Boeing patents design for elliptical, two-aisle narrow-body
Boeing patents design for elliptical, two-aisle narrow-body
Great story here billed by the authors as a possible 737 replacement.
The graphic shows a plan view of a twin isle aircraft that looks like a squat A310, almost tadpole-like in appearance.
Personally I cant see the 737 being replaced by a widebody, anybody think this idea has legs?
The graphic shows a plan view of a twin isle aircraft that looks like a squat A310, almost tadpole-like in appearance.
Personally I cant see the 737 being replaced by a widebody, anybody think this idea has legs?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: leafy suburbs
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a provisional idea, very good.
Competition forcing manufactuers to think outside the box.
It will be interesting how this progresses, with a few tweeks here and there.
Competition forcing manufactuers to think outside the box.
It will be interesting how this progresses, with a few tweeks here and there.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Outside the box, maybe radical but it is also expensive. Concept airliners are just like concept cars, sexy but impractical. As with the sonic cruiser and the "sharks accoutrements" on the publicity 787 shots, in reality it will be whittled back to an underwing two engine "jelly mold" with more plastic bits substituted to make it lighter, and engines with just enough thrust to get it certified
The boardrooms where the customers sit are filled with suits who couldn't tell the difference between one design and the next. They simply (and rightly) want to know how the capital investment will translate into profit per revenue kilometre/mile flown.
The secondary retail customers (passengers) will be easily dazzled by promises of wi-fi, polarized windows, nicer air and enough coloured lights to put Blackpool illuminations to shame. The truth is, most of them couldn't tell the difference between one design and the next either.
The competition won't think outside of the box. They will both produce something that is broadly identical and leave it to the marketing department to convince the world that artistry and love were as important to the creators as simple economics and practicality. As long as people are convinced then they have earned their fee.
The boardrooms where the customers sit are filled with suits who couldn't tell the difference between one design and the next. They simply (and rightly) want to know how the capital investment will translate into profit per revenue kilometre/mile flown.
The secondary retail customers (passengers) will be easily dazzled by promises of wi-fi, polarized windows, nicer air and enough coloured lights to put Blackpool illuminations to shame. The truth is, most of them couldn't tell the difference between one design and the next either.
The competition won't think outside of the box. They will both produce something that is broadly identical and leave it to the marketing department to convince the world that artistry and love were as important to the creators as simple economics and practicality. As long as people are convinced then they have earned their fee.
