A V-shaped airliner that seats passengers in the wings instead of a central fuselage could make long-distance air travel more sustainable — and it’s more than pie in the sky.
I don't really know enough to say if it will happen but I think much will depend on how expensive developing the tech would be and figuring out how things like icing or wind shear will affect it, plus probably a million things I wouldn't know to think about. Maybe the biggest question would be, would the new design be efficient and safe enough to offset the development cost by enough to make it worthwhile?
No way to know if this is practical except to wait and see. We know that what seems impossible to one generation is commonplace to another. Could our grandkids be flying on such a design ... why not?
No way to know if this is practical except to wait and see
That's how I see it.
I saw this story yesterday, from a different source. There are so many "aviation of the future" stories that it's very hard to know which will in fact become reality.
I'll take this one a lot more seriously when we start hearing about airports investing to be able to handle these things...
No way to know if this is practical except to wait and see. We know that what seems impossible to one generation is commonplace to another. Could our grandkids be flying on such a design ... why not?
The flying wing design has been around for quite a while. This might be the next step up from that. As you said, we have to wait and see.
The flying wing design has been around for quite a while.
Yup, we have proof that the flying wing concept does indeed work. I am confident they can design a safe jet such as this vision. What I am not so sure of is the ability to do so in a manner that causes faster-cheaper-better to be net positive. This new design comes with a redesign of infrastructure (to some degree), retraining, etc. So even if they can produce it at a competitive cost they still need to make the cost equations work in actual operation. And then we have the unintended consequences, design mistakes, etc.
This is a much bigger challenge than it looks, but it is far from being the most complex endeavor that human beings have successfully pulled off.
The article wouldn't come up for me, so I don't know if they solved one major problem.
The further from the center line the more G-force on the passengers during turns and banking. One solution would be, the further out the seat the more barf bags that are supplied. Just simple turbulence that may rock the jet could send the passenger out of their seat if not constantly belted in.
Tried again on a different computer and the video played, but for a 1:28 minute video it took 10 minutes to watch, it would play for 5 seconds the stop for half a minute then play another 5 seconds.
They did not solve the problem, so there would be a few woozy passengers departing that plane.
Still all the military designs have the pilots along the centerline, imagine a passenger out towards the ends and the force exerted on them during a simple bank or turn. The design of the V airliner, granted the passengers are closer to the centerline with the steep angle, the passengers in the back although the advantage of arriving at the crash the last will suffer the most G-force effects.
Some good points there. I know of at least one and I would bet there are many airfields where fairly acrobatic maneuvers are required on takeoff and landing. I have been nearly full sideways in a fairly large airbus on takeoff before.
That could be a struggle in an aircraft like this.
About the greater g forces for the folks at the back of the wings, are you thinking of the wings rotating around a front pivot point on impact? Ala Dale Earnhardt basal scull fracture?
"Wings rotating around" well no, I guess I should have inserted a comma to break between a joke and suffering through a flight with higher G-forces. The joke being that sitting in the back of the plane you'll be the last one to arrive at the plane crash.
Seems like you'd be packing people in who might be a long way from a window.
I wonder if you have to worry about weight balance and distribution in a vehicle where there will be so much mass further away from the centerline. (That's my delicate way of saying don't put all the fat people in the same wing)
The article I saw reported that passengers' distance from the center-line is indeed a worry. The aircraft would have to heel over in a turn. The movement would be much more noticeable for passengers than in current, narrower aircraft.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Really cool, but will it happen?
I don't really know enough to say if it will happen but I think much will depend on how expensive developing the tech would be and figuring out how things like icing or wind shear will affect it, plus probably a million things I wouldn't know to think about. Maybe the biggest question would be, would the new design be efficient and safe enough to offset the development cost by enough to make it worthwhile?
No way to know if this is practical except to wait and see. We know that what seems impossible to one generation is commonplace to another. Could our grandkids be flying on such a design ... why not?
That's how I see it.
I saw this story yesterday, from a different source. There are so many "aviation of the future" stories that it's very hard to know which will in fact become reality.
I'll take this one a lot more seriously when we start hearing about airports investing to be able to handle these things...
The flying wing design has been around for quite a while. This might be the next step up from that. As you said, we have to wait and see.
Yup, we have proof that the flying wing concept does indeed work. I am confident they can design a safe jet such as this vision. What I am not so sure of is the ability to do so in a manner that causes faster-cheaper-better to be net positive. This new design comes with a redesign of infrastructure (to some degree), retraining, etc. So even if they can produce it at a competitive cost they still need to make the cost equations work in actual operation. And then we have the unintended consequences, design mistakes, etc.
This is a much bigger challenge than it looks, but it is far from being the most complex endeavor that human beings have successfully pulled off.
Ah, it's the small details TiG, Lol
Indeed, getting new products to work properly and operate within desired cost parameters is a tough gig.
Just looks really odd to me. Maybe a familiarity but I tend to like wings.
The article wouldn't come up for me, so I don't know if they solved one major problem.
The further from the center line the more G-force on the passengers during turns and banking. One solution would be, the further out the seat the more barf bags that are supplied. Just simple turbulence that may rock the jet could send the passenger out of their seat if not constantly belted in.
Welcome to the club.
Tried again on a different computer and the video played, but for a 1:28 minute video it took 10 minutes to watch, it would play for 5 seconds the stop for half a minute then play another 5 seconds.
They did not solve the problem, so there would be a few woozy passengers departing that plane.
Similar for me with movies. Let it play almost to the end that way, then start it again to watch it.
I am holding out for either a flying question mark, or an airbourn exclamation point.
Enoch (In parentheses).
LOL.
Why stop at a V? Why not a flying W?
Dear Brother Dave: Great point.
After all, a "W" is just an upside down "M".
I am all in on flying M & M's. W & W's and E and E's with or without propellers or jet engines.
E (W, M).
Well, the B-2 bomber has a 'W' in its design.
Well, this is true.
We have long been fans of clipped wing deltas, why not a clipped wing, wing?
Still all the military designs have the pilots along the centerline, imagine a passenger out towards the ends and the force exerted on them during a simple bank or turn. The design of the V airliner, granted the passengers are closer to the centerline with the steep angle, the passengers in the back although the advantage of arriving at the crash the last will suffer the most G-force effects.
Some good points there. I know of at least one and I would bet there are many airfields where fairly acrobatic maneuvers are required on takeoff and landing. I have been nearly full sideways in a fairly large airbus on takeoff before.
That could be a struggle in an aircraft like this.
About the greater g forces for the folks at the back of the wings, are you thinking of the wings rotating around a front pivot point on impact? Ala Dale Earnhardt basal scull fracture?
"Wings rotating around" well no, I guess I should have inserted a comma to break between a joke and suffering through a flight with higher G-forces. The joke being that sitting in the back of the plane you'll be the last one to arrive at the plane crash.
Well, it's true...
Did they get that idea from watching geese migrate?
Now that's a good question.
Where would the fuel go?
Through the engines
In the wings, along with the passengers and baggage.
Big wings...
Seems like you'd be packing people in who might be a long way from a window.
I wonder if you have to worry about weight balance and distribution in a vehicle where there will be so much mass further away from the centerline. (That's my delicate way of saying don't put all the fat people in the same wing)
The article I saw reported that passengers' distance from the center-line is indeed a worry. The aircraft would have to heel over in a turn. The movement would be much more noticeable for passengers than in current, narrower aircraft.