your airplane looks like a stork.

Depending on where you put them, you can also get some noise advantages by shielding the engines with the tail.

Tom.
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Sun Aug 12, 2007 11:24 pm

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 11):
I think the 737RS will look like a shrunken down 787 that will incorporate many of the technologies that will have been proven on the 787. I think they will push for commonality and functionality which in my opinion will be achieved most effectively by doing a 787 shrink. Hey there is nothing wrong with that, I think the 787 is a really cool looking plane, even though people say it's 'too conventional."

I recall seeing a picture somewhere of a "shrunk down" 787 and the caption suggesting this would be the 737 replacement. As for the Sonic Cruiser, I suspect it might live again, but with all the technology from the 787, better engines (fuel efficiency and power improvements) and a refined airframe for better aerodynamics. Might this new airplane, much enlarged over the Sonic Cruiser, be the Y3? Hard to say. To be sure, Y3 is going to have to be a quantum leep forward over whatever the Airbus folks might try to design to compete with it.
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:06 am

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 21):
As for the Sonic Cruiser, I suspect it might live again, but with all the technology from the 787

That's backwards...the 787 used all the technology developed for the Sonic Cruiser. They'll need something a step above the 787 if they want to resurrect the Sonic Cruiser.

Tom.
 
dl767captain
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:51 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 1:17 am

the sonic cruiser would live again if we moved to a new fuel like hydrogen which is cheap and extremely green, but no one is doing anything because they are afraid the oil companies home countries who hold a lot of our debt and a lot of investment in the stock market will pull out and potentially hurt the US. We might not see a new fuel source until America grows a pair and tell the oil companies to go to hell, only if that happens will we have a cheap green fuel
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Nex

Mon Aug 13, 2007 1:34 am

This is simple folks. We'll see the 787, then the A350, then replacements for the A320 and 737. Nothing radical is likely to appear in the next 20 years. Aircraft design is currently convergent, not divergent.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 1:36 am

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 23):
the sonic cruiser would live again if we moved to a new fuel like hydrogen which is cheap

How is hydrogen a cheap fuel? The raw material (water) is cheap, but the energy to convert that to hydrogen isn't.

Jet A is, roughly, 42.8 MJ/kg. A kg of jet fuel costs about $0.69 as of today.

You'd need about 0.36 kg of hydrogen to get the same energy (120 MJ/kg). Assuming you had 100% efficient energy conversion in obtaining the hydrogen (which you won't) and very cheap ($0.07/kWh) electricity, it would cost you about $0.83 to get that hydrogen...20% more expensive than the jet fuel.

You could go the other way and refine it from natural gas but then you have to pay for the natural gas + the refining + you loose the green benefit because you have to do something with the carbon.

Tom.
 
N9JIG
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:40 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 1:40 am

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 21):
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
It's interesting that all of the planes shown in the article have the engines in the rear - is this because they just happened to be selected out of all the options Boeing has, or is there a belief that there will be more fuel efficiency to be gained by the move?

It's a fuel efficiency thing...one of the easier ways to improve fuel efficiency is to increase bypass ratio. That means bigger fans (or props). There's basically no more room under the wings of the smaller airplanes so you either put the engines somewhere where they have more ground clearance or you end up with incredibly long landing gear and your airplane looks like a stork.

In other threads I read about debris kits on various planes flown by Alaskan and Canadian carriers to reduce problems with engines sucking stuff in. Would putting the engines above the wing help in this situation, as well as allow larger fans to improve bypass?

I figure the reasons the engines are usually mounted below the wing are to make for easier service and inspection, and I am pretty sure that engineering a change like this is not easy, but are there any benefits like these to putting the engines above the wing?
 
Boeingluvr
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:56 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 1:45 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 15):
After the A350 we will see the 737 & A320 replacements. Dont expect anything radical visually.

I'd have to agree. The current designs work and changing the designs from "a tube with wings" would create more cost for Boeing and the airlines. With the 787 being as efficient as they say I can't see any radical design changes within the next 50 years. The 737 and A320 replacements will come... The new 737 or as some like to call the 797 will come and look like a mini 787 from my understanding. Also let's not forget the 748. I can't see anything else coming in the near future that would differ from these designs though. Stick to what works, improve it, and keeps costs low.
 
grantcv
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:28 pm

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 2:05 am

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 11):
I think the 737RS will look like a shrunken down 787 that will incorporate many of the technologies that will have been proven on the 787. I think they will push for commonality and functionality which in my opinion will be achieved most effectively by doing a 787 shrink. Hey there is nothing wrong with that, I think the 787 is a really cool looking plane, even though people say it's 'too conventional."

I don't know that simply scaling down a 787 to a 737 size will provide sufficient benefits over the 737NG to warrant the effort - the benefits of a full composite fuselage decrease faster than fuselage size. We need a bigger step in propulsion technology to see a worthwhile improvement, and that new propulsion technology will probably mean relocating to engines to some location other than under the wing. The under-the-wing configuration imposes some major restrictions on the diameter of the engine. The trend has been to larger diameter fans - just look at the 787's engines compared to the 767 - they are huge. Even if the initial approach is a geared turbofan, fitting it under the wing will require rather tall landing gear, and future developments such as an unducted fan will be all but ruled out. I would imagine that both Boeing and Airbus will plan for their future small airliners to be very adaptable to propulsion technology developments. Future pressures are going to require significant innovation in propulsion in the decades that the airliners are in production.

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 23):
the sonic cruiser would live again if we moved to a new fuel like hydrogen which is cheap and extremely green, but no one is doing anything because they are afraid the oil companies home countries who hold a lot of our debt and a lot of investment in the stock market will pull out and potentially hurt the US. We might not see a new fuel source until America grows a pair and tell the oil companies to go to hell, only if that happens will we have a cheap green fuel

And just where is this hydrogen going to come from? Are we going to mine it? Hydrogen is not a source of energy, is is a method of energy storage - and a not so safe method at that. It takes more energy to extract hydrogen into its pure form than the energy you get out of it. Hydrogen is not the solution to our energy problems, it just moves the problem from the vehicle to a stationary energy producing plant. Hydrogen is also very difficult to store and transport. Not only does it ignite too easily, it has a tendency to leak out of whatever container is holding it very easily - air tight isn't good enough for hydrogen.
 
Boeingluvr
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:56 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 2:43 am

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 28):
I don't know that simply scaling down a 787 to a 737 size will provide sufficient benefits over the 737NG to warrant the effort

Umm well seeing as Boeing has the concept and has already thrown millions into the idea I'm sure that it is... Sure it's on a smaller scale but look at the success of blended winglets. The benefits are on a smaller scale but still warrant spending almost 1 million per aircraft to install. I'm sure the benefits on a smaller scale would still be worthwhile... From the look of things composites are on the uprise and after the 737NG you can bet the next will be composite...
 
Boeingluvr
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:56 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 2:48 am

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 20):
birds have been working on that one for millions of years and they all use the same configuration too.

What a terrible example... Man you need some better examples.
 
Simps747
Topic Author
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 10:35 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 3:02 am

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 20):
Yes, the tube/wing configuration has stayed pretty constant but that's hardly a rut...birds have been working on that one for millions of years and they all use the same configuration too.

Bird's hardly have the ability to improve their mode of flight over their predecessors. Obviously there have been vast improvements in other areas (safety, reliability, longevity, fuel consumption) of aviation technology. I believe the reason basic airframe design is "stuck in a rut" is because when the research and development costs of a radically different airframe are factored in, it is no longer economical to do so.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 20):
Quoting Simps747 (Thread starter):It sure seems like a step backwards to go from developing a supersonic passenger aircraft in the 1960's, to not have anything close to matching it in 2007
Why? Going fast when you have no budget, fuel, or environmental constraints is easy!

If the concorde had been produced in the numbers originally planned. Supersonic air travel would not be for the elite today. If supersonic airtravel had caught on when it was first introduced, when cost was secondary, and enviromental constraints non-existent; The costs of propulsion and production would have eventually been brought down to acceptable levels as needed. The technology would have been continually improved over time. Compare automobiles of the 60's and 70's to those of today, our aircraft of that era to aircraft of today. Compare say the 787 to the first 707. The same would have held true if supersonic travel had caught on with the concorde.

]
 
Boeingluvr
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:56 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 3:13 am

Quoting Simps747 (Reply 31):
Bird's hardly have the ability to improve their mode of flight over their predecessors. Obviously there have been vast improvements in other areas (safety, reliability, longevity, fuel consumption) of aviation technology. I believe the reason basic airframe design is "stuck in a rut" is because when the research and development costs of a radically different airframe are factored in, it is no longer economical to do so.

 checkmark 

Quoting Simps747 (Reply 31):
If the concorde had been produced in the numbers originally planned. Supersonic air travel would not be for the elite today. If supersonic airtravel had caught on when it was first introduced, when cost was secondary, and enviromental constraints non-existent; The costs of propulsion and production would have eventually been brought down to acceptable levels as needed. The technology would have been continually improved over time. Compare automobiles of the 60's and 70's to those of today, our aircraft of that era to aircraft of today. Compare say the 787 to the first 707. The same would have held true if supersonic travel had caught on with the concorde.

 checkmark 
 
Thorny
Posts: 1508
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 8:44 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 3:15 am

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 23):
the sonic cruiser would live again if we moved to a new fuel like hydrogen which is cheap and extremely green,

Hydrogen is not really green with current technology. It's still largely a byproduct of fossil fuels. It can be extracted from water instead, but the cost is very high and the energy to do that would have to come from traditional (largely non-green) sources.

Worse, hydrogen is the lightest element, so to carry enough of it as fuel, you need very large tanks. Hydrogen-powered aircraft will have to be behemoths to have any significant range. The Air Force looked into this in the 50s with the Suntan project. It died rather quickly.

Quoting Boeingluvr (Reply 30):
What a terrible example... Man you need some better examples.

Then use the locomotive and the automobile. Both over a century old, and still more or less the same as they were in 1900. The changes are mostly under-the-hood.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 14958
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 3:25 am

Quoting Simps747 (Thread starter):
I realize this has most likely been brought up before, but what the hell.

Considering the article is 18 months old or so, I'd say it's been brought up many times...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 4:14 am

Quoting N9JIG (Reply 26):
In other threads I read about debris kits on various planes flown by Alaskan and Canadian carriers to reduce problems with engines sucking stuff in. Would putting the engines above the wing help in this situation, as well as allow larger fans to improve bypass?

Yes, having rear engines removes most of the issues with sucking stuff off the ground. The problem with under-wing engines is that, at low speeds, they develop a pretty strong vortex that goes from the ground just ahead of the inlet into the engine. It's like a really big vacuum. You can see if when the conditions are right (high humidity and/or water on the ramp). The debris kits put deflectors on the nose-wheel to prevent it throwing gravel up into the engines and put vortex breakers (compressed air jets) on the front of the inlet to prevent the vortex forming.

Rear-mounted engines are so far from the ground that I've never heard of them having this problem. They can get in trouble if all the ice isn't removed from the wings though...they tend to eat any chunks coming off the wing.

Quoting N9JIG (Reply 26):
I figure the reasons the engines are usually mounted below the wing are to make for easier service and inspection, and I am pretty sure that engineering a change like this is not easy, but are there any benefits like these to putting the engines above the wing?

Service & inspection is a part of it. The engines are also relatively concentrated masses, so having them close to the CG makes weight and balance easier to manage. Over the wing can be done (e.g. HondaJet) but you have to be very careful with the aerodynamics. Wing/nacelle interaction is a tricky problem at best but the pressurized (bottom) side of the wing is more forgiving than the suction (top) side.

With big engines, like the UDF, rear-mounting causes a tail-chasing kind of situation with the CG/wing/MLG location.

Tom.
 
grantcv
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:28 pm

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 4:22 am

Quoting Boeingluvr (Reply 29):
Umm well seeing as Boeing has the concept and has already thrown millions into the idea I'm sure that it is... Sure it's on a smaller scale but look at the success of blended winglets. The benefits are on a smaller scale but still warrant spending almost 1 million per aircraft to install. I'm sure the benefits on a smaller scale would still be worthwhile... From the look of things composites are on the uprise and after the 737NG you can bet the next will be composite...

Um, that wasn't the point, Yes, all future airliners will be composite, but the benefits are less for a smaller aircraft than a larger one. By themselve, they don't warrant a whole new airliner. For smaller airliners, its the propulsion technology that will drive new efficiencies. You are comparing airlines optionally spending an extra million on each airliner to the billions it will cost to develop the next generation and the price to be paid if the chosen configuration precludes advances in propulsion that come after the configuration has been frozen. If either Boeing or Airbus make the wrong choice, they face finding their new bread-and-butter model out of favor with the market and that would be disastrous for them.
 
grantcv
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:28 pm

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 4:34 am

Quoting Simps747 (Reply 31):
If the concorde had been produced in the numbers originally planned. Supersonic air travel would not be for the elite today. If supersonic airtravel had caught on when it was first introduced, when cost was secondary, and enviromental constraints non-existent; The costs of propulsion and production would have eventually been brought down to acceptable levels as needed.

I really don't think that supersonic travel could have been made cost-effective. Even if it had caught on and been better optimized, the laws of physics are impossible to overcome - it takes more energy to fly faster. If anything, in the decades to come, we are going to be dealing with the harsh reality of the limited resources the earth has to offer to us.

Quoting Simps747 (Reply 31):
Compare automobiles of the 60's and 70's to those of today, our aircraft of that era to aircraft of today.

Automobiles in the 1960's and 70's were overly large and thirsty. Automobiles now are once again overly large and thirsty. That isn't a good example.
 
dl767captain
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:51 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 4:38 am

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 28):
And just where is this hydrogen going to come from? Are we going to mine it? Hydrogen is not a source of energy, is is a method of energy storage - and a not so safe method at that. It takes more energy to extract hydrogen into its pure form than the energy you get out of it. Hydrogen is not the solution to our energy problems, it just moves the problem from the vehicle to a stationary energy producing plant. Hydrogen is also very difficult to store and transport. Not only does it ignite too easily, it has a tendency to leak out of whatever container is holding it very easily - air tight isn't good enough for hydrogen.

when you run an electric current through water you are left with hydrogen and oxygen, obviously the technology is not perfect yet and needs to be researched. obviously other fuels could turn up but hydrogen is very promising for cars and could become promising for planes, we just need to move faster and find a new fuel
 
grantcv
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:28 pm

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 5:03 am

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 38):
when you run an electric current through water you are left with hydrogen and oxygen, obviously the technology is not perfect yet and needs to be researched. obviously other fuels could turn up but hydrogen is very promising for cars and could become promising for planes, we just need to move faster and find a new fuel

Sure, but that electric current didn't just come from nowhere - it had to be generated - using some type of fuel. Hydrogen is not a source of energy - it takes more energy to get it than you can get from it. Hydrogen is a means for storing energy. It is not the solution - not now, not ever. No matter how much research is done, clever scientists will not be able to find a way to extract hydrogen using less energy than if provides when you consume it. It would be brilliant if they could do that - we would have a perpetual source of energy. The laws of physics are not optional.

Assuming we could produce hydrogen cost effectively without simply burning fossil fuel at a power plant instead of on the place, hydrogen still has plenty of drawbacks. It is difficult to handle, it escapes easily, and it takes a lot of volume to store. BMW has a hydrogen powered 7-series doing the auto show circuit right now. Go take a look at it. Look at the size of its fuel tank. They used the 7-series for a reason - it is a big car. The tank takes up a huge amount of space behind the back seat and seriously limits the trunk space. That tank is huge. Airliners would also need to have huge tanks - they would start to resemble zeppelin airships.
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 5:14 am

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 39):
Airliners would also need to have huge tanks - they would start to resemble zeppelin airships.

Let's not exaggerate. The tank volume would go up by a factor of four, not hundreds.
 
justloveplanes
Posts: 1011
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 5:48 am

Quoting Simps747 (Reply 31):
If the concorde had been produced in the numbers originally planned. Supersonic air travel would not be for the elite today. If supersonic airtravel had caught on when it was first introduced, when cost was secondary, and enviromental constraints non-existent; The costs of propulsion and production would have eventually been brought down to acceptable levels as needed. The technology would have been continually improved over time. Compare automobiles of the 60's and 70's to those of today, our aircraft of that era to aircraft of today. Compare say the 787 to the first 707. The same would have held true if supersonic travel had caught on with the concorde.

There may be some truth to this as the transonic region has a drag "bump" and makes it very inefficient. At other speeds, drag increases with the square of velocity, so fuel burn increase will not be linear with speed (4x drag for every doubling of speed). Greater stresses mean heavier structure etc. Extra speed is not cost proportionate. The mainstream of air travel might stay at Mach .85 for a long time. 18 hours to go anywhere in the world is pretty good, especially with more room and greater cabin humidity and better lighting to get rid of jet lag.
 
grantcv
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:28 pm

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:09 am

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 40):
Let's not exaggerate. The tank volume would go up by a factor of four, not hundreds

Ok, maybe I was exaggerating, but even with tanks growing by a factor or four, where would they go? The most likely location would be bubbles over the top of the fuselage or, in larger aircraft, in the unused crown space above the cabin. In either case, extra special measure would have to be take to prevent these tanks from being explosive.
 
Simps747
Topic Author
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 10:35 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 7:12 am

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 37):
Automobiles in the 1960's and 70's were overly large and thirsty. Automobiles now are once again overly large and thirsty. That isn't a good example.

Grantcv, pull your head out of your a$$. Think about it, Yes, we do drive vehicles today that are overly large and thirsty, but compared to what was overly large and thirsty 30 or 40 years ago, they merely sip fuel. Even the largest passenger vehicles today are designed and built with fuel economy in mind. That wasn't so 30, 40 years ago. This is where the technological advances come into play. Fuel injection over carburation for example. Cruisng on half the cylinders and accelerating on all 8. I can't tell you how many vehicles produced back then would make a big nasty Toyota Sequoia or a deplorable Ford F#%) with a V10 triton look like a yaris or a civic.

Perhaps a supersonic transport could for example, take off on all four engines at full power, climb to its cruising altitude of say 90,000 feet and then cruise at supersonic speeds in the thinner atmosphere to its destination. I don't know the physics of any such proposal, I would assume now my idead will be ripped to shreds. I'm just saying though, the scientists and engineers always overcome. There always is a solution, maybe not cost effective at the moment, but there always is.
 
hmmmm...
Posts: 1962
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 8:32 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Nex

Mon Aug 13, 2007 7:16 am

Yes, design is in a rut from a the viewpoint of an aircraft aficionado. Nothing new ever comes along. If it does, Boeing just shelves it and gives us another twin with...... more fuel efficient engines. The only innovation the business is interested in is fuel efficiency. Everything else is just false promises of glitz that never transpire. I predict that as this rate, the average new airliner in 2050 will look like a 737, fly at 35,000 feet at 550 mph, and carry about 150 passengers. But it will do it on 3 ounces of gas.

Excitement abounds.

Other trends will continue as well. The flight attendants will be older and uglier, the pilots will be data entry clerks, and food service will consist of one pretzel. That is, unless the terrorists, and terrorist wannabes, shut down the entire system by making flying impractical.

What a future to look forward to.
An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
 
gbfra
Posts: 427
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:50 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 7:31 am

Quoting Hmmmm... (Reply 44):
Other trends will continue as well. The flight attendants will be older and uglier, the pilots will be data entry clerks, and food service will consist of one pretzel.

Yes, but you will be able to chose among 850 TV programmes on an one-hour flight.
The fundamental things apply as time goes by
 
scramjetter
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 2:57 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 7:46 am

A multinational behemoth the size of the AN-225 but supersonic. It'll run on daisies and exhaust chlorophyll. Who are we kidding... it'll be the same ol' incrementally improved tube until hydrogen replaces everything. BWB is cool but how do you get it to work at current airports?
 
iboam
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 8:47 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 7:55 am

OKay I know this might seem totally unreasonable and futuristic, but what about nuclear powered air travel? I mean we have been doing it with subs and ships for years. And, while it might not be used commerically at first, I am sure that it could be tested out militarily.
 
CitrusCritter
Posts: 792
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 10:36 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 8:12 am

Quoting Iboam (Reply 47):
OKay I know this might seem totally unreasonable and futuristic, but what about nuclear powered air travel? I mean we have been doing it with subs and ships for years. And, while it might not be used commerically at first, I am sure that it could be tested out militarily.

Not anytime soon...very uneconomical. The US Navy only uses it on aircraft carriers and submarines, though it was formerly used on some heavy cruisers. If the Navy still finds it better to spend money on gasoline to run Ticonderoga sized cruisers, or say a small vessel like a Perry Class frigate (or even the DD-21 program) then it's definitely not commercially feasible for something the size of a 737.
 
scramjetter
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 2:57 am

RE: After The 747-8..A380..737-900..787, Whats Next?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 8:15 am

Quoting Iboam (Reply 47):
what about nuclear powered air travel?

The USAF had a nuclear powered B-36, the NB-36H. And the Soviets also had a nuclear test bomber but apparently it was deemed to hazardous for the crew to operate. The shielding was very heavy and in some cases marginal. But the advantage was that the aircraft could, in theory, operate for long periods of time.

That's what is publicly known, who knows what else has been flown.

If they could make a fusion powered aircraft rather than fission, it could be far less hazardous. But that's a long way off. Fusion reactors haven't really left the laboratory yet.

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