A little more information here on Aviation Week.
|
Why "transonic" at Mach 0.8?
|
|
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 |
Originally Posted by Intrance
(Post 10355966)
|
Originally Posted by Pilot DAR
(Post 10355558)
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. |
Tail from a 146. Fuselage and undercarriage from an ATR72 and a stretched strutted wing from a Shorts 360. Just don't try flying one into Known Icing Conditions!!! :eek: |
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. |
China recently flew a 1/10th scale similar plane.
|
Originally Posted by KiloB
(Post 10356172)
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? 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? |
Originally Posted by Alpine Flyer
(Post 10355391)
Looks like a mix between an Avro, a 737 and a 172.
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....333ee8081a.jpg |
Originally Posted by Sorry Dog
(Post 10356588)
I was going to say part 757 mixed with part Romulan Bird of Prey... minus the disrupter of course.
|
Originally Posted by Mechta
(Post 10356474)
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.
.
Originally Posted by Mechta
(Post 10356474)
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. |
Originally Posted by WillFlyForCheese
(Post 10356590)
That is clearly a Romulan D'deridex class warship. Not even close to a bird of prey . . .
|
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! |
Looks like Dr. Seuss designed another creature:p
|
Originally Posted by Peter G-W
(Post 10355394)
“Over half the length of a football pitch”: how many double decker buses is that? |
Originally Posted by Sorry Dog
(Post 10356604)
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. |
Originally Posted by Sorry Dog
(Post 10356604)
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. |
The Bell team, who had no idea how to design a super sonic aircraft at the time copied the design |
All times are GMT. The time now is 01:14. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.