Easy Jet announces eco-friendly aircraft design

Easy Jet has announced an eco-friendly aircraft design that will be revolutionary in operating costs, the real questions will it ever fly?

Its a neat design with 2 high mounted fan design engines on the top of the empange and a neat rudder/elevator design. They claim it could deliver 50% improvements to fuel efficiency and carbon dioxide emissions, which is a big deal now-a-days.

Harrison says: "The technology is already there to deliver the next step change. This is not Star Trek, this is within our grasp.

"This is what the next generation of aircraft will look like and we are working with the manufacturers to get this technology delivered in 2015."

EasyJet says that the concept, compared with modern aircraft like the Airbus A320 or Boeing 737, would be 25% quieter and 50% more fuel efficient, while producing 50% less carbon dioxide and 75% less NOx.

Harrison does get into the grit of how a plane like this would need to be demanded by airlines in order to see a company like airbus or boeing jump on board to really get into the testing and production.

www.flightglobal.com...

Also just had another thought. Could this design be a more effective solution then the BWB design? Here are some of my reasons

-the use of a fuselage and layout of landing gear is more suitable to current airport construction ie no need for redesigns of taxi ways etc.

-its not the super radical shift that BWB is due to new construction tech that would be needed i assume for the BWB.

-No problems with airsick passengers. The problems that the BWB has with making passengers possibliy airsick is a non issue with this design.

-More of the tech needed for this type of design is already in the industry and has been tested but not in conjunction with all they composities and engines and tail design etc. The plane provides the perfect test plateform.

Now don't get me wrong I like the BWB design this one just seems more realistic to me. Thoughts anyone?

Most of the advantage of this design is coming from the engines...


A propfan will give around half the specific fuel consumption of a turbofan.

Yes and no Kilcoo. You are right alot of the design revolves around the engine but noise reduction is a combination of a number of factors in the aerodynamics of the plane and the wings will be adding a 15% in efficiencies.

The type's fuselage and wings would be manufactured from lightweight composite materials, like those used on the Boeing 787, delivering a further 15% in efficiencies. The wings have the latest laminar flow technology and are located further aft than current designs to balance the weight of the engines.

I wonder what the laminar flow control methods are...


There are many active ones, but they aren't practical for everyday use.


Also, the 10% from avionics/ATC will only happen when ATC rules change.


I'm also interested in the wingbox location relative to the passenger cabin.


I'm also not quite sure where the undercarriage is going to go with those super thin wing roots.

Here is an extract from this months Aerospace America:

Philippe de Saint-Aulaire, Airbus vice president for environmental affairs, said in March that his company is targeting a 50% reduction in fuel consumption by 2020. Airframe improvements will provide around 25% of the reduction, engine improvements would deliver 10-15% and improved air traffic management another 10%

Sounds familiar


The 2 areas Airbus' current R&D efforts are focussed on are integrating wing control surfaces and laminar flow.


Even more familar now


Airbus has seen scope for a 25% reduction in drag, coming from:

15% viscious drag (see laminar flow control)
7% lift induced drag (shape optimisation, adaptive wingtips and load control)
3% wave drag/interference drag



[edit on 14/6/07 by kilcoo316]

They could do the same thing that Airbus is doing with the A350. They're using a VC-10 style main landing gear, because there are concerns about the thickness of the carbonfibre wing where the landing gear attaches. They usually attach the landing gear to the rear spar of the wing. With the A350, they are going to attach it to the rear spar of the wing forward, and also to a gear beam aft that attaches to the wing and fuselage. Then they use a double side stay to reduce wing loads farther.

Originally posted by kilcoo316
I'm also not quite sure where the undercarriage is going to go with those super thin wing roots.

Well what about a fighter tricycle gear idea along the lines of the F-16?

www.airliners.net...

The falcons gear is interesting. the next link though not actually a real f-16 shows the idea behind stowage.

www.bvmjets.com...

Originally posted by Zaphod58
They could do the same thing that Airbus is doing with the A350. They're using a VC-10 style main landing gear, because there are concerns about the thickness of the carbonfibre wing where the landing gear attaches.

Do you have any links with images of that style of gear Zaph?

It's a computer image from the design, but Flight's page was talking about it here

There was also a 'super efficient' design from Airbus in this weeks Flight, maybe the same one you mentioned?

It was a very basic outline but it showed a Rutanesque canard design with pusher propfans on the wings.

So after a near 20 year hiatus the UDF/UHB may finally be back on the drawing boards. And to think all it took was a huge spike in the oil price and the threat of global warming

What I find more interesting about this is that we are seeing a cyclical shift in the way aircraft are being designed. Many years ago airlines drove the manufacturers in what they wanted. Then the situation reversed for some decades with the airlines merely advising and having input into the design process, but now we seem to be seeing a more overt return to the airlines calling the shots again. How very Juan Tripp

LEE.

Originally posted by Canada_EH
Easy Jet has announced an eco-friendly aircraft design ..........

.
www.flightglobal.com...

You know, I just KNEW that there was something strangely familiar about the look of that proposal, with its 'Starship Enterprise' engine arrangement, if only the Germans had worked out that they were drawing it backwards




[edit on 15-6-2007 by waynos]

Ok, so maybe I'm a bit thick but Airbus says normally they attach to the rear wing spar, but now they will attach to the"rear spar forward" (with a gear beam aft) what do they mean or is this just a semantic point? Are they saying they will attach to the front of the rear spar rather than the rear with a supplementry beam aft and side stays? Im confused and the diagram on "flight's" page didn't really help.

LEE.

Originally posted by waynos

You know, I just KNEW that there was something strangely familiar about the look of that proposal, with its 'Starship Enterprise' engine arrangement, if only the Germans had worked out that they were drawing it backwards

[edit on 15-6-2007 by waynos]

Nah, the Germans have it the right way round


Easyjet haven't really considered the boundary layer wake of the nacelle and pylon on the loading distribution over the fan blades, both spanwise (from the nacelle) and throught the rotation (pylon), and the effect it will have on propulsive efficiency, noise and bearing wear.

edit: The german approach also increased wing lift by further accelerating a large volume of air above the main wing (which has an extremely thick root chord to further take advantage of this).

[edit on 15/6/07 by kilcoo316]

Originally posted by thebozeian
Ok, so maybe I'm a bit thick but Airbus says normally they attach to the rear wing spar, but now they will attach to the"rear spar forward" (with a gear beam aft) what do they mean or is this just a semantic point? Are they saying they will attach to the front of the rear spar rather than the rear with a supplementry beam aft and side stays? Im confused and the diagram on "flight's" page didn't really help.

LEE.

My interpretation is that they used to mount it all on the rear spar, with through pins and the gear mechanism both fore and aft of the spar.

Now, it will be mounted on the forward side of the spar, with all the mechanisms being forward of that point. Its also mounted on another beam, further forward, which has nothing to do with the wing load paths.

Lee, I believe they are spreading the load by mounting the undercarriage to two supports rather than the traditional one, this is what they mean by mounting it to the main spar forward with a (separate) gear beam aft, and this is, as far as I can recall, the way it was also done on the VC-10.

Kilcoo, yes, of course you are right once again, silly easyjet, and silly me

If anything like this was built I wonder what the stresses on those engine stalks would be like

[edit on 15-6-2007 by waynos]