"Flying V" airliner

Yeah, I like the part about how they said "we cannot electrify the whole fleet", and "electric cannot carry passengers across the Atlantic, not now, not in 30 years". At least they got something right.

He mentioned the reduction in drag from the elimination of intersection points from a tube&wing-style design, but failed to mention the increased surface area of a flying wing-design. Reduction in drag offset by increase in drag, lol.
 
The frontal area on that thing looks huge in comparison to a conventional platform.
 
Boeing has been developing this platform for over a decade. It's called the Boeing Blended Wing (BBW). They have already tested flying models of the BBW design. This new "Flying V" is not an original concept. Matter of fact, the flying wing was developed over 70 years ago!

Edit: Sorry about the little screwup with nomenclature, s/b "BWB" for "Blended Wing Body", not "BBW"!
 
Last edited:
It certainly looks like a cool looking bird. Have to imagine that the design was likely thought of in the 60’s tried and scrapped though for some good reason.
 
I would like the more forward view as a passenger. I almost had it once as a passenger in row 2 of a 747.
 
Brad Smith said:
Boeing Blended Wing
Click to expand...
This design looks slightly different as it's more of an apparent "V" almost like two standard fuselages joined at a 30* degree angle then shaped down. But I agree, seems like a forced tweak on an existing flying wing / blended wing body design

One of the issues I heard that Boeing had with this design when originally testing it was that turns and maneuvering would be quite uncomfortable for folks sitting on the edges of the "fuselage" as being so far from the center, or axis, means turns also involve your seat going up or down potentially dozens of feet

Incidentally, the designs I've seen for this have been absolutely enormous aircraft.. looks like the failure of the A380 would suggest that smaller aircraft are the preferred market aircraft

I was going to say the lack of windows for most passengers seems depressing, but 99% of people shut their windows anyway

upload_2019-6-4_13-59-21.png
upload_2019-6-4_13-59-46.png
 
Brad Smith said:
Boeing has been developing this platform for over a decade. It's called the Boeing Blended Wing (BBW). They have already tested flying models of the BBW design. This new "Flying V" is not an original concept. Matter of fact, the flying wing was developed over 70 years ago!
Click to expand...
I googled "BBW" and got nothing about airplanes.
 
Brad Smith said:
Boeing has been developing this platform for over a decade. It's called the Boeing Blended Wing (BBW). They have already tested flying models of the BBW design. This new "Flying V" is not an original concept. Matter of fact, the flying wing was developed over 70 years ago!
Click to expand...

Anyone ever heard of Northrop?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
^actually, Hugo Junkers filed a patent for a flying wing in 1910
 
Tantalum said:
This design looks slightly different as it's more of an apparent "V" almost like two standard fuselages joined at a 30* degree angle then shaped down. But I agree, seems like a forced tweak on an existing flying wing / blended wing body design

One of the issues I heard that Boeing had with this design when originally testing it was that turns and maneuvering would be quite uncomfortable for folks sitting on the edges of the "fuselage" as being so far from the center, or axis, means turns also involve your seat going up or down potentially dozens of feet

Incidentally, the designs I've seen for this have been absolutely enormous aircraft.. looks like the failure of the A380 would suggest that smaller aircraft are the preferred market aircraft

I was going to say the lack of windows for most passengers seems depressing, but 99% of people shut their windows anyway

View attachment 74617
View attachment 74618
Click to expand...
Not to any way diminish the experiences of those traded as slaves, but man, these I can't help think of the drawings of the quarters in those slave ships when I look at that drawing.
 
Well, they could do it up really nice and make the interior of that aircraft classy and comfy. They won't, but they could
 
Kenny Phillips said:
I googled "BBW" and got nothing about airplanes.
Click to expand...
I understand the joke but if you search for Boeing BWB (Blended Wing-Body) you're likely to get more aviation-related content. X-48, X-48B, or X-48C will also provide some entertainment for the skeptics.

Nauga,
a lifetime ago
 
Lowflynjack said:
Yeah, but nobody wants to fly on the BBW Max.
Click to expand...
73e4746df6a3da28eec653e1a3679aa4.jpg


Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 
Brad Smith said:
Boeing has been developing this platform for over a decade. It's called the Boeing Blended Wing (BBW). They have already tested flying models of the BBW design. This new "Flying V" is not an original concept. Matter of fact, the flying wing was developed over 70 years ago!
Click to expand...

That airplane seems slightly creative, until the engines on pylons jutting up from the trailing edges. Looks amateurish.
 
February, 1938:

images


May, 1937:

91mdbYaIsIL._SY445_.jpg


1930s?

78c958d1574462ca326bf7cc88154fb7.jpg


1946

ee81611a7b698fc4e00b39805fe8d832.jpg


There were more such breathless proposals in the '50s and '60s. I remember reading those magazines, but can't find pictures of them. After so many decades, one everntually starts ignoring the hype and waits for the reality.
 
Tantalum said:
This design looks slightly different as it's more of an apparent "V" almost like two standard fuselages joined at a 30* degree angle then shaped down. But I agree, seems like a forced tweak on an existing flying wing / blended wing body design

One of the issues I heard that Boeing had with this design when originally testing it was that turns and maneuvering would be quite uncomfortable for folks sitting on the edges of the "fuselage" as being so far from the center, or axis, means turns also involve your seat going up or down potentially dozens of feet

Incidentally, the designs I've seen for this have been absolutely enormous aircraft.. looks like the failure of the A380 would suggest that smaller aircraft are the preferred market aircraft

I was going to say the lack of windows for most passengers seems depressing, but 99% of people shut their windows anyway

View attachment 74617
View attachment 74618
Click to expand...
I agree with the comment about the A380 to a point- it seems the B747 was nearly the "sweet point" for a large plane, and they are being phased out in favor of 777s with similar seating capacity.

Aside from 99% of people shutting their windows, most seats on a 747, 777, A380 don't have windows anyway.


They'll probably use the same seating plan as the cheap Yankee Stadium seats, but the same seat pitch as United Economy Minus. Imagine getting the center seat and needing to go to the bathroom during the Chicago - Beijing run.
 
Google search XXX 48-DD will yield even more entertainment.



Boeing BWB is the correct acronym for the RC planes they have tested.
 
I feel like the evacuation of the cabin in an emergency in something like that would be a cluster....
 
Saw an article today stating the concept was doomed to fail (as if we didn't know that already), -- but from an effect I hadn't thought of.

Every bank of the aircraft will have the outboard passengers experiencing huge and disconcerting vertical displacements -- something that doesn't happen near the center axis of roll.
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
Every bank of the aircraft will have the outboard passengers experiencing huge and disconcerting vertical displacements
Click to expand...

Tantalum said:
One of the issues I heard that Boeing had with this design when originally testing it was that turns and maneuvering would be quite uncomfortable for folks sitting on the edges of the "fuselage" as being so far from the center, or axis, means turns also involve your seat going up or down potentially dozens of feet
Click to expand...
 
Tantalum said:
One of the issues I heard that Boeing had with this design when originally testing it was that turns and maneuvering would be quite uncomfortable for folks sitting on the edges of the "fuselage" as being so far from the center, or axis, means turns also involve your seat going up or down potentially dozens of feet
Click to expand...
Well, I guess that's what happens when I reply before reading all the posts in the thread....
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
Well, I guess that's what happens when I reply before reading all the posts in the thread....
Click to expand...
lol I do it too. In fairness I didn't know that was going to be an issue with this one too, but a number of years ago I watched a special on I think Discovery maybe even Discovery Wings about blended Wing body designs and they had brought up the same issue
 
Tantalizing for sure the idea of a flying wing or blended wing body, but if we look at nature, which has optimized flight, looks like the wing and fuselage design is what makes the most sense..
 
Tantalum said:
...but if we look at nature, which has optimized flight, looks like the wing and fuselage design is what makes the most sense..
Click to expand...
Most natural flying things are ornithopters of a sort and have no vertical tail, replacing it with active stabilization. For that matter, most don't cruise at 0.85-0.92 Mach either. ;)

Nauga,
who thinks airplane wings should flex but not flap
 
nauga said:
Most natural flying things are ornithopters of a sort and have no vertical tail, replacing it with active stabilization. For that matter, most don't cruise at 0.85-0.92 Mach either. ;)

Nauga,
who thinks airplane wings should flex but not flap
Click to expand...
True, but how much of that is simply because it is easier for us to create something that rotates in a complete circle (propeller, turbine) for power, while natural things need a oscillating means of propulsion (fish/whale tails, seal flippers, flapping wings)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top