4 ms·
V-Shaped Ride-in-the-Wings Jetliner Successfully Took Off (2020)
- antipaul 5y agoThe jetliner proved to be a “22.5 kg and 3-meter wide-scale model” in the non-headline part of the article
- cosmotic 5y agoThat's a lot of middle seats.
- dzhiurgis 5y agoFor business class or sleeping pods
- toiletaccount 5y agoIt's called a flying wing, pretty old design actually. They've been talking about passenger planes with this design for a while. This particular one was just a model though, nothing too ground breaking to see here.
- rpmisms 5y agoThat looks very futuristic, but also seems like it would have much higher surface area—perhaps not ideal for airlines' bottom lines.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ncmncm 5y agoSurface area seems to cost weight and, potentially, drag. But that is all figured into the expected lower cost of operation. So, there is no need to speculate: it is better.
- rpmisms 5y agoI can think of a dozen other reasons why this might not be a correct choice. No need to dismiss me out of hand with "they did the math". Of course the math is in their favor: they want to sell this.
- ncmncm 5y agoYet, they built and tested something, over years. That direct experience is worth more than any amount of speculation.
- dredmorbius 5y agoThe Real Engineering YouTube channel has an excellent video on flying wings / blended-wing aircraft, their potential future role in passenger and cargo air travel, and issues with the designs. https://youtube.com/watch?v=59A8-rKRs-0 https://youtube.com/watch?v=59A8-rKRs-0 As with much of the channel's work, excellent information, and even on topics I'm fairly well-informed on, I learn much.
- iamnotwhoiam 5y agoI didn’t understand why he traced jetliner designs to the B-47 when the cylindrical fuselage idea has been dominant since before WWI. I think he meant to refer to the engines under the wings on nacelles, but when someone gets something that obvious mixed up in their script I think of Gell-Mann Amnesia suspect everything else they’ve created.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- dredmorbius 5y agoExamples might benefit your comment.
- iamnotwhoiam 5y agoExamples of what?
- dredmorbius 5y agoI'm a bit surprised I need to spell this out: examples supporting your argument and assertions.
- dredmorbius 5y agoThe video discusses jet aircraft "tube and wing" design. There were no operational jet aircraft prior to WWII, and the first test flights only predated the war itself by four days. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_178 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_178 There were pressurised aircraft prior to WWII, but only just. And the first pressurised civilian commercial aviaation aircraft was also a Boeing design, the propeller-driven 307. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_307_Stratoliner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_307_Stratoliner One might argue that Boeing wasn't entirely the first to commercial jet airliners (the De Havilland Comet preceded it in commercial use by 6 years, though proved remarkably unreliable initially), but it was the first commercially successful jet, truly ushered in the Jet Age, and has served as the fundamental prototype of the vast majority of jet-powered aircraft which followed (Concorde being the principle exception). The 707 was developed directly from Boeing's work in developing high-altitude, long-range bombers during and after WWII.
- defaultcompany 5y agoVideo of the flight of the model is more interesting: https://youtu.be/XHFcLfSfJWQ https://youtu.be/XHFcLfSfJWQ
- jquery 5y agoI wonder what turbulence in the back rows feels like
- nradov 5y agoEveryone knows that flying wings can be more fuel efficient. The problem is that putting passengers out further from the roll axis makes them airsick during turns. Cargo might be a better application.
- ryanfreeborn 5y agoI'd guess that turns aren't a big deal. Commercial flights rarely turn above 10k feet, so really just some risk of airsickness briefly at either end of the flight. Wing flex during turbulence seems like it would be a far bigger concern for passengers at the ends. That would not be a fun ride, but maybe these crafts handle chop differently? I'd imagine the flex is more evenly distributed, but still problematic.
- justinclift 5y ago"(2020)"
- ncmncm 5y agoAn important goal of new airframe designs is ability to carry liquified hydrogen fuel. Although substantially less volume-dense than the diesel used today, LH2's superb energy density makes it appealing enough to justify upending the entire tech stack. In short, when the fuel for your flight weighs 80% less, you get to carry that much more payload, instead. But, the LH2 tanks are too big to fit in traditional airframes' wings, where the diesel tanks are. The prospect of producing LH2 on demand at airports from very cheap solar- and wind-generated power, and of no longer injecting CO2 into the stratosphere where it arguably does the most harm, adds to the appeal. Just transporting and storing the fuel needed for aircraft operations is a big expense; power lines deliver energy much more cheaply. Negotiating a stable price, usually above average, for variably-priced diesel is another expense airlines would be glad to abandon. Producing your LH2 mainly when power is cheapest reduces costs more, and also helps to match load to supply, which grids will pay for. Excess LH2 storage enables driving power back into the grid at times when price is highest, further leveling load and offsetting net costs. LH2 fuel can be burned in regular turbines, but can also be catalytically converted directly to electrical power to drive electric turbines, which promises more efficiency gains. Lighter-weight electric turbines again enable more payload. But getting airports fitted for LH2 production will happen slowly, first at the biggest ports, and gradually at smaller ones. So, LH2-fueled transport will happen first on long-haul inter- and transcontinental routes, and on certain very-high traffic domestic routes, where the capital investment for all-new LH2 production and all-new airframes pays off fastest.
- dredmorbius 5y agoNit: aviation jet fuel is typically kerosene, not diesel. That's roughly chains of 10--16 carbon atoms, rather than the longer deisel chains of up to about 25 atoms. Kerosene is lighter, more volatile, and has a lower freezing point than deisel.
- ncmncm 5y agoStrictly speaking, Jet-A fuel is a kind of diesel with more restrictive specifications, mainly a much lower freezing point, and higher price. I.e., you could sell jet-A fuel as diesel, if you wanted (subject to sulfur restrictions, many places). You could, similarly, sell diesel as kerosene, for most uses, although some would need a lower freezing point. Diesel is the more familiar term, for most people because they see a hose for it at the gas station. Few encounter kerosene, as such, anymore.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]