Japan Unveils New Prototypes

Good looking clean machines Zap.
I especially like the red white and blue!

Antar

It is still a tube & wing design. Blended Wing Body aircraft are right around the corner, and will blow any "modern" tube & wing design away.


[edit on 6-6-2007 by MrKnight]

Mr Knight, I'm starting to wonder if you aren't perhaps a little bit more into this blended wing body thing than is good for you?

Originally posted by MrKnight
It is still a tube & wing design. Blended Wing Body aircraft are right around the corner, and will blow any "modern" tube & wing design away.


[edit on 6-6-2007 by MrKnight]

More of the same old crap.


Your like a broken record.



A BWB giving you the best possible L/D values in one specific area is not the be-all and end-all of aircraft design you know.

I agree, I am a big BWB fan. It is like a bad drug habit, and I lose sleep at night thinking of the possibilities.

If I sound like a broken record, then you have not seen the vision and do not grasp the beauty of the BWB! LOL

Just don't read my posts.......but, don't be surprised if you see BWB's sooner then you think.

These are nice planes, but I do not find them exciting. You are bored with my comments, and I am bored with Tube & Wing design. Tube & Wing is so 20th century. Big deal Japan designed and made something we did 60-50 years ago but with modern computers, and modern materials.

What do you think we have in the works with the new design toys of the modern era?


One BWB will not be the be all end all, but modified and various BWB designs will be the next generation of aircraft evolution for freighter, cargo, and some passenger applications.


[edit on 6-6-2007 by MrKnight]

Originally posted by MrKnight
don't be surprised if you see BWB's sooner then you think.

I'll be shocked if I see BWBs carrying commerical passengers within 20 years.

Originally posted by MrKnight
These are nice planes, but I do not find them exciting. You are bored with my comments, and I am bored with Tube & Wing design. Tube & Wing is so 20th century. Big deal Japan designed and made something we did 60-50 years ago but with modern computers, and modern materials.

You could say the exact same thing about the B787 - which is in many ways revolutionary.

[Big up to Boeing for it BTW]

Originally posted by MrKnight
What do you think we have in the works with the new design toys of the modern era?

Continued refinement of materials, allowing lighter and stronger structures, which allows thinner wings (less drag), allows lighter fuselages.

Expect to see increased flow control, both passive and active, use of serrated skin for reduced drag, use of active noise control, increased use of passive noise control.

Ultra high bypass ratio engines with ever increasing operating pressure ratios, with magnetic bearings, also using morphable "smart material" structures to optimise the nacelle shape to the flight condition.

Hydraulic actuators will be replaced throughout the aircraft (if they haven't already).

Originally posted by MrKnight
One BWB will not be the be all end all, but modified and various BWB designs will be the next generation of aircraft evolution for freighter, cargo, and some passenger applications.

It definitely will not be the next generation of passenger aircraft.

A pure BWB is only good for large scale (big aircraft), below it, you have more of a lifting fuselage design for useable volume reasons.



A BWB is also limited by its stability & control techniques. You have to be careful about adding LE slats and TE flaps to increase maximum lift without moving the aero-centre about too much - after all, the lever arm of the pitch controls is extremely short (compared to conventional aircraft).


Thus, a STOL 'BWB' will probably never be entirely feasible without a seperate tailplane.

www.hickerphoto.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

Originally posted by kilcoo316

Originally posted by MrKnight
I am bored with Tube & Wing design. Tube & Wing is so 20th century. Big deal Japan designed and made something we did 60-50 years ago but with modern computers, and modern materials.

You could say the exact same thing about the B787 - which is in many ways revolutionary.

I do say the same thing about the B787. It is not "revolutionary" is it "evolutionary". Take a look at a 707 next to a 787 and you will see that little has changed in the design.

The 787 is not that big of a deal, and is not a very big step forward when compared to the benefits of a BWB.

Originally posted by kilcoo316
It definitely will not be the next generation of passenger aircraft.

I beg to differ, as any airliner would love to get their hands on and aircraft that is 20% - 30% fuel efficient, and can take more passengers.

Like I said before, you will see them being used soon than you think. A BWB will be in operation as a freighter within the next 10-15 years, and passenger airliners will jump on board once they see the benefits.

Originally posted by kilcoo316
A pure BWB is only good for large scale (big aircraft), below it, you have more of a lifting fuselage design for useable volume reasons.

I agree, but then again is "More Lift" and "More Volume" a bad thing in an aircraft? Don't forget that a BWB, or smaller Hybrid Blended Wing Body (HBWB) will have more fuel volume. That combined with more fuel efficiency means alot more range. 25% effiecency + 25% more fuel volume = 50% more range. The increased lift, will allow for increased payload, and the increased internal volume means that you can carry more freight or passengers.

Less Fuel + Less Moving Parts + More Payload = Increased Revnue Margin

Originally posted by kilcoo316
A BWB is also limited by its stability & control techniques. You have to be careful about adding LE slats and TE flaps to increase maximum lift without moving the aero-centre about too much - after all, the lever arm of the pitch controls is extremely short (compared to conventional aircraft).

Tell that to the birds that fly in the sky. Most birds have more wingspan than legnth. And LE Slats, and TE flaps are already highly used on modern aircraft, so there is nothing new there. All initial studies, and X-48B wind tunnel test and test flights have shown that BWB's will not need as many moving parts for stable control.

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Thus, a STOL 'BWB' will probably never be entirely feasible without a seperate tailplane.

I agree. You need at least a horizontal tail. Once again, look at birds....they know how to fly.



A True Blended Wing To Body, with a Horizontial Aft Tail

Originally posted by MrKnight
I do say the same thing about the B787. It is not "revolutionary" is it "evolutionary". Take a look at a 707 next to a 787 and you will see that little has changed in the design.


The 787 is not that big of a deal, and is not a very big step forward when compared to the benefits of a BWB.

Absolute utter rubbish.


You take the windtunnel figures and compare them to a 707 and you'll see a 25% improvement.

You take the sfc figures of the 2 engines and compare them to a 707 and you'll see twice that.

You take the payload:fuel/range ratio of the 787 and compare it to the 707 and you'll see the 787 is probably more than twice as efficient.

Originally posted by MrKnight
I beg to differ, as any airliner would love to get their hands on and aircraft that is 20% - 30% fuel efficient, and can take more passengers.

Where do you get the idea it is "much" more fuel efficient from.

When the structural changes are taken into account, and the transonic drag rise resulting from the larger t/c ratio is taken into account, the improvements aren't nearly as much as you'd believe.

Originally posted by MrKnight
Like I said before, you will see them being used soon than you think. A BWB will be in operation as a freighter within the next 10-15 years, and passenger airliners will jump on board once they see the benefits.

Ha - they'll be used in freighters for at least 10 years before the FAA/JAA clear them for PAX flights.

Originally posted by MrKnight
I agree, but then again is "More Lift" and "More Volume" a bad thing in an aircraft?

Only if the volume is useable, otherwise its dead weight.

Originally posted by MrKnight
Don't forget that a BWB, or smaller Hybrid Blended Wing Body (HBWB) will have more fuel volume. That combined with more fuel efficiency means alot more range.

That range increase is only useful if you actually want it, if you don't, then its detrimental to performance.

Originally posted by MrKnight
Tell that to the birds that fly in the sky. Most birds have more wingspan than legnth. And LE Slats, and TE flaps are already highly used on modern aircraft, so there is nothing new there. All initial studies, and X-48B wind tunnel test and test flights have shown that BWB's will not need as many moving parts for stable control.

LE slats and TE flaps for STOL are not in use in any flying wings or BWBs.

You totally missed what I was on about. When you deploy these devices, you move the aerocentre of the wing. With a normal aircraft, the horizontal tailplane has a sufficient moment arm to cancel out the change and retain controllability.

A BWB does not have this lever arm.

Originally posted by MrKnight
I agree. You need at least a horizontal tail. Once again, look at birds....they know how to fly.

A True Blended Wing To Body, with a Horizontial Aft Tail

A true morpheable wing, capable of generating lift with zero forward movement... yeah - comparable to aircraft all right...

if it took 50 years to design 25% more fficiency out of the tube & wing design, and a BWB is around 25% more efficient than that!

That is how I arrived at "More" efficient.

Oh, by the way, if you have more "lift" you can carry more "weight" so having the volume is a no brainer for increased payload.

Also, there is a current trend towards to "Point-to-Point" flights in the airline industry. If you are an airliner, and you can get more revenue from point-to point flights, then you will need more range, so yes more range is a good thing.

Un-used range is bad for tube & wing design because of the wear of the stress of take-off and landing onthe wing structure of a tube & wing design. The stress on the airframe is most then, that is why airliners try squeeze the range. A BWB does not have this stress fatigue problem, and the wing design is intergrated into the body, and will not have as much stress fatigue on take-off and landing, tus, you can use the range if you need it, but do not have to worry as much about flight cycles as the better designed airframe.

Originally posted by MrKnight
if it took 50 years to design 25% more fficiency out of the tube & wing design, and a BWB is around 25% more efficient than that!

That is how I arrived at "More" efficient.

A 1970s BWB would be no more than 20% more efficient than a 1970s conventional aircraft - heck, I'll wager it would be much less than that.

Materials, aerodynamics and engines have moved on soo much... it is only now that BWBs are becoming feasible (due to structural issues).

Originally posted by MrKnight
Oh, by the way, if you have more "lift" you can carry more "weight" so having the volume is a no brainer for increased payload.

Again - no point having the volume if you cannot use it.

Originally posted by MrKnight
Also, there is a current trend towards to "Point-to-Point" flights in the airline industry. If you are an airliner, and you can get more revenue from point-to point flights, then you will need more range, so yes more range is a good thing.

If that were the case, everyone will be wanting a A380 and not a 787 then?

Originally posted by MrKnight
Un-used range is bad for tube & wing design because of the wear of the stress of take-off and landing onthe wing structure of a tube & wing design.

There is sooo much more to it than mere flight cycle fatigue. Indeed, that is a inconsequential impact of larger than necessary fuel tanks. Being in the wing, this structure doesn't really load the wing spars at all.





But, I get the feeling no matter what I say, you'll continue to stick your head in the sand and ignore it.


[edit on 7/6/07 by kilcoo316]

Well considering that I though this thread was on Japan's new concepts and he mentioned the BWB again since he always has to have a mention of his beloved design. Its a neat design but honestly it has draw backs like any other design which is the simple way to say what Kilcoo is saying.

I think I'll go and seek out my old thread about the 70th anniversary of the Spitfire and see if anyone has added a post on the end of it saying how it was really a rubbish plane as it followed the tube and wing philosophy and would have saved Britain much more efficiently if only it had been a BWB.

waynos and canada eh have you guys seen the orion with jet
engines floating around.
i will find it again.
I want to know if it is real or photoshopped.

Found it guys.
what do you think??
and shall we start a new thread on bwb

right off the bat the engines are fuzzy as hell. They also look like the 707 engines. The only that we really ever 100% disprove things like this is if we can find the original which will seem like a tall order but weirder things have happened. I'll take a look to see what I can find. It does look like the Japanese plane you posted earlier though.

On closer inspection the bottom radar dome is not on any of the photos or design spec's that I'm finding for the CS. weird the plane looks so much like one in the photo but it could easily be a mash up of photos from the looks of it. After working with photoshop for 4 years I'd say that this photos is easy to make in PS and since it is so fuzzy and the quality is bad its even easier to do. Its when the photo is clean and in focus that its harder to tell. I'm at almost 90% for being sure of the PS job.

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]

Originally posted by Jezza

Found it guys.
what do you think??
and shall we start a new thread on bwb

The engine on the far wing is too big.


Its either a test mule or a hoax.

Hey jezza, the horizontal stabillizer is at the wrong angle. It appears to be canted 5/10 deg to port. I can't quite put my finger on it but I would say it is either a 747 or PS'd 707 tail. And the wings & control surfaces look suspiciously 707 in appearance. Also I smell PS cloning tool use around the wing/fuselage mating point. For a start there is no wing root fillet fairing. If you look the chine line between the grey and white is not quite straight either.

On the other hand this could be a BWB in disguise

LEE.

Originally posted by Jezza

Found it guys.
what do you think??
and shall we start a new thread on bwb

Someone took a 747 and a P-3 and blended them together. It's a 747 wing and tail. Definitely photoshopped. Interesting look though.

[edit on 6/8/2007 by Zaphod58]

I've not seen this image before, as it came up on screen I must admit I thought 'oh, its flown then' (meaning the P-X) but then a second later I thought 'hang on!!', and then I saw the rest of the thread

Definitely a 747 nearside wing and engines, far side wing looks like its from a different 747 image altogether as the perspective is all wrong, fuselage is a P-3, quite obviously, but I can't decide on the tail, more 747 clonery is deffo favourite though.

edit; do Japanese P-3's have that kink on the forward cheat line or is the nose itself just stuck on?

[edit on 8-6-2007 by waynos]

Here's the best pic I could find of a Japanese P-3 for you to compare waynos. I'd try to, but I'm on medication from my surgery, and my brain is all fuzzy so I'm not seeing what you're looking at right now.