JBenad
Topic Author
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2015 8:50 pm

New Aircraft Configuration: The Flying V

Fri Mar 06, 2015 9:29 pm

Hello everyone!


Here's a thought for a new configuration  

The Flying V: http://www.vimeo.com/119263145/



The design combines the structural efficiency of conventional cylindrical fuselages with the aerodynamic efficiency of flying wings.

The shown configuration has a 65m wingspan and roughly 315 passengers in a two class layout.

Keep in mind: So far it’s only an idea   I hope you’ll like the video!
Cheers!

[Edited 2015-03-06 13:31:18]
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19314
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: New Aircraft Configuration: The Flying V

Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:33 pm

Very cool. It's a clever way of getting around the pancake fuselage of a BWB.

However just like in a BWB:
- The pax at the rear/outer ends would still be feeling quite the g-forces in turns. This would lead to spilled drinks and nausea.
- Engine servicing is a problem.

Also, the fuel tanks are presumably way at the rear. How would you solve the significant CoG shift as it is burned off.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
erzr2
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 1:57 pm

RE: New Aircraft Configuration: The Flying V

Fri Mar 06, 2015 11:21 pm

Very nice.

If you don't mind me asking:

How would present gates have to change to be able to serve this aircraft?

How much thrust does it take to keep it flying at cruise / how would max cruise altitude compare to, say the A330?
 
29erUSA187
Posts: 1277
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 11:34 pm

RE: New Aircraft Configuration: The Flying V

Sat Mar 07, 2015 3:46 am

I fear the day that aviation looks like this. I like the tubes that fly today, and these "wings" would have an ungodly amount of middle seats
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21476
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: New Aircraft Configuration: The Flying V

Sat Mar 07, 2015 4:52 am

When the aircraft is flipped partially up on one side and the exits on that side are all unusable, how do the people on that wing get out without having to go all around the bend?
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
NYPECO
Posts: 548
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2015 12:55 am

RE: New Aircraft Configuration: The Flying V

Sat Mar 07, 2015 5:05 am

I hope aviation doesn't look like this in the future.... I like the way aircraft look now. Anyway, this design reminds me of the Boeing 797 blended wing hoax from years ago.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 4):
When the aircraft is flipped partially up on one side and the exits on that side are all unusable, how do the people on that wing get out without having to go all around the bend?

How would it stand on it's side?
 
beiaard
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 10:55 pm

RE: New Aircraft Configuration: The Flying V

Sat Mar 07, 2015 3:48 pm

Quoting 29erUSA187 (Reply 3):
I fear the day that aviation looks like this. I like the tubes that fly today, and these "wings" would have an ungodly amount of middle seats

Looks like it's basically just two narrowbody fuselages meeting at the front. Tell me if I'm missing something, but wouldn't this have even fewer middle seats than most widebody aircraft today? (3-3 has 2 middle seats in each row = 33% of seats being middle seats; 3-3-3 and 2-5-2 are the same (both have 3 middle seats per each row of 9 total), and in 3-4-3, 40% of seats are middle seats (4 middles out of a row of 10 total))

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1):
- The pax at the rear/outer ends would still be feeling quite the g-forces in turns. This would lead to spilled drinks and nausea.

Asking as a non-engineer, wouldn't the forces felt during even straight-and-level acceleration also be felt in a weird way, given that the passengers wouldn't be facing the direction of flight exactly? Would that be a strange sensation, or are those (e.g., the forces felt during t/o and landing) small enough to not be as noticeably unpleasant? (I hope the way I posed this question made sense.)
BONARUM ARTIUM RERUMQUE HUMANARUM AC DIVINARUM STUDIOSOS CONVOCAMUS
 
jetwet1
Posts: 2857
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:42 am

RE: New Aircraft Configuration: The Flying V

Sat Mar 07, 2015 4:58 pm

Quoting beiaard (Reply 6):
Asking as a non-engineer, wouldn't the forces felt during even straight-and-level acceleration also be felt in a weird way, given that the passengers wouldn't be facing the direction of flight exactly? Would that be a strange sensation, or are those (e.g., the forces felt during t/o and landing) small enough to not be as noticeably unpleasant? (I hope the way I posed this question made sense.)

It's much the same as flying in a herring bone seat, you feel it for a few seconds during the initial acceleration then it's really a non issue.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21476
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: New Aircraft Configuration: The Flying V

Sat Mar 07, 2015 7:41 pm

Quoting NYPECO (Reply 5):
How would it stand on it's side?

Because it comes to rest on a hill or in a gulley.

Or because there are flames on one side of the aircraft. Or that side of the V took such a beating in the crash that the doors are inoperable. There needs to be a way for the passenger in the rear inner seat on one side to get out a door without having to go all the way forward. It's a problem with almost all non-tube designs.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
Jetlagged
Posts: 2564
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:00 pm

RE: New Aircraft Configuration: The Flying V

Sat Mar 07, 2015 7:44 pm

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1):
The pax at the rear/outer ends would still be feeling quite the g-forces in turns. This would lead to spilled drinks and nausea.

As long as roll rates were kept low it shouldn't be much different. If the aircraft is pulling 1.3g in a turn on the centreline it will be very similar at the wingtip. The only difference being the different radius of turn which might lead to a lateral g imbalance of a small amount. The effect of being further aft is no different to being at the rear of a tubeliner.
The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3868
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: New Aircraft Configuration: The Flying V

Sat Mar 07, 2015 11:42 pm

Given the probable loaded CG is well forward and the AC is well aft, I'd say that trim drag is going to be high.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 6756
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

RE: New Aircraft Configuration: The Flying V

Sun Mar 08, 2015 3:02 am

What if a pilot lands on one MLG too hard and the fuselage(s) warp where they meet and down to the cockpit?
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
JBenad
Topic Author
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2015 8:50 pm

RE: New Aircraft Configuration: The Flying V

Sun Mar 08, 2015 4:16 pm

Hello everyone!

Thank you very much for your comments and questions. Most topics which have been raised here I discuss in a longer presentation of the project which can be found here:

http://www.vimeo.com/119230629

It's primary focus is to explain the general train of thought which leads to the configuration to people who are new to aircraft design.

Just a few comments on some of the topics which were mentioned here:


Passenger comfort:

- The distance passengers sit from the center axis is 13m. There were several studies and simulations back when the BWB was a hot topic and this distance of 13m was found to be acceptable for the cabins.

- Turning the seats at an angle to the flight direction is already done in business class cabins today. On this design here one could maybe even turn the seats back to the flight direction some degrees so that in the end it would only be 14° or so.


CG:

- Fuel can be stored in the outer wings and a center fuel tank, so that the CG does not move so much when fuel is burned.

- The static margin of the design is roughly the same as it is on conventional configurations.


Ground handling:

- Span / passengers are the same as A350 so it should be compatible with conventional gates. There is even no wing in the way of any airport ground vehicles or gangways.


Evacuation:

- This is of course an interesting topic, but believed to be easier than for the BWB because the Flying V planform has more equal lines with the cabin. It seems unlikely that the whole 40 meters of one cabin side are blocked (all that is dangerous: engines, fuel... is on the inside of the V). But it has to be studied and looked at.


Comparison to reference:

- In this work the design was compared to the A350. It looks like there might be a serious benefit in performance. I also discuss this in the presentation mentioned above.


Cheers,
Justus
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21476
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: New Aircraft Configuration: The Flying V

Sun Mar 08, 2015 8:18 pm

Quoting JBenad (Reply 12):
Evacuation:

- This is of course an interesting topic, but believed to be easier than for the BWB because the Flying V planform has more equal lines with the cabin. It seems unlikely that the whole 40 meters of one cabin side are blocked (all that is dangerous: engines, fuel... is on the inside of the V). But it has to be studied and looked at.

This is your big show stopper. Also, have you thought about floating properties for a water landing? I haven't really until just now.

For egress, perhaps there could be doors in the inner sidewall leading to ladders that lead to top-side exits? That does leave the discussion of where they go from there. Slides off the trailing edge? That would be the best way to do a water evac, too. The trailing edge would be in the water, making a convenient liferaft launch ramp.

Quoting JBenad (Reply 12):
- Span / passengers are the same as A350 so it should be compatible with conventional gates. There is even no wing in the way of any airport ground vehicles or gangways.

You'll probably want to board an aircraft this big through two jetways. With a conventional airliner, all exits are roughly the same distance from the midline. In this design, each set of exits is a different distance from the midline. That might be a challenge for some jetways to make themselves that short or that long. It will require special procedures for this aircraft type. For example, the rear jetway will need to be pulled *way* back.

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 9):
As long as roll rates were kept low it shouldn't be much different. If the aircraft is pulling 1.3g in a turn on the centreline it will be very similar at the wingtip. The only difference being the different radius of turn which might lead to a lateral g imbalance of a small amount. The effect of being further aft is no different to being at the rear of a tubeliner.

The nausea-inducing part will be the banking. For a passenger in an outboard seat on the portside, a left turn will dip that passenger downwards and suddenly reduce his apparent gravity field (possibly to near zero in a quick bank). The passenger on the opposite of the airframe gets shoved down into her seat with almost 2g acceleration during that same quick bank. The result would be uncomfortable at best and dangerous at worst. Human beings are not good at handling more than +/- 30% changes in the local field of acceleration.

If the bank is gradual, it will be much more pleasant. But that reduces maneuverability. Many of the banks that are now part of normal flight on approach into many major airports are way too steep and sudden for an airplane built according to this design.

13m is quite a distance from the midline. At standard roll rates, what would be the forces on outboard passengers? I know how to do the math, but I haven't done it in a long time and I don't have all the variables (like angular acceleration).
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19314
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: New Aircraft Configuration: The Flying V

Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:40 pm

Quoting JBenad (Reply 12):
- Fuel can be stored in the outer wings and a center fuel tank, so that the CG does not move so much when fuel is burned.

Fair dinkum. However there is still a bit of an issue. To keep CoG within limits, you'll probably end up burning most of the wing fuel before center tank fuel. This means more stress on the structure, which thus needs to be stronger and ends up weighing more. That's why tubes with wings always burn center tank fuel first.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: New Aircraft Configuration: The Flying V

Mon Mar 09, 2015 3:55 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 13):
The nausea-inducing part will be the banking. For a passenger in an outboard seat on the portside, a left turn will dip that passenger downwards and suddenly reduce his apparent gravity field (possibly to near zero in a quick bank). The passenger on the opposite of the airframe gets shoved down into her seat with almost 2g acceleration during that same quick bank. The result would be uncomfortable at best and dangerous at worst. Human beings are not good at handling more than +/- 30% changes in the local field of acceleration.

If the bank is gradual, it will be much more pleasant. But that reduces maneuverability. Many of the banks that are now part of normal flight on approach into many major airports are way too steep and sudden for an airplane built according to this design.

13m is quite a distance from the midline. At standard roll rates, what would be the forces on outboard passengers? I know how to do the math, but I haven't done it in a long time and I don't have all the variables (like angular acceleration).

I posted the following back in 2010:

On airliners, maximum normal roll rates are on the order of 15 degrees/second, and maximum bank angles rarely exceed 30 degrees. I don’t know what the roll acceleration rates are for typical airliners, but I think 15 degrees/s/s is likely in the ballpark.

Assuming a 30m wide cabin (100 feet – probably good for 50 across), maximum displacement at the most outboard seats would be 7.5m. 15d/s/s would result in about .4 G of vertical acceleration, and a sustained 15d/s rotation would result in centripetal force of about .11 G. The former would likely be a problem for passengers, the later corresponds to a fairly gentle turn in a car, so is probably acceptable.

Knock the width down a bit, and restrict maneuvering somewhat, and I suspect that if the get the accelerations down to a net of .2 G or thereabouts, it would be acceptable, especially since during cruise the amount of maneuvering is going to be far less.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21476
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: New Aircraft Configuration: The Flying V

Mon Mar 09, 2015 5:55 am

Quoting rwessel (Reply 15):
Assuming a 30m wide cabin (100 feet – probably good for 50 across), maximum displacement at the most outboard seats would be 7.5m. 15d/s/s would result in about .4 G of vertical acceleration, and a sustained 15d/s rotation would result in centripetal force of about .11 G. The former would likely be a problem for passengers, the later corresponds to a fairly gentle turn in a car, so is probably acceptable.

Thank you for doing that. I agree, 0.4g would be unacceptable. It would work for healthy soldiers in a military transport, but not for the general public. At the very least, those sorts of forces would seem to mandate five-point restraints. So the aircraft will have to be limited to half the usual roll rate (or maybe 60% of it with a slightly narrower than 15m radius). That will affect maneuverability in tight turns, I'd bet. At least require a bit more planning ahead.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: New Aircraft Configuration: The Flying V

Mon Mar 09, 2015 7:56 am

Turbulence pushes wingtips big distances. Outboard pax would be going +/- 10 feet up and down, making quite a few sick tummies and breaking lots of necks when a thump of turbulence hit.

Edit: At least if they are really far out.

[Edited 2015-03-09 01:10:50]
 
thegman
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:30 am

RE: New Aircraft Configuration: The Flying V

Mon Mar 09, 2015 12:26 pm

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 14):
That's why tubes with wings always burn center tank fuel first.

Do they really burn center first?

I only know about the Beechjet 400 and the T-6A but both of those fed the engine(s) from the center fuselage tank, but that tank was always kept full by the wing tanks gravity feeding into that center tank. Which really meant that the wing tanks burned off first.

[Edited 2015-03-09 05:27:13]
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19314
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: New Aircraft Configuration: The Flying V

Mon Mar 09, 2015 12:31 pm

Quoting thegman (Reply 18):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 14):
That's why tubes with wings always burn center tank fuel first.

Do they really burn center first?

I only know about the Beechjet 400 and the T-6A but both of those fed the engine(s) from the center fuselage tank, but that tank was always kept full by the wing tanks gravity feeding into that center tank. Which really meant that the wing tanks burned off first.

There are always oddballs and exceptions in aviation but in general the fuselage fuel is always burned off first. Structurally nothing else makes sense since wing fuel counteracts wing bending moment while fuselage fuel adds to wing structure stress. If you burned off wing fuel before fuselage fuel the wing structure would have to be beefier and thus heavier. Same reason wing mounted engines allow a lighter wing structure.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
thegman
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:30 am

RE: New Aircraft Configuration: The Flying V

Tue Mar 10, 2015 12:14 am

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 19):
There are always oddballs and exceptions in aviation but in general the fuselage fuel is always burned off first. Structurally nothing else makes sense since wing fuel counteracts wing bending moment while fuselage fuel adds to wing structure stress. If you burned off wing fuel before fuselage fuel the wing structure would have to be beefier and thus heavier. Same reason wing mounted engines allow a lighter wing structure.

I suppose this makes sense on heavier aircraft. Those two planes have a MGW of 16,000 lbs and 6500 lbs respectively.
 
User avatar
Jetlagged
Posts: 2564
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:00 pm

RE: New Aircraft Configuration: The Flying V

Sat Mar 14, 2015 3:29 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 13):
The nausea-inducing part will be the banking. For a passenger in an outboard seat on the portside, a left turn will dip that passenger downwards and suddenly reduce his apparent gravity field (possibly to near zero in a quick bank). The passenger on the opposite of the airframe gets shoved down into her seat with almost 2g acceleration during that same quick bank. The result would be uncomfortable at best and dangerous at worst. Human beings are not good at handling more than +/- 30% changes in the local field of acceleration.

As I said it's not that much different to being at the rear of a long airliner when it pitches. That's not comfortable either but people put up with it. I doubt such an airliner would be able to roll at high rates. Vertical acceleration would only occur when there was a roll acceleration. There would be some lateral g due to roll rate though.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 13):
13m is quite a distance from the midline. At standard roll rates, what would be the forces on outboard passengers? I know how to do the math, but I haven't done it in a long time and I don't have all the variables (like angular acceleration).

You said almost 2g and near zero g above so I assumed you had calculated it.
The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21476
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: New Aircraft Configuration: The Flying V

Sun Mar 15, 2015 8:01 pm

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 21):
As I said it's not that much different to being at the rear of a long airliner when it pitches.

What kind of pitch angle rates do we see vs roll angle rates?
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
Jetlagged
Posts: 2564
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:00 pm

RE: New Aircraft Configuration: The Flying V

Mon Mar 16, 2015 1:01 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 22):
What kind of pitch angle rates do we see vs roll angle rates?

Pitch rates maybe around 5-6 deg/s on rotation, roll rates vary. The moment arms are however longer in pitch for a tube-liner than this proposed 13m lateral offset. A 777-300 could be around three times this lateral moment arm for an aft seat. So the pitch rate of 5 deg/s would be equivalent to a roll rate of 15 deg/s in this V wing config for the same angular rate.
The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

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