Next from Lionheart Creations; Boeing 797 Blended Wing

[jetstreamsky]

in the BwB every seat will be a window seat...with multiple HD views of the outside environments from POV's to the side, rear and front of the aircraft. I'm thinking the forward view - which you do not have currently in any tubeliner - will be the most relaxing and least 'upsetting' to the average passenger.

with a theater like seating arrangement I would expect inflight movies to be an altogether new experience

As Bjorn said - the only real impediment to the BwB movement will be the cost of completely altering the terminals and taxiways to handle the extra wide overall span these planes will have

Monitors provide only a narrow point of view and do not substitute a real window, exactly why the Apollo capsules had to have a window designed in at the insistence of the crews.

Also the huge number of screens involved carry a significant penalty in weight, not to mention the miles of video cabling and power wiring involved.

None of this overcomes the large vertical movements outer passengers would experience in turns and in turbulence

 

[Lionheart]

None of this overcomes the large vertical movements outer passengers would experience in turns and in turbulence

Actually they just use one screen, usually the MFD center screen with an option programmed into the face menu for checking views. Cam's also can be made very small and liteweight.

The A-380 has all its views mounted into the center screen on their panels. The tail down top rudder view is pretty cool. If you paruse the panel shots at Airliners.net you will find a few with that view on the center screen.

I agree, a window is better, but when you are strapped into your seat, and the side rear view over your shoulder is blocked by distance and or just not able to be seen, then you are going to need those camera views on a screen. (Just like in FS, lol... basically rotating through all the views enables you to see all the components of the plane, from landing gear to rear engines, etc).

I started the VC (I decided to put one in), and the nose really doesnt allow for a good view. Also, you just do not have enough 'wrap' of the window area for the pilots to use, so I am sure they will have some neat camera view systems if they make these. I was thinking, why not have the seat slide sideways to the far side of the cockpit so they could look out the side window better, but... how would the seat track operate, would your knees hit things, how would you lock the seat, etc, etc. (You know how they have those sideways seat tracks in government installations where they have huge panels to maintain and operate? Something like that would be cool. Then they could keep strapped in and ovoid having to de-buckle to look out and back).

Also, wide screen mode is fully possible. You do not need a narrow view mode 'only' on monitors.


:ernae:


Bill

 

[Helldiver]

The problem with pressurization that your talking 1000 pounds per square foot. A cylinder can take this by expanding like a balloon. But when you have relatively flat surfaces, it becomes a problem. If BWB ever comes to pass it will be as a refueling tanker or freight carrier that will not require pressurization with the crew in a cylindical crew compartment.
Not a market that has any interest to Boeing.

 

[Bjoern]

I ended up mimmicking the prototype Dreamliner B-787 windshields. I loved those and did something really similar. Very exotic looking. I was going to do the flat windows, and when researching the windows of the BWB, I found Dreamliner renderings and in an accidental auto-non-controllable-druel, I decided to opt for the Dreamliner version.

Ha! :d

I have to admit that the roundish 7E7 windows look way more suitable for the smooth BWB than any flat windows.
So...a good decision there, Bill. :ernae:

Its the same wingspan as the A-380. :d The track widths of the undercarriage is the only issue so far.

I wonder how this problem can be averted...

Special taxiways on big airports mainly for BWBs?
A narrow track width, but lift jets in the wing tips that prevent the aircraft from tipping over?

The problem with pressurization that your talking 1000 pounds per square foot. A cylinder can take this by expanding like a balloon. But when you have relatively flat surfaces, it becomes a problem. If BWB ever comes to pass it will be as a refueling tanker or freight carrier that will not require pressurization with the crew in a cylindical crew compartment.
Not a market that has any interest to Boeing.

Or you just put reinforcements into the edge areas (made from composite or similar) or take a material flexible enough to survive thousands of pressurization cycles without much effect on its stability and use it as a "bladder".

If the interest and demand is there, I sure Boeing won't say no.

In any case, there's huge potential in new materials and solutions in the aerospace intustry. The hardest part is curing any early stage problem and finding someone willing to pay for the new stuff.
I guess once aircraft like the 787 and A350 have proven themselves in service the airline industry will sre an influx of new concepts and solutions.

Maybe the next generation of airliners will be powered by fuel made from algae...who knows?

 

[jetstreamsky]

Actually they just use one screen, usually the MFD center screen with an option programmed into the face menu for checking views. Cam's also can be made very small and liteweight.

The A-380 has all its views mounted into the center screen on their panels. The tail down top rudder view is pretty cool. If you paruse the panel shots at Airliners.net you will find a few with that view on the center screen.

I agree, a window is better, but when you are strapped into your seat, and the side rear view over your shoulder is blocked by distance and or just not able to be seen, then you are going to need those camera views on a screen. (Just like in FS, lol... basically rotating through all the views enables you to see all the components of the plane, from landing gear to rear engines, etc).
.....................

Bill

I agree with you Bill for the flight crew to have aircraft views available to them, but I was referring to the proposed idea that every passenger would have multiple screens.

 

[Helldiver]

I take it Bjoern, that you have no engineerig background.
Put it this way, a ten foot square would have to appose 10,000 pounds of loading. A twenty foot square would have to withstand 40,000 pounds. Pretty soon it would require a structure too heavy to lift.

 

[Lionheart]

Ha! :d

I have to admit that the roundish 7E7 windows look way more suitable for the smooth BWB than any flat windows.
So...a good decision there, Bill. :ernae:



I wonder how this problem can be averted...

Special taxiways on big airports mainly for BWBs?
A narrow track width, but lift jets in the wing tips that prevent the aircraft from tipping over?





Or you just put reinforcements into the edge areas (made from composite or similar) or take a material flexible enough to survive thousands of pressurization cycles without much effect on its stability and use it as a "bladder".

If the interest and demand is there, I sure Boeing won't say no.

In any case, there's huge potential in new materials and solutions in the aerospace intustry. The hardest part is curing any early stage problem and finding someone willing to pay for the new stuff.
I guess once aircraft like the 787 and A350 have proven themselves in service the airline industry will sre an influx of new concepts and solutions.

Maybe the next generation of airliners will be powered by fuel made from algae...who knows?

On Taxiways, what they did, or are doing presently at main airports that the A-380 services, they simply pull up the taxi-ways they will be using and repour a better, deeper taxi-way foundation that will not give under that weight. I believe the A-380 undercarriage width is fair, but the wingtips coming close to buildings is the dangerous part. It probably couldnt land or taxi around in San Diego International, but would be fine at LAX. Now if it landed at Osata, it could sink the island!!! :d

Good to see you thinking outside of the box. Todays engineers have to be able to pioneer completely new strategies. Such amazing new materials and technologies all around us.


Bill

 

[heywooood]

I agree with you Bill for the flight crew to have aircraft views available to them, but I was referring to the proposed idea that every passenger would have multiple screens.

not multiple screens - multiple views on one screen per passenger...that the passenger can switch independently.

screens provided either in a fold down version from the seat back in front of him or embedded in the back of the headrest in front of them - such as are already seen (in first class anywhoo) on most airliners already

 

[Lionheart]

I have a few of the Aerosoft Super Airports of Germany, so I took the girl over to Hamburg EDDH and took some screenshots of it docked at a ramp.

Pretty interesting. Doesnt look as huge when its near gigantic buildings and tons of equipment. Some views lead you to how big it is, and some make you think its quite short and almost regular in size, though it is just plain wide, no pun intended.

I took a shot of it in front of the huge main Lufthansa Technik hanger and the hanger also makes it look small. Must be one heck of a huge hanger!


BillView attachment 11539View attachment 11540View attachment 11541View attachment 11542

 

[Lionheart]

Some more screenshots...


View attachment 11543View attachment 11544View attachment 11545

 

[Lionheart]

screens provided either in a fold down version from the seat back in front of him or embedded in the back of the headrest in front of them - such as are already seen (in first class anywhoo) on most airliners already

Very true. This is quite a common thing now on most airlines is entertainment screens on seats. If the screens are lite enough, why not. I imagine this would be on international runners mostly, long distance intended orders.

 

[heywooood]

dude if I could sit at my seat and select views of the outside of the jet from any angle - maybe mix in a cockpit view forward through the windscreen for good measure - and I wouldn't ever look out the window.

make it possible to hook up a PSP or other small interactive device or blueray player and I dont see anyone complaining about a window seat.

 

[Bjoern]

I take it Bjoern, that you have no engineerig background.
Put it this way, a ten foot square would have to appose 10,000 pounds of loading. A twenty foot square would have to withstand 40,000 pounds. Pretty soon it would require a structure too heavy to lift.

I'm an engineering student...

The standard pressure experienced by airliners at altitude is 6000 kg/m² (~1230 lbs/ft²). Aluminium pressure compartments in airliners can handle this pretty well and I'm sure that even if you deviate from the standard circular shape airliners will still be up to withstanding the pressure difference at altitude without any major modifications.
The most important question is though, for how long this will go well without reinforcements. If you don't want your aircraft to become a 2000s edition of the Comet, you need to find a material that is both lightweight and not prone to fatigue.

OR you just stick to a generally round shape. I can imagine that the BWB would have something like an egg-shaped pressure compartment that is generally wide but averts any sharp edges. How this form would react to the thousands of pressurization cycles experienced by an aircraft over its lifetime is to yet be seen though.

On Taxiways, what they did, or are doing presently at main airports that the A-380 services, they simply pull up the taxi-ways they will be using and repour a better, deeper taxi-way foundation that will not give under that weight.

They should have told Airbus just to add another main gear assembly to the A380 instead.

Good to see you thinking outside of the box. Todays engineers have to be able to pioneer completely new strategies. Such amazing new materials and technologies all around us.

We were taught and instructed on methods on how to find new solutions for problems at uni.
It's an awesomely creative process, basically starting out with everything that could even be a remote solution (as whack as it may be) and ending up with your ultimate one after a number of elimination processes.

And I agree about the materials part in particular. Carbon fibre and even plastics still offer a *lot* of potential. That's why I'm specializing in it.

 

[warchild]

I saw this thing on television the other night about some new materials they're working with for space exploration.. One of those was most intriguing to me as it wasnt carbon fiber per se', but a carbon tube woven out of carbon particles. Now, to be honest, i wouldnt know the difference between this new stuff and the carbon fiber they already have to say anything or even take a wild guess, but at a stregth several hundred times stronger than steal and a weight penalty that is almost non existant, it seemed like some very exciting stuff. It appeared to be almost a hollow rope only a micron or so in diameter and it reminded me of thread. Now, maybe my imagination is getting the better of me, but it seems that thread can be woven, and although i would have to admit the enormity of the pressure hull in a BWB I am still of the mind that the entire thing could be woven ( right down to the cross supports). That would provide a seamless vessel that would work perfectly.. Just weave, harden and insert doors.. But then, i'm not a structural engineer..

 

[Cag40Navy]

I saw this thing on television the other night about some new materials they're working with for space exploration.. One of those was most intriguing to me as it wasnt carbon fiber per se', but a carbon tube woven out of carbon particles. Now, to be honest, i wouldnt know the difference between this new stuff and the carbon fiber they already have to say anything or even take a wild guess, but at a stregth several hundred times stronger than steal and a weight penalty that is almost non existant, it seemed like some very exciting stuff. It appeared to be almost a hollow rope only a micron or so in diameter and it reminded me of thread. Now, maybe my imagination is getting the better of me, but it seems that thread can be woven, and although i would have to admit the enormity of the pressure hull in a BWB I am still of the mind that the entire thing could be woven ( right down to the cross supports). That would provide a seamless vessel that would work perfectly.. Just weave, harden and insert doors.. But then, i'm not a structural engineer..

Yea, thats fun stuff to play with. I got to see a demo of it being shot, blown up, and put into temperatures in excess of 1,000,000 Degrees Fahrenheit. It was still the same no matter what you put it thru. It is amazing stuff.

 

[Lionheart]

There are now firms popping up that create these strings already. I watched a documentary on it. Amazing material. The space elevator would need this material to become a reality.


Bill

 

[Wing_Z]

...The standard pressure experienced by airliners at altitude is 6000 kg/m² (~1230 lbs/ft²). Aluminium pressure compartments in airliners can handle this pretty well and I'm sure that even if you deviate from the standard circular shape airliners will still be up to withstanding the pressure difference at altitude without any major modifications...

Can't let that one go, I'm afraid.
One day they'll let you design an aircraft I'm on and it will blow up
First, pressure is force/unit area and in metric units that will be N/m² or Pa so internal/external pressure difference required is 75 kPa.
Second, there is very good reason why pressure vessels are as close to spherical or cylindrical as possible: the material acts in tension only.
If you create a pressure vessel with a flat surface, that surface is subject to bending.
Now think of a sheet of aluminium foil.
Pull it, pretty strong.
Now bend it...get my drift?
To make a flat surface strong enough to resist bending, you need to make it thicker, or introduce stiffening ribs. That's heavy.
Heavy is not desirable for flying machines.

Having said all that, I wonder what the design trade off is, that Boeing was thinking of making, with this concept?
I suspect HD is right, you'd pressurise only a part of the airframe.

 

[warchild]

you can pressurize the whole thing.. it depends on what you use to build the pressure hull and how you make it.. You have a good point about aluminum. it has the ability to stretch so far, and then it will rip. we've seen this time and time again on everything from tin foil to airplane fuselages.. but newer materials are now providing a much higher tinsel strength while providing much greater flexibilty as well. the secret would be in avoiding seams and sharp corners.

 

[Bjoern]

Can't let that one go, I'm afraid.
One day they'll let you design an aircraft I'm on and it will blow up

Happened before, can happen again. *Shrugs*

First, pressure is force/unit area and in metric units that will be N/m² or Pa so internal/external pressure difference required is 75 kPa.

Pressure can be anything you want. If you like really small numbers you can even measure it in N/km², as long as it's force by area.

To make a flat surface strong enough to resist bending, you need to make it thicker, or introduce stiffening ribs. That's heavy.
Heavy is not desirable for flying machines.

What Pam says:

you can pressurize the whole thing.. it depends on what you use to build the pressure hull and how you make it.. You have a good point about aluminum. it has the ability to stretch so far, and then it will rip. we've seen this time and time again on everything from tin foil to airplane fuselages.. but newer materials are now providing a much higher tinsel strength while providing much greater flexibilty as well. the secret would be in avoiding seams and sharp corners.

The key point is not thinking in metal anymore.

 

[SkippyBing]

I remember reading about this years ago in a copy of Aerospace (journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society, I think they were looking at the Cranfield angle).

For the pressure hull I believe the idea was to have a series of tubes side by side with the cross-section varying to make best use of the space, so something like oOOo from head on. They'd be interconnected internally by transverse tubes which I vaguely recollect could isolate the separate pressure hulls.

Aside from the issue with the rather large vertical movements passengers at the extremities would experience in even quite a shallow turn, I believe the big stumbling block was/is ingress/egress. Turn round time at an airport would be much longer than a conventional tube while evacuation times in an emergency would be too long as people in the centre just wouldn't be near enough to an exit. I don't know if they thought about having stairs extend down from the centre of the aircraft, but I don't think they'd be allowed as part of the evacuation plan anyway.

A shame really as I think it's an awesome design. One other thing I remember was someone writing in to the following months issue pointing out that at the weight the full scale version was planned to be, even gliding in to land she'd exceed planned noise limits at airports!