Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on March 30, 2001, 08:34:00 AM
-
What do you think, is there a market for this? Flys just under Mach 1, cutting time over 3000 miles off by 1 hour, flys higher, 45,000 feet, and further. Currently the passenger capacity equivelent is 767. One thing I noticed in this design is that the wings don't have to be extended alot to accomodate a longer, stretched fuselage in anticipation of a 'jumbo' version , thus allowing it to gate at the airports we have built today...Airbus claims it will consume 40% more fuel than current technology, but I have news for them, as I'm sure GE,Rolls Royce, Pratt and Witney does too. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
(http://www.boeingmedia.com/img/R19x/R19xs.jpg)
-
It doesn't look as if it is capable of large payloads. Most of the lift is generated at the very rear of the plane, making the forward canards actually support quite a bit of weight.
It just seems un-nattural for cargo type planes. And yes, passengers are being classified as cargo in this usage of the word.
Curious to see what comes of it. Also curious to see what happens the first time one of those canards fails.
AKDejaVu
-
Nahhh Rip, you need to be Bish to know what realy happened...
(http://saintaw.cyberspace.be/sob_ar.jpg)
-
LOL, Deja, always the optimist. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Saw, thats funny!
As soon as Boeing gets a launch customer, this is the future.
-
ok, it's not the best I agree....but hey man, it's FRIDAY for everyone heh (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Saw
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
-
Very nice, but Concorde is faster. It all depends how affordable it is to travel on it. If it's cheaper than concorde, then it will succeed. If not, it will struggle.
And the new airbus looks set to take the 747's crown as far as capacity goes.
Lean days ahead for Boeing?
-
UAL will order first and they'll order a bunch, 100+. AA will order next and get a decent amount. A year later DAL will order two, just to see how they work out. They'll decide they want 50 but by then they will have delivery positions 1150-1200. By the time DAL puts the 50 into the fleet, it will be obsolete. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
It'll be a success. The Concorde is reaching the end of its life cycle, it always carried too few people to be profitable. If this one has a 767-300 payload (@300) and that kind of speed, it will be a winner.
Hope I get a chance to fly that!
-
Dowding, Boeing is too diversified for lean days, it has the Space program, Satillite division, Military, Space Shuttle, Space Station, Delta 1,2,3, and developement of Delta IV underway, Sea Launch, did you know that 25% of Boeings profits come from porting its computer division assets to other large companies?.. so I think of Boeing as "creeping away" from Commmericial more than anything, considering that one Delta IV launch will profit Boeing as much as the equivelent of 2 747-400's.
This plane is NOT competing with the Concorde, two different frames of thought totally. This plane sticks with traditional air travel, but rather than dump 10 billion into a project like a super jumbo and competing head to head with fast-rising Airbus, they want to do what is considered successful in any business market: Offer the customer something that the competition does not have...this plane is basically a Civilian Transport much like the 767 wide body line, except it can travel faster, further, and higher.
Remember, in 1968, they said Boeing was dead, the 747 would never fly, and if it did fly, no one would buy it .. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Edit: I might add our leanest days are now behind us, between 1996 and 2000, Boeing cut 45,000 jobs. Puget Sound where I work, went from 106, to 78,000.
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 03-30-2001).]
-
I heard about that on the radio. A cousin of mine use to work for Boeing, I got to see the very first 777 being assembled in their plant in Seattle. I also got to fly their simulator for the 737-- fun!!!
The way I understand it is the airlines are trying to move away from mass travel across the seas to faster travel. The whole point to this aircraft is to go higher than any current airplane which shaves off roughly 37 minutes of flight (less wind resistance and air traffic/flight paths).
I don't know though, this is only a theory right now I think.. has it entered the wind tunnel testing phase yet? Looks interesting, but of course at the proposed altitude it's supposed to travel at... if you get a problem on the plane and it starts to go down... well you've got a lot of time to crap your pants before you hit the Earth.
-SW
-
Yes, as the HCST, its already been under developement for 10 years now, the wing design is a direct disendent(sp) of the HCST.
Quoting Mulally:"This is the airplane our customers have asked us to concentrate on, they share our view that this new airplane could change the way the world flies as dramatically as did the introduction of the jet age"
Customers also are pleased with Boeings current production line and planned enhancements to the 747 and 777.
-
Rip, anyone projecting a rollout date for this one?
(Better hurry...I only have 10 years left! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) )
-
Toad, they need to get a launch customer first, we're gearing up in our CADD/CAM group already..I'm guessing 7-10 years? not sure...
-
OK...I'll buy one.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Actually, one of the problems with the HSCT was the engine out problem. A plane optimised for Supersonic Cruise Speeds doesn't tend to do to well at subsonic speeds. It is nice to see them finally applying cranked arrow wing technology, however, that aircraft has a higher aspect ratio wing then most of the HSCT designs I studied and designed, with the exception of one of the NASA low boom studies. As for the lift being too far to the rear, it actually makes for a more balanced design and generally, lower induced drag, since the canard is actually lifting (If it's an All Flying Canard, which it appears to be (That's as opposed to canards which just exist to modify the flow field ahead of the wing)). Also, by the canard lifting, the wing can be smaller, which lowers weight and drag. Of course that arrangement was also chosen for area rule purposes.
As for what happens when a canard fails is most likely the same as what happens when a Horizontal Stab fails.
Yes, Airbus may be going for capacity with their A380 but Boeing has the BWB (Blended Wing Body) design they inherited from Douglas which could seat around 800 using existing infrastructure if they need to develop a large capacity aircraft. I seriously doubt lean days are ahead for Boeing.
------------------
Sundog
VMF-111 Devildogs (http://www.devildogs.com)
MAG-33 (http://Ripsnort60.tripod.com/M3.html)
'Criticism is always easier than craftmanship.'
-
DC-3 should go back into production.
Someone runnign DC-3's and the new Airbus would have it made (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Actually, come to think of it, Boeing are building some kind of high-technology centre about 10 miles from where I will live.
What are they like to work for? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Dowding, if you can overcome the miniscule cog in a gigantic machine syndrome, its one of the best companys to work for.
I've been with Boeing for 24 yrs now.
Btw, I wish Airbus luck with their superjumbo. Were it not for their subsidy funding programs, I doubt they would continue development. It's doubtful they will sell enough to justify the 50 billion it will take to build the first one.
Airports are not particularly enamored of it either as they will have to build special ramps and taxiways to accomodate it.
Airbus is forecasting a 90 minute turnaround rate on flights. On an 800 seater. A bit optimistic I think.
-
As for the lift being too far to the rear, it actually makes for a more balanced design and generally, lower induced drag, since the canard is actually lifting (If it's an All Flying Canard, which it appears to be
It would have to be providing lift. The CoG is way too far in front of the wings for it not to do so.
It just seems that it takes the same issues that the SST suffered from and multiplies them by 3... more weight, most wing lift farther from CoG, longer and pilots even farther from fueslage rotation point.
Maybe the plane will be designed to use the ailerons in conjunction with the canards to make pitch in flight seem less exagerated for the pilots, but no matter how you handle it there, you have to deal with landing a plane with the nose 40 feet off the ground when the rear gear touch.
Its just wierd. I'd really like to see how they have overcome some of the basic issues. I'm sure that aircraft developers that have been doing this for decades have already put most of this in check, but I'm curious as to how they did it.
Possibly.. the fueselage itself is also providing lift? Can't see the bottom profile, but the nose looks more like a leading edge of a wing than the typical "had to end the tube somehow" look of traditional airliners.
AKDejaVu
-
Don't forget guys that NASA has a nice little 737 fitted with a pilot cage in the middle of the plane. They fly it from the center of the aircraft using all kinds of cameras to see outside. Add this kind of tech to that plane and you solve the problem with pilots being 40+ feet off the ground when the ass-end touches down.
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
Put the P-61B in Aces High
"With all due respect Chaplian, I don't think God wants to hear from me right now.
I'm gonna go out there and remove one of His creations from this universe.
And when I get back I'm gonna drink a bottle of Scotch like it was Chiggy von
Richthofen's blood and celebrate his death."
Col. McQueen, Space: Above and Beyond
(http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/htbin/delta6.jpg)
-
"Airbus is forecasting a 90 minute turnaround rate on flights. On an 800 seater. A bit optimistic I think."
Yes, I think so too. Takes us a minimum of 45 minutes to turn a 767-300. In fact, anything over about 200 seats takes us 45 minutes. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
As far as landing when you're WAAAAY up in the air...
We're already doing it. I think I recall that proper touchdown in the L-1011 had your eyeballs about 37 feet above the concrete. I'd have to get out the book to be sure, tho.
Anyway, no biggie. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)