Boeing Transonic Truss Braced Wing Concept
 

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.

I'd usually use this: https://www.theregister.co.uk/Design...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. :}

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

0.55 Olympic size swimming pools, I think ;)

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.

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

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

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 ;)

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

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

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....65fe05413e.jpg

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

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...-Wing_Aircraft

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

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

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

Transonic?
 

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

A little narrower than Wales

A little more information here on Aviation Week.

Why "transonic" at Mach 0.8?

LMGTFY

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

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

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

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

From the Reuters report:
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.

China recently flew a 1/10th scale similar plane.
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....05a508e6b.jpeg

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?

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....333ee8081a.jpg

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

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.

somehow I knew that I would screw up the Trekkie lore. https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....42a4d4e569.jpg

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

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

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.

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.

The 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.