Boeing 797 Revealed?

Why have they bent the wings of the 747-8 so much...??

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Why have they bent the wings of the 747-8 so much...??

That is only a "natural" evolution of wings and winglets. Basically spoken, it improves the overall lift-to-drag ratio and decreases wing turbulences. Just like the known wings and winglets, they are copied from nature, new materials and technologies enable us to go farther into this direction:

Thanks to ImageShack for Free Image Hosting

There will be no BWB within 30 years.


How do you certify something like that is safe? And safe over its lifespan?

Lifting body aircraft from Bernelli closely approximate the theme of the Boeing 797. The concept has been available from at least 1920. It is interesting to see the lifting body principle outlined for efficiency, something that is old but rejected technology for so many years. Finally actual science and the measurement of things is operating for the aircraft trust. For years the inefficient tube body has dominated aviation. If the new Boeing takes years ahead to realize, it equates to a continuation of inefficiency and air safety questions.

Photos at the new site show and interesting history. Navigate to find more information.

[edit on 26-4-2006 by SkipShipman]

Does anyone have photos of the inside of this plane? I would love to see them.

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

2 words for ya: to expensive.
Japan (Jaxa) is working on a SST, There still in the R&D phase, there shooting for faster then mach 2 and a 300 preson capacity, thats faster then the concorde & 3 times as many people. Which will make it far cheaper then concorde, but still to high to become the "norm".

Originally posted by JamesinOz
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.

mag-lev is VERY expensive, not so much the train...but the track. Japan has a test track....the cost is to high to be economical, the cost would be 1 billion per mile....far to high. There allready is high-speed trains connecting some cities, but its not very wide spread...only the big major cities have that.

Originally posted by infinite8
Does anyone have photos of the inside of this plane? I would love to see them.

This is not official, Boeing has not said if the 797 will be a BWB, so no interior concept exist. unless done by someone with free time...which wouldn't be accurate anyway.

BTW, the picture I used (my fav) was done by popsci.

Originally posted by Murcielago
...
mag-lev is VERY expensive, not so much the train...but the track. Japan has a test track....the cost is to high to be economical, the cost would be 1 billion per mile....far to high. There allready is high-speed trains connecting some cities, but its not very wide spread...only the big major cities have that. ...

You might check your numbers again. The entire Transrapid (german maglev) development project cost about €1.2 billion. It was sold to China, where the 30km track, the trains and two stations cost around $1.2 billion. This article says that in the UK, a kilometer of Transrapid track would cost around £20 million per kilometer, that is €30 million (rounded up). The costs are said to be comparable to a dedicated high-speed train track. Additionally, due to the elevated track, it can rather easily be placed in already urbanized areas because the pillars cover a lot less ground than a regular road or railroad, and can also cross other roads, small rivers and such without needing an expensive bridge.

Especially the USA would be PERFECTLY suited for maglevs like the Transrapid. Long distances between major cities, large flat terrains and often enough space to set up the track. This is the perfect environment for a maglev, because it has enough distance to accelerate to 400-500km/h. Not to forget, the Transrapid for example can also climb steeper slopes than a conventional train, so obstacles can be overcome easier.

[edit on 26/4/2006 by Lonestar24]

[edit on 26/4/2006 by Lonestar24]

As much fun as this artcile may to be read, it contains barely any credibility.

Boeing has not signed off on a BWB type plane (with or without a 797) designation and indeed is many years away from doing so - if ever. There are still huge technical hurdles which need to be overcome, namely to do with stability in crosswinds/during landings & takeoffs as well as overall ride quality (a consequence of the design's low wing loading); evacuation in an emergency; various issues pertaining to efficient component manufacturing and optimal assembly methods; ground infrastructure support and other issues like passenger and airline acceptance.

Furthermore, even if these issues were solved much further down the track and Boeing did greenlight a BWB, there is no guarantee it would be a 1000 seat behemoth. This size goes against Boeing's direct destination philosophy and is more in keeping with the Airbus "hub + spoke" approach. Far more likely is something in the 300-400 seat range, which would be a much less risky proposition.

The article comes from a source with no known credentials to comment on the commercial aviation industry with any authority - it does not even cite the author. This dissertation seems to meld a combination of speculation, basic research, educated guesswork and perhaps some stargazing to try and come up with a story that has not been reported by any other of the major news sources, either general or aviation specific.

Consider that to develop such a radical new plane would require a something north of USD 20 billion to develop and demand masses of qualified engineers - where would Boeing get the money or the people? They are already going to be taxed making and optimising the 787, a plane which is an absolute winner. And next on the agenda is not some A380 rival, but a replacement for the 737.

In summary, a nice speculative piece at best - but no more.

Lonestar - your right.
For some reason I had in my head that it was a billion per mile for the Japan one...But I checked, and their whole setup was 2.4 billion. I still dont see it taking off in the US, mainly because trains just arn't very "big" here, and most rail companies like other methods...like using what they got, like the trains that tilt when taking turns, making it able to go faster while turning, without the people in it being thrown to one side.

And while I'm sure wide-open terrain is good, a track that crosses 3,000 miles just isn't in anybodies budget. The top speed for a maglev is 342, it would be nice to go that fast on the ground in comfort, but again, the costs bring in all to a halt.

And I think we can agree that low pressure tunnels which allow for the trains to reach much much greater speeds, is only in the concept phase, and isn't likely to happen within a couple decades.

Well this discussion about the BWB, seems to be only theoretical. The 787 made a clear statement, in Boeing's eyes, the future of Aviation lies in point to point flights, not hub to hub . That was the whole point behind the Sonic Cruiser and the 787 Dreamliner.

So building a pane of that size doesn't make sense especially since they are doing very well in terms of sales, which proves that they are right...

I think the reason the 797 has been highlighted now is that the press has just been invited to see the X-48, Boeings subscale (8%) BWB flying wind tunnel model.

[edit on 27-4-2006 by Nacnud]

Originally posted by Lonestar24

Originally posted by Murcielago
...
mag-lev is VERY expensive, not so much the train...but the track. Japan has a test track....the cost is to high to be economical, the cost would be 1 billion per mile....far to high. There allready is high-speed trains connecting some cities, but its not very wide spread...only the big major cities have that. ...

You might check your numbers again. The entire Transrapid (german maglev) development project cost about €1.2 billion. It was sold to China, where the 30km track, the trains and two stations cost around $1.2 billion. This article says that in the UK, a kilometer of Transrapid track would cost around £20 million per kilometer, that is €30 million (rounded up). The costs are said to be comparable to a dedicated high-speed train track. Additionally, due to the elevated track, it can rather easily be placed in already urbanized areas because the pillars cover a lot less ground than a regular road or railroad, and can also cross other roads, small rivers and such without needing an expensive bridge.

Especially the USA would be PERFECTLY suited for maglevs like the Transrapid. Long distances between major cities, large flat terrains and often enough space to set up the track. This is the perfect environment for a maglev, because it has enough distance to accelerate to 400-500km/h. Not to forget, the Transrapid for example can also climb steeper slopes than a conventional train, so obstacles can be overcome easier.

[edit on 26/4/2006 by Lonestar24]

[edit on 26/4/2006 by Lonestar24]

Going by your numbers, it's >$10 Billion dollars just to build the track from Boston to New York. That doesnt include turns, tunnels, land, etc...

Originally posted by Murcielago
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]

It's not a new idea but it could be very nice. It trades maneuverability for load capacity. Higher load capacity translates to more passengers per flight and more fuel for longer range. The structure of a blended wing is such that it can actually be made lighter (relative to its load) than conventional aircraft.

Interior poses opportunities as well as challenges. While the load capacity is higher, the increase in interior space is even greater which means cabins can be made very comfortable indeed. On the other hand, because its essentially a flying ball-room, emergency evacuation might pose some challenges and might require some unique engineering solutions which may add weight and complexity to the aircraft.

Originally posted by orca71
...

Going by your numbers, it's >$10 Billion dollars just to build the track from Boston to New York. That doesnt include turns, tunnels, land, etc...

So what? Do you know the incredible sums a multilane highway costs? Up to $50 million a kilometer! And yes, the land needed is covered in that cost, as well as the statistical need for tunnels and bridges (though an unusually higher number of natural obstacles of course would boost the price, but the same would be true for an interstate road or conventional Hi-speed train track.

Originally posted by Lonestar24

Originally posted by orca71
...

Going by your numbers, it's >$10 Billion dollars just to build the track from Boston to New York. That doesnt include turns, tunnels, land, etc...

So what? Do you know the incredible sums a multilane highway costs? Up to $50 million a kilometer! And yes, the land needed is covered in that cost, as well as the statistical need for tunnels and bridges (though an unusually higher number of natural obstacles of course would boost the price, but the same would be true for an interstate road or conventional Hi-speed train track.

Most interstate highways are about $1M/mile to build.

Originally posted by carcharodon
The 787 made a clear statement, in Boeing's eyes, the future of Aviation lies in point to point flights, not hub to hub. That was the whole point behind the Sonic Cruiser and the 787 Dreamliner.

So building a pane of that size doesn't make sense especially since they are doing very well in terms of sales, which proves that they are right...

You’re thinking if the 1,000 passenger BWB was made....But Boeing can scale it down, to hold around 300-400 people, which would make it look much more economical.

I honestly don’t think a bigger plane then the A-380 is necessary. The (hub & spoke) A-380 has around 140 sold, while the (point to point) 787 has around 350 sold. Both aircraft are doing a good job in the sales area.

But Boeing could stick with there point-2-point plan while still having BWB's.....they'll just be smaller, perhaps try and make it the 737 replacement...it is more efficient as well as faster....certainly people will love that part. And if it’s smaller the evac won’t be as challenging.

Originally posted by orca71
It's not a new idea but it could be very nice. It trades maneuverability for load capacity. Higher load capacity translates to more passengers per flight and more fuel for longer range. The structure of a blended wing is such that it can actually be made lighter (relative to its load) than conventional aircraft.

Interior poses opportunities as well as challenges. While the load capacity is higher, the increase in interior space is even greater which means cabins can be made very comfortable indeed. On the other hand, because its essentially a flying ball-room, emergency evacuation might pose some challenges and might require some unique engineering solutions which may add weight and complexity to the aircraft.

Manouverability? Commerical aircraft are not manouverable by any stretch of the imagination!

Depends if that load is contained in pressurised containers or not, if so, it becomes much more complicated, and heavier, than the cylinder with wings. The cylinder is the perfect pressure vessel, and the BWB doesn't lend itself to use of cylinders easily. Obviously, double/treble/quadruple/etc 'bubbles' will be used, but these are still quite a bit heavier than the old boring cylinder.

The shear thickness of parts of the BWB will also require much more internal structure to maintain rigidity than the more compact conventional design.



Don't expect larger internal volumes to equate to greater comfort - if the airlines wanted larger more comfortable seats, they would order them, but since that means less people = less tickets = less money, they don't. Any BWB would have the same philosophy as current designs - pack as many in as you reasonably can.


Emergency evacuation will pose a load of challenges, I would doubt the FAA/JAA would allow emergency exit doors underneath the aircraft, so the only way to clear the middle of the pax cabin (quick enough) would be out onto the upper surface and off a chute up there somehow. I suppose since its already kinda done with over the wing exit doors something can be worked, it might need an extra deck on top though (bit like the 747 if you get my meaning).




But anyway, the biggest challenge would easily be certifying the damn thing - for instance how would the FAA/JAA conduct fatigue testing on the wings?

The problem with airliner designs is simple and all the manufacturers know this to be true...

The PUBLIC just will not get in a plane that looks unconventional. I for one - when I next pop off to Sinagapore - will want to get in something that looks like it will fly.

Now, the buyers of airliners (i.e. the leasing companies and airline companies) know that the PUBLIC won't set foot on anything that is unconventional. This fact alone inhibits designs that deviate from the accepted norm.

I am sure many would say "I would fly it", but ho hum and la-di-da when the the "risk" is considered by the people with the cheques books.

Boeing, Airbus and all the rest can design "concepts" but the reality is that the PUBLIC demands conventionality.

Regards

maybe we are looking at Y3 the replacement for both the 747 and the 777. It is set to begin flying about 2015...

That would be a good posibility for the BWB, probably not for 1000 passenger but in the range of 300-500

I'm new here, so the ink on my "membership" is so wet its smearing.
I have been a big fan of the BWB concept since I heard about it in my school days.
I love that picture in the first post, showing many of the tallest buildings from many cities across the nation. Very funny.
Thanks for all of this 'expert' info. I will enjoy my time here, and, who knows, learn something finally.
Don

[edit on 9-3-2007 by avbum]