PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - New 110-160 seat narrowbody -20% fuel design; what do you think
Old 3rd October 2007 | 10:13
  #9 (permalink)  
Rainboe
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 1
From: Hampshire, UK
High wings are not nice for airline operations:
*Unattractive landing gear bulges and noisy landing gear operation. Fuselage absorbing landing loads. Less efficient landing gear storage.
*Noisy flap operation in cabin (BAe146 frightening in certain cabin areas)
*Wing de-icing harder to achieve
*Tailplane design problems- T tail needed. Easier to have low tail for engineering and de-icing.
*High wing + high engine= pitch/power problem
*low fuselage- hold access difficulties, although only lower steps needed.
* problem of where to locate airconditioning packs

In your design, I also see elevator design problems. Is this an all moving tailplane? There is not a lot of room on the horizontal section for elevators? Are elevators on the canted sections? It starts getting a very complicated tailplane design. Because of the extreme rearward c of g, a very large moment must be generated at the tail.

I think it would be fascinating trying to predict the next stage in fuselage layout design. The clues are there- I think it will be a retractable canard (lifting vertically to prevent ground damage), blended wing, horizontal double bubble cabin (remember the fuselage has to hold 9 psi- large flat fuselages are out)- find out where you can stick the engines with least nuisance! Please design in a 'Captains rest room/flight deck shower/crew jacuzzi', and give it one of them fancy Airbus pilot tables- we're dead jealous of them! Oh for the luxury of being able to cross your legs inflight!

Last edited by Rainboe; 3rd October 2007 at 10:26.
Rainboe is offline  
Reply