| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Plane envy: Boeing to take on Airbus with (1000 seat) giant 797 Blended Wing plane |
| 2006-07-24 |
| "Taxi!" |
| Posted by:BrerRabbit |
| #20 My mommy worked on the X-B 35. Had a little gold pin. If I have to sit in the wing I will crap myself. |
| Posted by: J. D. Lux 2006-07-24 18:35 |
| #19 I agree with NS. FUD. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2006-07-24 15:33 |
| #18 Northrup XB-35 and YB-49 |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-07-24 15:24 |
| #17 I believe back in 1948, Northrup made the Flying Wing. The Gov made them stop because people were complaining about seeing UFOs. How childish. Northrup had to give up on an efficient spacious reliable flying design. They were made to be bombers and the wing was about 6 feet high inside. It's out there somewhere. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-07-24 15:13 |
| #16 I'd trade a window seat for a small room any day. Any thought to bringing comfortable flying to the masses? I didn't think so. |
| Posted by: Perfesser 2006-07-24 14:46 |
| #15 The early bwb plans from a few years back called for external cameras to wide plasma screens on the interior to compensate for few windows. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2006-07-24 14:19 |
| #14 Small problem is that pilots will have to roll slooooowly before turning since passengers are much farther of the axis of the plane. But on another side this plane would have afr lower wing load than the Airbus so it should require less banking for a turn of equl radius. This would partly offset the fact that you cannot bank at the same angualr speed (without harming passengers) with a blended wing plane than with a tubular one. |
| Posted by: JFM 2006-07-24 14:17 |
| #13 There are limits to how far down the design scales. One of the tradeoffs is cabin spaciousness for windows. In the large scale, it is sufficiently sapcious that the lack of windows is not perceived as a problems by most travellers. But as the aircraft gets smaller, that openness is reduced without a comparable increase in access to windows. This technology has been around for 50 years. There must be a reason why no airliner, or bomber, has been built in this configuration till now. I still call FUD. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-07-24 14:09 |
| #12 The article suggests substantial efficiency gains. If (and I agree its a big IF) the design translates to reality, this could be reduced in scope and adapted to smaller vehicles (perhaps the replacement for the 737). In any event, this would also Kill further substantial interest in the A380 going forward. |
| Posted by: Good Captain 2006-07-24 13:58 |
| #11 Wonder how many JDAMs one of these could carry? There was a proposal floated a while back for a B-747 bomber: a 747 with the whole fuselage taken up by a big honkin' weapons bay, for use as a long-loiter JDAM-dispenser in conditions of air supremacy. I could see this boy doing something similar; with mid-air refuelling and a relief crew or two, she could stay on station for days. |
| Posted by: Mike 2006-07-24 13:26 |
| #10 AP, I'm positive it can. See: Photo Photo Photo Photo Photo |
| Posted by: DanNY 2006-07-24 13:07 |
| #9 Wonder how many JDAMs one of these could carry? |
| Posted by: RWV 2006-07-24 13:06 |
| #8 I wonder if the blended wing design can be applied to smaller, more practical jets, for operating efficiency. Got to work on the passenger window problem, though. RD is right about the 797: it is terrorist bait. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2006-07-24 11:51 |
| #7 Three things make me wonder about this: 1. The fuselage shape will require major changes to jetway design at airports to accomodate larger numbers of passengers dismbarking from locations that are inaccessible to current jetways. 2. I'd like to be reassured that the placement of the engines above and behind the wing/body is not conducive to compressor stall at high angles of attack. 3. Although current aircraft designs have fewer windows to seats than was the case in the past. This design will set a new low for the ratio. I, for one, prefer my window seat to an aisle or crunched in the midst of others. I do, however, think it has great potential for a cargo aircraft. Think of all the Strykers that will no longer have a problem squeezing into the cigar tube of a C-130... |
| Posted by: DanNY 2006-07-24 11:49 |
| #6 And after the airports modify their facilities for the A380, Boeing can just drop in with their compatible design! Who am I kidding...Boeing will find some way to screw it up. |
| Posted by: gromky 2006-07-24 11:01 |
| #5 This article has been referenced on Rantburg at least two months ago. THis plane has something for she: it is far cooler to fly on that ovni-like plane than on a tubular design like Airbus 400. Suddnly classic airplanes as obsolete as biplanes. Small problem is that pilots will have to roll slooooowly before turning since passengers are much farther of the axis of the plane. In other words once it has banked this plane could probably turn as tight as the A400 but entering the turn must be much more gradual. This can be a problem on some airports. But if Boeing solves the engineering problems and completes the design then I am reserving my ticket now. |
| Posted by: JFM 2006-07-24 10:42 |
| #4 The economics are route-based. It will not be a big seller, relatively speaking, but for transcontinental and intercontinental routes it will sell - precisely targetting the same ones as the A380: the wing width will have the same airport clearance issues. I'm curious about the outer tips at the back of the wedge... If you don't use different flying techniques, i.e. rudder skidding vs rolls to turn, then the outer rear tips look like they might be an E-Ticket ride, LOL. |
| Posted by: Champ Angeger5024 2006-07-24 10:07 |
| #3 looks like it might be a good cargo jet, for passengers I guess windows will be a premium... nice bait for terrorist tho.. |
| Posted by: RD 2006-07-24 10:01 |
| #2 FUD |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-07-24 09:56 |
| #1 I think it will be a disaster for the same (economic) reasons the A380 is a disaster. Planes should be seen more like buses than trains. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2006-07-24 09:50 |
