Boeing Transonic Truss Braced Wing Concept

[chopper2004]

These ultra-thin folding wings measure more than half the length of a football field! Our new Transonic Truss-Braced Wing concept is revealed at #aiaaSciTech today. #TheFutureIsBuiltHere Read more: Boeing: Spreading our wings: Boeing unveils new Transonic Truss-Braced Wing (http://bit.ly/2VAnHks)

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/630x329/86ad2492_5ef8_4a56_b5b7_d9bc86097f25_9c89e76363d23a714799e1e 61f6ed7fa555cbc77.jpeg

[Alpine Flyer]

Looks like a mix between an Avro, a 737 and a 172. So Mr. Cessna was right all the time....
Needs a bit more ice protection equipment.

[Peter G-W]

“Over half the length of a football pitch”: how many double decker buses is that?

[RHSandLovingIt]

“Over half the length of a football pitch”: how many double decker buses is that?


I'd usually use this: https://www.theregister.co.uk/Design/page/reg-standards-converter.html

However, "football pitch" is apparently an area measurement... not a unit of length. Thankfully, the article says 170 feet... which is: 5.6208 Double-decker buses...


You're welcome. :}

[Flap40]

Tail from a 146. Fuselage and undercarriage from an ATR72 and a stretched strutted wing from a Shorts 360.

[alfaman]

“Over half the length of a football pitch”: how many double decker buses is that?
0.55 Olympic size swimming pools, I think ;)

[B Fraser]

The Boeing Biplane !!!!

The really ought to stick the tailplane on the front and turn it into a biplane canard. Orville and Wilbur would have approved.

[Tango and Cash]

Presumably these are truss-braced FOLDING wings to fit into existing gates.

[sablatnic]

Tail from a 146. Fuselage and undercarriage from an ATR72 and a stretched strutted wing from a Shorts 360.

A bit of Bellanca Cruisemaster too, and Maurice Hurel's narrow wing.

[rjtjrt]

0.55 Olympic size swimming pools, I think ;)

Here it would be 0.8 Sydney Harbours.

[Pilot DAR]

measure more than half the length of a football field!

Is different from:

“Over half the length of a football pitch”

I think that the "pitch" is European, (and perhaps metric?), where the "field" is American (funny shaped ball & amoured players), and I presume imperial. I'll try to find the conversion to cubits to help everyone out ;)

[tartare]

Looks frickin' awful.
So will it fly frickin' awful?

[Mechta]

How is the strut/wing interface going to be anything but draggy?

[WillFlyForCheese]

Boeing has been studying this concept for some time now, with some research aided by NASA. The belief is that the truss wing will further reduce fuel consumption . . .

https://www.nasa.gov/aero/boeing_sugar_wind_tunnel.html

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1515/sugar_volt_semispan_2014_14_l_00010lh_e23f021ad3349158010906 fd282c0b65fe05413e.jpg

[WillFlyForCheese]

And . . . if you really want to read about the aerodynamic advantages of truss-winged aircraft - here you go.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283010588_Aerodynamic_Considerations_in_the_Design_of_Truss-Braced-Wing_Aircraft

[Cows getting bigger]

One presumes it will come with a set of step ladders for the engineers? :)

[blue up]

http://www.aviation-history.com/vickers/vimy-14a.jpg

Twin engines, strut braced, long range...there's nothing new in Aviation.

[KiloB]

I’m struggling with the bit where an operating range of 0.7 to 0.8 is described as “Transonic”?

[Less Hair]

So they want to fly their green jet a tad faster now?

[nimbusgb]

“Over half the length of a football pitch”: how many double decker buses is that?

A little narrower than Wales

[Lyneham Lad]

A little more information here on Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/boeing-unveils-refined-truss-braced-wing-airliner-concept?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20190109_AW-05_664&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000003474208&utm_campaign=18030&utm_medium=email&elq2=12d74691e2004d078638273dea5f8daa).

[Less Hair]

Why "transonic" at Mach 0.8?

[Intrance]

LMGTFY (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Transonic+wing)

Google should show you a nice result from Wikipedia explaining “why transonic at M.80”.

[DirtyProp]

If it's really as efficient as they claim it to be why not? Sure it looks a bit funny, but who cares?

Hopefully Easa in its infinite wisdom won't come up with a different rating....:E

[KiloB]

LMGTFY (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Transonic+wing)

Google should show you a nice result from Wikipedia explaining “why transonic at M.80”.

Even though I sat at the back, I did listen in (some) lectures, so I understand the ‘Critical Mach Number’bit. What I don’t understand is how this super duper new design hits Critical Mach at a SLOWER speed than thousands of existing airliners?

[CRayner]

Is different from:



I think that the "pitch" is European, (and perhaps metric?), where the "field" is American (funny shaped ball & amoured players), and I presume imperial. I'll try to find the conversion to cubits to help everyone out ;)


Both originally described in Imperial units (yards). Metric equivalents are given, and broadly similar lengths, about 110m or between 110 and 130 yards. Individual pitches vary quite a bit, so it is not a great unit for use in aeronautical engineering where I understand precision is generally preferred. So about 150ft span. Give or take. A bit.

[er340790]

Tail from a 146. Fuselage and undercarriage from an ATR72 and a stretched strutted wing from a Shorts 360.

:D :D :D I thought it looked vaguely familiar. :ok:

Just don't try flying one into Known Icing Conditions!!! :eek:

[PAXboy]

From the Reuters report:
Boeing said the jet ideally would reduce fuel burn by 60 percent compared to an aircraft in 2005, but said it did not have final data to compare the fuel savings to present-day aircraft.
Oh yes they do have the numbers!!! It's just that '60%' sounds better than 10/15% or whatever it might be. That aside, it appears to be progress (state sponsored as mentioned) but then states all around the world always have.

[FlyXLsa]

China recently flew a 1/10th scale similar plane.
https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/1082790007050428416
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/600x314/wmsb2jeh_4b424b257515a981e91d012af28572c05a508e6b.jpeg

[Mechta]

Even though I sat at the back, I did listen in (some) lectures, so I understand the ‘Critical Mach Number’bit. What I don’t understand is how this super duper new design hits Critical Mach at a SLOWER speed than thousands of existing airliners?



As Boeing's proposal has a very narrow chord and only a small amount of sweep, the thickness to chord ratio may well be higher than current airliners, so the pressure drop on the upper surface will be high and the lower critical mach number lower than current designs.

Airbus gave a presentation to employees back around 2005, at which they showed proposals for A320 series replacements. They stressed that low cost airlines are interested in the maximum flights per day, not maximum speed, and that bigger time savings can be achieved by avoiding reliance on jet bridges and airport supplied steps, hence the aircraft should be low to the ground and carry its own steps. Potentially the cabin crew could unload any hold baggage for passengers to carry, avoiding the need for baggage handlers too. The Airbus design looked a bit like an Ilyushin 76 but with rear fuselage-mounted engines (as per DC-9 etc.) Presumably Boeing are getting the same message from their Lo-Co customers.

By the way, what is wrong with calling a strut a strut? Are struts only found on Cessnas and old aeroplanes?

[Sorry Dog]

Looks like a mix between an Avro, a 737 and a 172.

I was going to say part 757 mixed with part Romulan Bird of Prey... minus the disrupter of course.

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1600x1062/star_2btrek_2bships_2bof_2bthe_2bline_2b2016_2bcalendar_2bch ris_2bford_2bromulan_2bwarbird_1df32abe3cde067f8233970eb15cc 8333ee8081a.jpg

[WillFlyForCheese]

I was going to say part 757 mixed with part Romulan Bird of Prey... minus the disrupter of course.


That is clearly a Romulan D'deridex class warship. Not even close to a bird of prey . . .

[Sorry Dog]

As Boeing's proposal has a very narrow chord and only a small amount of sweep, the thickness to chord ratio may well be higher than current airliners, so the pressure drop on the upper surface will be high and the lower critical mach number lower than current designs.
.

I wouldn't doubt that ratio is actually lower than current even with a small sweep. Look at planes like the F104 whose wing had excellent supersonic drag despite having little sweep... wonder if Mr. B will include protective covers for the sharp leading edge like Lockheed did.



Airbus gave a presentation to employees back around 2005, at which they showed proposals for A320 series replacements. They stressed that low cost airlines are interested in the maximum flights per day, not maximum speed, and that bigger time savings can be achieved by avoiding reliance on jet bridges and airport supplied steps, hence the aircraft should be lo,w to the ground and carry its own steps. Potentially the cabin crew could unload any hold baggage for passengers to carry, avoiding the need for baggage handlers too.

Cabin crew will be too busy cleaning up cabin. The pilots will likely be asked to perform this essential duty... especially since things like fuel lift, weight and balance, and preflight checklist will be automated in the new 787 DUM (Dreamliner Ultra Max), so airline management will want the pilots to stay as efficient as possible.

[Sorry Dog]

That is clearly a Romulan D'deridex class warship. Not even close to a bird of prey . . .

somehow I knew that I would screw up the Trekkie lore. https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/165x171/crez5tiueaagroa_b8fa3f7b1571827c82048123efb29b42a4d4e569.jpg

[737er]

The best news is the sonic boom it creates is completely silent. The struteirons will increase roll rate. Game Changer!

New buzzword for 707 speed: Transonic!

[RatherBeFlying]

Looks like Dr. Seuss designed another creature:p

[MarkerInbound]

“Over half the length of a football pitch”: how many double decker buses is that?

It comes out to just under 30 and a half smoots.

[Mechta]

I wouldn't doubt that ratio is actually lower than current even with a small sweep. Look at planes like the F104 whose wing had excellent supersonic drag despite having little sweep... wonder if Mr. B will include protective covers for the sharp leading edge like Lockheed did.



Cabin crew will be too busy cleaning up cabin. The pilots will likely be asked to perform this essential duty... especially since things like fuel lift, weight and balance, and preflight checklist will be automated in the new 787 DUM (Dreamliner Ultra Max), so airline management will want the pilots to stay as efficient as possible.

No, they wouldn't want pilots wandering around outside the aeroplane. They might see a hydraulic leak or something, which would incur local maintenance costs and schedule delays.

[horizon flyer]

I wouldn't doubt that ratio is actually lower than current even with a small sweep. Look at planes like the F104 whose wing had excellent supersonic drag despite having little sweep... wonder if Mr. B will include protective covers for the sharp leading edge like Lockheed did.



Cabin crew will be too busy cleaning up cabin. The pilots will likely be asked to perform this essential duty... especially since things like fuel lift, weight and balance, and preflight checklist will be automated in the new 787 DUM (Dreamliner Ultra Max), so airline management will want the pilots to stay as efficient as possible.

Once supersonic a straight wing is OK as long as the wing tips are inside the shock wave from the nose. Sweep is only needed to fly subsonic closer to the speed of sound. The first design for a super sonic aircraft, the Miles M52 had a straight wing with triangle shaped wing tips and a flattened smoothed diamond aerofoil called biconvex When the Bell team visited Miles Aircraft ltd in the fall of 1943 they where shown the finished design and idea of putting a rocket engine in it and dropping it out of a Lancaster. The Bell team, who had no idea how to design a super sonic aircraft at the time copied the design but with the rocket engine but used a subsonic aerofoil on the Bell X1 and normal wing tips.

[megan]

The Bell team, who had no idea how to design a super sonic aircraft at the time copied the designThe Bell team did not copy the design. You've been listening, it seems, to the garbage sprouted by Eric "Winkle"Brown. The Bell aircraft owed absolutely nothing to the M.52. In fact the American who was briefed on the M.52 commented that the Miles had some interesting innovations, such as biconvex section and one piece tailplane, but had nothing of real interest to offer and little need to follow its progress.

[Ascend Charlie]

And sweep is used to delay the onset of critical drag rise. Staying inside the cone was not a primary reason.