Blended-wing Airliner

"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

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...ation/200710/1

"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

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/No...-49?uselang=de

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.

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?

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.

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

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

"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