34 ms·

Airbus unveils 'blended wing body' plane design after secret flight tests

215 points by hhs 7y ago

inamberclad 7y ago
BWBs are tempting, but let me state the usual cons mentioned for them. - More passengers sit farther from the longitudinal axis, and consequently experience larger vertical accelerations from turbulence, as well as normal banking maneuvers. - More passengers are farther from the windows. - No great place to put a high bypass turbofan. I'm hopeful that one eventually gets built though, it'll be interesting how these pan out.
- rob74 7y ago
  One more: the classical tube fuselage is much cheaper/easier/more efficient to build, because it consists largely of identical segments. Plus it's much easier to build shortened/lengthened versions of an existing airplane.
  - 01CGAT 7y ago
    It's easier because the current tools of building the planes are not made for this new type of planes. Update the tools and building this new type of plane will be easy too.
    - rob74 7y ago
      Let me quote from the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Constellation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Constellation: > One of the reasons for the elegant appearance of the aircraft was the fuselage shape, a continuously variable profile with no two bulkheads the same shape. This construction was expensive and was replaced by mostly tube-shaped modern airliners. The tube is more resistant to pressurization changes and cheaper to build. With blended wing bodies, you would again need a continuously variable profile for the whole fuselage (rather than only the wing, as in modern "tube-and-wing" planes). To build a larger or smaller variant, you would have to redesign the whole fuselage, rather than just adding/removing a few tube segments. So, even with updated tools, there will still be a lot of challenges...
      - londons_explore 7y ago
        In todays world of most high value things being CNC machined rather than made from hand crafted moulds and templates, every part being different is less of a concern. Just download the set of designs to the machine, do a test run of the smallest and largest part, and then hit 'start' and come back in the morning.
        throwanem 7y ago
        Yeah, a passenger aircraft is somewhat more complex in manufacture than a MacBook Pro.
        PietdeVries 7y ago
        Also in today's world it is cheaper for one machine to produce 1.000 identical parts than for the same machine produce 10 times 100 different parts. You need stock of each, tests of each. Imagine how efficient car maintenance would be of only we'd use one standardized car. You can have the larger model, but all components are the same, every garage has them...
        lowdose 7y ago
        Like Tesla is doing with one engine for all cars and a mono frame pressed out of a metal sheet. Cybertruck deliverable in every color you like as long as it's metal. I have read somewhere the complexity in production lines are similar as the big O notation. Henry Ford would be proud of Elon.
        mediaman 7y ago
        Most car manufacturers are massively reducing complexity. Toyota's Next Generation Architecture is reducing total manufacturing costs by 20% by simplifying their entire platform of vehicles into a common set of types and using similar hardware wherever possible.
        himinlomax 7y ago
        3D printing.
    - digikata 7y ago
      I imagine even larger gantry variant of this carbon fiber loom: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j19na8LMBnE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j19na8LMBnE
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - hinkley 7y ago
    A tube fuselage is also easier to build offsite. Boeing still carts 737 fuselages back and forth across Seattle on the railways. Have you seen how Boeing was building (well, how Mitsubishi was building, in point if fact) carbon fiber wings? They were doing it with carbon fiber ribbons as a single piece. I don’t know if that scales up to the size of a blended body, though.
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      Not just "across Seattle". From Wichita to Seattle.
- dotancohen 7y ago
  Perhaps the baggage would be placed at the extreme ends, which should reduce the leverage that people moving about would have on the roll axis. That does exacerbate the window issue, but honestly the last times that I've flown myself and my children seemed to be the only people looking out the windows anyway. Everybody else has a small screen shining in their face for almost the entire flight.
  - fyfy18 7y ago
    For most intercontinental flights I've been on, at least half the flight the windows are closed to block the sun so people can sleep or watch the screens. They could design a viewing area at the edge and fill the interior (where passengers sit) with natural light from light tubes. Combine that with a few more cameras so you can view the exterior from different angles, and I don't think anyone would complain.
    - Mirioron 7y ago
      >Combine that with a few more cameras so you can view the exterior from different angles, and I don't think anyone would complain. While this is fantasy: imagine if you could put on an AR headset and be able to "look through the plane" in any direction. Like that F-35 AR helmet. Maybe allow people to use their screens to also look out around the plane using the same system.
      - SwiftyBug 7y ago
        That would be insanely scary. Or maybe the ability to see what's going on outside makes me less afraid of flying.
      - reportgunner 7y ago
        I figure that would be fun for about 2 minutes.
        ahartmetz 7y ago
        More than that, at least for me. Maybe half an hour of an eight hour flight? It was on a Finnair A350.
- continuations 7y ago
  > More passengers are farther from the windows Why is that a con? Seems to me most people don't like window seats & want aisle seats.
  - cbzbc 7y ago
    Well, you also end up with longer rows - and so potentially more middle of row seats which are less desirable.
    - consp 7y ago
      Or you create corridors? Most 10 wide have a 3-4-3 already and if you have more horizontal space 3-3-3-3 might be an option with the same amount of middle seats and two extra seats.
- hawski 7y ago
  In a way windows are more of a psychological problem I think. They are already quite small and not that reachable for most passengers, but closing an option is tough. Would it be possible to have at least roof windows for natural light or then it's not worth the bother?
  - petre 7y ago
    Less windows = less chance an aircraft would depressurize. An array of small roof windows could be a solution. https://edition.cnn.com/travel/gallery/stephen-chang-imaginary-aircraft/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/travel/gallery/stephen-chang-imagina...
- emiliobumachar 7y ago
  >More passengers [...] experience larger vertical accelerations Economy-minus section?
  - alexis_fr 7y ago
    To be honest, air travel used to be very noisy and expensive, sometimes with fumes events, let alone smokers. Despite the legroom, I’m pretty sure it is more comfortable now.
  - jotm 7y ago
    Please, that's an Adventurer seat and costs more than economy.
- CandidSubstance 7y ago
  Wasn't the main issue that flying wings have a very narrow Center of Gravity range? I thought the main reason that airliners have such a large trimmable horizontal stabiliser is to configure for varying CofG.
  - upofadown 7y ago
    Yes, but it is harder to get a long ways from the center of gravity on a flying wing.
- ragebol 7y ago
  I think I'd like windows in the floor so I can see what we're flying over. But I doubt that will be very popular.
  - 0xffff2 7y ago
    On any current airliner a window in the cabin floor would only allow you to stare at your luggage. That arrangement seems to efficient to change just for the sake of a bit of a view.
- Yizahi 7y ago
  - No great place to put a high bypass turbofan. This especially. USSR Tu-154 with a 3rd engine in this spot was very affected by aerodynamic shadow from a airplane body at certain angles.
- mrfusion 7y ago
  It would be neat to put windows on the floor. You’re most interested in looking down anyway. And otherwise you could have a cool hang out / lounge with nice pa Aramaic windows and everyone could have turns sightseeing.
  - hnarn 7y ago
    That's not a very good idea. Most people are terrified of glass floors in other scenarios, like balconies for example, especially combined with some altitude. It may be just as safe as "normal" windows but I doubt most people would be comfortable with it. I'm not even sure I would be and I have no more fear of flying than most people. I'm not sure it's suitable for other reasons as well, such as hull integrity (but I'm not an engineer), or actually getting sunlight into the cabin. I'm fairly sure most people want to watch sunsets and sunrises, not clouds or how insanely high up you're sitting.
  - throwaway55554 7y ago
    > It would be neat to put windows on the floor. Depends on if they put cargo down below or not. Makes sense they would so they can easily on/off-load it.
  - foobiekr 7y ago
    project the open sky on the ceiling
    - mrfusion 7y ago
      Don’t forget mrfusions law. “Any screen will eventually show ads”
  - hbosch 7y ago
    > It would be neat to put windows on the floor. You’re most interested in looking down anyway. I don't think so. Looking down isn't what people look out the windows at, it's the horizon. Looking straight down would be generally frightening, sickening, to many people... whereas the horizon is steady and calming. But either way, once you're above the clouds, windows are OK but kinda useless. View doesn't change much up there, or at night!
- Lendal 7y ago
  That's the first thing that went through my mind when I saw that picture. "No windows--I'm not flying on that."
- danmaz74 7y ago
  The article shortly addresses these points: ... One unresolved question is whether such a plane would have windows or use video screens to give passengers a sense of their surroundings. Another issue that has dogged such experiments in the past is how to handle sensations of movement. Because passengers would be sitting further out from the center of the aircraft, compared to the classic ‘tube and wings’ model, they would move further when the aircraft turns. Rival Boeing has put more weight on a potential cargo role.
- jonathanpoulter 7y ago
  Cruise ships handle plenty of non-window "accommodation": https://www.royalcaribbean.com/blog/an-inside-room-with-a-view/ https://www.royalcaribbean.com/blog/an-inside-room-with-a-vi...
  - beamatronic 7y ago
    For a certain price, you’ll find someone to do it
  - 0xffff2 7y ago
    I've been on a lot of cruises. Aside from sleeping, I'm pretty much never in my cabin. Doesn't really make for a good comparison to a flight.
  - big_chungus 7y ago
    I've never been on one; to some one who has, how do you avoid going nuts or getting depressed after a few days?
    - tastyfreeze 7y ago
      Consume as much food and booze as possible to drown your depression caused by being crammed on a disease-ridden ship with 3,000 strangers.
    - zentiggr 7y ago
      I deployed on a sub five times in four years, so I'm maybe not the best one to give an example. For us, we got used to the 'no outside' within a day or so as there is always so much else to do. Long term, you make friends, come up with portable hobbies, and just dig in to the job for a while.
- throwaway55554 7y ago
  I wonder about egress during an emergency as well.
- fnordfnordfnord 7y ago
  Airlines don't care about our comfort. They would ship us in intermodal Connex boxes if they could.
  - nmeofthestate 7y ago
    I would definitely try "BA Baracus" mode for intercontinental flights if it were available and safe.
    - fnordfnordfnord 7y ago
      I pity the fool...
  - vl 7y ago
    People don’t care about comfort, airlines just sell what people pay for.
    - mgolawala 7y ago
      Exactly this. There is plenty of comfort available in air travel if you are willing to pay for it.
- vl 7y ago
  > More passengers are farther from the windows I’m not sure it’s a big problem: I took a flight in business class of A380, and it was a bit of surreal experience: you are so far from the window, and there are so many partitions, that basically there could have been no window at all and experience would be the same. It was a bit spooky, but turned out fine in practice. On regular flights people actively close shades to use entertainment system, so everyone used not to having windows now.
  - PopeDotNinja 7y ago
    Even more basic than that, everyone who doesn't have a window seat is not super close to a window. Most 787 overnight flights I've taken darken the windows to the point that no one can see out anyway.
  - hammock 7y ago
    Can we put in skylights?
    - JoblessWonder 7y ago
      There is a business jet line (Falcon 5X/6X) with a single Sky Light. It is basically just a window on the top of the airplane... but definitely cool and unique.
    - smoyer 7y ago
      I like watching the ground ... can we have a glass-bottom plane?
      - FreeFull 7y ago
        All the luggage is stored below the passenger cabin, though.
        tandr 7y ago
        make it virtual - like F35 see-through visor does it. Put a monitor + camera outside + "live" stream
- jdonaldson 7y ago
  I think the airlines will find a way to turn these problems into advantages. - Passengers won't have "normal" seats far from the plane's central axis. The distal axis seats will contain steward seating, bathrooms, additional storage, and maybe even a small lounge. - Windows on planes are dirty and small. You're also dealing with more noise and vibration being closer to the frame and engines. - I don't know enough about turbofans, where can I learn more about the bypass limitations?
  - EForEndeavour 7y ago
    - Placing bathrooms and lounges where turbulence is guaranteed to be highest strikes me as a potentially poor idea. - Airliner passenger windows have been getting bigger. https://i.imgur.com/ISWgvZF.jpg https://i.imgur.com/ISWgvZF.jpg
    - the_mitsuhiko 7y ago
      Windows have not been getting bigger as a rule. Boeing did make larger windows but Airbus didn’t. The A350 has small windows. Window size is also not the main factor that matters. For instance I would take an A350 over an 787 any day (also because of the terrible tint windows) due to cabin layout and size.
    - bdamm 7y ago
      The 1925 Ford Trimotor[1] had big beautiful picture frame windows. A silly comparison but if you've ever flown in one you'll know what I mean when I say they had a luxurious view of air travel. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Trimotor#/media/File:NC8407_Ford_4-AT_Tri-Motor_MD2.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Trimotor#/media/File:NC84...
      - zentiggr 7y ago
        I had the privilege to take a flight on one a few years ago; aside from the expected difference in engine noise (which was actually way more fun as an aviation buff) it was rather comfy for a seventy year old design. And yes, awesome views from the row behind the cockpit.
- EliRivers 7y ago
  From what I can tell of the passenger airline business over the last few decades, lots of people will say that they would never fly in such an aircraft because of those things, and it wouldn't be true. Lower cost - they'll fly. Over and over and over, lower cost? They'll fly. Here's Forbes on it back in 2015; https://www.forbes.com/sites/airchive/2015/01/14/actually-airlines-are-giving-customers-exactly-what-they-want/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/airchive/2015/01/14/actually-ai... , and here's someone else on it in 2016; https://www.businessinsider.com.au/scandinavian-airline-sas-ceo-2016-3 https://www.businessinsider.com.au/scandinavian-airline-sas-... , and someone else in 2017 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-what-us-airline-passengers-care-about-most-when-flying-hint-its-not-service-2017-08-05 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-what-us-airline-pass... Price. Price. Price. That's what passengers show they care about through their actions. They like to pretend, we all like to pretend, but the evidence is clear.
  - big_chungus 7y ago
    It's to the consumer's advantage to tell his buddy about how terrible such-and-such-an-airline's new cuts to foot room are and how he wouldn't fly and neither should anyone else. That could possibly lead to better policies. It's not to his advantage to skip flying or to by a more expensive ticket. People are acting according to their best interests, nothing to see here.
    - EliRivers 7y ago
      I disagree. If the consumer convinces everyone else not to fly on those cheap flights, the cheap flights discontinue and the consumer is left paying more. How's that to the consumer's advantage?
  - tuna-piano 7y ago
    I disagree that people will for sure choose price over uncomfortable aircrafts. The most clear thing to look at is turboprops vs regional jet aircraft. Turboprops cost less to buy and burn less fuel(on shorter routes) and take roughly the same amount of time for hourlong trips. But yet, at least in the US, turboprops have been almost completely replaced by regional jets. This is because passengers prefer the small jet experience to the small turboprop experience, even though the turboprop is cheaper.
- jessriedel 7y ago
  > as well as normal banking maneuvers Aren't these maneuvers done such that the local acceleration for all the passengers remains pointing straight toward the bottom of the plane, so that if they close their eyes they don't feel like they are tipping at all? Why can't this continue to work for BWB? I also don't really understand the turbulence issue. Do planes typically roll during turbulence? My experience has been mostly vertical vibrations.
  - ithkuil 7y ago
    That's once you set the bank angle and are turning. But in order to initiate the bank you need to apply a torque (via ailerons). If you sit at distance d from the axis you'll experience an acceleration due to this torque changing the angular velocity (four times per turb: once when the banking is initiated and the second time in the opposite direction when the desired bank angle is reached; then the same thing reversed when existing from the turn). An increased distance d exacerbates the effect (think of a lever).
  - jbay808 7y ago
    The trajectory is the second integral of the acceleration, so if the local acceleration were pointing exactly straight down at all times, you'd have to be moving along a vertical line.
madaxe_again 7y ago
What about patents? I’d be surprised if Boeing don’t own patents in every possible field related to this type of design, given their history with this type of aircraft. It’s a nice idea, but I can’t see it ever being anything other than a loud argument. Maybe that’s the point - airbus trying to lure Boeing into a battle they think they can win (legal) when it turns out it’s actually an ambush in the PR war.
- zprunger 7y ago
  patents are typically valid for 20 years or so depending on jurisdiction. So unless Boeing has done a bunch of research/patenting after the year 2000 is not something to worry about.
  - hef19898 7y ago
    There have been a lot of flying wings or blended wing bodies through history. Horten (Germany) in the 30s and 40s, Northrop since the 40s and some russian models from 30s and 40s as well. The concept isn't that new. It just didn't make that much sense so far in non-military, non-stealth applications. Excluding UAVs, the B-2 has build the most with 21, followed by the Horten H.III gluider from WW2 with 19 or so. One issue could be airport infrastructure, the wing span would take up a lot of terminal / gate space. But if these planes are economically enough, who knows?
- ncmncm 7y ago
  Those patents would likely have expired already. I would bet that Airbus and Boeing have to cross-license their patents to one another anyway. Their interest is in keeping other entrants out of the market.
- jiofih 7y ago
  America, the land of opportunity and innovation!
- rsynnott 7y ago
  Eh? Boeing has made prototypes that look vaguely like this in the past, but the patents would long since have expired. And you can't patent visual design. If Boeing makes a weirdly short stubby aircraft, Airbus can't sue them for copying their A318 concept, say.
abyssin 7y ago
This will not slash carbon emissions by 20%. Blended wing body will make flying cheaper, and increase the number of flyers.
- lorenzhs 7y ago
  It's pretty obvious that the measure used is carbon emissions per passenger mile, not worldwide carbon emissions of aviation.
  - abyssin 7y ago
    You're right, but talking about individual passenger emissions doesn't make much sense since the issue of carbon emissions is a global one.
  - lxpz 7y ago
    Then the measure is wrong.
- azepoi 7y ago
  Exactly, this is called the Jevons paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
- Gravityloss 7y ago
  It depends on legislation. AFAIU currently kerosene is very lightly taxed, if at all. If there is taxation of fuel or fuel-based payments for airlines, it will be reflected on ticket prices more than currently. So the airlines can claw some of that back by introducing more efficient planes. But they will be expensive to develop and build, which is again reflected in ticket prices.
- Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
  * emissions per person-kilometer of flying, of course. I thought this was implied. It works this way with any optimization of any transport method.
- acchow 7y ago
ncmncm 7y ago
This kind of design could be extremely important as a way to make enough room on board for hydrogen fuel tankage. The mass/energy ratio of hydrogen makes it an extremely attractive aviation fuel. Its lower volumetric density has made it impractical with current designs, for most potential uses. Lifting bodies enable an elegant resolution to that problem. After some time it may be considered uneconomical to fly the old submarines-with-wings airframes.
- taneq 7y ago
  That’s actually a great point, if you can get a lot of extra volume “free“ with a BWB design then it could make hydrogen a more viable airline fuel.
  - _archon_ 7y ago
    If I have extra volume in the airframe, and I'm using it for fuel tanks, why wouldn't I use it for conventional aviation fuel and extend the range of my plane? I can use existing infrastructure, not have to worry about cryogenics, not have to worry about high pressure fluids... We know how to use aviation fuels safely now. Although hydrogen is interesting as a potential fuel, I don't anticipate its use in the near future.
    - Ottolay 7y ago
      The point would be to reduce the carbon footprint, for which currently there is no practical technology for aviation (which can make more than a small incremental reduction). If you are just considering a companies bottom line, obviously they are just going to do what would make them the most money.
    - skykooler 7y ago
      Because it can't carry enough weight to fill tanks that big with jet fuel? Hydrogen's light, though very bulky.
    - manfredo 7y ago
      Liquid hydrogen actually has the best energy density by unit of mass than any other fuel (combustible fuel, nuclear is on a whole different level). If lightweight cryogenic storage is developed, then hydrogen powered plans could be a viable option.
pizza 7y ago
Call me a luddite but I feel unease at executives predicting the future of air travel depends on “disruptive technologies”
- somesortofsystm 7y ago
  The transportation industries are seriously planning on being disrupted in the next 5 - 10 years. Lots of telematics companies are, for example, betting on the fact that private vehicle ownership will be less of a thing within the next 2 - 10 years .. the sharing model will 'disrupt' things, etc. You should not feel unease, but for sure try to imagine a world where ICE is phased out. This is going to happen. And when things get electric, they're going to get automatic ..
- raverbashing 7y ago
  Disruptive technologies that are now commonplace in aviation: - Jet engines - Yaw damper - Fly-by-wire - ILS - Composites Among other minor inventions
tiatia 7y ago
Sometimes I feel Europe can never get over it's nazi shit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229
JohnJamesRambo 7y ago
> Such aircraft are complex to control I wonder if 737 Max is making them rethink this already. I love how it looks though.
- dotancohen 7y ago
  This has absolutely nothing to do with the 737 Max. Airbus in particular has been using fly-by-wire for years. The issue with the 737 Max is that it felt different to control under different flight conditions from the classic 737 and Boeing tried to patch that difference in software. There would be no such issue in a new from-the-CAD-file-up airframe.
  - qaq 7y ago
    And there are failure modes where solution is basically reboot the computer. This would not go well in wing body design.
    - dotancohen 7y ago
      Maybe you should tell that to Northrup Grumman.
      - qaq 7y ago
        Are you saying Airbus is equipping planes with ejection seats like Northrup Grumman?
        dotancohen 7y ago
        Are you saying that ejection seats are considered safe for use when your computer fails?
        qaq 7y ago
        It’s not controlled by flight computer
DrScientist 7y ago
If you want low carbon transport then https://www.maritime-executive.com/media/images/article/Photos/Vessels_Large/Original/CSCL_Globe_arriving_at_Felixstowe-_United_Kingdom.f0ce49.jpg https://www.maritime-executive.com/media/images/article/Phot... is very hard to beat. Over a hundreds times better than air.... The problem the airlines face is they are effectively massively subsidize with tax cuts on fuels and duty free status at airports etc plus their free environmental dumping of huge amounts of C02. Air travel and freight is, by and large, is a luxury. Yet people are willing to let the world burn rather than give it up. I'm sure someone will tell me there is some scientific name for such illogical behavior.
- jiofih 7y ago
  That’s hardly low carbon, container ships alone emit almost 20% of the CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere. And Cruise ships emit almost 4x as much as air travel per passenger.
  - monk_e_boy 7y ago
    Per KG of stuff moved it's pretty good.
    - DrScientist 7y ago
      Exactly - you need to decouple efficiency of mode, from amount of transport done in that mode if you want to make sensible decisions about which mode is best. Or put it another way - if all that cargo going by sea went by air C02 emissions would be 100x more. Obviously saying sea travel is massively more efficient doesn't obviate the need to reduce that as well.
    - Already__Taken 7y ago
      but once you put people on it you f that number up.
  - hwillis 7y ago
    You are off by an order of magnitude. Global oceanic shipping of all kinds is <3% of anthropogenic CO2[1]. Closer to 1.5-2% if you include land use changes. You are correct about cruise ships, although it's more like 2-3x. [1]: https://phys.org/news/2018-12-cargo-ships-emitting-boatloads-carbon.html https://phys.org/news/2018-12-cargo-ships-emitting-boatloads...
darrenf 7y ago
Reminds me of the Boeing X-48B unmanned BWB: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/research/X-48B/index.html https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/research/X-48B/index.htm... And the Shell Oil concept plane model at Manchester's science museum: https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co8413827/conceptual-aircraft-model-model-aircraft https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co84138...
rsynnott 7y ago
Like all other visually interesting aircraft, it will be quietly abandoned in a decade in favour of an A350++ or something.
- s_dev 7y ago
  >Such aircraft are complex to control but produce less aerodynamic drag, making them more efficient to fly. Fuel effciency is big incentivising factor in the airline industry. If we can have an AI control the extra complexity involved to bring safety to a par I can see prototypes being made for further experiments. It is visually interesting though.
  - bangboombang 7y ago
    Yes, after the 737-MAX I absolutely want more computers, AI, blockchain, cloud, microservices, HTTP/3 and big data in the planes I'm boarding.
    - s_dev 7y ago
      Those technologies are already used heavily by the airline industry which is extemely dependant on software and it probably will continue to build on that dependency.
    - arnon 7y ago
      Redundancy of flight controls with Kubernetes. If a flight control goes offline, Kubernetes auto-heals.
    - skriticos2 7y ago
      The problem with the 737-MAX was not that it used a computer. It was that the 737 series is generally not designed to be fly-by-wire and it was rammed in there to keep previous flight characteristics and just generally downplay the design ramifications of putting a much more massive engine below the wings that tilts the center of gravity considerably and changes flight characteristics. Airbus is doing fine with fly-by-wire. They do so because they start with it at the design stage and don't haphazardly change major aerodynamic characteristics without going back to the drawing board and thinking through all the ramifications. There is much more to say what went wrong and it's fairly well documented in public sources and little of it was because computers (though there is something to be said about the code quality culture at Boeing, but that's a different topic).
rwmj 7y ago
If they're going all in on a radical new design, and especially if it might only be for cargo, why not get rid of the pilots?
- hnarn 7y ago
  Because people will not fly a plane that has no pilot. One of the largest scandals in aviation history was unveiled only recently and it was caused by software issues, not the human factor as mostly is the case. We're not there yet and pretending we are won't make it so.
  - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
    Um. On long flights, apparently the pilots are mostly asleep. So 'nobody' includes a lot of people, practically.
    - slavak 7y ago
      The pilots are definitely not "mostly asleep" on long flights. There will be two qualified pilots monitoring the aircraft at all times during the flight (with the possible exception of one stepping out for a moment to use the restroom during cruise). Long haul flights will carry relief crew, 3 or even 4 pilots total, so they can take shifts flying the aircraft. Being asleep in the cockpit is a good way to quickly end your flying career.
    - _archon_ 7y ago
      When you're aloft, you are safe unless the plane is depressurized or on fire. The key safety feature in aviation is the manner in which the plane returns to the earth. This is a job for humans to manage. Some pilots stop paying attention on long, boring stretches where the autopilot is fully capable of following a vector and an altitude. However, if there's an alarm due to control issue or other emergency, the human is alerted and would take over amyway. That's why it's called an alarm. I don't mean to imply that I support this behavior, but it is an understandable human factor that's a lower priority to correct than other safety factors.
- 7y ago
mrfusion 7y ago
Regarding the turning problem. Why can’t they use the rudder more to turn and less tilting the plane?
- samvher 7y ago
  Normally the ratio of rudder to tilt for a turn is fixed for a given aircraft. The main reason is that people are ok with experiencing downward forces, but not so much with sideways forces. As a pilot, if you want to keep the forces downward, you need to use both rudder and tilt in a particular combination. In order to make a turn you also really need a tilt - if you use only the rudder you are in a "slip", you don't really change your direction of movement but the direction of movement and the front of the plane are not aligned (actually it's more complicated and the rudder will initiate a tilt as well but I won't go there). From what I understand, the problem with this particular kind of design is not so much about the direction of the forces but about the variation in forces though. If you're sitting in the end of a wing, as the aircraft goes into or out of a tilt you will experience quite some variation in the magnitude of the downward force, which is uncomfortable.
- _archon_ 7y ago
  Because that's not how flying works. When you apply rudder, you create a moment in the yaw axis, but that doesn't change the vector of the aircraft's speed/momentum. So your plane is still moving along its original vector, it's just not pointed straight at the direction it's moving anymore. This creates aerodynamic inefficiencies (which often self-correct) until eventually the plane's motion vector can be re-aligned to the direction it's pointing (completing a turn). Unfortunately, this is super inefficient. You're basically burning extra fuel to compensate for the aerodynamic inefficiencies you created by using the rudder only. Plus, there may be some juddering/felt turbulation by the passengers, depending on how severe your induced yaw is. The passenger would also feel the plane pushing them to the side, rather than back and down into the seat as in a conventional turn. Changing direction more conventionally is way more efficient, loads control surfaces less, is more consistent for passengers, and is pretty much better in every way.
emayljames 7y ago
https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/stories/Imagine-travelling-in-this-blended-wing-body-aircraft.html https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/stories/Imagine-travelling-i...
dver 7y ago
This was a really cool attempt at a homebuilt BWB. http://wingco.com/ http://wingco.com/
- londons_explore 7y ago
  Looks like that project suffered from the "hard to control" issue...
ceejayoz 7y ago
I'm more interested in the E-Fan X aircraft shown. Looks like the BAe 146, which is probably my favorite plane of all time to fly in.
- detritus 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_E-Fan_X https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_E-Fan_X I think it's exactly the BAe 146 :) One of my favourite planes also - I used to love flying early morning flights with DanAir from the North of England down to London back in the 80s... of course these days I'd just get the train. I was reading up on the 146 a few months back, idly wondering how much one would cost - I think the reason they're using one here is that they're comparatively cheap on the used market as the number of engines makes them fairly expensive to service, but said number of engines obviously provides redundancy.
gumby 7y ago
The window issue is a red herring -- if leaving them out saves money people will continue to buy the cheaper tickets. The airlines have proven that over the past couple of decades. As for vertical motion, perhaps the same applies: first class will be in the middle; economy passengers farther out, and fuel, baggage and crew areas will be farthest from the centre.
hinkley 7y ago
Boeing was looking at such designs around the time of the 787 program. Whoever does manufacture one of these, I will bet you any amount of money that window seats will be at a large price premium, possibly even only for first class passengers.
- mongol 7y ago
  The comment above movement in the article had me thinking... banking movements must feel scarier close to the windows on these types of planes.
  - hinkley 7y ago
    True. So it may still be at the front of the plane (where the distance from centerline is still small). I could see a V shaped first class. Possible with a keystone-shaped galley, or a lounge. The other problem is how do you get the toilets and the galley serviced from outside? And load the cargo bay?
sgt101 7y ago
What? They have built a model?
batsy71 7y ago
From the model showing in the video, the aircraft has 2 vertical stabilizer mounted engines ala trijets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trijet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trijet). Barring some smaller jets, this design has ceased in most large airliners for multiple reasons, one of them being the crash of United Flight 232(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232) where the Vert stabilizer mounted engine suffered an explosive dis-integration which in turn structurally damaged the tail sections as well as its hydraulic control lines, rendering the vert stab uncontrollable. My guess would be the present design has many more significant iterations left.
jaggednad 7y ago
What is this? A plane for ants?!
smm2000 7y ago
You do not really spend much time in cabin - you are either outside the ship during stops or in restaurants/bars/deck/pool during sea time. Inside cabins are often amazing value and work well if you do not have kids.

215 points by hhs 7y ago

BWBs are tempting, but let me state the usual cons mentioned for them. - More passengers sit farther from the longitudinal axis, and consequently experience larger vertical accelerations from turbulence, as well as normal banking maneuvers. - More passengers are farther from the windows. - No great place to put a high bypass turbofan. I'm hopeful that one eventually gets built though, it'll be interesting how these pan out.

rob74 7y ago
One more: the classical tube fuselage is much cheaper/easier/more efficient to build, because it consists largely of identical segments. Plus it's much easier to build shortened/lengthened versions of an existing airplane.
- 01CGAT 7y ago
  It's easier because the current tools of building the planes are not made for this new type of planes. Update the tools and building this new type of plane will be easy too.
  - rob74 7y ago
    Let me quote from the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Constellation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Constellation: > One of the reasons for the elegant appearance of the aircraft was the fuselage shape, a continuously variable profile with no two bulkheads the same shape. This construction was expensive and was replaced by mostly tube-shaped modern airliners. The tube is more resistant to pressurization changes and cheaper to build. With blended wing bodies, you would again need a continuously variable profile for the whole fuselage (rather than only the wing, as in modern "tube-and-wing" planes). To build a larger or smaller variant, you would have to redesign the whole fuselage, rather than just adding/removing a few tube segments. So, even with updated tools, there will still be a lot of challenges...
    - londons_explore 7y ago
      In todays world of most high value things being CNC machined rather than made from hand crafted moulds and templates, every part being different is less of a concern. Just download the set of designs to the machine, do a test run of the smallest and largest part, and then hit 'start' and come back in the morning.
      - throwanem 7y ago
        Yeah, a passenger aircraft is somewhat more complex in manufacture than a MacBook Pro.
      - PietdeVries 7y ago
        Also in today's world it is cheaper for one machine to produce 1.000 identical parts than for the same machine produce 10 times 100 different parts. You need stock of each, tests of each. Imagine how efficient car maintenance would be of only we'd use one standardized car. You can have the larger model, but all components are the same, every garage has them...
        lowdose 7y ago
        Like Tesla is doing with one engine for all cars and a mono frame pressed out of a metal sheet. Cybertruck deliverable in every color you like as long as it's metal. I have read somewhere the complexity in production lines are similar as the big O notation. Henry Ford would be proud of Elon.
        mediaman 7y ago
        Most car manufacturers are massively reducing complexity. Toyota's Next Generation Architecture is reducing total manufacturing costs by 20% by simplifying their entire platform of vehicles into a common set of types and using similar hardware wherever possible.
        himinlomax 7y ago
        3D printing.
  - digikata 7y ago
    I imagine even larger gantry variant of this carbon fiber loom: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j19na8LMBnE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j19na8LMBnE
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- hinkley 7y ago
  A tube fuselage is also easier to build offsite. Boeing still carts 737 fuselages back and forth across Seattle on the railways. Have you seen how Boeing was building (well, how Mitsubishi was building, in point if fact) carbon fiber wings? They were doing it with carbon fiber ribbons as a single piece. I don’t know if that scales up to the size of a blended body, though.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    Not just "across Seattle". From Wichita to Seattle.
dotancohen 7y ago
Perhaps the baggage would be placed at the extreme ends, which should reduce the leverage that people moving about would have on the roll axis. That does exacerbate the window issue, but honestly the last times that I've flown myself and my children seemed to be the only people looking out the windows anyway. Everybody else has a small screen shining in their face for almost the entire flight.
- fyfy18 7y ago
  For most intercontinental flights I've been on, at least half the flight the windows are closed to block the sun so people can sleep or watch the screens. They could design a viewing area at the edge and fill the interior (where passengers sit) with natural light from light tubes. Combine that with a few more cameras so you can view the exterior from different angles, and I don't think anyone would complain.
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    >Combine that with a few more cameras so you can view the exterior from different angles, and I don't think anyone would complain. While this is fantasy: imagine if you could put on an AR headset and be able to "look through the plane" in any direction. Like that F-35 AR helmet. Maybe allow people to use their screens to also look out around the plane using the same system.
    - SwiftyBug 7y ago
      That would be insanely scary. Or maybe the ability to see what's going on outside makes me less afraid of flying.
    - reportgunner 7y ago
      I figure that would be fun for about 2 minutes.
      - ahartmetz 7y ago
        More than that, at least for me. Maybe half an hour of an eight hour flight? It was on a Finnair A350.
continuations 7y ago
> More passengers are farther from the windows Why is that a con? Seems to me most people don't like window seats & want aisle seats.
- cbzbc 7y ago
  Well, you also end up with longer rows - and so potentially more middle of row seats which are less desirable.
  - consp 7y ago
    Or you create corridors? Most 10 wide have a 3-4-3 already and if you have more horizontal space 3-3-3-3 might be an option with the same amount of middle seats and two extra seats.
hawski 7y ago
In a way windows are more of a psychological problem I think. They are already quite small and not that reachable for most passengers, but closing an option is tough. Would it be possible to have at least roof windows for natural light or then it's not worth the bother?
- petre 7y ago
  Less windows = less chance an aircraft would depressurize. An array of small roof windows could be a solution. https://edition.cnn.com/travel/gallery/stephen-chang-imaginary-aircraft/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/travel/gallery/stephen-chang-imagina...
emiliobumachar 7y ago
>More passengers [...] experience larger vertical accelerations Economy-minus section?
- alexis_fr 7y ago
  To be honest, air travel used to be very noisy and expensive, sometimes with fumes events, let alone smokers. Despite the legroom, I’m pretty sure it is more comfortable now.
- jotm 7y ago
  Please, that's an Adventurer seat and costs more than economy.
CandidSubstance 7y ago
Wasn't the main issue that flying wings have a very narrow Center of Gravity range? I thought the main reason that airliners have such a large trimmable horizontal stabiliser is to configure for varying CofG.
- upofadown 7y ago
  Yes, but it is harder to get a long ways from the center of gravity on a flying wing.
ragebol 7y ago
I think I'd like windows in the floor so I can see what we're flying over. But I doubt that will be very popular.
- 0xffff2 7y ago
  On any current airliner a window in the cabin floor would only allow you to stare at your luggage. That arrangement seems to efficient to change just for the sake of a bit of a view.
Yizahi 7y ago
- No great place to put a high bypass turbofan. This especially. USSR Tu-154 with a 3rd engine in this spot was very affected by aerodynamic shadow from a airplane body at certain angles.
mrfusion 7y ago
It would be neat to put windows on the floor. You’re most interested in looking down anyway. And otherwise you could have a cool hang out / lounge with nice pa Aramaic windows and everyone could have turns sightseeing.
- hnarn 7y ago
  That's not a very good idea. Most people are terrified of glass floors in other scenarios, like balconies for example, especially combined with some altitude. It may be just as safe as "normal" windows but I doubt most people would be comfortable with it. I'm not even sure I would be and I have no more fear of flying than most people. I'm not sure it's suitable for other reasons as well, such as hull integrity (but I'm not an engineer), or actually getting sunlight into the cabin. I'm fairly sure most people want to watch sunsets and sunrises, not clouds or how insanely high up you're sitting.
- throwaway55554 7y ago
  > It would be neat to put windows on the floor. Depends on if they put cargo down below or not. Makes sense they would so they can easily on/off-load it.
- foobiekr 7y ago
  project the open sky on the ceiling
  - mrfusion 7y ago
    Don’t forget mrfusions law. “Any screen will eventually show ads”
- hbosch 7y ago
  > It would be neat to put windows on the floor. You’re most interested in looking down anyway. I don't think so. Looking down isn't what people look out the windows at, it's the horizon. Looking straight down would be generally frightening, sickening, to many people... whereas the horizon is steady and calming. But either way, once you're above the clouds, windows are OK but kinda useless. View doesn't change much up there, or at night!
Lendal 7y ago
That's the first thing that went through my mind when I saw that picture. "No windows--I'm not flying on that."
danmaz74 7y ago
The article shortly addresses these points: ... One unresolved question is whether such a plane would have windows or use video screens to give passengers a sense of their surroundings. Another issue that has dogged such experiments in the past is how to handle sensations of movement. Because passengers would be sitting further out from the center of the aircraft, compared to the classic ‘tube and wings’ model, they would move further when the aircraft turns. Rival Boeing has put more weight on a potential cargo role.
jonathanpoulter 7y ago
Cruise ships handle plenty of non-window "accommodation": https://www.royalcaribbean.com/blog/an-inside-room-with-a-view/ https://www.royalcaribbean.com/blog/an-inside-room-with-a-vi...
- beamatronic 7y ago
  For a certain price, you’ll find someone to do it
- 0xffff2 7y ago
  I've been on a lot of cruises. Aside from sleeping, I'm pretty much never in my cabin. Doesn't really make for a good comparison to a flight.
- big_chungus 7y ago
  I've never been on one; to some one who has, how do you avoid going nuts or getting depressed after a few days?
  - tastyfreeze 7y ago
    Consume as much food and booze as possible to drown your depression caused by being crammed on a disease-ridden ship with 3,000 strangers.
  - zentiggr 7y ago
    I deployed on a sub five times in four years, so I'm maybe not the best one to give an example. For us, we got used to the 'no outside' within a day or so as there is always so much else to do. Long term, you make friends, come up with portable hobbies, and just dig in to the job for a while.
throwaway55554 7y ago
I wonder about egress during an emergency as well.
fnordfnordfnord 7y ago
Airlines don't care about our comfort. They would ship us in intermodal Connex boxes if they could.
- nmeofthestate 7y ago
  I would definitely try "BA Baracus" mode for intercontinental flights if it were available and safe.
  - fnordfnordfnord 7y ago
    I pity the fool...
- vl 7y ago
  People don’t care about comfort, airlines just sell what people pay for.
  - mgolawala 7y ago
    Exactly this. There is plenty of comfort available in air travel if you are willing to pay for it.
vl 7y ago
> More passengers are farther from the windows I’m not sure it’s a big problem: I took a flight in business class of A380, and it was a bit of surreal experience: you are so far from the window, and there are so many partitions, that basically there could have been no window at all and experience would be the same. It was a bit spooky, but turned out fine in practice. On regular flights people actively close shades to use entertainment system, so everyone used not to having windows now.
- PopeDotNinja 7y ago
  Even more basic than that, everyone who doesn't have a window seat is not super close to a window. Most 787 overnight flights I've taken darken the windows to the point that no one can see out anyway.
- hammock 7y ago
  Can we put in skylights?
  - JoblessWonder 7y ago
    There is a business jet line (Falcon 5X/6X) with a single Sky Light. It is basically just a window on the top of the airplane... but definitely cool and unique.
  - smoyer 7y ago
    I like watching the ground ... can we have a glass-bottom plane?
    - FreeFull 7y ago
      All the luggage is stored below the passenger cabin, though.
      - tandr 7y ago
        make it virtual - like F35 see-through visor does it. Put a monitor + camera outside + "live" stream
jdonaldson 7y ago
I think the airlines will find a way to turn these problems into advantages. - Passengers won't have "normal" seats far from the plane's central axis. The distal axis seats will contain steward seating, bathrooms, additional storage, and maybe even a small lounge. - Windows on planes are dirty and small. You're also dealing with more noise and vibration being closer to the frame and engines. - I don't know enough about turbofans, where can I learn more about the bypass limitations?
- EForEndeavour 7y ago
  - Placing bathrooms and lounges where turbulence is guaranteed to be highest strikes me as a potentially poor idea. - Airliner passenger windows have been getting bigger. https://i.imgur.com/ISWgvZF.jpg https://i.imgur.com/ISWgvZF.jpg
  - the_mitsuhiko 7y ago
    Windows have not been getting bigger as a rule. Boeing did make larger windows but Airbus didn’t. The A350 has small windows. Window size is also not the main factor that matters. For instance I would take an A350 over an 787 any day (also because of the terrible tint windows) due to cabin layout and size.
  - bdamm 7y ago
    The 1925 Ford Trimotor[1] had big beautiful picture frame windows. A silly comparison but if you've ever flown in one you'll know what I mean when I say they had a luxurious view of air travel. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Trimotor#/media/File:NC8407_Ford_4-AT_Tri-Motor_MD2.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Trimotor#/media/File:NC84...
    - zentiggr 7y ago
      I had the privilege to take a flight on one a few years ago; aside from the expected difference in engine noise (which was actually way more fun as an aviation buff) it was rather comfy for a seventy year old design. And yes, awesome views from the row behind the cockpit.
EliRivers 7y ago
From what I can tell of the passenger airline business over the last few decades, lots of people will say that they would never fly in such an aircraft because of those things, and it wouldn't be true. Lower cost - they'll fly. Over and over and over, lower cost? They'll fly. Here's Forbes on it back in 2015; https://www.forbes.com/sites/airchive/2015/01/14/actually-airlines-are-giving-customers-exactly-what-they-want/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/airchive/2015/01/14/actually-ai... , and here's someone else on it in 2016; https://www.businessinsider.com.au/scandinavian-airline-sas-ceo-2016-3 https://www.businessinsider.com.au/scandinavian-airline-sas-... , and someone else in 2017 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-what-us-airline-passengers-care-about-most-when-flying-hint-its-not-service-2017-08-05 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-what-us-airline-pass... Price. Price. Price. That's what passengers show they care about through their actions. They like to pretend, we all like to pretend, but the evidence is clear.
- big_chungus 7y ago
  It's to the consumer's advantage to tell his buddy about how terrible such-and-such-an-airline's new cuts to foot room are and how he wouldn't fly and neither should anyone else. That could possibly lead to better policies. It's not to his advantage to skip flying or to by a more expensive ticket. People are acting according to their best interests, nothing to see here.
  - EliRivers 7y ago
    I disagree. If the consumer convinces everyone else not to fly on those cheap flights, the cheap flights discontinue and the consumer is left paying more. How's that to the consumer's advantage?
- tuna-piano 7y ago
  I disagree that people will for sure choose price over uncomfortable aircrafts. The most clear thing to look at is turboprops vs regional jet aircraft. Turboprops cost less to buy and burn less fuel(on shorter routes) and take roughly the same amount of time for hourlong trips. But yet, at least in the US, turboprops have been almost completely replaced by regional jets. This is because passengers prefer the small jet experience to the small turboprop experience, even though the turboprop is cheaper.
jessriedel 7y ago
> as well as normal banking maneuvers Aren't these maneuvers done such that the local acceleration for all the passengers remains pointing straight toward the bottom of the plane, so that if they close their eyes they don't feel like they are tipping at all? Why can't this continue to work for BWB? I also don't really understand the turbulence issue. Do planes typically roll during turbulence? My experience has been mostly vertical vibrations.
- ithkuil 7y ago
  That's once you set the bank angle and are turning. But in order to initiate the bank you need to apply a torque (via ailerons). If you sit at distance d from the axis you'll experience an acceleration due to this torque changing the angular velocity (four times per turb: once when the banking is initiated and the second time in the opposite direction when the desired bank angle is reached; then the same thing reversed when existing from the turn). An increased distance d exacerbates the effect (think of a lever).
- jbay808 7y ago
  The trajectory is the second integral of the acceleration, so if the local acceleration were pointing exactly straight down at all times, you'd have to be moving along a vertical line.

madaxe_again 7y ago

What about patents? I’d be surprised if Boeing don’t own patents in every possible field related to this type of design, given their history with this type of aircraft. It’s a nice idea, but I can’t see it ever being anything other than a loud argument. Maybe that’s the point - airbus trying to lure Boeing into a battle they think they can win (legal) when it turns out it’s actually an ambush in the PR war.

zprunger 7y ago
patents are typically valid for 20 years or so depending on jurisdiction. So unless Boeing has done a bunch of research/patenting after the year 2000 is not something to worry about.
- hef19898 7y ago
  There have been a lot of flying wings or blended wing bodies through history. Horten (Germany) in the 30s and 40s, Northrop since the 40s and some russian models from 30s and 40s as well. The concept isn't that new. It just didn't make that much sense so far in non-military, non-stealth applications. Excluding UAVs, the B-2 has build the most with 21, followed by the Horten H.III gluider from WW2 with 19 or so. One issue could be airport infrastructure, the wing span would take up a lot of terminal / gate space. But if these planes are economically enough, who knows?
ncmncm 7y ago
Those patents would likely have expired already. I would bet that Airbus and Boeing have to cross-license their patents to one another anyway. Their interest is in keeping other entrants out of the market.
jiofih 7y ago
America, the land of opportunity and innovation!
rsynnott 7y ago
Eh? Boeing has made prototypes that look vaguely like this in the past, but the patents would long since have expired. And you can't patent visual design. If Boeing makes a weirdly short stubby aircraft, Airbus can't sue them for copying their A318 concept, say.

abyssin 7y ago

This will not slash carbon emissions by 20%. Blended wing body will make flying cheaper, and increase the number of flyers.

lorenzhs 7y ago
It's pretty obvious that the measure used is carbon emissions per passenger mile, not worldwide carbon emissions of aviation.
- abyssin 7y ago
  You're right, but talking about individual passenger emissions doesn't make much sense since the issue of carbon emissions is a global one.
- lxpz 7y ago
  Then the measure is wrong.
azepoi 7y ago
Exactly, this is called the Jevons paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
Gravityloss 7y ago
It depends on legislation. AFAIU currently kerosene is very lightly taxed, if at all. If there is taxation of fuel or fuel-based payments for airlines, it will be reflected on ticket prices more than currently. So the airlines can claw some of that back by introducing more efficient planes. But they will be expensive to develop and build, which is again reflected in ticket prices.
Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
* emissions per person-kilometer of flying, of course. I thought this was implied. It works this way with any optimization of any transport method.
acchow 7y ago

ncmncm 7y ago

This kind of design could be extremely important as a way to make enough room on board for hydrogen fuel tankage. The mass/energy ratio of hydrogen makes it an extremely attractive aviation fuel. Its lower volumetric density has made it impractical with current designs, for most potential uses. Lifting bodies enable an elegant resolution to that problem. After some time it may be considered uneconomical to fly the old submarines-with-wings airframes.

taneq 7y ago
That’s actually a great point, if you can get a lot of extra volume “free“ with a BWB design then it could make hydrogen a more viable airline fuel.
- _archon_ 7y ago
  If I have extra volume in the airframe, and I'm using it for fuel tanks, why wouldn't I use it for conventional aviation fuel and extend the range of my plane? I can use existing infrastructure, not have to worry about cryogenics, not have to worry about high pressure fluids... We know how to use aviation fuels safely now. Although hydrogen is interesting as a potential fuel, I don't anticipate its use in the near future.
  - Ottolay 7y ago
    The point would be to reduce the carbon footprint, for which currently there is no practical technology for aviation (which can make more than a small incremental reduction). If you are just considering a companies bottom line, obviously they are just going to do what would make them the most money.
  - skykooler 7y ago
    Because it can't carry enough weight to fill tanks that big with jet fuel? Hydrogen's light, though very bulky.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    Liquid hydrogen actually has the best energy density by unit of mass than any other fuel (combustible fuel, nuclear is on a whole different level). If lightweight cryogenic storage is developed, then hydrogen powered plans could be a viable option.

pizza 7y ago

Call me a luddite but I feel unease at executives predicting the future of air travel depends on “disruptive technologies”

somesortofsystm 7y ago
The transportation industries are seriously planning on being disrupted in the next 5 - 10 years. Lots of telematics companies are, for example, betting on the fact that private vehicle ownership will be less of a thing within the next 2 - 10 years .. the sharing model will 'disrupt' things, etc. You should not feel unease, but for sure try to imagine a world where ICE is phased out. This is going to happen. And when things get electric, they're going to get automatic ..
raverbashing 7y ago
Disruptive technologies that are now commonplace in aviation: - Jet engines - Yaw damper - Fly-by-wire - ILS - Composites Among other minor inventions

tiatia 7y ago

Sometimes I feel Europe can never get over it's nazi shit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229

JohnJamesRambo 7y ago

> Such aircraft are complex to control I wonder if 737 Max is making them rethink this already. I love how it looks though.

dotancohen 7y ago
This has absolutely nothing to do with the 737 Max. Airbus in particular has been using fly-by-wire for years. The issue with the 737 Max is that it felt different to control under different flight conditions from the classic 737 and Boeing tried to patch that difference in software. There would be no such issue in a new from-the-CAD-file-up airframe.
- qaq 7y ago
  And there are failure modes where solution is basically reboot the computer. This would not go well in wing body design.
  - dotancohen 7y ago
    Maybe you should tell that to Northrup Grumman.
    - qaq 7y ago
      Are you saying Airbus is equipping planes with ejection seats like Northrup Grumman?
      - dotancohen 7y ago
        Are you saying that ejection seats are considered safe for use when your computer fails?
        qaq 7y ago
        It’s not controlled by flight computer

DrScientist 7y ago

If you want low carbon transport then https://www.maritime-executive.com/media/images/article/Photos/Vessels_Large/Original/CSCL_Globe_arriving_at_Felixstowe-_United_Kingdom.f0ce49.jpg https://www.maritime-executive.com/media/images/article/Phot... is very hard to beat. Over a hundreds times better than air.... The problem the airlines face is they are effectively massively subsidize with tax cuts on fuels and duty free status at airports etc plus their free environmental dumping of huge amounts of C02. Air travel and freight is, by and large, is a luxury. Yet people are willing to let the world burn rather than give it up. I'm sure someone will tell me there is some scientific name for such illogical behavior.

jiofih 7y ago
That’s hardly low carbon, container ships alone emit almost 20% of the CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere. And Cruise ships emit almost 4x as much as air travel per passenger.
- monk_e_boy 7y ago
  Per KG of stuff moved it's pretty good.
  - DrScientist 7y ago
    Exactly - you need to decouple efficiency of mode, from amount of transport done in that mode if you want to make sensible decisions about which mode is best. Or put it another way - if all that cargo going by sea went by air C02 emissions would be 100x more. Obviously saying sea travel is massively more efficient doesn't obviate the need to reduce that as well.
  - Already__Taken 7y ago
    but once you put people on it you f that number up.
- hwillis 7y ago
  You are off by an order of magnitude. Global oceanic shipping of all kinds is <3% of anthropogenic CO2[1]. Closer to 1.5-2% if you include land use changes. You are correct about cruise ships, although it's more like 2-3x. [1]: https://phys.org/news/2018-12-cargo-ships-emitting-boatloads-carbon.html https://phys.org/news/2018-12-cargo-ships-emitting-boatloads...

darrenf 7y ago

Reminds me of the Boeing X-48B unmanned BWB: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/research/X-48B/index.html https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/research/X-48B/index.htm... And the Shell Oil concept plane model at Manchester's science museum: https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co8413827/conceptual-aircraft-model-model-aircraft https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co84138...

rsynnott 7y ago

Like all other visually interesting aircraft, it will be quietly abandoned in a decade in favour of an A350++ or something.

s_dev 7y ago
>Such aircraft are complex to control but produce less aerodynamic drag, making them more efficient to fly. Fuel effciency is big incentivising factor in the airline industry. If we can have an AI control the extra complexity involved to bring safety to a par I can see prototypes being made for further experiments. It is visually interesting though.
- bangboombang 7y ago
  Yes, after the 737-MAX I absolutely want more computers, AI, blockchain, cloud, microservices, HTTP/3 and big data in the planes I'm boarding.
  - s_dev 7y ago
    Those technologies are already used heavily by the airline industry which is extemely dependant on software and it probably will continue to build on that dependency.
  - arnon 7y ago
    Redundancy of flight controls with Kubernetes. If a flight control goes offline, Kubernetes auto-heals.
  - skriticos2 7y ago
    The problem with the 737-MAX was not that it used a computer. It was that the 737 series is generally not designed to be fly-by-wire and it was rammed in there to keep previous flight characteristics and just generally downplay the design ramifications of putting a much more massive engine below the wings that tilts the center of gravity considerably and changes flight characteristics. Airbus is doing fine with fly-by-wire. They do so because they start with it at the design stage and don't haphazardly change major aerodynamic characteristics without going back to the drawing board and thinking through all the ramifications. There is much more to say what went wrong and it's fairly well documented in public sources and little of it was because computers (though there is something to be said about the code quality culture at Boeing, but that's a different topic).

rwmj 7y ago

If they're going all in on a radical new design, and especially if it might only be for cargo, why not get rid of the pilots?

hnarn 7y ago
Because people will not fly a plane that has no pilot. One of the largest scandals in aviation history was unveiled only recently and it was caused by software issues, not the human factor as mostly is the case. We're not there yet and pretending we are won't make it so.
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago
  Um. On long flights, apparently the pilots are mostly asleep. So 'nobody' includes a lot of people, practically.
  - slavak 7y ago
    The pilots are definitely not "mostly asleep" on long flights. There will be two qualified pilots monitoring the aircraft at all times during the flight (with the possible exception of one stepping out for a moment to use the restroom during cruise). Long haul flights will carry relief crew, 3 or even 4 pilots total, so they can take shifts flying the aircraft. Being asleep in the cockpit is a good way to quickly end your flying career.
  - _archon_ 7y ago
    When you're aloft, you are safe unless the plane is depressurized or on fire. The key safety feature in aviation is the manner in which the plane returns to the earth. This is a job for humans to manage. Some pilots stop paying attention on long, boring stretches where the autopilot is fully capable of following a vector and an altitude. However, if there's an alarm due to control issue or other emergency, the human is alerted and would take over amyway. That's why it's called an alarm. I don't mean to imply that I support this behavior, but it is an understandable human factor that's a lower priority to correct than other safety factors.
7y ago

mrfusion 7y ago

Regarding the turning problem. Why can’t they use the rudder more to turn and less tilting the plane?

samvher 7y ago
Normally the ratio of rudder to tilt for a turn is fixed for a given aircraft. The main reason is that people are ok with experiencing downward forces, but not so much with sideways forces. As a pilot, if you want to keep the forces downward, you need to use both rudder and tilt in a particular combination. In order to make a turn you also really need a tilt - if you use only the rudder you are in a "slip", you don't really change your direction of movement but the direction of movement and the front of the plane are not aligned (actually it's more complicated and the rudder will initiate a tilt as well but I won't go there). From what I understand, the problem with this particular kind of design is not so much about the direction of the forces but about the variation in forces though. If you're sitting in the end of a wing, as the aircraft goes into or out of a tilt you will experience quite some variation in the magnitude of the downward force, which is uncomfortable.
_archon_ 7y ago
Because that's not how flying works. When you apply rudder, you create a moment in the yaw axis, but that doesn't change the vector of the aircraft's speed/momentum. So your plane is still moving along its original vector, it's just not pointed straight at the direction it's moving anymore. This creates aerodynamic inefficiencies (which often self-correct) until eventually the plane's motion vector can be re-aligned to the direction it's pointing (completing a turn). Unfortunately, this is super inefficient. You're basically burning extra fuel to compensate for the aerodynamic inefficiencies you created by using the rudder only. Plus, there may be some juddering/felt turbulation by the passengers, depending on how severe your induced yaw is. The passenger would also feel the plane pushing them to the side, rather than back and down into the seat as in a conventional turn. Changing direction more conventionally is way more efficient, loads control surfaces less, is more consistent for passengers, and is pretty much better in every way.

emayljames 7y ago

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/stories/Imagine-travelling-in-this-blended-wing-body-aircraft.html https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/stories/Imagine-travelling-i...

dver 7y ago

This was a really cool attempt at a homebuilt BWB. http://wingco.com/ http://wingco.com/

londons_explore 7y ago
Looks like that project suffered from the "hard to control" issue...

ceejayoz 7y ago

I'm more interested in the E-Fan X aircraft shown. Looks like the BAe 146, which is probably my favorite plane of all time to fly in.

detritus 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_E-Fan_X https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_E-Fan_X I think it's exactly the BAe 146 :) One of my favourite planes also - I used to love flying early morning flights with DanAir from the North of England down to London back in the 80s... of course these days I'd just get the train. I was reading up on the 146 a few months back, idly wondering how much one would cost - I think the reason they're using one here is that they're comparatively cheap on the used market as the number of engines makes them fairly expensive to service, but said number of engines obviously provides redundancy.

gumby 7y ago

The window issue is a red herring -- if leaving them out saves money people will continue to buy the cheaper tickets. The airlines have proven that over the past couple of decades. As for vertical motion, perhaps the same applies: first class will be in the middle; economy passengers farther out, and fuel, baggage and crew areas will be farthest from the centre.

hinkley 7y ago

Boeing was looking at such designs around the time of the 787 program. Whoever does manufacture one of these, I will bet you any amount of money that window seats will be at a large price premium, possibly even only for first class passengers.

mongol 7y ago
The comment above movement in the article had me thinking... banking movements must feel scarier close to the windows on these types of planes.
- hinkley 7y ago
  True. So it may still be at the front of the plane (where the distance from centerline is still small). I could see a V shaped first class. Possible with a keystone-shaped galley, or a lounge. The other problem is how do you get the toilets and the galley serviced from outside? And load the cargo bay?

sgt101 7y ago

What? They have built a model?

batsy71 7y ago

From the model showing in the video, the aircraft has 2 vertical stabilizer mounted engines ala trijets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trijet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trijet). Barring some smaller jets, this design has ceased in most large airliners for multiple reasons, one of them being the crash of United Flight 232(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232) where the Vert stabilizer mounted engine suffered an explosive dis-integration which in turn structurally damaged the tail sections as well as its hydraulic control lines, rendering the vert stab uncontrollable. My guess would be the present design has many more significant iterations left.

jaggednad 7y ago

What is this? A plane for ants?!

smm2000 7y ago

You do not really spend much time in cabin - you are either outside the ship during stops or in restaurants/bars/deck/pool during sea time. Inside cabins are often amazing value and work well if you do not have kids.