Blended-wing Airliner

[Phil]

Thirty Five percent more fuel efficient. That would translate into
less expensive tickets. And just a fraction of the noise. But will
Boeing ever build something like this? Or will they wait until Airbus
or Embraer or the Chinese or the Russians build one?


http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace/6d915d1eb5370110vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

[Jim Stewart]

Phil wrote:
> Thirty Five percent more fuel efficient. That would translate into
> less expensive tickets. And just a fraction of the noise. But will
> Boeing ever build something like this? Or will they wait until Airbus
> or Embraer or the Chinese or the Russians build one?
>
>
> http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace/6d915d1eb5370110vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

Well, you can bet that all the Boeing
engineers would give their collective
left nuts for a 35% increase in fuel
efficiency.

OTOH, the design appears to be more of a
concept, and we all know how few concept
cars make it to production.

Loosing the cylindrical fuse is a huge
strength issue as the article pointed out.
No flapps and steep bank angle for landing
sounds sketchy to me. And the engines don't
appear to exist.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:55:55 -0700, Phil > wrote
in om>:

>Thirty Five percent more fuel efficient. That would translate into
>less expensive tickets.

With petroleum at record high prices, by the time someone brought this
design to market, the tickets would cost more not less. :-(

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Phil wrote:
> Thirty Five percent more fuel efficient. That would translate into
> less expensive tickets. And just a fraction of the noise. But will
> Boeing ever build something like this? Or will they wait until Airbus
> or Embraer or the Chinese or the Russians build one?
>
>
> http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace/6d915d1eb5370110vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

That website really ought to be called popscifi.com.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Phil > said:
>Thirty Five percent more fuel efficient. That would translate into
>less expensive tickets. And just a fraction of the noise. But will

So only one person out of 40 gets a window seat? I can't see that being
very popular.




--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
I am not a vegetarian because I love animals; I am a vegetarian
because I hate plants. -- A. Whitney Brown

[Don Tuite]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:24:32 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

>In a previous article, Phil > said:
>>Thirty Five percent more fuel efficient. That would translate into
>>less expensive tickets. And just a fraction of the noise. But will
>
>So only one person out of 40 gets a window seat? I can't see that being
>very popular.

40 Hommes 8 Chevals. It's starting to make sense.

Don

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Paul Tomblin > posted:

> In a previous article, Phil > said:
>> Thirty Five percent more fuel efficient. That would translate into
>> less expensive tickets. And just a fraction of the noise. But will
>
> So only one person out of 40 gets a window seat? I can't see that
> being very popular.
>
That ratio isn't all that different from today's aircraft, is it?

Neil

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Neil Gould wrote:
> Recently, Paul Tomblin > posted:
>
>> In a previous article, Phil > said:
>>> Thirty Five percent more fuel efficient. That would translate into
>>> less expensive tickets. And just a fraction of the noise. But will
>>
>> So only one person out of 40 gets a window seat? I can't see that
>> being very popular.
>>
> That ratio isn't all that different from today's aircraft, is it?
>
> Neil

I think 10 accross is about as bad as it gets right now. That means one out
of 5 get a window.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> posted:

> Neil Gould wrote:
>> Recently, Paul Tomblin > posted:
>>
>>> In a previous article, Phil > said:
>>>> Thirty Five percent more fuel efficient. That would translate into
>>>> less expensive tickets. And just a fraction of the noise. But
>>>> will
>>>
>>> So only one person out of 40 gets a window seat? I can't see that
>>> being very popular.
>>>
>> That ratio isn't all that different from today's aircraft, is it?
>>
>> Neil
>
> I think 10 accross is about as bad as it gets right now. That means
> one out of 5 get a window.
>
Good point. I was way off in my thinking about this one!

Neil

[Mxsmanic]

Phil writes:

> Thirty Five percent more fuel efficient. That would translate into
> less expensive tickets. And just a fraction of the noise. But will
> Boeing ever build something like this? Or will they wait until Airbus
> or Embraer or the Chinese or the Russians build one?

Even Scarebus isn't likely to go that far out on a limb, especially for noise
reduction, which isn't as much of a problem as people seem to think, anyway.

I don't see any mention of safety, but I do see a mention of instability. I
seriously doubt that the aircraft would be safer than current aircraft thanks
to its innovative design, and it might be worse. Safety issues--or even a
perception of safety issues--can put an airline out of business.

The whiz kids at MIT have simply run over much of the same ground as many
other engineers in the past. And I'm sure they didn't actually build a
prototype, but instead depended on simulations that might or might not be
accurate.

And Popular Science has been showcasing some rather farfetched (if technically
plausible) ideas for many decades. Sometimes they are right, usually they are
wrong, or at least fairly far off the mark. But that is the nature of
futuristic speculation.

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> That ratio isn't all that different from today's aircraft, is it?

Even with ten across, the ratio is 1 in 5. In smaller aircraft it is higher.

Where do the emergency exits go? Which airports will be constructing
completely new gates for these aircraft? How long does it take to replace an
engine? Where do you board the aircraft? Where does the cargo go?

I'm sure that noise reduction alone cannot justify this aircraft. If the gain
in fuel is really 35%, that could work strongly in its favor (it would have to
be verified with real-world prototypes), but probably not enough to overcome
many other issues, only a fraction of which have been mentioned above.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Phil writes:
>
>> Thirty Five percent more fuel efficient. That would translate into
>> less expensive tickets. And just a fraction of the noise. But will
>> Boeing ever build something like this? Or will they wait until
>> Airbus or Embraer or the Chinese or the Russians build one?
>
> Even Scarebus isn't likely to go that far out on a limb, especially
> for noise reduction, which isn't as much of a problem as people seem
> to think, anyway.
How would you know, Hovel boi?

>
> I don't see any mention of safety, but I do see a mention of
> instability. I seriously doubt that the aircraft would be safer than
> current aircraft thanks to its innovative design, and it might be
> worse. Safety issues--or even a perception of safety issues--can put
> an airline out of business.


Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

>
> The whiz kids at MIT have simply run over much of the same ground as
> many other engineers in the past. And I'm sure they didn't actually
> build a prototype, but instead depended on simulations that might or
> might not be accurate.
>


What, simulations not accurate?

SHUT UP!


> And Popular Science has been showcasing some rather farfetched (if
> technically plausible) ideas for many decades. Sometimes they are
> right, usually they are wrong, or at least fairly far off the mark.
> But that is the nature of futuristic speculation.


Yeah, those loons were saying people might fly back in '02.


kooks, eh?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> That ratio isn't all that different from today's aircraft, is it?
>
> Even with ten across, the ratio is 1 in 5. In smaller aircraft it is
> higher.
>
> Where do the emergency exits go? Which airports will be constructing
> completely new gates for these aircraft? How long does it take to
> replace an engine? Where do you board the aircraft? Where does the
> cargo go?
>

Whgat's it matter? you don't fly and you never will?


> I'm sure that noise reduction alone cannot justify this aircraft. If
> the gain in fuel is really 35%, that could work strongly in its favor
> (it would have to be verified with real-world prototypes), but
> probably not enough to overcome many other issues, only a fraction of
> which have been mentioned above.
>

Good grief, it's a clueless vortex.


Bertie

[Phil]

On Oct 17, 2:24 pm, (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
> In a previous article, Phil > said:
>
> >Thirty Five percent more fuel efficient. That would translate into
> >less expensive tickets. And just a fraction of the noise. But will
>
> So only one person out of 40 gets a window seat? I can't see that being
> very popular.
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin /
> I am not a vegetarian because I love animals; I am a vegetarian
> because I hate plants. -- A. Whitney Brown

Would you give up your window seat if they charged you 35% less to sit
in the middle?

[Kingfish]

On Oct 17, 12:55 pm, Phil > wrote:
> Thirty Five percent more fuel efficient. That would translate into
> less expensive tickets. And just a fraction of the noise. But will
> Boeing ever build something like this? Or will they wait until Airbus
> or Embraer or the Chinese or the Russians build one?
>

More likely, same price tickets and fatter profits for the airlines.
We've discussed this design (beat it to death, actually) in an earlier
thread. The big problem seemed to be with pax comfort (lack of windows
and vertical acceleration for outboard seats during turns) never mind
the pressurization issue.

Looks cool in photos though <G>

[Phil]

On Oct 17, 1:26 pm, Jim Stewart > wrote:
> Phil wrote:
> > Thirty Five percent more fuel efficient. That would translate into
> > less expensive tickets. And just a fraction of the noise. But will
> > Boeing ever build something like this? Or will they wait until Airbus
> > or Embraer or the Chinese or the Russians build one?
>
> >http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace/6d915d1eb5370110vgnvcm1000...
>
> Well, you can bet that all the Boeing
> engineers would give their collective
> left nuts for a 35% increase in fuel
> efficiency.
>
> OTOH, the design appears to be more of a
> concept, and we all know how few concept
> cars make it to production.
>
> Loosing the cylindrical fuse is a huge
> strength issue as the article pointed out.
> No flapps and steep bank angle for landing
> sounds sketchy to me. And the engines don't
> appear to exist.

Ever seen a B2 bomber? They seem to manage OK.

[Phil]

On Oct 17, 1:32 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:55:55 -0700, Phil > wrote
> in om>:
>
> >Thirty Five percent more fuel efficient. That would translate into
> >less expensive tickets.
>
> With petroleum at record high prices, by the time someone brought this
> design to market, the tickets would cost more not less. :-(

Yeah, and it's only likely to keep going up. Of course, that's all
the more reason to build something that is more fuel efficient.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Phil wrote:

>
> Would you give up your window seat if they charged you 35% less to sit
> in the middle?

The middle would be by far the most comfortable seats on the plane. Those
window seats are going to have a interesting ride.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 08:22:19 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>:

>Phil wrote:
>
>>
>> Would you give up your window seat if they charged you 35% less to sit
>> in the middle?
>
>The middle would be by far the most comfortable seats on the plane. Those
>window seats are going to have a interesting ride.
>

The way I see it, only the vertical accelerations resulting from bank
initiations may possibly be objectionable to passengers. The rate of
bank initiation is under (auto)pilot control, so theoretically it
could be kept below that threshold.

Do you see ride quality problems in straight and level flight for
passengers seated well displaced from the longitudinal axis of the
aircraft?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 08:22:19 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
> >:
>
>> Phil wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Would you give up your window seat if they charged you 35% less to
>>> sit in the middle?
>>
>> The middle would be by far the most comfortable seats on the plane.
>> Those window seats are going to have a interesting ride.
>>
>
> The way I see it, only the vertical accelerations resulting from bank
> initiations may possibly be objectionable to passengers. The rate of
> bank initiation is under (auto)pilot control, so theoretically it
> could be kept below that threshold.
>
> Do you see ride quality problems in straight and level flight for
> passengers seated well displaced from the longitudinal axis of the
> aircraft?


There's a big difference from being displaced 10 feet from the center of a
20ft 747 cabin and being 40 ft from the center. And sure the (auto)pilot has
control of the bank but he still has to land and I've been in wide body
airliners that did a significant amount banking on final during bad weather.
If you build a new aircraft that is limited more than current airliners to
the weather they can land in a lot of the fuel savings is going to be lost
when they have to go around or divert while all the other planes are
landing. It won't take many of these to make people not want to fly the new
airplane.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote

> There's a big difference from being displaced 10 feet from the center of a
> 20ft 747 cabin and being 40 ft from the center. And sure the (auto)pilot
> has control of the bank but he still has to land and I've been in wide
> body airliners that did a significant amount banking on final during bad
> weather.

I wonder if a version of this plane could use fly by wire to change the way
the plane turns, a bit.

Could they have the plane do a bit more of a skid though the turns to
eliminate, or mostly eliminate the up and down of the banking for the
passenger's comfort? A little more lateral G would be better, I would
think.
--
Jim in NC

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Kingfish wrote:
>
>More likely, same price tickets and fatter profits for the airlines.
>We've discussed this design (beat it to death, actually) in an earlier
>thread. The big problem seemed to be with pax comfort (lack of windows
>and vertical acceleration for outboard seats during turns) never mind
>the pressurization issue.
>
>Looks cool in photos though <G>

In the late 40s, when Northrop was building the YB-49 jet powered flying
wings, they put together a mock up of a civilian airliner version. I
remember seeing a promo film about it, which can probably be found floating
around the web somewhere.

Northrop solved the problem of passenger claustrophobia by making the
leading edge of the wing transparent. The passengers were seated in a
theater-like arrangement and could see where the plane was headed.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200710/1

[Morgans[_2_]]

"JGalban via AviationKB.com"> wrote

> In the late 40s, when Northrop was building the YB-49 jet powered flying
> wings, they put together a mock up of a civilian airliner version. I
> remember seeing a promo film about it, which can probably be found
> floating
> around the web somewhere.
>
> Northrop solved the problem of passenger claustrophobia by making the
> leading edge of the wing transparent. The passengers were seated in a
> theater-like arrangement and could see where the plane was headed.

That was back when passenger planes were very noisy, and not too fast.

I can see a leading edge bird strike at 250 knots +. It would bring a real
meaning to the word messy.

The noise of a transparent leading edge would be something else, too. All
of the wind whistling around the leading edge would really make some noise.
It might work if it were an inch or so thick, but we both know what that
would be. Heavy, and expensive.

All we need is transparent aluminum, like enough to replace the 16" of
Lexan, as they wanted in the Star Trek movie.

I think if the G loads were not too much for passenger's comfort while
banking, (I'm not convinced they would be, without some real good math
proofs that I'm not good enough to do) I think viewscreens in front of each
passenger would be a great trade for the window view. I hate to not have a
window seat, and it would make me happy to have a view out of any of the
several cameras I chose to view.
--
Jim in NC

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:24:51 GMT, "JGalban via AviationKB.com"
<u32749@uwe> wrote in <79e36c33f4189@uwe>:

>In the late 40s, when Northrop was building the YB-49 jet powered flying
>wings, they put together a mock up of a civilian airliner version. I
>remember seeing a promo film about it, which can probably be found floating
>around the web somewhere.

Would that be this one?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR7gepoAf4E
or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSBjiFtfkFg

Photographs:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YB-49?uselang=de

[Mxsmanic]

Phil writes:

> Would you give up your window seat if they charged you 35% less to sit
> in the middle?

For short flights, I prefer window seats, but short flights cost less, anyway.
For long flights, I prefer the aisle, because it's easier to get to the
bathroom that way.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> There's a big difference from being displaced 10 feet from the center of a
> 20ft 747 cabin and being 40 ft from the center.

What difference is that?

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> Could they have the plane do a bit more of a skid though the turns to
> eliminate, or mostly eliminate the up and down of the banking for the
> passenger's comfort?

What "up and down" are you talking about? The acceleration vector is the same
for everyone.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 19 Oct, 00:47, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Morgans writes:
> > Could they have the plane do a bit more of a skid though the turns to
> > eliminate, or mostly eliminate the up and down of the banking for the
> > passenger's comfort?
>
> What "up and down" are you talking about? The acceleration vector is the same
> for everyone.

You really are completely clueless, aren't you?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 18 Oct, 00:42, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Neil Gould writes:
> > That ratio isn't all that different from today's aircraft, is it?
>
> Even with ten across, the ratio is 1 in 5. In smaller aircraft it is higher.
>
> Where do the emergency exits go? Which airports will be constructing
> completely new gates for these aircraft? How long does it take to replace an
> engine? Where do you board the aircraft? Where does the cargo go?

What's it to you fjukkwit?



>
> I'm sure that noise reduction alone cannot justify this aircraft.

As if you'd know.


Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Marc J. Zeitlin" <> wrote

> I think we can safely say that the rotation won't be any big deal.
> It's arguable whether or not a range of 0.56 G to 1.44 G would be any
> more objectionable than the G loading felt during turbulence. Since
> these types of turn rates would occur pretty infrequently, my guess
> would be that this would not be a big deal.
>
> These numbers might need a little massaging to get them to be more
> accurate, but they're certainly in the right ballpark. We're NOT
> talking about 2 G or negative G's here.

Thanks for putting some real numbers to that. I needed the reality check,
to sorta' prove what I suspected.

The G's are nowhere near a show stopper, as you numbers show. If there was
a problem, there could usually be extra care during the turns to turn more
slowly, and not put extra G's on the passengers.
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> There's a big difference from being displaced 10 feet from the center
>> of a 20ft 747 cabin and being 40 ft from the center.
>
> What difference is that?
>

Like th edifference between you sitting on teh edge of your bed playing
pile-it and sitting on the toilet playing pile-it.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Phil writes:
>
>> Would you give up your window seat if they charged you 35% less to
>> sit in the middle?
>
> For short flights, I prefer window seats, but short flights cost less,
> anyway. For long flights, I prefer the aisle, because it's easier to
> get to the bathroom that way.


Please, this is a family group, fjukktard


Bertie>

[Dave[_5_]]

Perhaps thay should consider rotatable landing gear (such as used in
the B-52). With that the plane could land in a crab, making banking
largely unnecessary.

David Johnson

[Tina]

It's likely the 1.4 gs, or even more the 0.6 gs on the inside seats,
would be objectional but that can be overcome by controlling the roll
banking into the turn. Maybe someone can refine your 20 degrees of
roll per second estimate and tell us what is typical in normal
operations of a large airplane. More importantly it would be
interesting to know if limiting the angular acceleration would have
important safety comprimises in normal operations.

The people who sit in the center section of a wide body are at 3 to 5
seats from a window. Although they may object to not having a window
they nominally pay the same as a window seated person, and if the
window seated person pulls its shade all are deprived of the view even
if sitting one seat away. I doubt the window proximity issue will have
a serious effect on the market. When we travel by a part 135 carrier
we choose flights based on convenience and price, and don't even
consider if the airplane is a wide body or not. Do readers of this
newsgroup consider the type aircraft when buying tickets as a primary
factor in choosing a flight?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Tina > wrote in news:1192787743.273782.310480
@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com:

> It's likely the 1.4 gs, or even more the 0.6 gs on the inside seats,
> would be objectional but that can be overcome by controlling the roll
> banking into the turn. Maybe someone can refine your 20 degrees of
> roll per second estimate and tell us what is typical in normal
> operations of a large airplane. More importantly it would be
> interesting to know if limiting the angular acceleration would have
> important safety comprimises in normal operations.

Well, you can rol as quickly or slowly as ou like, just like any other
airplane. We typicall ylimit the bank to 25 deg,and thirty at the most,
where the g in a level turn is 1.15 Not much at all. Harldy more than you'd
experience when an elevator starts moving.


Bertie

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
>
> Northrop solved the problem of passenger claustrophobia by making the
> leading edge of the wing transparent. The passengers were seated in a
> theater-like arrangement and could see where the plane was headed.

Imagine very nervous fliers when the plane pops into a cloud?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> There's a big difference from being displaced 10 feet from the
>> center of a 20ft 747 cabin and being 40 ft from the center.
>
> What difference is that?

30 ft.

[Snowbird]

"Tina" wrote ...
> The people who sit in the center section of a wide body are at 3 to 5
> seats from a window. Although they may object to not having a window
> they nominally pay the same as a window seated person...

Some charter airlines already charge extra for a window or aisle seat.
Country-specific regulation may affect where this is allowed.

[brtlmj]

> > leading edge of the wing transparent. The passengers were seated in a
> > theater-like arrangement and could see where the plane was headed.
> Imagine very nervous fliers when the plane pops into a cloud?

A crosswind landing would be worse. A few years ago I flew in a SAS
plane with a forward-looking camera installed. Passengers could see
everything pilots saw. I loved it, but I can understand why it was
discontinued. For someone who never piloted anything it IS scary when
the plane is pointed away form the airport.

Bartek

[Tina]

Bertie, the issue isn't the degree of bank, but rather how fast you
roll the airplane into the bank, that would make a px well off center
feel the gs Dave mentioned. For example, if you had Mx sitting on a
wing tip and you wanted to drop the wing out from under him, you'd
bank into that wing quickly. If you banked slowly he'd not feel
himself grow lighter, but if you did it sharply you near the center
line wouldn't feel much but you could yank that tip down at better
than 1 G even when going to a bank limit of 20 degrees. That was the
issue Dave addressed.

The question was, when you start to bank into a turn, how quickly do
you establish the bank angle? I'm guessing you go from wings level to
20 degrees in a slow count of 3 or 4 -- not too much acceleration --
but would appreciate a guesstimate from some who does it for a living.




On Oct 19, 6:39 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Tina > wrote in news:1192787743.273782.310480
> @k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>
> > It's likely the 1.4 gs, or even more the 0.6 gs on the inside seats,
> > would be objectional but that can be overcome by controlling the roll
> > banking into the turn. Maybe someone can refine your 20 degrees of
> > roll per second estimate and tell us what is typical in normal
> > operations of a large airplane. More importantly it would be
> > interesting to know if limiting the angular acceleration would have
> > important safety comprimises in normal operations.
>
> Well, you can rol as quickly or slowly as ou like, just like any other
> airplane. We typicall ylimit the bank to 25 deg,and thirty at the most,
> where the g in a level turn is 1.15 Not much at all. Harldy more than you'd
> experience when an elevator starts moving.
>
> Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Tina > wrote in
oups.com:

> Bertie, the issue isn't the degree of bank, but rather how fast you
> roll the airplane into the bank, that would make a px well off center
> feel the gs Dave mentioned. For example, if you had Mx sitting on a
> wing tip and you wanted to drop the wing out from under him, you'd
> bank into that wing quickly. If you banked slowly he'd not feel
> himself grow lighter, but if you did it sharply you near the center
> line wouldn't feel much but you could yank that tip down at better
> than 1 G even when going to a bank limit of 20 degrees. That was the
> issue Dave addressed.
>
> The question was, when you start to bank into a turn, how quickly do
> you establish the bank angle? I'm guessing you go from wings level to
> 20 degrees in a slow count of 3 or 4 -- not too much acceleration --
> but would appreciate a guesstimate from some who does it for a living.
>

Well, even in a conventional airplane you try to do it as smoothly as
you can Actually, you try to do that in any kind of flying no matter how
outwardly frantic it may appear! But I can't see it being significant to
pax comfort unless they were out at the wingtips. In any case the
aircraft would almost certainly be fly by wire anyway so the
opportunities we'd have to raise your red wine out of your glass!


Given a cabin width of fifty feet and a rate of rotation of, say, ten
degrees a second, you'd be moving, you'd move about four or five feet in
a second. You'd hardly feel it at all if the rate was introduced
smoothly.
In fact, you'd be closer to the CG than you would be if you sat in the
nose or tail of any other modern jet whilst it was making a pitch
change.


Bertie

[Tina]

Bertie, I'm not too good at explaining this. It isn't the angle of
banking that matters but how fast you roll the airplane on its axis to
to get to the back angle that matters. We've gone thru the arguement
that one can rotate an airplane around its roll axis 360 degrees and
not have someone on that axis feel anything but 1 G into the seat.
This is different -- someone else ran the numbers to show what happens
to the local G sense as a function of how fast the airplane
accelerated into the roll -- we'd have called that alpha with two dots
above it back in the long hand calculus days. Accelerate into the bank
angle too quickly and if I was sitting far from the roll axis you'd
lift the wine from my glass. You would, I promise, need a locked
cockpit door if you did that.

I'd be at whining over spilt wine.

OK, put the stun gun away, or aim it over there at the other widebody
and frequent poster here.



On Oct 19, 2:58 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Tina > wrote groups.com:
>
> > Bertie, the issue isn't the degree of bank, but rather how fast you
> > roll the airplane into the bank, that would make a px well off center
> > feel the gs Dave mentioned. For example, if you had Mx sitting on a
> > wing tip and you wanted to drop the wing out from under him, you'd
> > bank into that wing quickly. If you banked slowly he'd not feel
> > himself grow lighter, but if you did it sharply you near the center
> > line wouldn't feel much but you could yank that tip down at better
> > than 1 G even when going to a bank limit of 20 degrees. That was the
> > issue Dave addressed.
>
> > The question was, when you start to bank into a turn, how quickly do
> > you establish the bank angle? I'm guessing you go from wings level to
> > 20 degrees in a slow count of 3 or 4 -- not too much acceleration --
> > but would appreciate a guesstimate from some who does it for a living.
>
> Well, even in a conventional airplane you try to do it as smoothly as
> you can Actually, you try to do that in any kind of flying no matter how
> outwardly frantic it may appear! But I can't see it being significant to
> pax comfort unless they were out at the wingtips. In any case the
> aircraft would almost certainly be fly by wire anyway so the
> opportunities we'd have to raise your red wine out of your glass!
>
> Given a cabin width of fifty feet and a rate of rotation of, say, ten
> degrees a second, you'd be moving, you'd move about four or five feet in
> a second. You'd hardly feel it at all if the rate was introduced
> smoothly.
> In fact, you'd be closer to the CG than you would be if you sat in the
> nose or tail of any other modern jet whilst it was making a pitch
> change.
>
> Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Tina > wrote in
oups.com:

> Bertie, I'm not too good at explaining this. It isn't the angle of
> banking that matters but how fast you roll the airplane on its axis to
> to get to the back angle that matters.


Yes, I understood that and that was what I was adressing. If you were 25
feet from the roll axis ant the rol rate of 10 deg per second was
introduced smooothly, you'd rotate a bit under five feet in that second,
less than you would if the airplane was rotated on it's pitch axis at
even a third that rate if you were parked in the front or rear of the
airplane.




We've gone thru the arguement
> that one can rotate an airplane around its roll axis 360 degrees and
> not have someone on that axis feel anything but 1 G into the seat.
> This is different -- someone else ran the numbers to show what happens
> to the local G sense as a function of how fast the airplane
> accelerated into the roll -- we'd have called that alpha with two dots
> above it back in the long hand calculus days. Accelerate into the bank
> angle too quickly and if I was sitting far from the roll axis you'd
> lift the wine from my glass. You would, I promise, need a locked
> cockpit door if you did that.
>
> I'd be at whining over spilt wine.
>
> OK, put the stun gun away, or aim it over there at the other widebody
> and frequent poster here.


Well, I have only Anthony's frequent postings to weight loss froups as
evidnce of his widebodiedness, but..


Bertie

[Snowbird]

"Tina" wrote ...
> Bertie, I'm not too good at explaining this. It isn't the angle of
> banking that matters but how fast you roll the airplane on its axis to
> to get to the back angle that matters. We've gone thru the arguement
> that one can rotate an airplane around its roll axis 360 degrees and
> not have someone on that axis feel anything but 1 G into the seat.
> This is different -- someone else ran the numbers to show what happens
> to the local G sense as a function of how fast the airplane
> accelerated into the roll -- we'd have called that alpha with two dots
> above it back in the long hand calculus days. Accelerate into the bank
> angle too quickly and if I was sitting far from the roll axis you'd
> lift the wine from my glass. You would, I promise, need a locked
> cockpit door if you did that.
>
> I'd be at whining over spilt wine.
>

Just my two cents. I'd agree that any pilot would fly smoothly and avoid
jerking the controls. The issue is, as far as I can see, more about
turbulence-induced roll motion such as in windshear and wake turbulence. In
those situations there might occur large roll accelerations, both when the
gust hits and when the pilot has to correct quickly with large control
deflections.
I found a B767 pilot report which stated:

" We entered an arbitrary working area into the Honeywell Pegasus FMC and
set up for some flight maneuvers. The first was a check of roll rate in
bank-to-bank rolls from 30 degrees to 30 degrees at ½ wheel deflection.
Flying the clean airplane at 350 knots, bank-to-bank took 4 seconds, for a
roll rate of 15 degrees per second. Here is where a sharp control input
initiated an aeroelastic response from the airframe. A later check of this
same maneuver with flaps 30 at Vref=136 gave a bank-to-bank time of 6
seconds, or a roll rate of 10 degrees per second. This excellent response at
slow speed in the landing configuration is another indication of the
exceptional handling qualities of this airplane."

So in the first case the average roll rate was 15 degrees / sec. I guess
someone with fresher math / physics knowledge can estimate the instantaneous
start/stop g-forces from those numbers. To me this looks like your wine
might stay in the glass, but Mx at the wingtip may have a hard time hanging
on.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Snowbird" > wrote in
i.fi:

>
> "Tina" wrote ...
>>To me this looks
> like your wine might stay in the glass, but Mx at the wingtip may have
> a hard time hanging on.
>
>
>

That would be a good thing.

Bertie

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>>In the late 40s, when Northrop was building the YB-49 jet powered flying
>>wings, they put together a mock up of a civilian airliner version. I
>>remember seeing a promo film about it, which can probably be found floating
>>around the web somewhere.
>
>Would that be this one?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR7gepoAf4E
>or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSBjiFtfkFg
>
>Photographs:
>http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YB-49?uselang=de

Those are the military versions. The one I'm talking about is a ~10 min.
promotional film put together by Northrop, using the civilian airliner mockup
and showing off the "advantages" of the flying wing airliner of the future.

I might have it somewhere in my archives. If I locate it, maybe Jay can
host it on his site.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200710/1

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Here's an interesting proposal from 1929 :

http://home.att.net/~dannysoar/BelGeddes.htm

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200710/1

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in news:79f137ded6b56@uwe:

> Here's an interesting proposal from 1929 :
>
> http://home.att.net/~dannysoar/BelGeddes.htm
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>

And, appropriately, it was on the cover of popular mechanix or one of those
around the time it was designed.

I'd love to have flown it..

Bertie

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Jim Stewart" > wrote in message
...
> Phil wrote:
>> Thirty Five percent more fuel efficient. That would translate into
>> less expensive tickets. And just a fraction of the noise. But will
>> Boeing ever build something like this? Or will they wait until Airbus
>> or Embraer or the Chinese or the Russians build one?
>>
>>
>> http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace/6d915d1eb5370110vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html
>
> Well, you can bet that all the Boeing
> engineers would give their collective
> left nuts for a 35% increase in fuel
> efficiency.
>


Gee - it should be easy to get a 35% improvement.

Just get congress to pass a law requiring it - That's supposed to be how it
works for the auto industry - right?

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Tina]

A back of the envelope scribble says a smooth sinusoidal quatercycle
from 0 to 20 degrees bank if done in something like a half a second
would make a px sitting about 20 feet from the centerline experience a
third of a g max. I think a half second is doable -- but very
unlikely.

Sounds like mountains and molehills, or, more likely, I really don't
remember how to scribble meaningful stuff on the back of an envelope.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Tina > wrote in news:1192833924.408887.249380
@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com:

> A back of the envelope scribble says a smooth sinusoidal quatercycle
> from 0 to 20 degrees bank if done in something like a half a second
> would make a px sitting about 20 feet from the centerline experience a
> third of a g max. I think a half second is doable -- but very
> unlikely.
>
> Sounds like mountains and molehills, or, more likely, I really don't
> remember how to scribble meaningful stuff on the back of an envelope.
>
>

Well, as someone else posted, t'd more likely through turbulence, but the
thing would be FBW anyway, so it wouldn't be an issue.
I can definitely see something like this appearing in the future. In flight
anything that is not a wing is a waste, and as the Horten's proved, they
can be made to work, and work well.


But let's ask the expert,

Anthony?

Bertie

[Jim Stewart]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> "JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in news:79f137ded6b56@uwe:
>
>> Here's an interesting proposal from 1929 :
>>
>> http://home.att.net/~dannysoar/BelGeddes.htm
>>
>> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>>
>
> And, appropriately, it was on the cover of popular mechanix or one of those
> around the time it was designed.
>
> I'd love to have flown it..
>

Did you see the crew list? A gymnast?

THE CREW
1 Captain
1 Mate
2 Navigators
2 Pilots
1 Chief Engineer
2 Engineers
7 Mechanics
2 Radio Operators
2 Electricians
4 Seamen
1 Purser
1 Cashier
2 Telephone Operators
2 Clerks
1 Stenographer
1 Librarian
1 Baggage Master
2 Baggage Men
1 Chief Steward
1 Chief Dining-Room Steward
2 Head Waiters
2 Wine Stewards
24 Waiters
7 Bus Boys
1 Chief Bar Steward
9 Bar Stewards
1 Chief Deck Steward
6 Deck Stewards
1 Chef,
6 Cooks,
2 Dishwashers,
24 Room Stewards,
16 Room Stewardesses.
1 Doctor ,
1 Nurse,
1 Gymnast,
1 Masseur,
1 Masseuse,
1 Barber,
1 Hairdresser,
1 Manicurist,
7 Musicians,
I Shop Attendant,
1 Children's Room Stewardess

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Tina" > wrote in message
oups.com...
<...>
> The people who sit in the center section of a wide body are at 3 to 5
> seats from a window. Although they may object to not having a window
> they nominally pay the same as a window seated person, and if the
> window seated person pulls its shade all are deprived of the view even
> if sitting one seat away.

I don't think that most non-pilot care about getting a window seat - hence
the popularity of isle seats...

(I like the window so I can navigate along the flight.)

> I doubt the window proximity issue will have
> a serious effect on the market.

Agree

>When we travel by a part 135 carrier
> we choose flights based on convenience and price, and don't even
> consider if the airplane is a wide body or not. Do readers of this
> newsgroup consider the type aircraft when buying tickets as a primary
> factor in choosing a flight?

Not me.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jim Stewart > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> "JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in
>> news:79f137ded6b56@uwe:
>>
>>> Here's an interesting proposal from 1929 :
>>>
>>> http://home.att.net/~dannysoar/BelGeddes.htm
>>>
>>> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>>>
>>
>> And, appropriately, it was on the cover of popular mechanix or one of
>> those around the time it was designed.
>>
>> I'd love to have flown it..
>>
>
> Did you see the crew list? A gymnast?
>

Cool.

I could even go and have a nap enroute.


Bertie



> THE CREW
> 1 Captain
> 1 Mate
> 2 Navigators
> 2 Pilots
> 1 Chief Engineer
> 2 Engineers
> 7 Mechanics
> 2 Radio Operators
> 2 Electricians
> 4 Seamen
> 1 Purser
> 1 Cashier
> 2 Telephone Operators
> 2 Clerks
> 1 Stenographer
> 1 Librarian
> 1 Baggage Master
> 2 Baggage Men
> 1 Chief Steward
> 1 Chief Dining-Room Steward
> 2 Head Waiters
> 2 Wine Stewards
> 24 Waiters
> 7 Bus Boys
> 1 Chief Bar Steward
> 9 Bar Stewards
> 1 Chief Deck Steward
> 6 Deck Stewards
> 1 Chef,
> 6 Cooks,
> 2 Dishwashers,
> 24 Room Stewards,
> 16 Room Stewardesses.
> 1 Doctor ,
> 1 Nurse,
> 1 Gymnast,
> 1 Masseur,
> 1 Masseuse,
> 1 Barber,
> 1 Hairdresser,
> 1 Manicurist,
> 7 Musicians,
> I Shop Attendant,
> 1 Children's Room Stewardess
>

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote

> Cool.
>
> I could even go and have a nap enroute.

Like that stops you, now? <g>

Do you get to access the net while in the cockpit?

That could explain all of the extra time you have to post, all of the time!
;-)
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>
>> Cool.
>>
>> I could even go and have a nap enroute.
>
> Like that stops you, now? <g>
>
> Do you get to access the net while in the cockpit?

Nah, ACARS deletes flame posts.
>
> That could explain all of the extra time you have to post, all of the
> time! ;-)

Well, that would be one explanation....

Bertie

[Phil]

On Oct 19, 6:46 pm, Jim Stewart > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> > "JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote innews:79f137ded6b56@uwe:
>
> >> Here's an interesting proposal from 1929 :
>
> >>http://home.att.net/~dannysoar/BelGeddes.htm
>
> >> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>
> > And, appropriately, it was on the cover of popular mechanix or one of those
> > around the time it was designed.
>
> > I'd love to have flown it..
>
> Did you see the crew list? A gymnast?
>
> THE CREW
> 1 Captain
> 1 Mate
> 2 Navigators
> 2 Pilots
> 1 Chief Engineer
> 2 Engineers
> 7 Mechanics
> 2 Radio Operators
> 2 Electricians
> 4 Seamen
> 1 Purser
> 1 Cashier
> 2 Telephone Operators
> 2 Clerks
> 1 Stenographer
> 1 Librarian
> 1 Baggage Master
> 2 Baggage Men
> 1 Chief Steward
> 1 Chief Dining-Room Steward
> 2 Head Waiters
> 2 Wine Stewards
> 24 Waiters
> 7 Bus Boys
> 1 Chief Bar Steward
> 9 Bar Stewards
> 1 Chief Deck Steward
> 6 Deck Stewards
> 1 Chef,
> 6 Cooks,
> 2 Dishwashers,
> 24 Room Stewards,
> 16 Room Stewardesses.
> 1 Doctor ,
> 1 Nurse,
> 1 Gymnast,
> 1 Masseur,
> 1 Masseuse,
> 1 Barber,
> 1 Hairdresser,
> 1 Manicurist,
> 7 Musicians,
> I Shop Attendant,
> 1 Children's Room Stewardess

Plus they carry six spare engines and a small internal railroad to
ferry them into position. They could swap out an engine in five
minutes. That's very reassuring!

[Jose]

> ... a px sitting about 20 feet from the centerline
> [would] experience a third of a g max.

A third of a g is what the forward acceleration of a jetliner is.

Imagine that vertically, up and down and down and up, as the plane banks
into and out of a turn.

What do building elevators do?

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Tina]

I chose a third of a G on a pretty arbitrary basis -- but you'd agree
that amount is much more noticable in the local vertical direction --
a direct sense of increased weight or more importantly the sense of
growing lighter -- than into the back of the seat as a PX experiences
during takeoff.

My goal was to get a sense of how realistic the issue of Gs induced by
rate of change of bank was, and have concluded (a rebuttable
conclusion) it's not a problem for realistic airplane operations. Your
comments tend to support that.




tarOn Oct 19, 11:32 pm, Jose > wrote:
> > ... a px sitting about 20 feet from the centerline
> > [would] experience a third of a g max.
>
> A third of a g is what the forward acceleration of a jetliner is.
>
> Imagine that vertically, up and down and down and up, as the plane banks
> into and out of a turn.
>
> What do building elevators do?
>
> Jose
> --
> You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> and have concluded (a rebuttable
> conclusion) it's not a problem for realistic airplane operations. Your
> comments tend to support that.

Actually, my comments are not intended to support this. I think people
would have a problem going up and down and down and up at a third of a
g. It would feel like a roller coaster ride.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jose > wrote in news:mmfSi.60532$YL5.26439
@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:

>> and have concluded (a rebuttable
>> conclusion) it's not a problem for realistic airplane operations. Your
>> comments tend to support that.
>
> Actually, my comments are not intended to support this. I think people
> would have a problem going up and down and down and up at a third of a
> g. It would feel like a roller coaster ride.
>

Wouldn't be as much as that in practice and you get g from the airplane
rotating around it's pitch axis when you sit in a cigar tube anyway!


Bertie

[Tina]

The point I was making, Jose, was that it took quite an extreme action
to induce that 0.3 Gs, so in terms of effects on PX the G induced
forces due to how fast the airplane banks into its turn are
unimportant. That effect was offered as one objection to a blended
wing flying machine: another, px discomfort because of their distance
from the windows, seems to have been muted as well.

Other issues, like pitch induced Gs, shouldn't be worse than those
experienced in existing airplanes and may even be better if the width
of the blended wing airplane leads to a shorter overall length.

It'll be interesting to see if such a machine reaches the market in
the next couple od decades.




On Oct 20, 6:06 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Jose > wrote in news:mmfSi.60532$YL5.26439
> @newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:
>
> >> and have concluded (a rebuttable
> >> conclusion) it's not a problem for realistic airplane operations. Your
> >> comments tend to support that.
>
> > Actually, my comments are not intended to support this. I think people
> > would have a problem going up and down and down and up at a third of a
> > g. It would feel like a roller coaster ride.
>
> Wouldn't be as much as that in practice and you get g from the airplane
> rotating around it's pitch axis when you sit in a cigar tube anyway!
>
> Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jim Stewart wrote:

>>
>
> Did you see the crew list? A gymnast?

I think today we would call them a trainer or maybe aerobics instructor.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

>>> "JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in
>>> news:79f137ded6b56@uwe:
>>>
>>>> Here's an interesting proposal from 1929 :
>>>>
>>>> http://home.att.net/~dannysoar/BelGeddes.htm
>>>>
>>>> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>>>>
>>>
>>> And, appropriately, it was on the cover of popular mechanix or one
>>> of those around the time it was designed.

Can you imagine how many people it could carry with today's sardine can
seating?

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Jim Stewart wrote:
>
>> Did you see the crew list? A gymnast?
>
> I think today we would call them a trainer or maybe aerobics instructor.
>

There are still folks called gymnasts who compete in gymnastics events,
like tumbling, floor routines, parallel bars, etc...

[Gig 601XL Builder]

B A R R Y wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> Jim Stewart wrote:
>>
>>> Did you see the crew list? A gymnast?
>>
>> I think today we would call them a trainer or maybe aerobics
>> instructor.
>
> There are still folks called gymnasts who compete in gymnastics
> events, like tumbling, floor routines, parallel bars, etc...

Of course there are but I don't see how they would be much use as crew on an
aircraft.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
> Of course there are but I don't see how they would be much use as crew on an
> aircraft.
>

Entertainment? <G>