4 ms·
In a conventional aircraft you sit on the roll axis. In a blended wing body design you can have off-axis motion that can increase motion sickness. Rather than r
by briandw 2mo ago
In a conventional aircraft you sit on the roll axis. In a blended wing body design you can have off-axis motion that can increase motion sickness. Rather than rolling with the longitudinal axis of the aircraft, you move up and down when the aircraft banks. Not necessarily a deal breaker, but an additional difference to deal with.
- deadbabe 2mo agoJust gimbal the seats.
- NegativeLatency 2mo agoDoesn’t fix translation?
- cr125rider 2mo agoSimply noclip the passengers!
- mmh0000 2mo agoThat only works if the engines move the planet around the airplane.
- ffsm8 2mo agoGreat, so there is the solution!
- samplifier 2mo agoMight as well iddqd and idkfa at that point. Or grantme all. Pick your flavor.
- fugaziboutit 2mo agoNew commercial seating design: Oops, All Pinch Points!
- JumpCrisscross 2mo ago> In a blended wing body design you can have off-axis motion that can increase motion sickness This sounds fixable in avionics and training. (Shallow, gradual banks.) Note, too, that a larger lifting body needs to bank less to execute the same turn as a craft with more loading.
- amluto 2mo ago> Note, too, that a larger lifting body needs to bank less to execute the same turn as a craft with more loading. This is not really helpful for passenger comfort. For a turn to be comfortable, you want the turn to be such that the effective force the passengers feel has no sideways (relative to the passengers) component, and the required roll angle is only a function of the velocity and turning radius. The aircraft design is irrelevant. The Wikipedia article is mediocre: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinated_flight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinated_flight
- JumpCrisscross 2mo agoCoördination stops lateral passenger movement. It does nothing for up and down. (Coördination is also about more than comfort. It keeps the flow attached to the wing. If your passengers are slipping, so is your wing.) In a roll, with a tubular fuselage, everyone—pilot and passengers—feel about the same vertical Gs. OP’s point is in a flying wing, the folks on the tips will lift up or drop down relative to the pilot and thus experience extra Gs. My response is (a) this can be controlled in avionics and training, i.e. don’t do that, and (b) now that I think about it, vertical Gs aren’t as sickening as lateral ones. Specify a maximum roll rate in training and normal-law software and this problem is solved
- amluto 2mo ago> Specify a maximum roll rate in training and normal-law software and this problem is solved I’m wondering whether there are major airfields with traffic patterns that require roll rates that would exceed whatever maximum is desired for comfort. My intuition is that the situation would be tolerable at most airfields but that normal-law limits that are too restrictive could be dangerous.
- unsnap_biceps 2mo agoI don't understand your point. Does the wider passenger compartment leads to more extreme transitions at the edges? Is there something else at play I'm not thinking of?
- mlyle 2mo agoPicture being on the end of the wing and how much you move up or down when the plane rolls. An airliner entering a 30 degree roll over 3 seconds would have passengers pop up or down 25 feet, with at least +0.3 and -0.3G of acceleration. It would come with a "going over the top of the roller coaster" feeling. This is in addition to the roll / rotation. Yaw is interesting for similar reasons.
- numpad0 2mo agosin(bank_angle) x cabin_width/2 = max_vertical_displacement_at_angle