One way the blended wing design could be a real game changer Is in the cargo market. The huge internal volume could move substantial amounts of freight over long distances. I could also see it as a combi aircraft with passengers along the edges and a large internal cargo volume. As a freighter, it wouldn’t even need to be particularly fast. 400 to 500 knot speed with lite fuel burn, good short field performance and large carrying capacity could be popular.
In addition, cargo typically uses ramp parking, as opposed to jetways etc, so minimal infrastructure changes would be needed. It can park where current cargo planes park for the most part
Flying wings could definitely be a game changer, assuming of course you solve some issues first. One is safety, since you would have a more difficult time leaving the plane in case of emergency, simply because the surface area is lower relative to the volume of passenger a flying wing can have. In case of cargo planes on the other hand this issue does not present itself, after all who wouldn't want to see a B-2 esque cargo plane flying
FINALLY! A body-lifting design that's for commercial use! It was about time, since WWII the wing attached to tube (t-design) isn't used for it's wastefulness reasons. Commercial companies take too long.
I was hoping for some insight on how they are working some of the limitations. Pressured cabins, round shapes spread the forces equally in all directions. Flatten it out and the lever fources will rip it appart. The inability to change the wing shape during flight. The shape of wings change drastically durring flight. This allows them to fly efficiently a high speed while developing enough lift at low speeds to take off and land. I would love some insight on how the new designs are looking into these issues.
I thought the higher cross sectional area makes them uncompetitive with flying pencils. As wing materials get better and better, the gap between them gets worse and worse. I think blended are just good for specific applications that require it to be a certain size and shape. As it is, the shape of a fuselage and cabin is pretty efficient. Even the exits work well on a long plane. Im not sure a blended would work so well when you have 4 or 5 aisles trying to exit the sides.... Military may be a completely different story.... For commercial, if blended was more efficient, they'd already be in the air.
Like fusion power, these are always the future... Just out of each. I do hope the latest proposed project JetZero does go ahead though since I do believe in the design despite its limitations...
I just don't see how it will be economically feasible to *construct* such aircraft in large numbers. Current carbon-fiber components must be cured in large, pressurized ovens (autoclaves). As wings and fuselage components are much longer than they are wide or thick, this means that the cross-section area of the required autoclave remains the same for longer components. Blended wing aircraft would require much, much bigger ovens to produce the necessary body component. Making a longer autoclave is much easier than making one that is extended in all three dimensions. One other *major* consideration is that a single aircraft model family (737, A32X, etc.) can produce different versions largely by adjusting the length of the fuselage. Any blended-wing design would require a complete redesign in order to accomplish this. This alone would either limit the potential market of a given blended wing. And, finally, would anyone want to sit in a seat far from the roll axis? If a 747 banks to 45 degrees, window seats move vertically a maximum of a couple of meters. The resulting acceleration is relatively small. At the edge of a bended wing, your seat might move 20 meters in the same amount of time and you would definitely feel it, turning a normal flight into a roller-coaster ride. Furthermore, to minimize this, the roll rate of the aircraft would have to be limited. Finally, adding mass far from the roll center will both slow roll rate (limiting maneuverability) and stress the airframe and flight controls.
I don't get the fascination with hydrogen. Presently, the only way to produce hydrogen in large enough quantities involves a process using fossil fuels. This hardly seems sustainable.
It seems like blended design brings more problems than it solves. So, even if you addressed them, it would take less time to address problems of inefficiency with the current model or find a better one all together. Seems like a waste of money.
Less aero load but structurally inefficient. For a shape that has to endure large pressure changes, it is far from ideal. Can't have real windows which are growing in size.
Good morning Long Haul, I have seen many designs for future aircraft, which will eventually be developed by manufacturers of aircraft, but one project or two projects that we should pay close attention to is the KLM project and the BOOM project to which United has the provision to enter this market firmly causing a great marketing impact. But don't be surprised if the Chinese leap ahead of their competitors.
Just think, airlines can make 30% more profit. They have to make sure the benefits are spread out among all the stake holders. As well as the environment.
These are ALL "more of the same"... all these concepts make passengers suffer from jet lag inn arrival.. was to g time on the ground instead of in the air... Use of much slower LTA (LIghter-Than-Air) Craft using Helium (for Levitatipn) and Solar Energy for Propulsion...that always hovers. can possibly transport passengers across the globe and offset its slower speed by letting (intercontinental) passengers travel in comfort (including lounges, cabins, etc..) and arrive at their destination WITHOUT JET LAG. This would Offset their lower speeds... and tome lost due to jet lag on arrival... for the same price too... This requires "OUT OF THE BOX" thinking of very large LTA-ICC (LTA Inter-Continental Cruisers) • Ferrying 15,000 Passengers...??? • Serviced by Ground-to-LTA-ICC Shuttles along the way (like the ISS)... • 15,000 Passengers/DAY paying $600(avg) would generate a Revenue of ~ USD 3Billion/yr... • $1 Billion/yr would "pay off" the Mortgage on the 14 Billion, LTA-ICC • $1 Billion/yr for Passengers & O&M Expenses • $1 Billion for Margin, Profit etc... • ALL WITH ZERO POLLUTION... !!!! Think about this Pollution Free Future.. (shorter travel, say upto 1,000-2,000km can be readily achieved by (Very) High Speed Trains..
Nice video!! Very engaging from beginning to end. Investing in crypto now should be in every wise individuals list, in some months time you'll be ecstatic with the decision you made today.
@@greghamstrong4407 Yeah, My first investment with Mr Timothy Gregg earned me profit of over $25,530 US dollars, and ever since then he has been delivering
Of course we should only have pretty things in this world, with pretty being defined by you and imposed on everyone else. ... Sorry mate if these things have lower CO2 emissions or they are just cheaper to operate, they will be operating out of airports near you and no one will care what you think.
