Didn't' the 747 lost the cargo competition to the C-5 Galaxy?

I guess Boeing is making a design that can accommodate multiple uses depending on the market just like they did with the Jumbo, They failed at one thing they make the plane another...

About those concepts of twin bodies side by side, that was the original concept for the A380. They dismissed that design because Airbus couldn't make it light enough so it could fly...

Rather than the 747, I see Boeings approach in this programme as being a re-run of the original 707 programme, tanker transport first, then airliner next when the concept is accepted, hard as it is to imagine it now the 707 layout was revolutionary and a little 'off the wall' when it was first revealed too.

talking of twin fuselages, there was a Vickers design in the 1960's that was supposed to use three VC-10 fuselages!



[edit on 29-11-2005 by waynos]

Originally posted by intelgurl
Although Boeing certainly has it's eye on eventual commercial sales of the blended wing design, it is important to note, (especially due to the direction this conversation is going), that the funding for this project is for a multi-role aircraft for the military; the intended functions for this particular aircraft are tanker, cargo, transport plane and even a bomber.
Only one of these functions actually deals with a large number of passengers and thats the transport configuration.

Its definitely going to have to go through a long phase in military service before the FAA or JAA will even considering certifying it for commerical transport.

Certification of new technologies is probably the biggest obstacle in the evolution of commerical aircraft.

Originally posted by kilcoo316

Originally posted by intelgurl
Although Boeing certainly has it's eye on eventual commercial sales of the blended wing design, it is important to note, (especially due to the direction this conversation is going), that the funding for this project is for a multi-role aircraft for the military; the intended functions for this particular aircraft are tanker, cargo, transport plane and even a bomber.
Only one of these functions actually deals with a large number of passengers and thats the transport configuration.

Its definitely going to have to go through a long phase in military service before the FAA or JAA will even considering certifying it for commerical transport.

Certification of new technologies is probably the biggest obstacle in the evolution of commerical aircraft.

I dissagree. THe FAA certified the Global Hawk to fly across the US...and it is unmanned.

Fin
isn't the point with travelling to get from point A--->B as fast as you can, not as cool as you can...

actually, I think todays trend is "to get there as efficient as you can", hence the 787.

I wish it was all about speed though.

But Boeing's plan for the 787 is to make flying fun again.....hope it works...and they realize that the majority of people want a window seat, people dont like small uncomfy chairs and sharing an armrest with some stranger.

Originally posted by Murcielago

I dissagree. THe FAA certified the Global Hawk to fly across the US...and it is unmanned.

Yeah, so 300 passengers probably aren't gonna die if it crashes.

Believe me, certification is a massive, massive part of an aircraft design process.

Case in point - composites, look how long it took for composites to get onto commerical aircraft - even now, they still haven't been used in major areas like wings structures (although the A350 intends to change that [one of the big problems with the program apparently]).

[edit on 29-11-2005 by kilcoo316]

beautiful plane, some thing different and I would be really looking forward to my first flight on one.

but!

after following the mazy complicated route through the seats and along the isle to the back of the top deck and taking my seat, I would be unable to stop myself from saying loudly "I dont fancy getting of this if it catches fire on the runway". I wonder how may people would be re-arranging flights home on conventional tube and wings airliners where the fictional illusion of escape is slightly stronger. this is my only critisism

If this doesn't ring true then its probably just my british gallows sense of humor so please ignore me.

Originally posted by Murcielago
actually, I think todays trend is "to get there as efficient as you can", hence the 787.

I wish it was all about speed though.

But Boeing's plan for the 787 is to make flying fun again.....hope it works...and they realize that the majority of people want a window seat, people dont like small uncomfy chairs and sharing an armrest with some stranger.

Well yes, if we look at this from the airliners perspective... It is the point to get as efficient as possible... But the passangers would hardly like to go to big airfileds first, only to realize that they would have to trade the big plane to a smaller... because the giant couldn't go tho the samll airfiled in "Waistland"...

Well yes, if we look at this from the airliners perspective... It is the point to get as efficient as possible... But the passangers would hardly like to go to big airfileds first, only to realize that they would have to trade the big plane to a smaller... because the giant couldn't go tho the samll airfiled in "Waistland"...

For me, the energy crisis will became apparent in a near future.
It simply doesn't make sense to move the book you are buying at Amazon, thru a series of aircraft & truck all over the USA.

So eventually, it will be wise to rebuilt the train system for both freight & people.

How many of you will prefer going from New York to Los Angeles (choose your destination, it doesn't matter really here) in an high speed train (like the French TGV Train Grande Vitesse) and arrive maybe 2 hours after (take into account the time you must arrive prior to boarding an Aircraft, retrieve your luggage, etc.) with room to walk, strength your legs, go to the gym while on the train, etc., etc.

There are cross continent flight where obviously airliner are the way to go, but there are also lot of connextion whitin the USA, where aircraft are not a must.

I think, the US should rebuilt the train system both for an energy & pollution stand point.

Mod Edit: BB Code.


[edit on 25/5/2006 by Mirthful Me]

mercielago from where did u get that picture isnt the X-48B still a prototype

from where did u get the picture isnt it a prototype

Originally posted by waynos
Good news! Its always nice to see new shapes in the sky, hopefully this will lead to a full sized aeroplane and also give Airbus a kick up the arse as their own BWB seems to have been forgotten in all the A380 hoo ha.

QFE! It's about time the A380 got a good whack against it. Do we have any idea just how many passengers could fit into a beast like this?

Originally posted by drizztduurden
from where did u get the picture isnt it a prototype

Sry for double posting but that can be found in a Popular Science magazine, and posters of that picture can be bought. Look close, that is New York in the background, but it's been FUTURIZED! Got flux capacitor?

i have heard that this plane can carry over 1000 passengers. also it is about time that a BWB passenger plane has been developed, tube fuselelages are getting old and boring.

although how passengers get off the aircraft in the first place is something i would like to know the answer to. with the tube planes this is simple but it seems that the only way out of this aircraft is from below it.

Getting passengers out of a BWB aircraft in an emergency is one of the main points that detractors bring against them. Im sure there is some way around it though, possibly drop down staircases like at the rear of the 727.

Is there any news on this topic yet? 2006 is like 3/4 gone now and as far as I know the prototype hasnt flown yet.

Pretty Airplane but I see some problems looming.

1. While you can probably 'wing back' some structural gains by not having to loadpath especially the outboard panels for underwing engine installation, you are also going to gain weight in two other areas: CG penalty on the aft fuselage engine weight and landing gear footprint.

2. All that skin, while it may cover a neat bit of internal volume, will not come for free in terms of added airframe costs. Also, having it well forward on a thick inner fuselage/body section which /also/ functions (presumably) as a lifting body is going to spoil the cruise point Mach numbers. Indeed, you may well find that the differences in RNumber across the various sectional and root to tip factored airfoil profiles makes you have to design the airframe for different cruise points, possibly spoiling cruise drag altogether. Possibly increasing the amount of difficulty faced in controllability in other regimes. Changes in an/dihedral and sectional twist or washout may further spoil the cruise regime.

3. There is a reason for having long nose:tail separations and big verticals in that it gives the cockpit volume a reason to be as a function of doin' that magic pilot-bleep. IMO, while an advanced FBW could likely control the airframe in 80% of normal flight conditions, airliners must fly more often than other airframes in the 100% of expected weather and particularly landing conditions. I am generally sceptical of putting engines aft of a thick forebody, even on a shortchord 'fuselage' basis and can think of a lot of conditions wherein backflips and wallow leading to a runaway yaw-off as a functoin of aerodynamics could lead to the need to use power on to regain directional control in a regime where you _really_ don't want to be monkeying with the throttles due to exotic airflow considerations (assuming you can get a FADEC to react fast enough on a monster fan like that).

4. Finally, I would have to see aft body flows and structural underpinings for the tanker mission (those auto-booms/hose reels may have to go a long ways out) before I signed off on that '1 of multi' justification (I also suspect the viability of spanwise vice north/south tank bladder loadings as a function of total cargo vs. offload volumes).
And I would further like to see how they plan-to-deplane large cargo volumes in the secondary deployment-transport mission. The unfamiliar configuration and size of the airframe may make ground stance and particularly height off-ground deceptive for loading while the need to accomodate primary structural frames as well as deep cross struts/frame bulkheads for the stiff tail booms and the landing gear wells may inhibit a ventral/rear door configuration. Dedicated C-jets may be darn near worthless aerodynamically but the one thing they give you over CRAF for instance is the ability to roro from both ends of the tube without heavyweight AGE in the form of pallet lifts or bulk conveyors.


KPl.

[edit on 2-9-2006 by ch1466]