Look at this new aircraft...guess we are not going to be outdone by the French A380. Boeing to take on Airbus with (1000 seat) giant 797 blended wing plane.
Boeing is preparing a 1000 passenger jet that could reshape the Air travel industry for the next 100 years. Boeing has developed the radical Blended Wing design in cooperation with the NASA Langley Research Centre. The mammoth aircraft 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.
The new 797 is in direct response to the Airbus A380 that has racked up 159 orders, but has not yet flown any passengers. Boeing decide to kill its 747X stretched super jumbo in 2003 after little interest was shown by airline companies, but has continued to develop the ultimate Airbus crusher 797 for years at its Phantom Works research facility in Long Beach, California.
The Airbus A380 has been in the works since 1999 and has accumulated £6,600,000 billion in development costs, which gives Boeing a huge advantage now that Airbus has committed to the older style tubular aircraft for decades to come.
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 investment look pretty shaky.
High body rigidity is another key factor in blended wing aircraft, It reduces turbulence and creates less stress on the air frame which adds to efficiency, giving the 797 a tremendous 8800 nautical mile range with its 1000 passengers flying comfortably at mach .88 or 654 mph cruising speed another advantage over the Airbus tube-and-wing designed A380's 570 mph. The exact date for introduction is unclear, yet the battle lines are clearly drawn in the high-stakes war for civilian air supremacy.
Might not be such a bad thing - old Mr. Northrup woulda loved it - but the unforgiving economics of aerospace risk-taking are such that one does not normally attempt to launch a bold new concept in the biggest (and most expensive) possible product package.
Aren't there threads elsewhere on this site which throw water on the idea on the grounds of pax escape, relative movement in roll etc etc.
Nice idea for a military bomber when the ordnance carried doesn't mind moving through tens of feet for every little roll input and emergency exit is merely the push of the pilot's button. But a fare-paying pax aircraft??? Hmm
This is a big pile of sh*te issued from the Beoing factory on account of they are mightily p*ssed off at losing orders to Eurobus. Beoing are, in fact, concentrating their efforts on a replacement for the Cessna 172 and aim to capture the market in this area. A Beoing spokesman said, "This is the growth market. Eurobus are going up a blind alley if they think that over 300 people want to sit next to each other. Our market research has indicated that the maximum number of people that want to be in close proximity to each other is 4"
Beoing also have plans to produce a military version of the airoplane which can carry a massive payload of at least one LGB or one AMRAAM in addition to one passenger
So I think that puts the "Boeing 797" into perspective
From Boulder, Colorado, Walter brings up a topic we frequently get questioned about: the "blended wing" concept. Earlier this year an image of a blended wing "797" made the rounds of the Internet, and got speculation swirling that Boeing has this in the works. Is there any truth to the emails showing a blended wing 1,000-passenger concept that is dubbed a Boeing 797? Makes sense that the airline industry would head this direction some day, but it just sounds too good to be true! Yes, too good to be true, indeed, Walter. Someone was having a bit of fun with PhotoShop perhaps. Boeing is not planning to build a 1,000 passenger commercial airplane dubbed the "797," based on the blended wing body (BWB) concept or any other futuristic concept. It's certainly not in our commercial market forecast, which goes out for 20 years. We think the commercial airplane market favors point-to-point routes, and we're developing the 787 as the perfect match to help meet that demand.
I am sure that the exact aircraft shown above was the result of a design project at my old aero eng dept at university (a very prominent location for aero eng). The department homepage background was the CAD model showing finite element analysis of surface pressure, although the page is very different now. I have a feeling that somebody has taken that CAD model, photographically rendered it in a 3D package and then photoshopped it onto the background. Looks good. Would have been great to have had the capability to do that back then for my final year design project report. Crappy isometric draughts aren't quite the same!.
Last edited by Fg Off Max Stout; 29th Dec 2006 at 12:44.
And this research has been funded by whom?? It can't be that Boeing is benefitting from Govt funded research can it? Tsk tsk tsk
Yep, it's the dreaded government-funded sharing of aeronautical research in the guise of NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration).
You know, the same ones that did research on laminar flow wings that wound up on the P-51; that did supersonic windtunnels to explore supersonic flight that led to all sorts of things nefarious.
Hmmm, a government agency carrying out its charter. Shocking, I tell you, shocking!
Don't regard this as 'the' design. I can see a lot of problems with it. Straight off: 1- Engine maintenance 2- Fuselage de-icing 3- Airport space issues 4- Perhaps the most serious- pressurisation problems for that shape of fuselage. The upper and lower surfaces are going to be quite flat. 'Oil-canning' will be a serious problem 5- I can't see that engine location being efficient. Engines at one end lead to trim problems, especially if one or more are lost inflight.
One guesses that the next new products from Boeing and Airbus will be replacements for the 737 and A320 families. But both companies have enough on the table at the moment to keep them busy. Reports say that technology is not yet available to make the 737/A320 replacements "enough" of an improvement.
Customers such as Southwest Airlines, which has about 480 737s, are said to be interested is a substantially improved replacement. American Airlines has close to 300 MD-80s which will need replacement. They also have some newish 737s.
The market is there for a substantially-imporoved plane in the 737/A320 class. Will that be the B-797 ?
One guesses that the next new products from Boeing and Airbus will be replacements for the 737 and A320 families. But both companies have enough on the table at the moment to keep them busy. Reports say that technology is not yet available to make the 737/A320 replacements "enough" of an improvement.
There have been a few pictures floated by the PR people so far. One was from Boeing via Flight, with a composite fuselage 737 replacement that looked like a fat Embraer 195.
Airbus sneaked a design study picture out, showing an A320 lookalike with a swallow tail. Just two rear surfaces (like the F-117 or Magister) might have a drag payoff, but upset the spotters and logo people. There's also PW and their geared turbofan project which could see itself bolted onto an updated A320 sooner rather than waiting for a whole new design.
One big issue is going to be how composite hulls cope in a high frequency environment. Shorthaulers spend more time on the deck and do more cycles per day, so experience from an in-service 787 or A350XWB is going to be needed for the new designs. Ramp rash is going to be even more of a problem when a frame gets turned six or more times a day.
Location: A Whilom nimble brain. With 31 million posts.
Age: 73
Posts: 3,380
Keef beat me to it on the costs, but also one would not like to find oneself in a high AOA situation. Verging on a stall, and no air going in the donks....no thanks.
B797 ???
