94 replies to this topic

[Gym_Class_Hero]

No chance of those getting FAA certified; good luck with the evacuation times.

/thread

[Cactus]

I'd be interested in determining how many commercial aircraft designs/concepts produced by MIT or other educational institutions actually make it to the manufacturing stage. Or even if there are any? Anyone?

[THBatMan8]

Duke, on Nov 4 2010, 09:54 AM, said:

I'd be interested in determining how many commercial aircraft designs/concepts produced by MIT or other educational institutions actually make it to the manufacturing stage. Or even if there are any? Anyone?

I'll be the first to say none. BWB's would be nice, but they have too many operational concerns. There's a reason why not a single airliner wants one.

Alaska_MD-83, on Nov 4 2010, 01:24 AM, said:

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.

Ahem, and what was the cause of that crash.....  

*EDIT*

Actually, the B-2 isn't a original design. It's ancestor is the Go-229, and test pilots called it "The Flying Coffin".

Edited by Water_Boy, 04 November 2010 - 11:28 AM.

[SwitchFX]

___, on Nov 4 2010, 04:20 AM, said:

No chance of those getting FAA certified; good luck with the evacuation times.

/thread

I think I'm about to lose my breakfast. Those look horrible.

[Romario_]

There's something about BWB's that cause EXTREME revulsion within me.  

[THBatMan8]

Brian_Griffin, on Nov 4 2010, 01:42 PM, said:

There's something about BWB's that cause EXTREME revulsion within me.  

Airliners don't buy airframes for looks. They never have and never will. The main factors that a airline looks for in a airframe is CASM, RASM, and safety. This is the reason why the current conventional design lasted as long as it did, and will continue to last. It's economical and safe.

Edited by Water_Boy, 04 November 2010 - 01:23 PM.

[Alex_S]

But besides all that, they're ugly ;D

[LA_PHX]

Water_Boy, on Nov 4 2010, 11:22 AM, said:

Airliners don't buy airframes for looks. They never have and never will. The main factors that a airline looks for in a airframe is CASM, RASM, and safety. This is the reason why the current conventional design lasted as long as it did, and will continue to last. It's economical and safe.

He never said they did.  He just commented on his personal opinion on how they look. Personally, I think they look like poop too.

[Prancer]

Alex_S, on Nov 4 2010, 01:30 PM, said:

But besides all that, they're ugly ;D

Nah, if you wanna see hideous and ugly, look at a 747, with that nasty hump in the front and this disgusting things hanging off the wings. It looks clunky and blocky compared to the BBW beauties. No drag-inducing fins and engines hanging off of it, it's all streamlined and sexy.

Edited by hgtkifhieoplwoji, 04 November 2010 - 01:37 PM.

[THBatMan8]

LA_BOS, on Nov 4 2010, 02:31 PM, said:

He never said they did.  He just commented on his personal opinion on how they look. Personally, I think they look like poop too.

It depends on how they are designed. The B-2 I think looks sexy, but it's also a crossbreed as previously mentioned. These photos are also original designs, which will get changed umpti-billion times if a manufacturer decides to build it.


But I seriously doubt we'll see a BWB fly commercially in the US any time soon.

Edited by Water_Boy, 04 November 2010 - 01:38 PM.

[Prancer]

Water_Boy, on Nov 4 2010, 11:25 AM, said:

Ahem, and what was the cause of that crash.....  

http://www.airforcet...report_060508w/

Quote

The most expensive crash in Air Force history — the $1.4 billion loss of a B-2 Spirit bomber Feb. 23 — was caused by water clogging aircraft sensors, according to an Air Combat Command report issued Thursday.

Moisture in three of the 24 sensors that feed information into the bomber's computer system caused the sensors to send bad information about the plane's speed and altitude, and how far up or down the bomber's nose was pointed.

As the jet took off from Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, the onboard computer thought the B-2 was pointed downward, causing the nose to jerk suddenly upward.

[Pierre.]

no vertical stabilizer = no go.
Imagine the amount of computers that would be required to replace the vertical stabilizer.

[Prancer]

Pierre., on Nov 4 2010, 02:02 PM, said:

no vertical stabilizer = no go.
Imagine the amount of computers that would be required to replace the vertical stabilizer.

Considering the aircraft today are 95% computer operated anyway, and they're mostly 1990s tech....in about 10-20 years, it'd be a snap.

Remember. B-2.

[Gym_Class_Hero]

Pierre., on Nov 5 2010, 12:32 AM, said:

no vertical stabilizer = no go.
Imagine the amount of computers that would be required to replace the vertical stabilizer.

That problem can be overcome, but evacuation still remains the largest issue and it's not going to get certified.


One thing that would be awesome though is if the materials and the airframe where designed for wingflex, then imagine sitting on the window seat on the outermost part of the wing.  Takeoff and turbulence would be AWESOME

Edited by ___, 04 November 2010 - 02:22 PM.

[Romario_]

Water_Boy, on Nov 4 2010, 01:22 PM, said:

Airliners don't buy airframes for looks.

Yes they do, because the Average Joe, who is not as well versed on airliners as you and me are (yes, this is debatable), will see it as some sort of alien space-ship that has been reproduced in the movies. Why do you think airliners have liveries? It is to attract customers (as well as distinguish themselves) from others [as well as some other reasons]. I bet you more than 70% of normal travelers would be pretty freaked out at this new concept. I mean, hey, this might be the future, but then I guess we will have to wait and see.  

[LA_PHX]

Water_Boy, on Nov 4 2010, 11:33 AM, said:

It depends on how they are designed. The B-2 I think looks sexy, but it's also a crossbreed as previously mentioned. These photos are also original designs, which will get changed umpti-billion times if a manufacturer decides to build it.
But I seriously doubt we'll see a BWB fly commercially in the US any time soon.

And I take it back.  Apparently he was saying that.

Romario (brian griffin...whoever you are), many people see what they see in movies and think that is real life, so something tells me they might not have a problem with airliners looking like that.

[Romario_]

LA_BOS, on Nov 4 2010, 02:22 PM, said:

And I take it back.  Apparently he was saying that.

Romario, many people see what they see in movies and think that is real life, so something tells me they might not have a problem with airliners looking like that.

Yea, sorry, my paragraph wasn't the best worded... What I mean is that, with the drastic change from "conventional" airplanes to BWB's might be a little too drastic.

[LA_PHX]

Brian_Griffin, on Nov 4 2010, 01:06 PM, said:

Yea, sorry, my paragraph wasn't the best worded... What I mean is that, with the drastic change from "conventional" airplanes to BWB's might be a little too drastic.

Well, it isn't as if the change would be extreme and instant.  You would see a gradual change to newer designs, just like with the A380.  It isn't as if airlines are dumping their B748s and immediately changing them all to A380s.  Newer aircraft are phased into operations.

___, on Nov 4 2010, 12:17 PM, said:

That problem can be overcome, but evacuation still remains the largest issue and it's not going to get certified.

Roof flies off, everyone is launched out of the plane in ejection seat style.  Done.

[Cactus]

LA_BOS, on Nov 4 2010, 04:13 PM, said:

Roof flies off, everyone is launched out of the plane in ejection seat style.  Done.

As long as they don't get sucked into the jet intake, conveniently located behind them...

[bigflyersmallbyer]

If anyone can pull it off, it's the people from MIT.

hgtkifhieoplwoji, on Nov 4 2010, 07:03 PM, said:

Considering the aircraft today are 95% computer operated anyway, and they're mostly 1990s tech....in about 10-20 years, it'd be a snap.

Remember. B-2.

I've noticed that you seem to think that computers are a fail safe. They're not. They're made by humans, so they will have mistakes in them.