It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Will MoM be a TTBW?

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 10:13 PM
link   
I was reading an article on Aviation Week and had the idea that the Boeing Middle of Market aircraft may possibly be a Transonic Truss Braced Wing. Boeing and NASA have been testing scale models of a TTBW design and have come up with some pretty interesting numbers. Phase 1 testing was completed in 2010, using a scale model of the design. The fuselage is a traditional tube design, with the truss bracing to the wings.

The design was developed under the NASA Sugar program for the N+3-generation fuel efficient airliners, that would come into service around 2030. The plan is to have a manned X-plane flying in the early 2020s. The latest version tested in the wind tunnel, had an aspect ratio of 19.55, compared to 11 for the 787, and 8 for the 747-400.

With a truss braced wing, the wing can be made lighter and thinner, giving a larger wing for the same weight. They also have a lower induced drag than conventional wings. Phase 1 testing showed a fuel consumption reduction of 5-10%. Phase 2 confirmed that it was viable, and the flutter weight penalty was acceptable. Phase 3 tested the high-speed aerodynamics and truss interference. A 4.5% model with a 12.5 degree sweep and 7.7 foot wingspan was used for testing. Scaled up, that would have a 170 foot wingspan, compared to 118 feet on a winglet equipped 737-800. Boeing and NASA are in discussions about a possible fourth round of tests to study more areas.


Unconventional configurations will almost certainly be needed to meet the “Earth friendly” emissions standards required to support sustainable growth in commercial aviation beyond the 2030s, but there is less certainty as to what shapes those unusual future airliners will take.

One potential design that recently successfully traversed another round of wind-tunnel tests is the transonic truss-braced wing (TTBW) concept under study by Boeing and NASA. Although in some respects it is a traditional “tube-and-wing” design, the concept of using a long-span, low-drag, truss-supported wing on a jet airliner makes it anything but conventional.

TTBW was developed under Boeing Research & Technologies’ (BR&T) NASA-funded Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research (Sugar) program to identify and investigate configurations and technologies for N+3-generation (2030-time frame) fuel-efficient airliners. The concept, which is in the running to be tested as a piloted X-plane in the early 2020s, derives its high lift/drag efficiency from its slender, glider-like wing. In the version most recently tested, the TTBW has an aspect ratio (wingspan squared divided by area) of 19.55. This compares to 11 for the composite-wing Boeing 787 and 8 for the conventional-wing 747-400.

aviationweek.com...




posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

5 to 10 percent fuel savings is worth the trans sonic cost of broken windows and pissed residents who have to clean up the glass?

Remember the Concorde? It was loud, prone to hi pressure tire blowouts and rained sonic booms on startled residents.

Not that the elite that fly them care much from inside the passenger cabin, after all they're saving a few hours flight time.

Yay.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Uhm, transonic flight doesn't break anything. Just about everything flying goes transonic, and there isn't a single broken window under them at any point in flight. Transonic aircraft are still subsonic, and don't have the pressure waves you're bitching about.
edit on 4/3/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 10:42 PM
link   
"The design was developed under the NASA Sugar program for the N+3-generation fuel efficient airliners, that would come into service around 2030."

This is off-topic,but how far ahead does NASA usually plan?
edit on 3-4-2016 by buckwhizzle because: Punctuation error!



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: buckwhizzle

Aircraft development can take anywhere from 15-20 years, so they're usually looking about that far ahead, if not slightly farther.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

A large scale, turbo jet powered de Havilland Otter?



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
Regardless, Concorde couldn't justify it in the publics mind…

End of story



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I really want to see this happen... I fear height. But with Xanax, money and speed (not the drug ).
Will it happen..
www.spikeaerospace.com...

And..
www.foxnews.com...



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 10:58 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

And this has nothing to do with Concorde, so I don't know why you even brought it up. Concorde was supersonic, this is transonic. The two are completely different, contrary to what you seem to think. There will be no difference in this flying over your head, and all the regular commercial traffic flying over your head. How many broken windows have you had to clean up from normal air traffic? Because that's all transonic too.


edit on 4/3/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

And with that I have to delete my post...

Sadly I keep reading reading the thread
Aaaand re reading..

edit on 3-4-2016 by Bigburgh because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Pretty pictures. Always just pretty pictures. When are they actually going to fly any of these pretty pictures? I know, I'm a bit snarky tonight. But, these things are always 10 - 15 - 20 years down the road. Where are the planes today that were pretty pictures 20 years ago? Frankly, I wish they would work on better seats and food.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: SonofaSkunk

Actually, as I said in the OP, the plan is to have a manned X-Plane version in the 2020 timeframe. The MoM isn't going to fly until after that, because they're concentrating on the 777X program.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Transonic at or near the speed of sound, depending. Thanks for making the distinction.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

And transonic is still below the speed of sound, so there is no shockwave, and no damage on the ground. Period. No matter how you try to justify it. Did you bother to read the article? Of course you didn't, or you wouldn't compare it to the Concorde. The scale tests had a maximum operating mach of 0.795, and a dive-speed mach of 0.865.

A 747 typically cruises at Mach 0.86, the 777 Mach 0.84 at 35,000 feet. The 787 cruises at Mach 0.85. Airbus aircraft operate at similar mach numbers. This aircraft will cruise around the same speed as well. Transonic speed is about Mach 0.8-Mach 1 at sea level.

Any aerospace engineer makes a distinction between transonic and supersonic, because there IS a difference between the two. Modern aircraft are designed to cruise at transonic speeds, just as this will.
edit on 4/3/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Thats why I thanked you, geez what a grouch…



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Have they actually made a determination on continuing with the program? I might be wrong but I thought the last time they talked about it they basically said "we are looking at it and will make a determination later this year."

Either way looks like an interesting proposal. Definitely a departure from the skinny 787 spawn that many would expect.



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: justwanttofly

They've been playing around with a hybrid electric concept, as well as a conventionally powered concept. They were talking about it being a 737/A320 replacement in February of this year. They said fuel consumption is about half of a 737/A320.
edit on 4/4/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 01:35 AM
link   
I was really hoping they would have the method of preventing/dispersing the supersonic waves figured out for this generation craft.



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 01:39 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

They're working on that as well. But this is for a more traditional, subsonic transport.



posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 01:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

As long as I get what I want to cut down on those trips to Manila. I feel like I went camping for days by the time I get there.

Have those NASA guys build me an airship too, that's #2 on my wishlist.
edit on 4-4-2016 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join