9 ms·
Scale model of 'Flying-V' airplane makes successful maiden flight
- mnw21cam 6y agoPhotos would help. Anyone have a link to any?
- clouddrover 6y agoYes, and a video: https://www.flightglobal.com/aerospace/flying-v-model-embarks-on-first-test-flight-with-airbus-support/139999.article https://www.flightglobal.com/aerospace/flying-v-model-embark... It's a scale model that flew, not an actual aircraft. It's an interesting idea though.
- hobofan 6y agoNeither article addresses the flaw that always comes up when this design is proposed: By placing the passengers in the wings instead of the the middle, the would be exposed to much stronger turbulence (probably at a level unbearable for the general public).
- vidanay 6y agoForget turbulence. Normal flight characteristics would be unbearable. Some of the approaches to Chicago Midway airport have ~45 degree bank angles.
- ginko 6y agoWhy would this be unbearable further outside on the wing? Wouldn't the angle still be the same for everyone on the plane?
- vidanay 6y agoThe angle isn't the problem, it's the 40' vertical drop for the passenger near the wing tips.
- upofadown 6y agoThe bank angle wouldn't be the problem. It would be more the change in roll rate. People don't have problems when the elevator is in constant motion. It's the start and stop that cause the feelings. It probably wouldn't be all that hard to build some sort of rate of rate of roll limit into the flight control. Or just have the pilot smoothly move the stick to the desired rate of roll rather than snapping it to the desired position. They are severely limited in what they can do with pitch when there are passengers. This would be a relatively minor limit to what they can do with roll.
- wrkronmiller 6y agoThat model is significantly smaller than the CNN article led me to believe.
- rwmj 6y agoHere's a youtube video of the model from the KLM official channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFoc8wbuasM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFoc8wbuasM
- arnon 6y agoThis concept is not new. Lifting bodies have been around since the 20s. Boeing and NASA have both experimented with this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blended_wing_body https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blended_wing_body
- spuz 6y agoThe blended wing body looks very different from a V shaped body.
- arnon 6y agoThe concept is the same. What makes you think the practicalities are different though?
- Cthulhu_ 6y agoNowhere is it claimed to be a new invention. On that page itself there's only two or three that were aimed at passengers, none of which ended up commercially viable. But it also has (or links to) reasons why it's not been developed further for passengers; to quote: "Passengers are unwilling to sit in windowless environments." - not an issue with this particular design "Passengers furthest from centerline will be subject to potential discomfort during wing roll. Extreme discomfort results in motion sickness." - Definitely an issue I think. (on the X-48): "[...] passengers did not like the theater-like configuration of the mock-up; the design was dropped for passenger airliners" - Also not really an issue due to the dual-fuselage design of this one.
- valuearb 6y agoNM: I didn’t see the double tube design.
- fastball 6y agoI'd classify this as closer to a flying wing than a blended wing.
- Cthulhu_ 6y agoInteresting / weird concept. I'm cynical that it'll take off (ha) as a concept for passengers, given that they'll either be sitting at an angle (in relation to the flying direction), or they'll have to tilt all the seats making the internal seating arrangement weird and ineffective. But counter-intuitively, it looks like a simpler design for planes compared to those with wings.
- Drakim 6y agoWould the seating arrangement be less effective if you angle the seats directly forward but arrange them in a staircase pattern down the wing?
- aww_dang 6y agoI'm not sure that the angle is severe enough to matter? I can see people becoming accustomed to it.
- dehrmann 6y agoThere are business class layouts at angles and no one seems to mind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herringbone_seating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herringbone_seating
- GordonS 6y agoBA's business class has seats facing backwards too. Never bothered me, and I'm obviously not alone in that.
- flybrand 6y agoHow is this different from the US military B2 style aircraft? They look superficially very similar.
- vidanay 6y agoOne's military and carries bombs, the other is commercial and carries passengers.
- animationwill 6y agoThe photo in the article is deceptive; better pictures are here: https://www.flightglobal.com/aerospace/flying-v-model-embarks-on-first-test-flight-with-airbus-support/139999.article https://www.flightglobal.com/aerospace/flying-v-model-embark...
- acomjean 6y agoIt looks like the Aereon. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AEREON_26 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AEREON_26 Which test flew in 1971. There is a book about its development “flying deltoid pumpkin seed” Some more info: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/72142/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article...
- virtue3 6y agoWhat's interesting is the split tube design. Very different from usual flying wing designs I've seen. possibilities for more windows?
- LargoLasskhyfv 6y agoWho needs windows? Just give them all some AR/VR-Goggles, and have them look through the plane in any direction, like the helmet in the F-35 allows.
- zwirbl 6y agonon-amp: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/03/the-rocky-road-to-discovery/72142/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/03/the-r... non-mobile wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AEREON_26 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AEREON_26
- justinclift 6y agoThanks wikipedia page doesn't seem to have any photos, but looking around on the net someone's made a (small) flying drone based on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdH2WaIfOPE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdH2WaIfOPE Seems to work ok. :)
- blunte 6y agoAs an armchair engineer, I wonder about engine behavior at high angle of attack. It looks like it could be difficult to feed the engines enough air to maintain thrust. I hope they work out all the details, because improved efficiency is a big deal. Although I also prefer the older Boeing blended wing body since it seemed to offer great efficiencies and immense interior space. As I recall, one of the factors in abandoning the idea for passenger planes was the assumed reluctance of people to sit in a flying room (where they can't see out and could be more disoriented or uncomfortable).
- dghughes 6y ago> As I recall, one of the factors in abandoning the idea for passenger planes Another was the different forces on passengers depending on where you were seated. A regular airplane everyone is situated on the same plane (ha pun!) more or less. But on a V config anyone far from the center would experience greater forces when the aircraft moved.
- axaxs 6y agoThat's what I was thinking. I've been on a lot of planes that banked -hard- on approach. I can't begin to imagine what that would feel like sitting in this configuration.
- blunte 6y agoPresumably the roll rate on that type of plane would be lower than on a traditional tube-with-wings design. So while the bank angle might still be high, it won't happen quickly. As long as the plane is banked at an appropriate angle (relative to the rudder angle), the passengers shouldn't feel anything other than perhaps a bit more positive G force.
- axaxs 6y agoWhat about turbulence? I've been in some doozies where it felt like the pilot was fighting it hard, constant up and down and left and right corrections. I wonder what effect that fast change in altitude has, if any? Just G Force?
- mrfusion 6y agoSo why this over a delta (flying wing) shape?
- protomyth 6y agoFrankly, a flying wing would at least have placement of seats in a non-roller coaster configuration.
- kevin_thibedeau 6y agoCompatibility with existing airport facilities.
- valuearb 6y agoThis seems like a useless efficiency, given no passengers would willingly fly in it, and it’s not good layout for cargo either.
- animationwill 6y ago" given no passengers would willingly fly in it," Why do you say that?
- vidanay 6y agoBecause the "cheap seats" further away from the centerline would be like a six hour roller coaster ride at Six Flags. The centerline seats would have no windows (doesn't matter to me, but does for some people).
- imglorp 6y agoMotion sickness is much more likely when people can't see the horizon. This might be mitigated with forward facing monitors for each passenger. But I'd pay for a six hour Six Flags experience. Turbulence and G's are fun for some.
- valuearb 6y agoMost of the available seating would be far enough off the center axis that every time the plane banked you’d experience a rapid drop or acceleration as your wing fell or flipped up. And then there is the paucity of usable window space.
- wojciii 6y agoBarf Express.
- mywacaday 6y agoI do not want to be in one of these planes in the back row 30ft + from the center of gravity when this thing hits turbulence or is rolling while landing in bad weather. This was discussed in anther post some time ago about the same design type but can't find it right now.
- digikata 6y agoGenerally, I would think the layout would put fuel towards the tips and people towards the cg.
- m463 6y agoI wonder if there's a way to counteract this with automatic flight controls that work both tactically and strategically. tactical would keep the plane level, and strategic would set up for turns to take them more slowly than current jets. I think about this because of the Tex Johnston 1-g barrel rolls during the demonstration flight where the people inside the plane experience "normal" g force.
- rbanffy 6y agoCan the title be adjusted to make it clear it's a scale model?
- jacknews 6y agoThere seems to be a lot about liquid-hydrogen as a fuel for passenger jets lately. IMHO, it's totally unsuitable. Is there another reason it's being pushed, eg it's an output of some other process that is desired?
- bitemealienboi 6y agoIt looks cool and sounds cool but I doubt it will get popular. You have entire companies, organizations, groups, standards, certifications, training and employees built around the current airframes. Its not going to be easy to change all of those overnight. Not to mention, current airframes are the way they are because its what works best. Ever wondered why engines are always on the bottom of the wings, never on the top, or almost never on the back? Because its close to the ground and easy to maintain. Ever wonder why the wings are pointed upwards and swept back? Because those are the most fuel efficient and stable configurations. Flat fuselages like in the V plane means less heigh clearance which means passenger planes will have less space and freight planes will have trouble carrying certain shapes of cargo. All in all, that makes it hard to sell for any airplane manufacturers that want to make it The current airframes are the way they are because of decades of incremental improvements and selections of which designs work and which don't. The entire industry or even a good enough chunk of it wont just drop that overnight
- fastball 6y agoI don't know, the entire rocket industry is having to to re-orient itself around SpaceX's reusable rockets. And given current usage, the gains in better rockets presumably pale in comparison to the potential savings / improvements that could be provided by new airframe designs.
- iso1631 6y agoWhat will be really interesting is if suborbital reusable rockets reach a similar cost per mile as long distance planes.
- coredog64 6y agoOne could make the argument that prior to SpaceX’s entry into the market, there was stagnation due to limited market participants, cost-plus contracts, etc. Commercial aviation is the exact opposite of this: Since deregulation, airlines have been operating in a highly competitive market with external pressures that have forced adoption of new technologies (oil prices => fuel efficiency, noise regulation => high bypass engines, labor costs => replacement of the flight engineer)
- fermigier 6y agoAm I the only one disappointed that they didn't make a plane in the shape of a Gibson guitar?
- myself248 6y agoThat sounds like a youtube opportunity, go nuts!
- syntaxing 6y agoFlying wing designs have always facinated me and blows my mind how this was invented in the 1930s. Its fairly well known that flying wing in theory is more suitable for long term travel. But the biggest issue was ergonomics (as my professor put it, no one wants to feel like sitting in a movie theater for over 2 hours) and flight controls. Seems like they're trying to fix the ergo issue with the double fuselage-like design. It would be pretty exciting to sit in one of these if the idea picks up.
- iso1631 6y agoThese sorts of typos really annoy me > Dutch airline KLM has agreed to find development of V-shaped aircraft Do publishers not have any proof readers any more?
- tyingq 6y agoTo be fair, there are multiple entities taking revenue away from them over the years. Something has to give.