![]() |
New Boeing "Flying Wing" to Seat 800
From today's Sunday Times...
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2"> Boeing's 800-seater 'flying wing' prepares for take-off James Clark IT looks like the sort of creation that could have graced Gerry Anderson's Thunderbirds show on 1960s television. Yet this vision of the future could be the way we all fly in just 10 years' time, according to Boeing. The plane maker is consulting focus groups in America to see if the public would board the revolutionary "flying wing". If they are keen, the company expects a prototype of the 800-seater giant, twice the size of a jumbo jet, to be flying within three years. Known as a blended wing-body aircraft, or BWB, because of the way the wings and body taper at the same angle - a design that is currently unique to military fast jets - it will be much faster and more economical than current passenger aircraft. If passengers can be persuaded to sit in what amounts to the wings of the craft, the first thing they will notice will be that there are virtually no windows. Instead they will see a view of the outside world on video screens in the back of the seat in front of them. The BWB would not have a traditional fuselage or tail fin, instead using fins on the wing-tips for rudder control and gaining power from three massive jet engines mounted at the rear of the body between the wings. Passengers would be seated on two decks, with window seats so rare that they would become one of the most exclusive ways to fly. Although the flying wing design is not new - it was invented in the 1920s by Jack Northrop - it has never been used in civilian aircraft. It has been most famously deployed in the US Air Force's B-2 stealth bomber. The plane would fly at the same height and speed as a standard jumbo jet, but would use just three quarters of the fuel load and be far quieter. Boeing confirmed that it was experimenting with the new design. A 17ft model built at Stanford University first flew four years ago, and a second model, this time one quarter of the full size, is now being built at the company's Long Beach plant in California. "It looks different, but it isn't that much different from the B-2, and we know that works," said Robert Liebeck, a Boeing engineer working on the project. He said that Boeing could see the aircraft as a rival to the other planned passenger giant, the double-decker Airbus A-380. Allen Mulally, head of commercial aircraft design at Boeing, conceded that there were safety problems to deal with, such as how the aircraft might pull out of a stall, a crisis in which there is not enough lift beneath the wings to keep it flying. Airbus, which rejected BWB designs, was certain that the plane would fail. A spokesman questioned how such a large cabin area could be pressurised, how passengers would escape in an emergency and suggested that BWB designs were aerodynamically unstable - a problem that troubles the stealth bomber, even though it is less than a tenth the size of the planned Boeing superjet. </font> |
Looks like Boeing is clawing on to a straw to not fall behind Airbus. The biggest problem for this aircraft is to get all those people out of it in time, in case of an evac. I wonder how they are going to do that. Even for the more "conventional" A380 it is a problem! Let alone this monstrousity...
|
And imagine the problems on the ground ... "XX123 your parking is stands 30 thru 34"
Nope, this machine is stillborn and probably just a fancy move on Boeings part to keep the public focused on their products. I sincerly can't see any airline getting seriously involved flying SLF's around in something like this. Some time ago Tcas Climb started a thread urging Boeing to get their act together in order to catch up with Airbus. Knowing the power of pprune they've probably read that thread and acted accordingly. However, in that same thread ppruners throughly dismissed the idea on various grounds. Maybe for cargo operations, but that's it. [This message has been edited by Juliet November (edited 11 February 2001).] |
You could use it as a cargo airplane only. Passengers don't like to drop or rise 40 50 feet in a bank turn.
|
This design was proposed years ago. It is an unstable design and requires FBW to control it. Looks impressive, but is impractical. It strikes me as a pretty vain effort by Boeing to grasp the imagination of the public. They haven't come up with much since the launch of the A380.
|
|
Superb idea but not yet realistic unfortunately.
FOR More lift Less drag Quieter Less fuel used Many pax Good resistance in the event of a crash Engines on top so no debris will enter AGAINST Evac would be tough Flying wings are INHERENTLY (read inherently) unstable...but they CAN be stabilised Engines on the top at the rear so they arne't exposed to clean air like conventional engines Bad longitudinal stability Pax would have very few windows Pax sitting at the sides would experience a seriously sickening oscillatory motion Pressurisation would be tough Even at low angles of attack, the engines would be starved of air leading to bad performance and in some cases compressor stall. It's too big to park. Variants would not exist, and even if they did they would have to be redesigned aerodynamically which would be expensive. Naaah not for a few years |
Doesn't look like anything I'd be comfortable getting into.
Anybody that can show me a bird that looks like that, I might change my mind |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 14:53. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.