Blended-wing Airliner

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.

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

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

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 http://blog.xcski.com/
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?

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

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/aviatio...0110vgnvcm1000...

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.

On Oct 17, 1:32 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:55:55 -0700, Phil wrote
in . com:

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.

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.

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?

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.