Airbus MAVERIC blended wing jetliner

So cool.

 

Boeing has been studying this concept for a long time.

 

Certainly very cool looking

 

Reminds me of L-M's X-33 concept, which did not work at all.

 

In the end, it is a lower aspect ratio wing - which is less efficient at lifting. There would have to be a huge weight savings in the structure to make that trade off attractive from a fuel burn standpoint

 

Like trying to get a P-38 airfoil up to Mach 0.85.

 

They also have not solved passenger windows. I for one, want windows so I can see the outside world. A video screen is not the same for me.

 

Expand in this some more. Is it the thickness of the airfoil at high speed that you're alluding to? Just trying to understand the technical issues.

-F

 

Yup.

 

How does this work with things like the Space Shuttle which has a broad section airfoil and experiences flight across a wide range of speeds? Or other lifting bodies which AFAIK are aerodynamically stable and able to fly at various speeds (transonic?).

The X-33 was aerodynamically sound, it died because of other reasons, no?

-F

 

No, the X-33 was not aerodynamically sound and ended up adding a larger and larger wing in the final versions before the money ran out. Bad design and execution by L-M. What happens when your initial design is done on a napkin over drinks.

Vehicles which must operated at reentry velocities of Mach 25 require large radii surfaces on the nose and wings because of the severe heat rates and loads they see on reentry, all proportional to the sharpness of the surface. Any sharp surfaces are usually carbon-carbon or carbon-SiC, which are expensive and heavy. RLVs reenter at very high angles of attack to present as much surface area to the airflow as possible to spread out the heat. They are not designed to operate in one regime like the Mach 0.85 seen on airliners. Lifting bodies were just an alternative way of doing the same thing the Shuttle did with wings and control surfaces, but usually with less aerodynamic stability.

 

. Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

This thing is 100% computer stabilized if my memory serves me.

 

Bob- So is an F-16, but its basic aerodynamics are not pushing the envelope quite as much.

Look familiar? The wings got much larger and the tail-fins got much taller than shown here as CFD and wind tunnel results told the story that the original shape just did not work.


Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Doesn't look right. Won't work right.

 

Apart from the aero, theres also the big structure cost. A tube with wings is pretty simple and relatively cheap to construct.

 

Sean- Affirmative, that is a pretty big space frame.

 

Absolutely. The Connie was a beautiful airplane but the fuselage would never make it in todays technology. Every frame was different , every flange was at a different angle, every skin was stretch formed instead of a simple flat wrapped sheet. And all that sexiness didn't improve the drag or flight characteristics. Seating configuration was also compromised with the tapering tail and front end.

 

I was always thinking that they shape must have had had some logic/purpose? Surely it was not for asthetics?

but you’re right stunningly beautiful esp compared to a dc6/7.

on another tangential note I got to thinking, the b29 still flies in highly modified form as the super guppy, at least the wings do?

 

The Connie fuselage shape was based on the NACA 23012 airfoil, rotated about the profile. The B-29 wing was all Boeing, inspired by the Davis but better. It had something like 7 different airfoils , maybe more. I'll look it up again.

 

I'd read somewhere that the Connie's fuselage developed some lift.... Used to watch them fly into Albuquerque... beautiful planes.

Also read that the wing was similar to the P-38 airfoil...

and that Howard Hughes was involved with the design. (he owned TWA at the time, I think... wanted to beat Pan Am).

 

The tube works well as a pressure vessel, but otherwise the overall tube/wing design is not structurally efficient. With a blended wing the basic structure becomes more efficient, assuming you can distribute the payload over the span, but it is much harder to create the pressure vessel thus negating any savings.

 

I remember a freight hauler customer at a meeting that impatiently asked why the hell we couldn't build rectangular fuselages so it would be easier to load cargo. One of the Boeing engineers immediately asked him, " Have you ever inflated a square balloon?" Reminding the complainer that some of the cargo required oxygen and cabin pressurization.

 

The aviation industry needs a shake up. It’s been stagnant ever since the Concorde.


Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat.com mobile app