Attractive design keesje, but I see several shortfalls. Please take this as suggestions, not criticism:
The balance, according to the picture, is incorrect. Large engines, and fairly heavy like that, right at the rear would move the whole wing much further rearwards. That wing position would look right with the engines podded forward of the wing.
The wing appears optimised for long range, high speed flight. This is essentially a shorter-range commuter. What is it to be?
The engine position will lead to critical loading problems. The design must be able to carry full loads. What will be done when the flight is empty or very light? You will need ballast at the front.
I see severe longitudinal stability problems. Tailfins aren't just there to put the airline name on. They are essential and they are large. All I see here are sections of tailplane angled up slightly. Possible severe Dutch Roll problems, total loss of directional control risks, and even though the engines are mounted close to centreline, still severe asymetyric problems in engine failure cases.
Essentially, what has this design got that a re-engined MD82 or B717-200 hasn't got? So can you justify claims of 20% fuel savings? Stick the latest engines into a B717 and you have your efficiencies and save a fortune in development costs over your design.
Embraer also seem to be rapidly soaking up this market very well with the 190, and TU Superjet. It offers nothing new, apart from a fancy tailplane which probably has no real effect on efficiency, and seems to leave question marks over effectiveness.
We're looking at the next step in airliners now with the B787-type systems- the design seems to be pretty well settled on B737 planforms. After that? Something revolutionary is needed- maybe canard designs or 'flying wing' concepts- these are where the exciting design developments are- but they will have to justify themselves! But you must understand why a flying wing will not do for shorter range lower capacity designs.
Whilst your design is new, it is not original, and is only a reworking of present designs. A Caravelle with modern engines and dinky tail? To make it cost effective to develop, a big leap over current designs is needed, like the original Comet/Caravelle layouts were over that period. Something different. All there is is Canard or Flying Wing with 787-type systems.
And remember, whilst the designer may let his imagination run away, the world is very conservative and wants these designs proved before it buys it!
Last edited by Rainboe; 3rd October 2007 at 09:59.