94 replies to this topic

[Prancer]

http://www.asb.tv/bl...green-airplane/



To those who say 'has to be a looooooong way off, note the 'plans for widespread use by 2035' (25 years from now).

Edited by hgtkifhieoplwoji, 03 November 2010 - 05:19 PM.

[Kentaro]

hgtkifhieoplwoji, on Nov 3 2010, 05:17 PM, said:

http://www.asb.tv/bl...green-airplane/



To those who say 'has to be a looooooong way off, note the 'plans for widespread use by 2035' (25 years from now).

oh, but don't forget it'll be another 10 years after the predicted release before it rolls out the hangar.

[mhockey21]

I'm still standing by my original statement, I just don't see it happening.

[Prancer]

Philip_J_Fry, on Nov 3 2010, 06:08 PM, said:

oh, but don't forget it'll be another 10 years after the predicted release before it rolls out the hangar.

10 years goes by fast!

[Alaska_MD-83]

hgtkifhieoplwoji, on Nov 3 2010, 04:31 PM, said:

10 years goes by fast!

Yeah, I mean it was positively 10 years ago yesterday that George Bush was elected. Oh, wait.





Let's hope these can actually take off (Ahhh that's so punny!) and get somewhere. I can't lie, I wouldn't mind seeing the D. Series flying out of KBUR.

[Cactus]

hgtkifhieoplwoji, on Nov 3 2010, 06:17 PM, said:

To those who say 'has to be a looooooong way off, note the 'plans for widespread use by 2035' (25 years from now).

Here's the catch: in order for widespread use, people need to order it.

[Prancer]

Duke, on Nov 3 2010, 08:27 PM, said:

Here's the catch: in order for widespread use, people need to order it.

Which is possible and probable.

[TopDollar]

Blended wing bodies are becoming popular.

[SwitchFX]

hgtkifhieoplwoji, on Nov 3 2010, 06:38 PM, said:

Which is possible and probable.

Because 'plausible' is less redundant...

[THBatMan8]

TopDollar, on Nov 3 2010, 09:52 PM, said:

Blended wing bodies are becoming popular.

By whom?

If you're referencing the military, then yes. In the commercial industry they are far from popular as they are not without their own problems.

[Prancer]

Water_Boy, on Nov 3 2010, 09:04 PM, said:

By whom?

If you're referencing the military, then yes. In the commercial industry they are far from popular as they are not without their own problems.

Boeing and NASA seem to disagree, since they're drawing up the plans~

[TopDollar]

Water_Boy, on Nov 3 2010, 10:04 PM, said:

By whom?

If you're referencing the military, then yes. In the commercial industry they are far from popular as they are not without their own problems.

In case you missed it, the link posted was with regard to a Blended wing body design for commercial aviation.

[THBatMan8]

TopDollar, on Nov 3 2010, 10:11 PM, said:

In case you missed it, the link posted was with regard to a Blended wing body design for commercial aviation.

Yeah, but the catch is that people have to want it in order for it to be successful, and there isn't a demand for BWB's. BWB's have been in the works for the commercial industry since the 20's, and they haven't caught on. There are too many operational concerns with BWB's that need to be resolved before the FAA or any other aviation authority in their right mind would approve them to fly.

The primary concern with BWB's is no rudder. This has caused a few crashes when a engine failed and it's too much of a risk. Until this issue is resolved (along with the rest of the standards of FAR 25), you'll never see the FAA approve a BWB to fly commercially in the US.

*EDIT*

Just for the record:

Let's say for the sake of discussion that BWB's start rolling off the Boeing or Airbus assembly line in another 25 years. Airliners need to train flight crews and get them a type rating on the new BWB (on top of purchasing the aircraft), which costs a heck of alot of money. It will be at least 50 years before we start seeing them become common because of how much it would cost the airliners up front. You're talking about something that's going to take a half-century (if not later) to occur like it's going to happen in a decade, and it isn't. Things don't happen that quickly as that would potentially bankrupt the industry. It'll be a gradual change, at best.

Edited by Water_Boy, 03 November 2010 - 09:41 PM.

[Prancer]

Water_Boy, on Nov 3 2010, 09:16 PM, said:

Yeah, but the catch is that people have to want it in order for it to be successful, and there isn't a demand for BWB's. BWB's have been in the works for the commercial industry since the 40's starting with the Nazis, and they haven't caught on. There are too many operational concerns with BWB's that need to be resolved before the FAA or any other aviation authority in their right mind would approve them to fly.

....which is what NASA and MIT are working to take care of.

[TopDollar]

From an aerodynamics perspectives, a BWB presents itself to be a lot more efficient due to it's decrease in surface area.  The whole body acts as a lifting surface so the lack of tail and integration of the engines into the body can reduce surface area by about (1/3) of a conventional aircraft.  Since surface area is directly proportional to drag, there is a significant decrease in drag on the airplane.  This of course means you need a smaller driving force (i.e. engines), which reduces fuel cost.

What happens with research aircraft such as the X-48B is what was learned from the design is implemented into future designs and commercial applications.

I suggest reading this paper

http://ntrs.nasa.gov..._2009006929.pdf

[THBatMan8]

TopDollar, on Nov 3 2010, 10:46 PM, said:

From an aerodynamics perspectives, a BWB presents itself to be a lot more efficient due to it's decrease in surface area.  The whole body acts as a lifting surface so the lack of tail and integration of the engines into the body can reduce surface area by about (1/3) of a conventional aircraft.  Since surface area is directly proportional to drag, there is a significant decrease in drag on the airplane.  This of course means you need a smaller driving force (i.e. engines), which reduces fuel cost.

What happens with research aircraft such as the X-48B is what was learned from the design is implemented into future designs and commercial applications.

I suggest reading this paper

http://ntrs.nasa.gov..._2009006929.pdf

I completely agree with you. BUT, you cannot cover up the operational concerns that BWB's present.

BTW I kinda like the look of BWB's; but you can't jeopardize safety to save fuel. The main difference between the military and civilian is that civilian airplanes need to be redundant. BWB's just don't offer the redundancy that the FAA looks for.

Edited by Water_Boy, 03 November 2010 - 09:52 PM.

[Prancer]

Water_Boy, on Nov 3 2010, 09:49 PM, said:

I completely agree with you. BUT, you cannot cover up the operational concerns that BWB's present.

BTW I kinda like the look of BWB's; but you can't jeopardize safety to save fuel. The main difference between the military and civilian is that civilian airplanes need to be redundant. BWB's just don't offer the redundancy that the FAA looks for.

The B-2 has a pretty impressive safety record, so it sounds like a safe design to me.

Edited by hgtkifhieoplwoji, 03 November 2010 - 09:58 PM.

[TopDollar]

The B-2 is actually a hybrid wing design.  A combination of a flying wing, and BWB.

[Prancer]

TopDollar, on Nov 3 2010, 10:03 PM, said:

The B-2 is actually a hybrid wing design.  A combination of a flying wing, and BWB.

Still. It has a safety record that even surpasses the F-22. (F-22 has 2-3 crashes, B-2 has one)

[Alaska_MD-83]

hgtkifhieoplwoji, on Nov 3 2010, 08:06 PM, said:

Still. It has a safety record that even surpasses the F-22. (F-22 has 2-3 crashes, B-2 has one)

And since technically there are what, 20 in existence, then the B-2 is one of the least safe airplanes flying.

If you want to be technical that is.