Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
caverunner17 do you think a flying wing/blended wing body aircraft would be suitable for a passenger aircraft??
I'm thinking about this but couldn't come up with anything.
Middle passengers would be literally in the dark
Maybe they could see outside via screens
Definitely would be interesting.
Due to the variance of altitude during a turn of a flying wing, I don't really see this possibility. When turning, people on the outside would be subject to much higher variances and could / would cause motion sickness. As I said before, I could see something like 3x4x4x3 for a triple aisle on a oblong tube, but not a true flying wing.
Today we have much better engineering, computing, material science, marketing and cheaper fuel
I admit for it's time Concorde was very complicated but if built today i'm sure it'll be a lot easier to pilot, maintain and operate.
I still admire the boldness French and Brits had at a difficult time
BTW Concorde pilots were as rare as astronauts maybe
I know Habu pilots were rarest of their kind
its not the cost of the fuel itself that is the problem with a supersonic aircraft, its the AMOUNT of fuel used that is the problem. also as noted, composite materials, even carbon fiber and carbon carbon are not going to handle the temperatures of high speed supersonic flight, which is why most aircraft that fly supersonic use titanium and ceramics to handle the temperature, both of which are heavier than composites, and weight is the enemy of any aircraft. military aircraft dont have to watch weight as much since they are often times overpowered to begin with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.Thomas
caverunner17 do you think a flying wing/blended wing body aircraft would be suitable for a passenger aircraft??
I'm thinking about this but couldn't come up with anything.
Middle passengers would be literally in the dark
Maybe they could see outside via screens
Definitely would be interesting.
one option would be windows in the TOP of the fuselage so that middle section passengers get plenty of natural light. another option is to "pipe in" outside light. that way you dont use up precious resources with electrical lighting if you dont need it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm
The flight dynamics of a flying wing platform are closer to a helicopter than normal fixed wing aircraft. The military uses computer controlled fly by wire technology to keep the "kind of" flying wing military aircraft, under the control of very high aptitude military pilots. Distributing passenger/baggage weight outside of the roll center of an aircraft would make for a very cumbersome, probably unflyable, aircraft. Flying wings are cool, but they are not practical. They are also, of necessity very high aspect ratio. No supersonic flying wings...
let me guess, you really dont understand a lot about aircraft do you? all commercial aircraft these days use fly by wire technology.
as for a flying wing, it is in fact easier to balance a flying wing than it is a conventional aircraft since pretty much the entire load is near the center of gravity.
and while i will grant that a flying wing is, using early non computer controlled flight controls, unstable in jet form. in fact one YB49 was lost due to an unstable pitch up, and the second was very nearly lost. one of the YB49 test pilots that was helping out on the B2 program told a B2 test pilot to avoid a hard pitch up maneuver to avoid stalling the aircraft and losing it. he was told that the B2s flight computer would NOT allow the B2 to stall when pitched up.
fly by wire as been quite the boon to modern aircraft, be they military or commercial.
please learn something about modern aircraft before making statements like this one.
let me guess, you really dont understand a lot about aircraft do you? all commercial aircraft these days use fly by wire technology.
I don't think I wrote that modern aircraft don't use fly by wire. Show me where I wrote that. Conventional aircraft are however inherently stable. Moreso than a flying wing... are we going to argue about this?
as for a flying wing, it is in fact easier to balance a flying wing than it is a conventional aircraft since pretty much the entire load is near the center of gravity.
I was discussing a passenger carrying flying wing? Are you? 200 passengers are easier to place near the COG of a flying wing platform? Really? Isn't a tube fuselage better for that purpose? Cabin also needs to be pressurized isn't it easier to do that with a tube? Are you going to argue these points when you quibble about fuel consumption at Mach1? Who is really ignorant here? You are so interested in a ******* match of who knows more, that you didn't read a word I wrote. Please don't tell me what I don't know anymore, thank you.
let me guess, you really dont understand a lot about aircraft do you? all commercial aircraft these days use fly by wire technology.
I don't think I wrote that modern aircraft don't use fly by wire. Show me where I wrote that. Conventional aircraft are however inherently stable. Moreso than a flying wing... are we going to argue about this?
as for a flying wing, it is in fact easier to balance a flying wing than it is a conventional aircraft since pretty much the entire load is near the center of gravity.
I was discussing a passenger carrying flying wing? Are you? 200 passengers are easier to place near the COG of a flying wing platform? Really? Isn't a tube fuselage better for that purpose? Cabin also needs to be pressurized isn't it easier to do that with a tube? Are you going to argue these points when you quibble about fuel consumption at Mach1? Who is really ignorant here? You are so interested in a ******* match of who knows more, that you didn't read a word I wrote. Please don't tell me what I don't know anymore, thank you.
i read what you wrote, and you implied that modern commercial aircraft use a less sophisticated avionics system than military aircraft do, and that isnt the case.
as for balancing a flying wing, yes i was talking about passenger aircraft. remember that;
1: everything is pretty much centrally located
2: much of the fuselage is not only used for people and cargo, it also adds to the lift characteristics of the aircraft, in a tube style aircraft like a 747, it doesnt. so imo the flying wing is in fact better than a standard tube style aircraft.
2: much of the fuselage is not only used for people and cargo, it also adds to the lift characteristics of the aircraft, in a tube style aircraft like a 747, it doesnt. so imo the flying wing is in fact better than a standard tube style aircraft.
A tube type fuselage adds no lift but... that pilot was able to glide a fully loaded tube fuselage airplane from LaGuardia airport in Queens clear over to the East River... how much more lift does anyone need?
A tube type fuselage adds no lift but... that pilot was able to glide a fully loaded tube fuselage airplane from LaGuardia airport in Queens clear over to the East River... how much more lift does anyone need?
The flying tube pilot was skilled and lucky. Other incidents have had less positive results, and some, such as the Air Transat that landed in the Azores, or the Air Canada "Gimli Glider" fared well. All a matter of luck. (I personally have performed two gliding landings, one from an engine that came apart, one after a compressor stall during a functional check flight. Both cases the engine continued to run but provided no usable thrust, better than a seized or windmilling engine. Both cases I was perfectly set up to succeed... I know some F-16 pilots who were not and are card-carrying members of the Caterpillar Club.)
The flying wing or spanloader has less form drag, less induced drag and if stressed properly is structurally superior. How much lift do you need? Enough to counter weight, and to do so efficiently. A lifting body or flying wing has the advantage of allowing every part of the aircraft, or most of it, to generate lift, instead of hauling a fuselage along for the ride. Also, that tail/horizontal stabilizer usually has to produce a downforce to counter the wing's natural tendency to produce a rotational movement (negative coefficient of moment) in the nose-down direction. That adds "weight" that the wings must overcome. In a tailless aircraft, no such need.
The flying tube pilot was skilled and lucky. Other incidents have had less positive results, and some, such as the Air Transat that landed in the Azores, or the Air Canada "Gimli Glider" fared well. All a matter of luck. (I personally have performed two gliding landings, one from an engine that came apart, one after a compressor stall during a functional check flight. Both cases the engine continued to run but provided no usable thrust, better than a seized or windmilling engine. Both cases I was perfectly set up to succeed... I know some F-16 pilots who were not and are card-carrying members of the Caterpillar Club.)
The flying wing or spanloader has less form drag, less induced drag and if stressed properly is structurally superior. How much lift do you need? Enough to counter weight, and to do so efficiently. A lifting body or flying wing has the advantage of allowing every part of the aircraft, or most of it, to generate lift, instead of hauling a fuselage along for the ride. Also, that tail/horizontal stabilizer usually has to produce a downforce to counter the wing's natural tendency to produce a rotational movement (negative coefficient of moment) in the nose-down direction. That adds "weight" that the wings must overcome. In a tailless aircraft, no such need.
exactly. as to the question of how much lift do you need, the answer is as much as is possible given the design parameters of the aircraft, combined with the projected flight envelope. more lift capability means shorter runways, or higher gross weights. more lift capability also gives the pilot more options when the crap hits the fan.
and sure there have been times when a standard tube type commercial plane has become a 500,000lb glider, and the pilots that landed them successfully usually had glider training, as well as lots of experience flying commercial aircraft. they understood glide ratios, how to determine a proper glide speed, and the necessary delicate touch to handle the aircraft when needed.
Guys how can we get jobs at Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop or even Airbus??
How do we even apply??
I searched over Linkedin and other sites but these were all low level jobs??
How do they recruit engineers and scientists??
Three college buddies of mine (including two who were on the design team I mentioned earlier) worked at Lockheed (the two guys) and Boeing (the other). The Boeing dude was laid off from Wichita two years ago, the Lockheed guys went to other jobs outside the aerospace business. It's a volatile business. The Lockheed guys were recruited back when the F-117 was still in production; my college aero engineering classes were taught by professors who in many cases had real-world experience and made recommendations to the companies for which they were on sabbaticals.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
