Boeing 797... blended wing?

[madpilot44]

I just found this one out. what do you think?

[madpilot44]

I just found it in airliners.net and decided to post it for opinions here. what do you guys think about it?

[Frank N. O.]

Interesting but it looks a lot like a concept I've seen several years ago, and that even flew as a big R/C model (video of it online too if I remember correctly). There was also a concept of such a plane proposed by a big company, McDonnell perhaps, and it looked like this as well.

Still interesting to see if it comes anywhere because that plane will definately require fly-by-wire to fly alright I think, could be more quiet with the engines on top, and taxiing could perhaps be less of a problem too than it is with the A380 for the same reason.

Frank

[Gulfstream Driver]

They've been working on this idea for years.  I won't believe it exists until I actually see it on Boeing's website. 

If I remember right, the major problem they were having was where to put the passengers and the fuel.  In the sketches I saw, passengers were ending up in the wings, where there would be no windows and a lot of attitude variations.  You'd have half the cabin with motion sickness.

[Frank N. O.]

Difficult to say if it wouild work as a passengerliner, also with the problem of evacuation but aerodynamically it's a great idea and as said a R/C model has flown successfully.

Frank

[Mike]

If I remember right, the major problem they were having was where to put the passengers and the fuel.  In the sketches I saw, passengers were ending up in the wings, where there would be no windows and a lot of attitude variations.  You'd have half the cabin with motion sickness.

Good point, I never even thought about that. That's why so few people get sick in a helicopter, you got a great view and being underneath the rotormast acting like a pendulim you get a lot less altitude variations and "chop" than any airplane...

[Plthijnx]

I just shot off an email to a friend that works for Boeing. we'll see what he has to say about it.....

[Ted_Stryker]

The idea for the blended wing that McDonnell Douglas (now part of Boeing) is/was primarily considered for was for military transport options.  Not sure if it would do well with the civilian market.

The Airbus A-380 has some real problems that I think will cause it to become an albatross around Airbus' neck.  Among those issues are the infrastructure limitations for airfields due to it's immense size and weight, cost of manufacture and cycle time in manufacture, inconvienince to the people in various Eurpoean countries where the assemblies are built (that will foment ill-will among the populace once the novelty wears off), and the fairly limited market for transporting that number of people on a single flight.  I think you'll see more efficient smaller aircraft making more flights as more viable due to not having those issues, and being able to be scheduled more often.

Preping and de-planing a 747 is bad enough... but the A-380, despite it's numerous exits (again requiring greater modifications to airport infrastructure and high cost), are eventually going to become a burden people and airlines won't put up with easily.

Just my two cents

[Gulfstream Driver]

The idea for the blended wing that McDonnell Douglas (now part of Boeing) is/was primarily considered for was for military transport options. Not sure if it would do well with the civilian market.

The Airbus A-380 has some real problems that I think will cause it to become an albatross around Airbus' neck. Among those issues are the infrastructure limitations for airfields due to it's immense size and weight, cost of manufacture and cycle time in manufacture, inconvienince to the people in various Eurpoean countries where the assemblies are built (that will foment ill-will among the populace once the novelty wears off), and the fairly limited market for transporting that number of people on a single flight. I think you'll see more efficient smaller aircraft making more flights as more viable due to not having those issues, and being able to be scheduled more often.

Preping and de-planing a 747 is bad enough... but the A-380, despite it's numerous exits (again requiring greater modifications to airport infrastructure and high cost), are eventually going to become a burden people and airlines won't put up with easily.

Just my two cents

That is exactly why Southwest does so well.  Smaller planes, lots of flights, quick turn around, and their whole fleet is the same.  Now that's a recipe for success.

[Zaffex]

I think the best route to go is to leave transcontinental transport for the big planes (like the A-380) and leave the other stuff to the more versatile, smaller-dimensioned fleets. I would think it would be more efficient because you're more likely going to fill an A-380 or another huge jet easier for a trans-trip over several thousand miles than for a trip inside a more tri-state range. Simply a matter of filling all those seats that they brag about having. Otherwise it just becomes inefficient when the plane's only carrying a quarter or so of its capacity.

[chuckar101]

I think thats what the A380 was designed for but still the trancont flights are going to have to be the really long ones.  And I don't see all of those filling up either.  And what is there four or five airports in Europe and another four or five that can actually handle an aircraft of that size on a regular basis.

[Gulfstream Driver]

I heard that an A380 went into Heathrow the other day just to test it out.  Didn't hear if it was able to get a gate, though.  Anyone else know?

[Ted_Stryker]

I heard that an A380 went into Heathrow the other day just to test it out.  Didn't hear if it was able to get a gate, though.  Anyone else know?

I saw the video of it landing on Fox News.  It looked like the plane has either a problem with its landing system, a fairly new pilot to that plane, or problems with it's longitudinal stability as it bobbled up and down along the final approach with a porpoising motion pretty badly.  I would not have been a happy camper as a regular passenger on it if I was at either end of the plane!

It seemed also to just barely (and I mean just ever so barely) make it through the taxi offramp from the runway!

The video didn't cover it all the way to the gate, but what I did see was of some concern if they expect that thing to be in actual service soon.

I still think it's an albatross for Airbus.  If anyone has seen what they have to go through to build the thing, it's amazing... and it's so problematic that the logistics for it are practically untennable for a regular production rate.  How would you like to have yoru town come to a standstill while they try to get that thing's parts down the streets, or over a river that HAS to be at low tide and levels just to afford a few feet of clearance from scraping along the undersides of bridge supports?!  It's so impractical, I just don't see it being a financial winner, even if they do work out the apparent stability issues.

[chuckar101]

Yeah I agree and on the production part wasn't there a video posted somwhere on this forum showing trucks and boats hauling the parts through the country to the manufacturing site.

[Sleek-Jet]

It's so impractical, I just don't see it being a financial winner, even if they do work out the apparent stability issues.

Airbus, being a nationalized company, doesn't really have to turn a profit (and as far as I know, they have never reported one).  Boeing on the other hand, has shareholders that it has to answer to.  That's why I think they didn't pursue the 747X that far, there is only a limited market for airplanes this size.  Shoot, here in the US, it's going the other way... smaller airplanes flying more point to point routes.