7e7
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: SE England
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
7e7
Not sure if this is the best place to post this, but thought some of you may be intrested in the new 7E7. Came across this picture.
WOW comes to mind.
Certainly looks a darn sight better than that thing called the A380. I do hope BA get some of these.
Expedite.
WOW comes to mind.
Certainly looks a darn sight better than that thing called the A380. I do hope BA get some of these.
Expedite.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Inside the M25
Posts: 2,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is nice - but horses for courses! I thought the point about the A380 is that it could take a large number of people on a super long range flight, or between two huge hubs. This won't take so many - but will supposedly make "regional" long-haul feasible. As for whether the future is "hub" shaped or regional shaped - let's wait and see - I think a combination of both is likely.
Also, what about "no-frills" longhaul?
Also, what about "no-frills" longhaul?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: East of the Sun & West of the Moon
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks suspiciously like a slightly more swept version of an A330 if you ask me. I guess imitation is this best form of flattery ... just a shame Boeing didn't have any original ideas of there own left!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<Looks suspiciously like a slightly more swept version of an A330 if you ask me. I guess imitation is this best form of flattery ... just a shame Boeing didn't have any original ideas of there own left!?>>
Yes, see:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...5&pagenumber=1
Yes, see:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...5&pagenumber=1
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: 39N 77W
Posts: 1,630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote
------------------------
Looks suspiciously like a slightly more swept version of an A330 if you ask me. I guess imitation is this best form of flattery ... just a shame Boeing didn't have any original ideas of there own left!
-------------------------
Could be that the laws of aerodynamics / fluid mechanics are the same in Seattle as in Toulouse.
Might be that as the designs are all "nearing aerodynamic perfection", they'll look more and more alike. It's just that the materials will change to lighter / smoother ones.
------------------------
Looks suspiciously like a slightly more swept version of an A330 if you ask me. I guess imitation is this best form of flattery ... just a shame Boeing didn't have any original ideas of there own left!
-------------------------
Could be that the laws of aerodynamics / fluid mechanics are the same in Seattle as in Toulouse.
Might be that as the designs are all "nearing aerodynamic perfection", they'll look more and more alike. It's just that the materials will change to lighter / smoother ones.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: London Village Hall
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'Day Fish,
Not stealth- the serrated edges help the mixing of fast exhaust gasses and the not-so-fast surrounding atmosphere, thus reducing on noise. (Think it does something for fuel efficiency too, but I could be wrong.)
The same has been mooted for the 747 extended range development.
Not stealth- the serrated edges help the mixing of fast exhaust gasses and the not-so-fast surrounding atmosphere, thus reducing on noise. (Think it does something for fuel efficiency too, but I could be wrong.)
The same has been mooted for the 747 extended range development.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sanford, FL, USA
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hey ELAC,
besides both having 2 engines and windows, please explain to me the similarities. i dont see any similarities. completely different nose section, empennage, wings, stabilizers, winglets. besides that they are identical.
besides both having 2 engines and windows, please explain to me the similarities. i dont see any similarities. completely different nose section, empennage, wings, stabilizers, winglets. besides that they are identical.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LPPT
Age: 58
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets hope Boeing will have the $$'s to make it fly... and if so, will the FBW technology be part of this package (against the will of the purists)? IMHO this is just a 757 with a facelift
Regarding the A380... you can say what you want but she'll be turning a lot of heads for sure!
Regarding the A380... you can say what you want but she'll be turning a lot of heads for sure!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London
Posts: 444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus announced last year Emirates would be the first customer to feature their new "Virtual Sky". A simulation of the sky to reduce the effect of jet lag etc.
Shortly afterwards, Boeing announce this too will be done on the 7E7.
LMD surely you can see the similarites with the nose section of 7e7 and the Comet! Which "ah-hem" was years ahead of its time
Shortly afterwards, Boeing announce this too will be done on the 7E7.
LMD surely you can see the similarites with the nose section of 7e7 and the Comet! Which "ah-hem" was years ahead of its time
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Feltham, UK
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oooOOOooo! another tube with wings, how nice.
There is only so much you can squeeze out of this layout. I'm eager to see BWB and canards have their turn. Designers (dictated to by bean counters) are using material advances to save weight on a design that still actively produces negative lift, when they could be using composites to explore none-circular pressurised fuselages. This would enable the fuz to do some useful aerodynamic work, along with canards iso H/tailplane and the potential docile nature of canards in stall/turb etc, the advantages outweigh the many hurdles involved, IMHO.
I do like the new generations of airliners though. Aerodynamic function dictates some beautiful lines; that 7E7 wing is a work of art.
There is only so much you can squeeze out of this layout. I'm eager to see BWB and canards have their turn. Designers (dictated to by bean counters) are using material advances to save weight on a design that still actively produces negative lift, when they could be using composites to explore none-circular pressurised fuselages. This would enable the fuz to do some useful aerodynamic work, along with canards iso H/tailplane and the potential docile nature of canards in stall/turb etc, the advantages outweigh the many hurdles involved, IMHO.
I do like the new generations of airliners though. Aerodynamic function dictates some beautiful lines; that 7E7 wing is a work of art.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Newcastle, WA, USA
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Canard configurations cannot compete with conventional designs in terms of efficiency.
A detailed analysis will show that a canard will have higher wetted area (i.e. higher drag) than a conventional configuration.
Canard configuration cruise trim drag will also be higher.
A conventional tail is carrying very little load in cruise because the CG is near the wing CP. Thus most of the conventional configuration lift is produced by the wing which is where you want it for minimum induced drag.
On a canard configuration, the wing CP must be significantly aft of the CG. Therefore the canard is producing a significant fraction of the total configuration lift when the airplane is in trim.
Since the canard is shorter in span than the wing, canard lift is produced at the cost of higher induced drag than wing lift.
When you throw in loadability considerations and potential system complexities incurred in trying to make a canard configuration viable, it's easy to see why there are no canard commercial airliners.
Of course, this was all discussed about two years ago on this forum.
A detailed analysis will show that a canard will have higher wetted area (i.e. higher drag) than a conventional configuration.
Canard configuration cruise trim drag will also be higher.
A conventional tail is carrying very little load in cruise because the CG is near the wing CP. Thus most of the conventional configuration lift is produced by the wing which is where you want it for minimum induced drag.
On a canard configuration, the wing CP must be significantly aft of the CG. Therefore the canard is producing a significant fraction of the total configuration lift when the airplane is in trim.
Since the canard is shorter in span than the wing, canard lift is produced at the cost of higher induced drag than wing lift.
When you throw in loadability considerations and potential system complexities incurred in trying to make a canard configuration viable, it's easy to see why there are no canard commercial airliners.
Of course, this was all discussed about two years ago on this forum.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: As far from the sea as possible
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read a Journal Article as part of my university course examining a possible flying wing to be used as a counter to the (then) A3XX. It also stated that the basic design of all aircraft flying today, and those on the drawing board for tomorrow stem from the same basic design created by boeing in the late 1940's early 1950's with its B-47 bomber. (i.e. podded engines, swept conventional wings etc).
It then went on to show how a flying wing could have a lower Cd and therefore greater efficiency and also how greater numbers of passengers could be accomodated safely.
If i remember correctly it was called "Design Considerations for Very Large Transport Aircraft" by McMasters and Kroo(sp?) cannot remember which journal it was, possibly "Aviation Design".
If i can dig it out i'll post some of the numbers up
Matty
It then went on to show how a flying wing could have a lower Cd and therefore greater efficiency and also how greater numbers of passengers could be accomodated safely.
If i remember correctly it was called "Design Considerations for Very Large Transport Aircraft" by McMasters and Kroo(sp?) cannot remember which journal it was, possibly "Aviation Design".
If i can dig it out i'll post some of the numbers up
Matty
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reality is that BWB aircraft are not realistic. Very hard to load and especially EVAC passengers. You also end up making your passengers sick and scared when the aircraft turns and some go up 60 feet and the others go down 60 feet. But who knows, maybe they can overcome that. 