Major_Spittle
Charter Member
Why does it appear to me that based on the wing shape it would generate negative lift in level flight? It seems upside down to me.
-
There seems to be an up tick in Political commentary in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site we know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religiours commentary out of the fourms.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politicion will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment amoung members. It is a poison to the community. We apprciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
Next from Lionheart Creations; Boeing 797 Blended Wing
- Thread starter Lionheart
- Start date
warchild
Charter Member
because the entire body is a wing.. As the aircraft speeds up, the center of lift for the wing moves further back as the pressure zone within the back part of the wing drops.. If they were to turn it upside down, then the plane, like an indy racer, whould be able to drive on its wheels, upside down on the top of a tunnel.. While the overall egg shape of the body/wing generates less drag, the shape of the body/wing generates huge amounts of lift..
Matt Wynn
Charter Member
looking good Bill....
regarding wings... most aircraft in the civilian sector these days use a laminar flow wing, summarised this is a wing with it's broadest point some one third of the way along the wing/root chord, if you've ever seen a P-51 wingtip you can spot it instantly...
5'10" People... how tall are the doors? 6'2"? i hope so or i'm going to be banging my head... a flying hotel.... now thats an idea, antonov investigated it on their An-225, well that would be a flying cruise liner... now wheres the cruise liner i remember as a kid... would look good in some shipping colours with some cargo doors... Bill is there a 797F planned?
regarding wings... most aircraft in the civilian sector these days use a laminar flow wing, summarised this is a wing with it's broadest point some one third of the way along the wing/root chord, if you've ever seen a P-51 wingtip you can spot it instantly...
5'10" People... how tall are the doors? 6'2"? i hope so or i'm going to be banging my head... a flying hotel.... now thats an idea, antonov investigated it on their An-225, well that would be a flying cruise liner... now wheres the cruise liner i remember as a kid... would look good in some shipping colours with some cargo doors... Bill is there a 797F planned?
Awesome!
Hi Bill,
Looks sensational!
One thing that's struck me, every single airport that would have to take this plane would need to be modified.
It would obviously carry a substantial amount and as a freighter it would carry outsized (wide) cargo with ease. What would be the ground pressure for such a beast?!
It would never get FOD damage unless the bits came for the airplane itself. Fuel tanks could be enourmous, as Airforce One this thing could circle the globe twice before it needed to refuel?!
Regardless, since we are in fltsim it matters not but the questions regarding plausibility entertain the mind.
Cheers
Butch
Hi Bill,
Looks sensational!
One thing that's struck me, every single airport that would have to take this plane would need to be modified.
It would obviously carry a substantial amount and as a freighter it would carry outsized (wide) cargo with ease. What would be the ground pressure for such a beast?!
It would never get FOD damage unless the bits came for the airplane itself. Fuel tanks could be enourmous, as Airforce One this thing could circle the globe twice before it needed to refuel?!
Regardless, since we are in fltsim it matters not but the questions regarding plausibility entertain the mind.
Cheers
Butch
Hey Butch,
Remember, its the same size 'width wise' as an A-380, and the A-380 is getting into many airports with no issues.
I believe it would fall in a similar weight field.
Also, the design gives the aircraft (vessle) a more economic fuel burn, only needs 3 engines instead of 4 like the A-380, and can lift more weight with its wing/body design.
The 'refueler' version that USAF is having made as a prototype to check out will be a 2/3rds scale version with only 2 engines instead of 3.
I dont think they know what the weight would be yet. I would think the same as a 747 with the new composite technologies they would put into this, if (if) they make it.
Bill
Remember, its the same size 'width wise' as an A-380, and the A-380 is getting into many airports with no issues.
I believe it would fall in a similar weight field.
Also, the design gives the aircraft (vessle) a more economic fuel burn, only needs 3 engines instead of 4 like the A-380, and can lift more weight with its wing/body design.
The 'refueler' version that USAF is having made as a prototype to check out will be a 2/3rds scale version with only 2 engines instead of 3.
I dont think they know what the weight would be yet. I would think the same as a 747 with the new composite technologies they would put into this, if (if) they make it.
Bill