"New" designs. Ok. Pretty sure variations on most of these have existed for decades. There have been tons of radical looking aircraft designed and even in limited production (in private aviation), but just because it's radical doesn't mean it's really new.
Engineers are exploring radical new designs for commercial planes
71–80 of 189 posts
Re: Engineers are exploring radical new designs for commercial planes
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see this more and more everywhere across the plane these days. I remember flying as a kid/teen and nearly every window was open during takeoff and touchdown. Last 3 to 5 years and almost every flight has had less than 10% of the windows open. I don't get it - I also want to see it. We're fucking flying, for god's sake.
They used to ask you to open the window shades for takeoff and landing, idea was to actually be aware of what is going on outside incase an evac is necessary. Now they ask everyone only to close the window shades after landing to better control the temp, the APU a/c is often no match for direct sunlight. Then most people just leave them closed.
I've heard the opposite. Keeping the shades open is so that the rescue crews can look into the plane in case of a crash/accident.
Re: Engineers are exploring radical new designs for commercial planes
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
this issue is why the startup in socal is focusing on air freight for their flying wing design.
I'd image the biggest reason is that risk tolerance is lower for cargo companies than for passenger airlines, and that cargo companies are more inclined to run a subset of their fleet as an "experimental" model vs the consistency that passengers expect. They probably also have the biggest potential gains given there's only so tight you can pack people.
Re: Engineers are exploring radical new designs for commercial planes
#74I 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…
>With total power loss, they become completely uncontrollable.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marske_Pioneer
Note that this entirely powerless aircraft with a fairly high aspect wing and no tailplane first flew in 1968. Something that is basically a blob would be a lot easier to make inherently stable.
Re: Engineers are exploring radical new designs for commercial planes
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue isn't the bank angle exactly, it is the acceleration of the roll. Pilots will need to be careful not to throw people or drinks around, but I think it would be doable.
True, but absolute bank angle would also matter (say endpoint of roll when roll acceleration is zero) because now there's a component of gravity pulling you sideways.
?
Re: Engineers are exploring radical new designs for commercial planes
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pilots can control the bank acceleration, sure. They have much less control over acceleration due to uneven turbulence.
I'm not sure this tracks, I think turbulence powerful enough to cause passenger discomfort is usually so big that it affects the whole plane pretty uniformly. I think it's exceedingly unlikely that you'll spend enough time on a shear line to induce a large roll. At least it's never happened to me, but I am only a passenger.
I've been in turbulence with high roll rates and even as a pilot unbothered by moderate chop, it will cause me to sweat. I've been in the last rows of a 777 and watched the fuselage flex in chop. A blended body would be pretty rigid and have a very low wing loading because it's basically all a wing. So it would be pretty uniform.
It would work if all turns were managed via controls to be a 1/4g, otherwise riding the outside would be like a roller coaster.
I'd prefer to go back to the MD-80. Very high wing loading, fast and never broke down. Skated through turbulence.
Re: Engineers are exploring radical new designs for commercial planes
#77Interesting 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…
people in the center, cargo in the peripherals
Re: Engineers are exploring radical new designs for commercial planes
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
My experience as a frequent flyer is that First Class is the most likely cabin to have all windows closed for 100% of the flight. It's baffling to me, people will even keep closed the window facing New York on the approach to LaGuardia which should be a crime. Also Boston, Salt Lake, Hawaii, and really pretty much all places except like Dallas and Cleveland types totally perplex me when the window is closed and I'm n…
This always baffles me flying out west. I mean Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa - i get it - close those windows we can sleep. But the Rockies, Mt St Helens, Mt Hood, Mt Rainier...and then you hit the mfin GRAND CANYON and you still wont open up your window?!?! people that don't open their window over the grand canyon need to be put on a list for middle seat only.
I am regularly on flights which go over the Grand Canyon. On that flight specifically, I keep my window shade open for the sake of the folks in the middle and aisle seats.
Of course, they are probably thinking "wish that view didn't have that sleeping dude in the foreground".
Re: Engineers are exploring radical new designs for commercial planes
#79Call 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.
Why can't you? Steeper banks will be a small problem, but people ride rollercoasters and most of the time planes fly straight.
Re: Engineers are exploring radical new designs for commercial planes
#80Interesting 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. Th…
Aerospace engineer here, this is incorrect.
Long thin fuselages dramatically increase drag due to skin friction. Blended wings have better lift to drag ratios, meaning for a given amount of fuel consumption (to overcome drag) you get higher payload/better range.
The B2 has twice the range of a 737 and cruises 20% faster.