Remember this shape, you may see it sooner than expected. Boeing has completed successful flight tests on scale models.
.
Boeing is preparing a 1000 passenger jet that could reshape the Air travel industry for the next 100 years. The radical Blended Wing design has been developed by Boeing in cooperation with the NASA Langley Research Center . The mammoth plane will have a wing span of 265 feet compared to the 747’s 211 feet, and is designed to fit within the newly created terminals used for the 555 seat Airbus A380, which is 262 feet wide.
There are several big advantages to the blended wing design, the most important being the lift to drag ratio which is expected to increase by an amazing 50%, with overall weight reduced by 25%, making it an estimated 33% more efficient than the A380, and making Airbus’s $13 billion dollar investment look pretty shaky.
All this is conjecture of course, but the writing is on the wall!
There are no strangers in the world, just friends we have yet to meet.
This was mentioned on another forum a couple of days age. I did a search on the Boeing website for "BWB" and it turned up a few .pdf files, dated from April and the 2007 Paris Airshow if I'm correct. They said it was currently being developed by Boeing Skunkworks as a military transporter under the name X-48B.
How will Boeing address the passenger evacuation requirements? I think that one of the original designs for the A380 consisted of two conventional fuselages side by side, this was rejected due to problems in meeting evacuation requirements.
bod wrote:How will Boeing address the passenger evacuation requirements? I think that one of the original designs for the A380 consisted of two conventional fuselages side by side, this was rejected due to problems in meeting evacuation requirements.
Here is some information about the evactuation issues. Apparently the BWB design does not behave like a normal plane during fires, so probably different evacuation rules would have to be applied.
Second story on the BWB in as many months, it really means there is something up Boeing's sleeve when it comes to this particular design. I love the BWB, but the name Boeing attached to it seems so weird.
Here is some information about the evactuation issues. Apparently the BWB design does not behave like a normal plane during fires, so probably different evacuation rules would have to be applied.[/quote]
Maybe this is enough to question the assumptions.
Does it really make any difference that you can evacuate an aircraft in 90 seconds in a non crash environment. Or should you study crashes and see what actually happens?
My gut feel is either they are survivable, things are a mess and the 90 second evacuation is a silly at best, a joke at worst (i.e. it just don't happen in that time), or they are non survivable and everyone pretty much dies.
Maybe all the money put to evacuation should be put to avoiding crashes in the first place.
It's Boeing PHANTOMWORKS, not SKUNKWORKS. "Skunkworks" is an affectionate name first given to Lockheed's facility in California by its free thinking employees. Skunkworks is famous for it's daring and unconventional ideas that have produced brilliant airplanes, often under budget and exceeding specs. "Phantomworks" is a silly corporate attempt to market Boeing's St. Louis facility as a skunkworks too.
Anyways, if this cooperation between Boeing and the military is true, then I'd have to admit that the EU is right to accuse Boeing of benefiting from military research assistance.
Oops, hope I'm not starting another A vs. B war.
By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly an airplane?
Currently no more plans to commercialize her, at least not within 2 decades.
Unless the results are spectacular and a substantial market for a civilian (freight) or military application is identified. I'm sure that Boeing would move quickly to fill a need. In these cases, emergency evacuation times are not a major factor.
For military applications, what is the big difference between this and the B2?
20years seems reasonable, it's not that long to be honest, and this will be the biggest change in commercial aviation if it does get commercialised.
But for military, it's relatively unimportant to save fuel right? It seems more like Boeing is wanting resources from military and take the chance to try it out in military and then develop a commerical version, pretty smart, they are in no hurry to bring this out.
Just found something on the web, comparing the Boeing BWB and the Airbus Flying Wing.. a problem with these is that you cannot stretch or shrink these planes, a whole new design will be needed for every variant, there, like going from a 1000 seater down to a smaller 700 seater, will probably cost more than the investment on the whole 787 programme. So 20 years is actually too soon for this to happen, and Airbus will consider Flying Wing as their A380 replacement.
CX wrote:For military applications, what is the big difference between this and the B2?
20years seems reasonable, it's not that long to be honest, and this will be the biggest change in commercial aviation if it does get commercialised.
But for military, it's relatively unimportant to save fuel right? It seems more like Boeing is wanting resources from military and take the chance to try it out in military and then develop a commerical version, pretty smart, they are in no hurry to bring this out.
Just found something on the web, comparing the Boeing BWB and the Airbus Flying Wing.. a problem with these is that you cannot stretch or shrink these planes, a whole new design will be needed for every variant, there, like going from a 1000 seater down to a smaller 700 seater, will probably cost more than the investment on the whole 787 programme. So 20 years is actually too soon for this to happen, and Airbus will consider Flying Wing as their A380 replacement.
A military tanker / transport would not be affected by any future growth opportunities. A military servvice generally lays out its requirement and requests proposals for "X" number of aircraft. Future growth is generally not considered at first, although later the military services may want a larger version (C-141A vs. C-141B). But if the flight characteristics are good, a military service may be interested and the manufacturer could also offer the palne to other buyers (e.g., freight carriers).
You are right, a wing design can not be lengthened like a conventional plane, thus has limited growth potential.
