Boeing 797 Revealed?

Boeing (& Nasa) have been doing R&D on BWB's for awhile now, and it seems that their future airliner will be a Blended Wing Body (BWB).

New Tech Spy is reporting that Boeings 797 will be to take on Airbus's A-380.

from the link
There are several big advantages to the blended wing design, the most important being the lift to drag ratio which is expected to increase by an amazing 50%, with overall weight reduced by 25%, making it an estimated 33% more efficient than the A380, and making Airbus’s $13 billion dollar investment look pretty shaky.

from the link
giving the 797 a tremendous 8800 nautical mile range with its 1000 passengers flying comfortably at mach .88 or 654 mph cruising speed (another advantage over the Airbus tube-and-wing designed A380’s 570 mph)

Boeing to take on Airbus with giant 797 Blended Wing plane

I think its about time...they have done a lot of R&D, and its time to put a BWB airliner into service, theres no much reason why you wouldn't, since its faster & more efficent...which are 2 of the most important things. I think the only issue would be the windows...but what can ya really do about that?
I dont like the sound of 1,000 people though...not just for the crashing risk which would have a large amount of life lost, but the fact that the airline companies treat their customers like cattle. No matter how many beautiful renderings of the inside, and mockups created...the final product always seems to be small seats, no leg room, its uncomfortable, and the fact you have to share armrests.

anywho...Hopefully Boeing goes ahead with this design...and use its larger cabin creativly.



[edit on 24-4-2006 by Murcielago]

there's video of boeing with a scale rc model. i'll search the web and see if i can find it.

thats what we all want though. to be packed in with 999 other sweating pigs in the likes of a cattle car

[edit on 24-4-2006 by bigx01]

What I found weird is that Boeing often stated that the next plane to be developed will be the replacement for the 737 or Y1, and next the replacement for the 747 and 777 codename Y7.

The also stated that the replacement for the 737 will come when new engines were developed...

Nice find Murcielago great post


Its about time aircraft manufacturers changed from the "norm"

I've sketched planes with a blended wing & body for dozens of years, but I never expected to actually see one. I always thought it would be a good way to increase the interior room while decreasing noise and get more lift at the same time. I always thought though that I must be a little crazy or someone would be building planes that way. I never scaled up anything that big though. Seems to me the things could carry more payload for their size than current designs.

The engine location shown in the drawing is not what I would advocate. The design offers room inside the wings for the engines and that's where I picture them in my mind.

More space just means more seating and less leg room. I work with airplanes alot doing logistics in Frankfurt and I am 6'5" so finding comfortable seating (unless in first class) is relatively impossible.

Lets hope they use the space for more comfort but i doubt it considering that more comfort equals less profit for the airline.

Either way.. i like the design and it appears to make sense.. Im not sure if its a safer option in an emergency landing situation but im no expert, I just control air trade from a little office in the airport Cool stuff though, always nice to see what they come up with next..

They are building one of those new Jumbo jets (The new big boy) here in frankfurt during the next year.. im excited to observe the progress.

1,000 passenger 797? Aren't you all forgetting that Boeing has just launched the 747-8 as its rival to the A380. I thought everyone was of the opinion that the A380 itself was too big anyway?

There are several big advantages to the blended wing design, the most important being the lift to drag ratio which is expected to increase by an amazing 50%, with overall weight reduced by 25%, making it an estimated 33% more efficient than the A380, and making Airbus’s $13 billion dollar investment look pretty shaky.

I would suggest that this statement is quite hopeless, the A380 will be in production at least a decade, maybe two, before this '797' appears and will therefore be nearing rep[lacement itself, maybe by Airbus own BWB giant which has been an ongoing research programme within Airbus for as long as this has with Boeing.

I think the article is actually getting far too carried away with itself, I'm sure that Boeing doesn't use the 797 designation, but the author has applied it in order to lend some credibility or sense of imminence to the piece. Up until the definite commercial launch Boeing always uses makeshift designations, such as 7E7, 7N7, 7S7 or even just 7-7 which was the abandoned 737 replacement of the 1980's. Boeing hates wasting designations, thats why 777 was applied to at least three different projects before the one that was actually built, the first I am aware of was a tri-jet based on the 767 from about 1983.

Thats a thought, I wonder what Boeing will do after it has used 797? 7107 just doesnb't ring true



Also, just noticed this

Boeing decide to kill its 747X stretched super jumbo in 2003 after little interest was shown by airline companies, but has continued to develop the ultimate Airbus crusher 797 for years at its Phantom Works research facility in Long Beach, Calif. The Airbus A380 has been in the works since 1999 and has accumulated $13 billion in development costs, which gives Boeing a huge advantage now that Airbus has committed to the older style tubular aircraft for decades to come.

Er, like I said before. 747-8?

This looks less and less like a serious piece and more like a bit of frilly 'pro-Boeing' propaganda with every look.



[edit on 25-4-2006 by waynos]

Originally posted by Astronomer70
...
The engine location shown in the drawing is not what I would advocate. The design offers room inside the wings for the engines and that's where I picture them in my mind.

There are very good reasons why engines, both on civil and large military airplanes, are rarely integrated into the body. One would be easier serviceability.

Originally posted by waynos
1,000 passenger 797? Aren't you all forgetting that Boeing has just launched the 747-8 as its rival to the A380. I thought everyone was of the opinion that the A380 itself was too big anyway? ...

I also wonder how they want to get people out in time in case of an emergency. Given the shape of a BWB, there are not many surfaces that directly would lead to the outside via a simple door... with passengers sitting inside the wings, they´d have to invent entirely new evacuation techniques and processes. Not to forget the clear preference of passengers to have actual windows available.

Personally, I´d rather think of a large, low deltawing layout with a horizontal-ovoid tube cabin partly blended into it, so that the passenger part of the cabin is above the wing. But who the heck am I ...

[edit on 25/4/2006 by Lonestar24]

If I can be permitted a silly flight of fancy for a moment, imagine 1,000 ejection seats and all those parachutes

Apparently the Boeing BWB was quielty shelved in 2004 the only outward sign was the removal of the BWB section on Boeing website.

I have heard that Lockheed is doing some BWB work for its concept for the US's future special forces stealthy transport

Originally posted by nephyx
Lets hope they use the space for more comfort but i doubt it considering that more comfort equals less profit for the airline.

If the planes are as efficiant as has been said on this thread then although a couple of inches more does mean less profit it still means more profit than with a normal areoplane so mabye they might add more legroom.

Justin

It’s my understanding that one of the problems with the BWB airplanes is that while turning lots of people would experience motion sickness because they are so far from the roll axis.

Cool looking airplane though.

Murcielago,

Scale it to the length of about an SR-71 or C-130.

Thin the sectional variation to something more akin to a Tu-160. Increase the sweep angle (or shift to VG) to something more akin to 45-58`.

And you would have something highly suitable to a Sonic Cruiser styled LRSA, IMO.

OTOH, I personally think it's about time the government and heavy transport industry took unilateral lead in moving away from speedXmass in-transit for it's own sake.

Stopped subsidizing passenger rail that is under utilized.

And stopped making airlines the only choice by default for any kind of real international travel.

Because, clearly, 'the message is not getting thru' to the consumer public, as we continue to see a constant on sales figures for 8 cylinder cars in the last year and even a 1.3% /overall increase/ in our driving habits, 2004-05.

All this while fuel prices once more soar towards 4 bucks a gallon (and the Fed says "Close your eyes! Don't look at the light!") and Katrina like storms show us the way forward into a Greenhouse era.

Which tells me that it's time to start looking at direct gallon:mile:horsepower:mph trades in an equally 'big' way.

With the predominance of the Internet, much of business travel is obsolete except for highest level secure tech and finance exchanges while, if it takes 3 days as a tourist to go to Asia on a superWIG or Fast-CAT and you are paying 1/10th the price of an 18hr trip by conventional airliner, who can complain?

Overland, BWBs are just mazcaz waiting to happen in today's congested airways, especially now that the crushing of the maintenance unions (in trade to 'outsourcing' on a cheapest-bid contractor basis NOT overseen by the FAA or NTSB to any real degree) is being accompanied by ever tighter constrictions on ATC wages and hours with a noticeable LACK of the HITS driven, 'fully automated', replacement technology that was promised in the late 80s and only partly (computers and airport radars) achieved in the 90s.

Bullet trains that took you across country in elevated glass or clear aluminum vacuum enclosures at 200mph today and 500mph tomorrow would be just as cool. And furthermore be _scaleable_ (add cars) for a given day's required peakloads at probably half the total fuel consumption per 1,000 passengers you are looking at here. And again, perhaps a 5th the price.

WE THE PEOPLE need to start planning our vacations like the folks of old planned trans-Atlantic trips. Months in advance with the realization that there were no 'empty seats' available for last minute additions and refunds/date trades were optional based on loadout and (say) Hospital/Police/Lawyer supplied 'emergency' overrides.

Most importantly, I think that if we don't return to a slower pace with less emphasis on the absolutes of volume per day and more on the constants of societal rythm, we will end up having neither moral or technical ground on which to make the changes which the coming petro crisis is apt to destroy our 'instant on' world with anyway.

We will literally burn ourselves out.


KPl.

I agree, it does seem pretty Pro-Boeing/Anti-Airbus.

I would like it if this is the look of the 797...but I'm just not sure.

If it was, then why have the 747-8?

I think the airline industry needs something to change the game up, the planes all look the same, and they are all cramped, you pay your hundreds of dollars to them...and they give you a bag of nuts & a drink, so you can sit down & shut up. Where as trains continue to innovate, speeds keep increasing, and the interior is nice & roomy.

Unfortunately I don’t think trains will ever be as big in the US as they are in Europe, mainly because are cities are spread out over a vast amount of space.

I think the BWB is a great shape, and a good one for the future of aviation. The BWB doesn't have to be a massive 1000 people mover beast. They could just scale it to however big is needed...meaning make them in sizes ranging from the BBJ to a little bigger then the A-380, after all if your going to make a big BWB...you might as well one-up your opponent.

Thats a good Idea, but why would they do that, because the commercial airline Industry is not doing good right now, how would the companys afford to buy them?

You are correct that the internet has given us the ability to accomplish much more in less time, but this has also made our time more valuable.

The single most valuable commodity that we have is the time that we spend on earth. That is why we develop ways to save time and use our time more effeciently.

Who wants to spend more time traveling? If I wanted something slower I would trade in my car for a horse and wagon.

Originally posted by Murcielago
I agree, it does seem pretty Pro-Boeing/Anti-Airbus.

I would like it if this is the look of the 797...but I'm just not sure.

Unfortunately I don’t think trains will ever be as big in the US as they are in Europe, mainly because are cities are spread out over a vast amount of space.

Imo, I think it's possible that future US governments will see domestic inter-city maglev transport as a worthy and vital infrastructure project, especially if the oil shock accelerates.

Crap, I was hoping their next aircraft would be an SST, or at least something along the lines of the Sonic Cruiser.

Originally posted by The_Time_is_now
Thats a good Idea, but why would they do that, because the commercial airline Industry is not doing good right now, how would the companys afford to buy them?

The airline industry can't be too badly off as the numbers of sales announced by Boeing and Airbus last year were all time records for BOTH companies.

The downside of this for the BWB, or any other radically new airliner project, is that it means there are going to be record numbers of brand new airliners in service over the next couple of years that airlines are going to be keeping for a decade or two, so these projects may have to wait a little longer, until the next big round of buying comes along and the aircraft being bought now themselves need replacing.

[edit on 26-4-2006 by waynos]

You know, i don't usually get all worked up over commercial aircraft... but that concept for the 797 is jaw-droppingly cool imo.

I know i've seen the picture that was within the original post some time ago, but i totally cannot recall *where*.