Why do all airliners look alike?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft today do look similar for reasons discussed but, of course, under the skin they are very different to their forebears in terms of materials, systems and technology. Even though e.g. the wings look similar, today's wings are hugely more efficient than those of earlier generations due to advances in computational fluid dynamics among other things. But even if there is a revolutiionary technology out there which will transform economics it is unlikely that any manufacturer will take the risk without some kind of government support - either direct or through the military. The B707 was, of course, a development of the military-sponsored KC135 and even the B747 design was part paid for by the US Goverment during the competition which ws eventually won by the C5A. The Blended Wing Body (BWB) seems to offer huge efficiencies but the risks involved (technical and pax acceptance) are enormous. If the military decided to adopt it for their next generation transport, it would ease the path into eventual commercial service. The Rutans are great free thinkers but, on the other hand, it was Burt Rutan who designed the Beech Starship!
Will there ever be another supersonic / transonic transport or will the Sonic Cruiser / 7E7 phenomenon always come into play i.e. airlines will always want the technology to reduce costs rather than increase speed?
Will there ever be another supersonic / transonic transport or will the Sonic Cruiser / 7E7 phenomenon always come into play i.e. airlines will always want the technology to reduce costs rather than increase speed?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Valley Where the Thames Runs Softly
Age: 77
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you ask ten computers similar questions you will get ten similar answers.
It is so bad in the car market that designers are having to go to great lengths to differentiate their products - from the downright eccentric (Renault?) to the trend for badges and logos to get bigger and bigger.
It is so bad in the car market that designers are having to go to great lengths to differentiate their products - from the downright eccentric (Renault?) to the trend for badges and logos to get bigger and bigger.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The sonic cruiser was nothing but a smoke screen. I don't think Boeing ever looked at it in any real sense. The speed differential was never enough to convince anyone to move from current designs.
CFD is a great tool, but it is in no way perfect yet. Why do manufacturers still spend enormous amounts of time in the wind tunnels and water tunnels? I believe that for the 777 they spent 10x as long in the wind tunnel than they did with the 747.
Seat costs have dropped by a factor of 3 since the inception of the 707, a pretty big advance, but as stated before that is mainly due to the engines and not the airframes themselves. Sure they are a bit better, but the materials used are fundamentally the same and apart from tweaking so are the aerodynamics.
A blended wing body has some pretty serious technical issues to overcome, but I can't see that is totally unfeasible. The same with Slew wing machines, yes the research may have been done in 1982 but the principle is sound. For example the fuel cell was designed in the 50's, but that is seen as the 'latest solution' to overcome piston engines in cars.
CFD is a great tool, but it is in no way perfect yet. Why do manufacturers still spend enormous amounts of time in the wind tunnels and water tunnels? I believe that for the 777 they spent 10x as long in the wind tunnel than they did with the 747.
Seat costs have dropped by a factor of 3 since the inception of the 707, a pretty big advance, but as stated before that is mainly due to the engines and not the airframes themselves. Sure they are a bit better, but the materials used are fundamentally the same and apart from tweaking so are the aerodynamics.
A blended wing body has some pretty serious technical issues to overcome, but I can't see that is totally unfeasible. The same with Slew wing machines, yes the research may have been done in 1982 but the principle is sound. For example the fuel cell was designed in the 50's, but that is seen as the 'latest solution' to overcome piston engines in cars.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Say Again
Take your point on CFD/wind tunnel testing but iro Sonic Cruiser I heard that, but for 9/11 and subsequent events, all the internal signs were that Boeing would launch with a good spread of domestic and international launch customers. Post 9/11 all attention went back to stopping bleeding red ink and this has impacted everyone's evaluation of what's important in future aircraft. Maybe if (big if) we had a few years of good traffic, improving yields and no traumatic events the focus would shift again to differentiating the product for high-yield traffic by offering more speed.
Take your point on CFD/wind tunnel testing but iro Sonic Cruiser I heard that, but for 9/11 and subsequent events, all the internal signs were that Boeing would launch with a good spread of domestic and international launch customers. Post 9/11 all attention went back to stopping bleeding red ink and this has impacted everyone's evaluation of what's important in future aircraft. Maybe if (big if) we had a few years of good traffic, improving yields and no traumatic events the focus would shift again to differentiating the product for high-yield traffic by offering more speed.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really believe that with a few years of 'normality' we may get back to different desires about a/c than purely cost driven solutions.
The industry has been savaged over the past 2 1/2 years and I don't think it will ever be quite the same again, but I hope that some day we may get some of the spark back.
The industry has been savaged over the past 2 1/2 years and I don't think it will ever be quite the same again, but I hope that some day we may get some of the spark back.
Paxing All Over The World
I'd like to think that we will get back to normality but I suspect that it will be a 'new' normality!
In the 1950s and 60s, they thought that there would be much more leisure time and pondered what we would do with the time liberaterd by machines. Huh? They thought that we would have paperless offices. Huh?
There must be many more examples ... so I woul dnot try and imagine what life wil be like in 30 years time. Think to how it was 30 years ago and how we believed it would be now?
Result? More big sausages with wings, proceeding through the air at a steady pace.
In the 1950s and 60s, they thought that there would be much more leisure time and pondered what we would do with the time liberaterd by machines. Huh? They thought that we would have paperless offices. Huh?
There must be many more examples ... so I woul dnot try and imagine what life wil be like in 30 years time. Think to how it was 30 years ago and how we believed it would be now?
Result? More big sausages with wings, proceeding through the air at a steady pace.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Say Again Slowly wrote:
“I really believe that with a few years of 'normality' we may get back to different desires about a/c than purely cost driven solutions.”
I'm not sure how you can separate "desires" and "cost" when you talk about large aircraft development. Sure, your desire can be based on non-profit things like aesthetics or innovation, but you will still have to spend the big bucks to build the thing. Unless you pay for it all out of your left-over cash, you will have to have a method of recouping the development costs. Since all airlines today use basically the same methods of financing, the airliner manufacturers tend to all come up with basically the same solutions. Ones that (we hope) will let the airlines and the manufacturers make enough money to pay off the bank.
There is an interesting new trend, however. We are seeing a very small number of ultra-rich individuals who can spend the big bucks, for totally “non-profit-making”, personal reasons. For example, look at space tourists, the people building replica antique aircraft and cars, and the people lining up to ride the x-plane contestants. Maybe, someday, one of these big spenders will build revolutionary airliners (or electric cars, or whatever your pet project is). And maybe, just maybe, some of these pet projects will turn out to be practical in ways nobody expected.
In the mean time, committees of bankers and accountants will force the committees of engineers to turn out similar products. However, I have to totally disagree with the premise that this means there is no advancement. Instead, it means we all advance at roughly the same rate, and in roughly the same directions. If one day some radical spender actually proves swing wings (or whatever) are better at making money, all new airliners will very quickly adopt the new technology.
“I really believe that with a few years of 'normality' we may get back to different desires about a/c than purely cost driven solutions.”
I'm not sure how you can separate "desires" and "cost" when you talk about large aircraft development. Sure, your desire can be based on non-profit things like aesthetics or innovation, but you will still have to spend the big bucks to build the thing. Unless you pay for it all out of your left-over cash, you will have to have a method of recouping the development costs. Since all airlines today use basically the same methods of financing, the airliner manufacturers tend to all come up with basically the same solutions. Ones that (we hope) will let the airlines and the manufacturers make enough money to pay off the bank.
There is an interesting new trend, however. We are seeing a very small number of ultra-rich individuals who can spend the big bucks, for totally “non-profit-making”, personal reasons. For example, look at space tourists, the people building replica antique aircraft and cars, and the people lining up to ride the x-plane contestants. Maybe, someday, one of these big spenders will build revolutionary airliners (or electric cars, or whatever your pet project is). And maybe, just maybe, some of these pet projects will turn out to be practical in ways nobody expected.
In the mean time, committees of bankers and accountants will force the committees of engineers to turn out similar products. However, I have to totally disagree with the premise that this means there is no advancement. Instead, it means we all advance at roughly the same rate, and in roughly the same directions. If one day some radical spender actually proves swing wings (or whatever) are better at making money, all new airliners will very quickly adopt the new technology.
