AWWA Sky Whale - new design idea

[Tickle]

Here's a link to the AWWA Sky Whale concept, a new type of airliner using advanced ideas and rehashes of old ones. What does everyone think?

Is the bizarre Sky Whale the future of air travel? | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/is-the-bizarre-sky-whale-the-future-of-air-travel/story-e6frfq80-1226803843362)

Someone's been watching too many Gerry Anderson productions!

http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2014/01/17/1226803/843194-13fdf40c-7e58-11e3-8cdb-58f79d3137a3.jpg

http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2014/01/17/1226803/844248-7ffdfe56-7e5b-11e3-8cdb-58f79d3137a3.jpg

http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2014/01/17/1226803/843250-9d0e0ab6-7e53-11e3-8cdb-58f79d3137a3.jpg

http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2014/01/17/1226803/844304-9db130a6-7e53-11e3-8cdb-58f79d3137a3.jpg

http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2014/01/17/1226803/844360-80506006-7e5b-11e3-8cdb-58f79d3137a3.jpg

[Wizofoz]

I don't see the point of the gap between the nacelles and the fuselage.

LOTS of interference drag there.

[phiggsbroadband]

It makes some good sense for an artist to design an aircraft, instead of a committee of engineers. I hope the fuselage provides some of the aerodynamic lift...

The separate teams that design modern aircraft seem to be split into two camps... The fuselage team... 'cram in as many pax as possible remit' and The wings team... 'get the best L/D ratio remit'.


Maybe we will see more delta wing shapes in the future.

[underfire]

Anyone can design a tube, a few can design a wing, and only a very few can design the wingbox....

[joy ride]

With appropriate computer skills anyone can design anything.

Whether or not that "anything" can be made of real world materials and processes is another matter.

And even if it CAN be made, can it be made cost effectively?

Like so many "Concept Cars" this looks interesting.

Concept Cars almost never materialise and I reckon this too will go little further. If it does I will not enjoy flying in it as I am one those oddballs who actually LIKES to look out of the windows and see the world passing by far below; looking upwards at nothing but blue sky does not do it for me!

[keith williams]

It will undoubtedly sell well in the toy shops, but a full-size one would probably have few real aerodynamic or structural benefits.

The problem with artists designing this kind of thing is that they will introduce things simply because they look good. Real aircraft designers introduce things that are essential or at least beneficial. OK, they also take customer tastes into account, but these are never a primary factors is the overall design.

It's just a pity that the toy version didn't come out in time of Christmas.

[pattern_is_full]

I don't see the point of the gap between the nacelles and the fuselage.


Apparently, "break-away" wings, so that in a crash, you don't get the aerodynamic tumbling that was visible in the Asiana accident, or has happened to cargo MD-11s when they lose one wing in a hard landing (flopping onto their backs).

Or so says the story....

It seems to revive the concept of "steerage class" on the bottom deck - must be 20-30 seats per row. Ugggh!

If I had to travel in a flying movie theater: http://cdn.themetapicture.com/media/cool-photo-plane-soldiers.jpg

...frankly, I'd rather stay behind and get shot at.

I presume the designer figures he'll always get to ride First Class. "Let them eat cake!" :}

[joy ride]

Aha, "Break away wings", perfect for spinning around and slicing the fuselage in half, or heading off to do the same to another aircraft waiting to use the runway....

[Donkey497]

The other problem is stopping them breaking away when you very much want them to stray firmly attached until you get through this patch of heavy turbulence.........

[keith williams]

Even if the wings don't break away, the aerodynamics for that area don't look at all good.

The rear wing attachment cannot be providing must stiffness, unless all of that area of the structure very beefy. And there is very little top and bottom wing skin at the root area. So virtually all of the wing root bending loads must be carried by the spar. So the root spar needs to be very beefy.

The spar is all on its own there in the centre, so it enjoys very little streamlining. This all adds up to a very high thickness to chord ratio. This in turn adds up to a very low Mcrit and lots of drag at high speed. These problems will affect the aircraft during every flight.

Now compare this virtually constant disadvantage with the supposed advantage of enabling the wings to drop off in a crash. It sounds like the cost:benefit analysis on this part of the design wasn't done too thoroughly.....But it looks good!

[awblain]

Having the wings staying firmly attached to the rest of the debris seems a good plan.

Asiana's little contretemps at SFO would likely have been more casualty-rich if they'd done it in an MD11.

[tdracer]

Way back when, during my Aero Engineer college days, I took a class where you had to design an airplane from scratch. While most of us used fairly conventional designs where we applied some advanced technology 'tweaks', a few people tried fairly radical designs - based on concepts they'd seen (not unlike this Sky Whale).

What they quickly learned was, there are really, really good reasons why airplanes look the way they do.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif For example, pretty much every pressurized aircraft fuselage ever built has been more or less cylindrical - there is a good reason for that http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif.
I look at this Whale as being a structural and aerodynamic nightmare. :ugh:


Oh, and I'm the only one that noticed it appears to be much larger than an A380, powered by two thrust vectoring engines? Yea, no engineering challenges there http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif

[awblain]

I think it's got two engines in the middle and two more at the back, for
lots of extra pipes and wires. Plus some lift fans/boundary layer control things going on.

Plus... evacuating the humped third deck without any doors will be fun and games.

[Sir George Cayley]

Paint it green and you've got Thunderbird 2 Neo :ok:

[Tu.114]

A Tupolev 104 on steroids...

[mark333]

Totally an Anderson design rehashed ... always said the man was a visionary ... I like it :-)

[boisbrule]

It's not obvious to me what "redirecting laminar flow" means or what the benefits would be. Points that come to mind:

1. The fuselage shape (like a lifting body) and the wing planform suggest a discontinuity in the spanwise lift distribution and increased induced drag (due to lift).

2. The booms involve increased wetted area for no obvious benefit.
More drag.

3. Designers of heavy jets have settled on engine pods ahead of the wings for definite reasons of lower drag and weight. If a different location is part of substantially increased laminar flow OK, but let's hear how it works. A lot of experimental work has been done on suction and blowing, but I haven't heard of any worthwhile production designs.

An Airbus concept with fuselage mounted engines has been described at
BBC News - Carbon fibre planes: Lighter and stronger by design (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25833264)

It's a lot cleaner than the whale and one can see a better wing/fuselage junction aft. I'm guessing it relies on carbon fibre giving more strength and rigidity for the weight, so not as much dependent on forward engines for wing weight saving.

4. Pressurized fuselages are made of one or more (e.g. overlapping) cylinders for good reasons. Is there a benefit to the whale's non-cylindrical design that's worth the weight? Tell us about it.