HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2016, 7:23 PM
ChargerCarl ChargerCarl is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Los Angeles/San Francisco
Posts: 2,408
I've never flown on a 747. They barely seem to be in service anymore.

Last edited by ChargerCarl; Dec 17, 2016 at 9:53 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2016, 2:18 AM
The Chemist's Avatar
The Chemist The Chemist is offline
恭喜发财!
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: 中国上海/Shanghai
Posts: 8,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl View Post
I've flown on a 747. They barely seem to be in service anymore.
That's because they've mostly been replaced by more fuel efficient large twins like the 777 and A350.
__________________
"Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature." - Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2016, 7:04 PM
Stratosphere's Avatar
Stratosphere Stratosphere is offline
Try to reach this high!
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Posts: 1,076
Boeing and NASA have been testing the blended-wing-body design for a while. Hopefully, we'll see these airplanes at commercial airports someday.













Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2016, 10:54 PM
Kngkyle Kngkyle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chicago/New York
Posts: 2,318
The 777X will feature partially-folding wings (the last 12 feet on each side) Not exactly new technology, but new to commercial aviation. If successful, I think you'll see more dramatic examples of this in the future given the space constraints at most airports. If you can park a 777 at a 737 gate suddenly your airfield capacity is at least doubled, and that's without spending billions on terminal infrastructure.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2016, 6:26 AM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by mousquet View Post
In case you'd forget, both British-French cooperation and the Soviet Union managed to achieve something slightly different and twice faster a long time ago already.

These were developed in the 60s and turned fully operational in the mid 70s.
Concorde was so great that the US merely banned it from their airspace.
LOL, God bless 'murika, baby!.. and no one else, huh.
Oops, anyone grumpy at me right now?
Oh yeah because the Concorde was such elite and unique technology that the Americans couldn't touch it:


lockheedmartin.com

The Concorde was an awesome thing, but let's not be delusional about it's superiority or practicality as a business venture. The Concorde failed because it was a terribly inefficient business with a very limited market. The 707 design has more or less been regurgitated for half a century because it is the most efficient format for reliably hauling the most passengers with the least fuel.

This is like the same reasoning as people saying "oh America has fallen behind because they aren't building as many supertalls as China or the middle East" when really it's just economics. The buildings going up in those places are mostly regurgitations of technology that was already demonstrated here 50-100 years ago and the majority of them are designed and engineered by American firms. The jetliner retains it form for business reasons just as the skyscraper in American cities like Chicago is often 30-40 floors and 300-400' for residential towers and 35-50 floors and 600-700' tall for office. Those are the most efficient programs for towers, sure the occasional supertall is profitable simply for cache and novelty, but it's not a good standard business model. Same goes for airplanes, sure a supersonic jet is great for spying or ferrying around super rich people, but the best model was perfected by the 707 and hasn't reallly changed since.

Last edited by LouisVanDerWright; Dec 18, 2016 at 6:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2016, 6:48 AM
Derek's Avatar
Derek Derek is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 9,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stratosphere View Post
Boeing and NASA have been testing the blended-wing-body design for a while. Hopefully, we'll see these airplanes at commercial airports someday.






Thanks for sharing! I'd never seen this before, but I'm a huge fan of what I'm seeing.
__________________
Portlandia
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2016, 7:16 AM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 2,934
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stratosphere View Post
Boeing and NASA have been testing the blended-wing-body design for a while. Hopefully, we'll see these airplanes at commercial airports someday.
I can't see one of these blended wing designed jetliners using existing gate ramps at airports. Wide body jetliners today require the space of two smaller aircraft, these monsters might require space of three smaller aircraft.

Efficiency on the ground at the gates should count as much as it does in the air.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2016, 8:21 PM
Stratosphere's Avatar
Stratosphere Stratosphere is offline
Try to reach this high!
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Posts: 1,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
I can't see one of these blended wing designed jetliners using existing gate ramps at airports. Wide body jetliners today require the space of two smaller aircraft, these monsters might require space of three smaller aircraft.

Efficiency on the ground at the gates should count as much as it does in the air.
Maybe they could go with a smaller design in the 300-passenger class instead of an 800-passenger monster depicted in those renderings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2016, 8:32 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The Miami of Canada
Posts: 19,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stratosphere View Post
Boeing and NASA have been testing the blended-wing-body design for a while. Hopefully, we'll see these airplanes at commercial airports someday.


intriguing.

i like the placement of those 3 giant turbofans above and at the rear of the aircraft. it should make for a quieter cabin and it also decreases the chances of sucking runway/tarmac debris into and engine. i think it would also likely decrease bird/engine strikes as well.

and the multiple passenger sections/aisles seem like they would aid circulation during boarding/deplaning.

the biggest drawback looks like no more window seats. i love window seats.
__________________
He has to go.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Dec 20, 2016 at 9:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2016, 9:44 PM
Boisebro's Avatar
Boisebro Boisebro is offline
All man. Half nuts.
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Boise, Idaho
Posts: 2,566
here's a little more speculation on the future form of flying -- pretty funky design:





http://www.cnn.com/videos/tech/2015/...s-nws-orig.cnn
__________________
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness.”―Mark Twain
“The world is a book, and those who do not travel read only one page.”―Saint Augustine
“Travel is the only thing you buy that makes you richer.”―Anonymous
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2016, 10:41 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The Miami of Canada
Posts: 19,083
^ dear god.

that does not look like anything based in the realities of aerodynamics.

it looks like fanboy art.
__________________
He has to go.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2016, 11:02 PM
cityscapes's Avatar
cityscapes cityscapes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Portland
Posts: 563
Being the right age to have been able to fly on older types like the 727 and MD-80 / 90 aircraft I notice a world of difference on newer planes like the A380, A350 and 787. The 787 is amazing from a technological standpoint, but improvements in passenger comfort are more notable. PTV's, USB chargers in every seat, mood lighting, and more so on the A380 and A350 the sound insulation is excellent and one can sleep much more easily than on a loud older plane.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2016, 11:11 PM
Boisebro's Avatar
Boisebro Boisebro is offline
All man. Half nuts.
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Boise, Idaho
Posts: 2,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
^ dear god.

that does not look like anything based in the realities of aerodynamics.

it looks like fanboy art.

would it help if i told you the wings flapped?





they don't, of course.

i do like the outside-of-the-box thinking on it, though. and the idea of it being 75% quieter than current aircraft is a big plus.

another image of the AWWA-QG Progress Eagle, as it's called:

__________________
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness.”―Mark Twain
“The world is a book, and those who do not travel read only one page.”―Saint Augustine
“Travel is the only thing you buy that makes you richer.”―Anonymous
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2016, 11:14 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The Miami of Canada
Posts: 19,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by cityscapes View Post
one can sleep much more easily than on a loud older plane.
sleep?

on an air plane?

the only thing, and i mean the only thing that has ever allowed me to "sleep" on an airplane is an ambien and a glass of wine.

noise is one of the very last reasons why i have trouble sleeping on a plane. i mean, it's cool that the A350 and A380 are super-quiet (i have yet to fly on either type), but nothing short of full blown beds will ever make it easy for me to fall asleep on a plane without drugs. and i sure as shit don't make first-class cash in my line of work.
__________________
He has to go.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Dec 21, 2016 at 1:32 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2016, 11:16 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The Miami of Canada
Posts: 19,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boisebro View Post
another image of the AWWA-QG Progress Eagle, as it's called:

it still looks very much like a fantastical design exercise, not an engineering solution like the boeing/nasa blended wing body shown earlier in the thread.
__________________
He has to go.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Dec 21, 2016 at 2:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2016, 2:59 PM
BrandonJXN's Avatar
BrandonJXN BrandonJXN is offline
Ascension
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Riverside, California
Posts: 5,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl View Post
I've never flown on a 747. They barely seem to be in service anymore.
I see them land and O'Hare all the time.
__________________
Washed Out
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2016, 4:03 PM
initiald's Avatar
initiald initiald is offline
Oak City
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Raleigh
Posts: 4,894
This was one of Boeing's concepts before they decided on the 787 design. I think the reasoning they scrapped it was that even though it would make flights something like 15% quicker airlines wanted the better fuel economy and range of 787.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2016, 4:31 PM
Teakwood's Avatar
Teakwood Teakwood is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Independence City, PA
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stratosphere View Post

Would you like a window, aisle, aisle, aisle, aisle, aisle, aisle, aisle, aisle, aisle, aisle, aisle or aisle seat?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2016, 10:08 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The Miami of Canada
Posts: 19,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by initiald View Post
This was one of Boeing's concepts before they decided on the 787 design. I think the reasoning they scrapped it was that even though it would make flights something like 15% quicker airlines wanted the better fuel economy and range of 787.

that's cool, it's got a SR-71 blackbird kind of vibe to it.

it seems like fuel economy is going to trump speed for the foreseeable future, at least until there is some breakthrough in propulsion.
__________________
He has to go.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2016, 11:00 PM
Stratosphere's Avatar
Stratosphere Stratosphere is offline
Try to reach this high!
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Posts: 1,076
I read about the concept of joining 2 cylindrical fuselages side by side back in the late 90's. Here's an article about that concept.

Quote:

Double bubble aircraft design would use 70 percent less fuel

The D “double bubble” – a design concept presented to NASA by an MIT led research team which promises a 70 percent improvement in fuel economy, reduced noise, lower nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions and the ability to use shorter runways.

The D double bubble design uses long, skinny wings, a small tail and - hence the name - replaces the traditional cylindrical fuselage with a two partial cylinders placed side-by-side. The engines sit at the rear of the fuselage rather than on the wing to make use of a technique called Boundary Layer Ingestion (BLI). This approach sees slower moving air from the wake of the fuselage enter the engines, resulting in less fuel consumption for the same amount of thrust. The downside is slower speeds and more stress on the engine.

The result is a plane that travels 10 percent slower than the Boeing 737 it is designed to replace, but according to lead designer of the D series Mark Drela, the longer flight times would be partially mitigated by the ability to load and unload the plane faster. Another advantage is that it could also be used with current airport infrastructure.

Along with the 180-passenger D series, the research team has also produced a blueprint for a much larger (350 seat) H series that would be equivalent to a Boeing 777. This design uses the BLI technique and a wider fuselage with an aerodynamic triangular-shaped hybrid wing body.

A second version of the D series has also been put forward. This design doesn't save as much fuel (around 50 percent) but is a more viable near term alternative because it that could be built using current jet technology and materials.

The MIT led project is the result of a $2.1 million contract awarded by NASA in 2008 as part of an aeronautics research program aimed at putting greener planes in the sky by 2035. Boeing, GE Aviation and Northrop Grumman are also taking part in the program.

The team from the MIT's Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics was headed by principal investigator Ed Greitzer and Aurora Flight Sciences Corporation and Pratt & Whitney also contributed.

NASA is expected to announce a second phase of the program in coming months.
http://newatlas.com/mit-double-bubbl...ircraft/15142/




















Last edited by Stratosphere; Dec 22, 2016 at 11:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:30 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.