7 ms·

No, aircraft frames are the way they are because they balance the billion different requirements the best. A blended wing body is nothing new.

by tekla 3y ago

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> aircraft frames are the way they are because they balance the billion different requirements the best. A blended wing body is nothing new One big one being the fixed cost of new air frame development and certification. Nobody would incur that expense unless forced to by the competition.
- tekla 3y ago
  And yet new airframes do get certified.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > yet new airframes do get certified Last one was the 737 Max in 2017. It’s a derivative. The last truly new frames were the 787 in 2011 and A380 in 2006. Both focussed on subsystems, propulsion and materials for their novelty; only one has been a commercial success. One successful (two attempted) new airframes in over two decades is extraordinarily slower than the pre-consolidation frequency. It is also notable that neither attempted to introduce a new air frame that directly competes with the other’s; Airbus and Boeing trade market segments. There is zero head-to-head competition. Modern planes are a marvel of engineering. And newer planes are more comfortable. That doesn’t change that we’re stuck in a local optimum due to a cessation of risk taking.
    - tekla 3y ago
      Why do you keep thinking competition is what prevented blended wing bodies? Blended wing bodies make big trade offs that don't neatly fit with commercial flight. The analysis of different lifting bodies is fairly fundamental aeronautical engineering work every student learns. There is no weird conspiracy here.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Why do you keep thinking competition is what prevented blended wing bodies? Never said as much. OP asked why all planes since the 70s look about the same. It’s because there isn’t a sustained budget for experimentation. > no weird conspiracy Never said as much. It’s not exactly groundbreaking for entrenched supplies to cease innovating and focus on extraction.
        tekla 3y ago
        > Never said as much. OP asked why all planes since the 70s look about the same. It’s because there isn’t a sustained budget for experimentation. Bullshit. There is tons of money for innovation, every single manufacturer is trying to squeeze 1-2% efficient improvements across the board. To say there is no funding for innovation is hilariously ignorant. > Never said as much. It’s not exactly groundbreaking for entrenched supplies to cease innovating and focus on extraction. Cool, can you show me what numbers you're looking at that even hint that these blended wing bodies are better than contemporary commercial designs?
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Bullshit. There is tons of money for innovation I heard almost the same out of a Lockheed executive about launch about a decade and a half ago. A dollar of R&D can travel differently at a cushy corporation than at one in competition. > can you show me what numbers you're looking at that even hint that these blended wing bodies are better No, I have never defended this design—I have no specs. A better question is why you’re so convinced this optimum is the global one.
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        > Cool, can you show me what numbers you’re looking at that even hint that these blended wing bodies are better than contemporary commercial designs? Department of the Air Force Climate Action Plan, October 2022 [0] (p17) “For example, development of blended wing body aircraft could drive transformative changes, as this aircraft design increases aerodynamic efficiency by at least 30 percent over current Air Force tanker and mobility aircraft” [Note that Air Force tanker and mobility aircraft are similar to, and in some cases simply militarized versions of, commercial airliner or air transport designs.] The same report (p19) identifies development and testing of a full-scale blended wing prototype by FY27 as a Key Result of the Action Plan. [0] https://www.safie.hq.af.mil/Portals/78/documents/Climate/DAF%20CAP%20Dec%2023%20Mod.pdf?ver=eWS2AgUkpuQBFOlIbcIkew%3d%3d https://www.safie.hq.af.mil/Portals/78/documents/Climate/DAF... [PDF]
    - notahacker 3y ago
      There's been more competition in the regional market including clean sheet designs by new entrants, but they're all conventional tubes and wings and podded turbofans too. China's state funded A320/737 competitor is a clone with a shared engine platform too. Improving on current generation airliners is hard compared with improving what flew between 1920 and 1950, and consolidation happened because it wasn't profitable. Airlines and financiers don't like uncertainty either.
    - ClarkMarx 3y ago
      The A350, a clean sheet composite design, was certified in 2014.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        You’re right. The A220 and A350 were clean sheets introduced in the 2010s.
    - Ekaros 3y ago
      A220 in 2015 I think was also clean sheet.
shash 3y ago
Both of you are correct - there is a duopoly because of the complexity, and the duopoly has no real incentive to change, given that the current local optimum seems to be working for the foreseeable future. There is no pressure to innovate, and a strong one to keep the status quo.
- mannykannot 3y ago
  And yet efficiency gains are vigorously pursued and adopted, where real - and most recently, that has been with engines and composites. Meanwhile, the blended-wing concept has been experimented with for over a century, and it has never demonstrated a compelling improvement. Until I see a proposal that comes with a paper explaining what recent innovation has made things different this time, I will remain skeptical.
  - RachelF 3y ago
    I am sceptical, too. There are no efficiency numbers on their website, just marketing boilerplate. In terms of pure frontal area, their design looks fatter. Would be interesting to see some drag data from wind tunnel tests.

No, aircraft frames are the way they are because they balance the billion different requirements the best. A blended wing body is nothing new.

by tekla 3y ago

No, aircraft frames are the way they are because they balance the billion different requirements the best. A blended wing body is nothing new.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> aircraft frames are the way they are because they balance the billion different requirements the best. A blended wing body is nothing new One big one being the fixed cost of new air frame development and certification. Nobody would incur that expense unless forced to by the competition.

tekla 3y ago
And yet new airframes do get certified.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > yet new airframes do get certified Last one was the 737 Max in 2017. It’s a derivative. The last truly new frames were the 787 in 2011 and A380 in 2006. Both focussed on subsystems, propulsion and materials for their novelty; only one has been a commercial success. One successful (two attempted) new airframes in over two decades is extraordinarily slower than the pre-consolidation frequency. It is also notable that neither attempted to introduce a new air frame that directly competes with the other’s; Airbus and Boeing trade market segments. There is zero head-to-head competition. Modern planes are a marvel of engineering. And newer planes are more comfortable. That doesn’t change that we’re stuck in a local optimum due to a cessation of risk taking.
  - tekla 3y ago
    Why do you keep thinking competition is what prevented blended wing bodies? Blended wing bodies make big trade offs that don't neatly fit with commercial flight. The analysis of different lifting bodies is fairly fundamental aeronautical engineering work every student learns. There is no weird conspiracy here.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Why do you keep thinking competition is what prevented blended wing bodies? Never said as much. OP asked why all planes since the 70s look about the same. It’s because there isn’t a sustained budget for experimentation. > no weird conspiracy Never said as much. It’s not exactly groundbreaking for entrenched supplies to cease innovating and focus on extraction.
      - tekla 3y ago
        > Never said as much. OP asked why all planes since the 70s look about the same. It’s because there isn’t a sustained budget for experimentation. Bullshit. There is tons of money for innovation, every single manufacturer is trying to squeeze 1-2% efficient improvements across the board. To say there is no funding for innovation is hilariously ignorant. > Never said as much. It’s not exactly groundbreaking for entrenched supplies to cease innovating and focus on extraction. Cool, can you show me what numbers you're looking at that even hint that these blended wing bodies are better than contemporary commercial designs?
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Bullshit. There is tons of money for innovation I heard almost the same out of a Lockheed executive about launch about a decade and a half ago. A dollar of R&D can travel differently at a cushy corporation than at one in competition. > can you show me what numbers you're looking at that even hint that these blended wing bodies are better No, I have never defended this design—I have no specs. A better question is why you’re so convinced this optimum is the global one.
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        > Cool, can you show me what numbers you’re looking at that even hint that these blended wing bodies are better than contemporary commercial designs? Department of the Air Force Climate Action Plan, October 2022 [0] (p17) “For example, development of blended wing body aircraft could drive transformative changes, as this aircraft design increases aerodynamic efficiency by at least 30 percent over current Air Force tanker and mobility aircraft” [Note that Air Force tanker and mobility aircraft are similar to, and in some cases simply militarized versions of, commercial airliner or air transport designs.] The same report (p19) identifies development and testing of a full-scale blended wing prototype by FY27 as a Key Result of the Action Plan. [0] https://www.safie.hq.af.mil/Portals/78/documents/Climate/DAF%20CAP%20Dec%2023%20Mod.pdf?ver=eWS2AgUkpuQBFOlIbcIkew%3d%3d https://www.safie.hq.af.mil/Portals/78/documents/Climate/DAF... [PDF]
  - notahacker 3y ago
    There's been more competition in the regional market including clean sheet designs by new entrants, but they're all conventional tubes and wings and podded turbofans too. China's state funded A320/737 competitor is a clone with a shared engine platform too. Improving on current generation airliners is hard compared with improving what flew between 1920 and 1950, and consolidation happened because it wasn't profitable. Airlines and financiers don't like uncertainty either.
  - ClarkMarx 3y ago
    The A350, a clean sheet composite design, was certified in 2014.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      You’re right. The A220 and A350 were clean sheets introduced in the 2010s.
  - Ekaros 3y ago
    A220 in 2015 I think was also clean sheet.

shash 3y ago

Both of you are correct - there is a duopoly because of the complexity, and the duopoly has no real incentive to change, given that the current local optimum seems to be working for the foreseeable future. There is no pressure to innovate, and a strong one to keep the status quo.

mannykannot 3y ago
And yet efficiency gains are vigorously pursued and adopted, where real - and most recently, that has been with engines and composites. Meanwhile, the blended-wing concept has been experimented with for over a century, and it has never demonstrated a compelling improvement. Until I see a proposal that comes with a paper explaining what recent innovation has made things different this time, I will remain skeptical.
- RachelF 3y ago
  I am sceptical, too. There are no efficiency numbers on their website, just marketing boilerplate. In terms of pure frontal area, their design looks fatter. Would be interesting to see some drag data from wind tunnel tests.