21 ms·
BWBs are tempting, but let me state the usual cons mentioned for them. - More passengers sit farther from the longitudinal axis, and consequently experience la
by 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 agoOne 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 agoIt'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 agoLet 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 agoIn 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 agoYeah, a passenger aircraft is somewhat more complex in manufacture than a MacBook Pro.
- PietdeVries 7y agoAlso 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 agoLike 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 agoMost 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 ago3D printing.
- digikata 7y agoI 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 agoA 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 agoNot just "across Seattle". From Wichita to Seattle.
- dotancohen 7y agoPerhaps 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 agoFor 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 agoThat would be insanely scary. Or maybe the ability to see what's going on outside makes me less afraid of flying.
- reportgunner 7y agoI figure that would be fun for about 2 minutes.
- ahartmetz 7y agoMore 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 agoWell, you also end up with longer rows - and so potentially more middle of row seats which are less desirable.
- consp 7y agoOr 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 agoIn 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 agoLess 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?
- CandidSubstance 7y agoWasn'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 agoYes, but it is harder to get a long ways from the center of gravity on a flying wing.
- ragebol 7y agoI 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 agoOn 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 agoIt 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 agoThat'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 agoproject the open sky on the ceiling
- mrfusion 7y agoDon’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 agoThat's the first thing that went through my mind when I saw that picture. "No windows--I'm not flying on that."
- danmaz74 7y agoThe 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 agoCruise 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 agoFor a certain price, you’ll find someone to do it
- 0xffff2 7y agoI'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 agoI'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 agoConsume 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 agoI 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 agoI wonder about egress during an emergency as well.
- fnordfnordfnord 7y agoAirlines don't care about our comfort. They would ship us in intermodal Connex boxes if they could.
- nmeofthestate 7y agoI would definitely try "BA Baracus" mode for intercontinental flights if it were available and safe.
- fnordfnordfnord 7y agoI pity the fool...
- vl 7y agoPeople don’t care about comfort, airlines just sell what people pay for.
- mgolawala 7y agoExactly 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 agoEven 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 agoCan we put in skylights?
- JoblessWonder 7y agoThere 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 agoI like watching the ground ... can we have a glass-bottom plane?
- jdonaldson 7y agoI 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 agoWindows 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 agoThe 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 agoI 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 agoFrom 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 agoIt'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 agoI 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 agoI 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 agoThat'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 agoThe 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.