Apparently, NASA is aiming to develop a line of super-planes that larger, faster, quieter, and that burn fuel slower and cleaner than their present counterparts.
NASA Next Generation Airplanes
1/15/2011
Apparently, NASA is aiming to develop a line of super-planes that larger, faster, quieter, and that burn fuel slower and cleaner than their present counterparts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
EMail Feed
Twitter
21 comments:
These all look hideous.
I dont like the concept of an airliner with only one engine.
Pilot: TR we have an engine problem. Engine is out.
Trafic Control: Which engine?
Pilot: THE engine!
Trafic Control: Ah model 0.. Go for the Hudson River. And God Bless.
Look hideous? Seriously guy? Seriously?
I want to get from point A to point B in an airplane, I don't care what it looks like from outside. I'll only be able to see the outside of the darn thing for two minutes.
Also I think they look cool anyway.
The triangular wing ones in the top I have seen before: often seen in hundreds of years old, drawn (as well as written) accounts of "visitors from the heavens".
Now go redesign every airport on earth.
Aside from the flying wing, they look like the engines will break off as soon as you pull 1 G.
I agree with one engine issue. Enough said on Lockheed/Martin. I think they just took the money and ran.
The Boeing one looks to be a derivative of the B-2. Good reuse of knowledge Boeing! Thinking on the interior, first and business class move to the outside with windows, coach to the interior. You don't even need to connect the three compartments in flight. Exit to the rear common humanity!
The Northrop/Grumman design is ... interesting. Since the job was quiet and fuel efficient, I'd love to see it's stats.
However, I think the single thrust vector from engine/pylon to body, is going to be unacceptable. I'd suggest a canard between the cargo pods, attached at the bottom and foward of the main wing; extend the canard out a bit from the cargo pods, include a downward winglet to smooth airflow. Then extend the engin pylon down and through the engine housing to the canard; pinned top and bottom. Much better/safer thrust vector distribution. More lift too (think military cargo plane).
A variant, move the engine pods outside the cargo pods and add two more. Add a launch rail between the two cargo pods, strip some weight. Now you have a space plane lifter (that forward canard comes in handy now!).
The single engine issue is not an issue at my humble opinion. If you get two engines, probability doubles to have an engine problem. The real point is to have a plane that is a very efficient glider.
It would have to be one hell of a glider to make it to land if the engine failed mid pacific.
"Aside from the flying wing, they look like the engines will break off as soon as you pull 1 G."
You do know that 1G is same force you experience on the ground, right?
What's the point of this. Obama canceled the Constellation program. No more people going to space. So what, NASA's designing commuter airplanes now?
The Boeing concept looks like an albatross to me, great glider, but when it comes to land that thing - the ground effect must be horrible ...
How do these designs help me from winning the arm rest from the fat dude sitting next to me.
It looks to me that the Lockheed/Martin plane has one engine on each side -- spaced out along the horizontal upper rear wing thing.
You just can't see the right hand side engine because the plane body blocks your view.
"The Boeing concept ... the ground effect must be horrible"
Northrop engineers thought the same thing about the B-2, but grey-beards who flew the YB-49 knew otherwise.
Lockheed/Martin. On closer look, the wing seems continuous. Check out the extreme edges. They seem to work back and up, into the tail wing. So, if two engines, then they are two 'v' pylons. That would end some edge drag issues.
But ..., there are always buts. Continuous objects (like rings and bells) have a 'natural frequency'. This design looks to be one of those. Bad things happen when an object's natural freq is pumped up by natural effects (like wind).
Note to Northrop/Grumman and Boeing. Passenger view count to the airliner buyers. It sells seats.
As a cargo carrier, the N/G design is nice and there is a big demand for transport aircraft! Boeing design looks efficient too. A very nice glider format.
However, a cargo carrier and a efficient design don't speak to creature comforts. Oil tankers don't sell cruise seats.
A 'rounded' purpose design, that is one that fills many bills, always comes back to the cylinder. Lockheed/Martin know that.
Boeing, N/G, you have to make delta wing and twin body work a lot in price per pound and/or task efficient before you can sell a thousand. Or ... break the window creature comfort rule.
Now if I was an airplane exec, thinking of the future, I'd be thinking of weaning passengers from windows, so those efficient designs could win in the market. Windowless is easier to build and safer. But I want a view!
Maybe live video of the flight? Views forward, down, to the sides and back (up for night sky watchers like myself). Even recordable, for my first flight experience or UFO aficionados. Some cities might want 'down' turned off during take-off and landing.
It would be better than that tiny window and a selling point! My seat would be as good as any! Then the Delta wing and twin bodies make passenger sense and fit into the rounded 'purpose' design.
But you'd have to make it a normal thing, while 1/3 of the passengers still have windows. Maybe an obvious upgrade for the back of seat flat panels on the Dreamliner?
Northrop-Grumman. Does the continuous wing feature Lockheed-Martin is showing work? Would it improve the tail section of your submission?
That is, instead of two vee tailed bodies, one common tail, maybe with winglet extension to carry off drag?
It might even stiffen a frame that looks fragile (looks can influence buyers).
I doubt any of these designs would ever be realised. I think it is time to come up with a different propulsion system, we are just playing with old technology here.
The Lockheed/Martin looks like a single engine to me centered in the rear stabilizer. My concern would be if that large an engine in the tail has a catastrophic failure, will the stabilizer survive and will the controls to the elevators survive?
Comments like these are proof that the web does NOT need that everyone's voice be heard!
Post a Comment