4 ms·

All airplanes are aerodynamic. There needs to be a mention of what exactly is happening to cause those fuel savings. I highly doubt that those numbers are trus

All airplanes are aerodynamic. There needs to be a mention of what exactly is happening to cause those fuel savings. I highly doubt that those numbers are trustworthy considering how closely we are scraping fuel efficiency numbers, unless there is some performance metric they aren't mentioned that has degraded.

mmariani 7y ago
> All airplanes are aerodynamic. There are exceptions. https://www.spangdahlem.af.mil/News/Commentaries/Display/Article/730527/f-104-germanys-widow-maker/ https://www.spangdahlem.af.mil/News/Commentaries/Display/Art...
- NikolaeVarius 7y ago
  That plane was extremely aerodynamic, allowing high top speeds and high rates of acceleration. It wasn't easily controlled.
- Xylakant 7y ago
  Good old starfighter. A common joke was that the best way to acquire one was to buy a plot of land and wait. One would come crashing sooner or later.
challenger22 7y ago
It has been known for a long time that flying wing designs are inherently more fuel efficient than typical passenger airline fuselage designs.
- lazyjones 7y ago
  But in this extreme case of the fuselage being inside the wing and making it much thicker than typical and necessary, this isn't necessarily true, at least it's not obvious. If this design actually provides the claimed results, connecting 2 such wings (one behind the other) with a long fuselage (i.e. >---> which would incur almost no additional drag and twice the lift) would be even better, no?
  - challenger22 7y ago
    Think of it this way: A cylindrical fuselage provides no lift (except for the lift from its angle of attack flying obliquely through the air), only drag. If you can design the aircraft in such a way that all exterior surfaces contribute to lift, that would be ideal. The "---" portion of your idea provides no lift, only drag.
- NikolaeVarius 7y ago
  The ideal flying wing is more efficient. The tradeoff to make a flying wing suitable for commercial aviation has historically made those efficiencies moot.

mmariani 7y ago

> All airplanes are aerodynamic. There are exceptions. https://www.spangdahlem.af.mil/News/Commentaries/Display/Article/730527/f-104-germanys-widow-maker/ https://www.spangdahlem.af.mil/News/Commentaries/Display/Art...

NikolaeVarius 7y ago
That plane was extremely aerodynamic, allowing high top speeds and high rates of acceleration. It wasn't easily controlled.
Xylakant 7y ago
Good old starfighter. A common joke was that the best way to acquire one was to buy a plot of land and wait. One would come crashing sooner or later.

challenger22 7y ago

It has been known for a long time that flying wing designs are inherently more fuel efficient than typical passenger airline fuselage designs.

lazyjones 7y ago
But in this extreme case of the fuselage being inside the wing and making it much thicker than typical and necessary, this isn't necessarily true, at least it's not obvious. If this design actually provides the claimed results, connecting 2 such wings (one behind the other) with a long fuselage (i.e. >---> which would incur almost no additional drag and twice the lift) would be even better, no?
- challenger22 7y ago
  Think of it this way: A cylindrical fuselage provides no lift (except for the lift from its angle of attack flying obliquely through the air), only drag. If you can design the aircraft in such a way that all exterior surfaces contribute to lift, that would be ideal. The "---" portion of your idea provides no lift, only drag.
NikolaeVarius 7y ago
The ideal flying wing is more efficient. The tradeoff to make a flying wing suitable for commercial aviation has historically made those efficiencies moot.