3 ms·

This is part of why Boeing shut down the idea back in the 90s iirc. But I think this company is not actually aiming to develop an airliner at all, it just make

by rozab 3y ago

This is part of why Boeing shut down the idea back in the 90s iirc. But I think this company is not actually aiming to develop an airliner at all, it just makes for pretty pictures. Their demonstrator is being built for the USAF (along with Northrop Grumman and Scaled Composites), with a view to being used as a tanker and transport. I'm sceptical. Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Airbus have all investigated this exact concept over the last few decades, and none have gone forward with it.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Airbus have all investigated this exact concept over the last few decades, and none have gone forward with it Low incentives for taking risks and massive improvements in CAD and computer testing. A new airframe should always bring scepticism. But as someone with aerospace engineering training, it’s somewhat funny to see the space side of the market seeing more competition and thus innovation than the aero.
- tekla 3y ago
  I don't think its THAT particularly surprising. The old school rocket engines are still some of the most efficient engines ever created and most rockets never had a strong commercial market backing it so there was never pressure to try something else. The RS68 and RS25 are still amazing pieces of technology. SpaceX succeeded because they were able to take advantage of NASA literally creating a commercial market (and also making an amazing engine that is "good enough" for 99% of payloads)
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > old school rocket engines are still some of the most efficient engines ever created Sure. But there are other niches than maximal ISP. SpaceX and other launch providers have demonstrated it. In both cases—airlines and rocketry—there was latent demand once someone looked for it. And in both cases, I believe, public support is necessary.
    - notahacker 3y ago
      I think the person suggesting their more realistic short term goal is defense funding for future USAF tanker contracts might not be too far from the mark. Whether the fuel economy of an airliner-sized tanker is enough to convince doubting airline execs facing very different operational constraints is another question.
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    These engines were horrible bad in terms of thrust or isp per $. And turns out that actually matters. There had been a commercial market for a while, but US companies and their amazing engines didnt compete in it. Better to just feed of military contracts.
mdasen 3y ago
I'm skeptical too, but part I wouldn't necessarily write it off because a company like Boeing hasn't gone forward with it. Boeing won't even go forward with a redesign of the 737, preferring to go the cheaper route of continually modifying an existing design from the 1960s. I do think there are other concepts that are farther along and have more promise like the Aurora D8 "double bubble" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_D8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_D8). Its design isn't as much of a departure, but it would still reduce fuel burn and noise significantly. Likewise, Boeing's TTBW (transsonic truss braced wing) design is promising especially since they have a full-sized demonstrator at this point. But companies have been hesitant to invest in new types of aircraft. It's an industry that's essentially a duopoly where the big two have a decade worth of orders for their current aircraft. There isn't even a lot of competition between the two because neither has the capacity to produce more planes if they create something that airlines want. The A380 was probably the biggest risk that's been taken recently and that turned out to be a pretty big failure. I don't think either Boeing or Airbus wants to take risks when they have pretty guaranteed profits by staying the course. Boeing has even shelved its plans for the Boeing NMA (new midsize airplane) to replace the 737. I'd also add that these projects often end up learning important things about aeronautics even if they don't become things you fly on. For example, one of the big things with the Aurora D8 was figuring out how to deal with boundary layer ingestion inefficiencies. Even if the D8 never becomes something you'll fly on, the knowledge gained there might be used in other planes that you will fly on. You're right to be skeptical and I am too. It's really difficult to bring a new plane to market. However, I'm not sure I'd take Boeing and Airbus' reticence as evidence that it isn't worth exploring more. We've been talking about the bean counters taking over Boeing for months now and complaining about Boeing continually modifying the 737 rather than creating a new plane. Is it likely we'll be flying on these things? No. Even if it's a good and viable design, there's so much beyond that to get done. Actually manufacturing something as complex as a plane is very hard - there's a reason Airbus and Boeing have a decade long backlog of orders. But there's also a reason why places like NASA want to fund experimental projects like this - because there aren't really incentives for companies like Boeing to take risks on new designs. I mean, you're right: this probably won't happen. At the same time, I think it's important to keep trying because sometimes these things do work and even when they don't work we often learn important things that can be applied in the future.
api 3y ago
People made the same arguments about reusable rockets. If there’s one thing that saga taught us it’s that traditional aerospace is incredibly conservative and risk averse. “If it hasn’t already flown it can’t fly.” Not saying this design is the answer but it’s quite clear that the opinions of the big players about novel ideas are to be taken with a certain amount of salt. I’m not sure where this mentality came from. My guess would be many boom bust cycles and shifting political winds causing project cancellation. That probably burned people too many times on new projects. Combine that with a safety at any cost mentality and a lack of incentives to innovate.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  Developing a new airframe is enormously expensive. This incentivizes reducing the risk of it as much as one can. For example, when I worked on the 757 stab trim gearbox, my lead engineer suggested I do a design study on using a planetary gearbox rather than a differential gearbox. The former was significantly lighter. The study went up a few levels of management, and was nixed because the differential box was a proven and well-understood design on other aircraft (747).
- Alpha3031 3y ago
  > People made the same arguments about reusable rockets. NASA could have totally gone forward with developing the DC-3 if Nixon didn't cut their funding. The lower cross-range and payload were dealbreakers for the USAF but perfectly acceptable for civil spaceflight purposes.
- sofixa 3y ago
  > If there’s one thing that saga taught us it’s that traditional aerospace is incredibly conservative and risk averse Was that ever in doubt? > I’m not sure where this mentality came from. My guess would be many boom bust cycles and shifting political winds causing project cancellation. That probably burned people too many times on new projects. Combine that with a safety at any cost mentality and a lack of incentives to innovate. Look into the history of aviation. How many aircraft manufacturers disappeared or barely survived, usually no longer making civilian jets, because they made a wrong bet at the wrong time? How many disappeared because their planes got a bad reputation for being unsafe? Just a small selection off the top of my head: BAC, de Havilland, Bombardier, Lockheed, Dassault, Convair, McDonnel Douglas, Sud Aviation, Dornier. A new jet design is extremely expensive, needs to add concrete benefits to the potential customers (airlines) and needs to be convincing for both airlines and passengers alike. And for the record, Airbus are working on a bunch of radical design moonshots: https://www.airbus.com/en/innovation/low-carbon-aviation/hydrogen/zeroe https://www.airbus.com/en/innovation/low-carbon-aviation/hyd... , and so are Embraer https://embraercommercialaviationsustainability.com/concepts/ https://embraercommercialaviationsustainability.com/concepts... .
sofixa 3y ago
> I'm sceptical. Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Airbus have all investigated this exact concept over the last few decades, and none have gone forward with it. Airbus has the ZEROe program to look at the future of aviation that is ramping up and should have tech demonstrators flying in the 2030s, exploring all sorts of options like open fan engines, hydrogen(-electric) propulsion, radical designs, etc. One of the concepts is the "Blended-Wing Body".

by rozab 3y ago

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Airbus have all investigated this exact concept over the last few decades, and none have gone forward with it Low incentives for taking risks and massive improvements in CAD and computer testing. A new airframe should always bring scepticism. But as someone with aerospace engineering training, it’s somewhat funny to see the space side of the market seeing more competition and thus innovation than the aero.

tekla 3y ago
I don't think its THAT particularly surprising. The old school rocket engines are still some of the most efficient engines ever created and most rockets never had a strong commercial market backing it so there was never pressure to try something else. The RS68 and RS25 are still amazing pieces of technology. SpaceX succeeded because they were able to take advantage of NASA literally creating a commercial market (and also making an amazing engine that is "good enough" for 99% of payloads)
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > old school rocket engines are still some of the most efficient engines ever created Sure. But there are other niches than maximal ISP. SpaceX and other launch providers have demonstrated it. In both cases—airlines and rocketry—there was latent demand once someone looked for it. And in both cases, I believe, public support is necessary.
  - notahacker 3y ago
    I think the person suggesting their more realistic short term goal is defense funding for future USAF tanker contracts might not be too far from the mark. Whether the fuel economy of an airliner-sized tanker is enough to convince doubting airline execs facing very different operational constraints is another question.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  These engines were horrible bad in terms of thrust or isp per $. And turns out that actually matters. There had been a commercial market for a while, but US companies and their amazing engines didnt compete in it. Better to just feed of military contracts.

mdasen 3y ago

I'm skeptical too, but part I wouldn't necessarily write it off because a company like Boeing hasn't gone forward with it. Boeing won't even go forward with a redesign of the 737, preferring to go the cheaper route of continually modifying an existing design from the 1960s. I do think there are other concepts that are farther along and have more promise like the Aurora D8 "double bubble" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_D8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_D8). Its design isn't as much of a departure, but it would still reduce fuel burn and noise significantly. Likewise, Boeing's TTBW (transsonic truss braced wing) design is promising especially since they have a full-sized demonstrator at this point. But companies have been hesitant to invest in new types of aircraft. It's an industry that's essentially a duopoly where the big two have a decade worth of orders for their current aircraft. There isn't even a lot of competition between the two because neither has the capacity to produce more planes if they create something that airlines want. The A380 was probably the biggest risk that's been taken recently and that turned out to be a pretty big failure. I don't think either Boeing or Airbus wants to take risks when they have pretty guaranteed profits by staying the course. Boeing has even shelved its plans for the Boeing NMA (new midsize airplane) to replace the 737. I'd also add that these projects often end up learning important things about aeronautics even if they don't become things you fly on. For example, one of the big things with the Aurora D8 was figuring out how to deal with boundary layer ingestion inefficiencies. Even if the D8 never becomes something you'll fly on, the knowledge gained there might be used in other planes that you will fly on. You're right to be skeptical and I am too. It's really difficult to bring a new plane to market. However, I'm not sure I'd take Boeing and Airbus' reticence as evidence that it isn't worth exploring more. We've been talking about the bean counters taking over Boeing for months now and complaining about Boeing continually modifying the 737 rather than creating a new plane. Is it likely we'll be flying on these things? No. Even if it's a good and viable design, there's so much beyond that to get done. Actually manufacturing something as complex as a plane is very hard - there's a reason Airbus and Boeing have a decade long backlog of orders. But there's also a reason why places like NASA want to fund experimental projects like this - because there aren't really incentives for companies like Boeing to take risks on new designs. I mean, you're right: this probably won't happen. At the same time, I think it's important to keep trying because sometimes these things do work and even when they don't work we often learn important things that can be applied in the future.

api 3y ago

People made the same arguments about reusable rockets. If there’s one thing that saga taught us it’s that traditional aerospace is incredibly conservative and risk averse. “If it hasn’t already flown it can’t fly.” Not saying this design is the answer but it’s quite clear that the opinions of the big players about novel ideas are to be taken with a certain amount of salt. I’m not sure where this mentality came from. My guess would be many boom bust cycles and shifting political winds causing project cancellation. That probably burned people too many times on new projects. Combine that with a safety at any cost mentality and a lack of incentives to innovate.

WalterBright 3y ago
Developing a new airframe is enormously expensive. This incentivizes reducing the risk of it as much as one can. For example, when I worked on the 757 stab trim gearbox, my lead engineer suggested I do a design study on using a planetary gearbox rather than a differential gearbox. The former was significantly lighter. The study went up a few levels of management, and was nixed because the differential box was a proven and well-understood design on other aircraft (747).
Alpha3031 3y ago
> People made the same arguments about reusable rockets. NASA could have totally gone forward with developing the DC-3 if Nixon didn't cut their funding. The lower cross-range and payload were dealbreakers for the USAF but perfectly acceptable for civil spaceflight purposes.
sofixa 3y ago
> If there’s one thing that saga taught us it’s that traditional aerospace is incredibly conservative and risk averse Was that ever in doubt? > I’m not sure where this mentality came from. My guess would be many boom bust cycles and shifting political winds causing project cancellation. That probably burned people too many times on new projects. Combine that with a safety at any cost mentality and a lack of incentives to innovate. Look into the history of aviation. How many aircraft manufacturers disappeared or barely survived, usually no longer making civilian jets, because they made a wrong bet at the wrong time? How many disappeared because their planes got a bad reputation for being unsafe? Just a small selection off the top of my head: BAC, de Havilland, Bombardier, Lockheed, Dassault, Convair, McDonnel Douglas, Sud Aviation, Dornier. A new jet design is extremely expensive, needs to add concrete benefits to the potential customers (airlines) and needs to be convincing for both airlines and passengers alike. And for the record, Airbus are working on a bunch of radical design moonshots: https://www.airbus.com/en/innovation/low-carbon-aviation/hydrogen/zeroe https://www.airbus.com/en/innovation/low-carbon-aviation/hyd... , and so are Embraer https://embraercommercialaviationsustainability.com/concepts/ https://embraercommercialaviationsustainability.com/concepts... .

sofixa 3y ago

> I'm sceptical. Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Airbus have all investigated this exact concept over the last few decades, and none have gone forward with it. Airbus has the ZEROe program to look at the future of aviation that is ramping up and should have tech demonstrators flying in the 2030s, exploring all sorts of options like open fan engines, hydrogen(-electric) propulsion, radical designs, etc. One of the concepts is the "Blended-Wing Body".