Scenes when airport design constrains this more than engineering.
Engineers are exploring radical new designs for commercial planes
11–20 of 189 posts
Re: Engineers are exploring radical new designs for commercial planes
#12Interesting historical note on the blended wing design: One of the main arguments against it was that designers weren't sure if people would be ok with sitting towards the center of the plane. The thought was that passengers wouldn't be comfortable without being able to at least see outside (even a little, looking at you 3/4/3 widebody planes). I mention this b/c there is a quote in Mary Roach's Flying to Mars. She m…
This "problem" goes away if you just have one of the feeds in the seat-back entertainment system be a wing mounted camera view no?
Re: Engineers are exploring radical new designs for commercial planes
#13paywalled, unfortunately, but just based on the headline and image, this is probably "flying cars" levels of speculation? No commercial manufacturer builds a completely new airplane and brings it to airline-industry-market in under 15 years. Especially designs that have been around for many decades already and aren't being used because economic sense is the only sense that drives the airline industry.
[deleted]
Re: Engineers are exploring radical new designs for commercial planes
#14Call me when they've solved seats in such planes. If you put them in a central "barrel" like in a current plane it would be a bad use of the available space. Yet you can't do otherwise. Because of the heavy banking when the plane turns, you can't seat people far away from the central axis and closer to the side edges of the V shape.
Interesting point. Cargo and fuel should be placed on the far sides. Passengers towards the center, perhaps on two levels. Routes could be adjusted to decrease typical bank angles.
Makes me wonder if we'll have cargo-only planes that converge on a different optimum. In full autonomous mode, comfort is not a factor and reliability can also be relaxed. Of course, we'd lose the flexibility of being able to convert the plane for passenger service.
Re: Engineers are exploring radical new designs for commercial planes
#15Interesting historical note on the blended wing design: One of the main arguments against it was that designers weren't sure if people would be ok with sitting towards the center of the plane. The thought was that passengers wouldn't be comfortable without being able to at least see outside (even a little, looking at you 3/4/3 widebody planes). I mention this b/c there is a quote in Mary Roach's Flying to Mars. She m…
A bigger problem with blended wing designs is actually for the people on the peripheral. When the plane banks, passengers further from the axis of rotation will feel a more significant change in their altitude. You literally feel like you're "falling", as the plane banks to your side.
This also applies to existing aircraft, but the amount you drop/rise is limited by the your distance from the axis of rotation, which is normally not very far. In blended wing designs, the distance could be considerably greater, making this sensation much more intense.
The workaround for this would be to simply use shallower bank angles, but I suspect that would require some pretty major changes to navigation rules, as it would drastically increase the turn radius.
Re: Engineers are exploring radical new designs for commercial planes
#16Interesting historical note on the blended wing design: One of the main arguments against it was that designers weren't sure if people would be ok with sitting towards the center of the plane. The thought was that passengers wouldn't be comfortable without being able to at least see outside (even a little, looking at you 3/4/3 widebody planes). I mention this b/c there is a quote in Mary Roach's Flying to Mars. She m…
The main argument against it is that it increases fuel consumption. Plowing your cargo area through the air sideways is just idiotic. There is some crazy public belief that it is more fuel efficient because the public doesn’t understand physics. These things keep getting getting publicity because even Hacker News folks don’t get it.
Long high aspect ratio wings and streamlined body are how you get fuel efficiency.
The fuel burn of a B2 is far higher pound for pound than a 737.
This idea gets even more ridiculous when you consider the cargo area is a pressure vessel. There is a reason the body is isomorphic with a welding tank.
Edit: I suppose I wouldn’t care about this, but the Biden Administration plowed climate money into a blended wing military concept, which 1 day with any CFD software shows is stupid.
Re: Engineers are exploring radical new designs for commercial planes
#17I remember seeing renderings precisely like this in my middle school textbooks in the 90s, claiming the same thing. The truth is that commercial airliners are a solved engineering problem. We are at the absolute limits for speed, reliability, and safety that can be achieved with a flying machine in the earth’s atmosphere. Which is why the fundamental layout has not changed since the 707 was introduced over 60 years a…
Here's some info on stability, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S100093612....
I think you're thinking of pure flying wings.
Re: Engineers are exploring radical new designs for commercial planes
#18Who will be held accountable when this fails and people die?
Re: Engineers are exploring radical new designs for commercial planes
#19Interesting historical note on the blended wing design: One of the main arguments against it was that designers weren't sure if people would be ok with sitting towards the center of the plane. The thought was that passengers wouldn't be comfortable without being able to at least see outside (even a little, looking at you 3/4/3 widebody planes). I mention this b/c there is a quote in Mary Roach's Flying to Mars. She m…
Anecdotally, I hate flying if I can't see out the window. Like, really really hate it.
Re: Engineers are exploring radical new designs for commercial planes
#20Puff piece as we head into the weekend. Not a bad summary of decades old concepts, but Boeing won't touch these things due to shareholder conservatism even though they are fundamentally better than the tube with wings. If there were a SpaceX of commercial jets, this is what they would build.
I was going to call it a puff piece, but as far as Boeing is concerned:
> Boeing won't touch these things due to shareholder conservatism
My spouse worked for Boeing. My son currently works for Boeing. Change is the slowest and most difficult thing to bring about at Boeing. It’s part of Boeing’s DNA.