Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: AZRedhawk44 on January 16, 2014, 12:58:35 PM
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2538651/The-future-air-travel-Three-storey-Sky-Whale-fits-755-passengers-virtual-reality-windows-self-healing-wings.html
Puckers my behind a little bit to think about flying in a plane that is designed to separate from its wings. They talk about doing that for safety reasons in the event of a crash, but I'd rather see perhaps selective ejection of the fuel tanks, rather than a link between the fuselage and wings that is deliberately designed to fail or be separated by exploding bolts.
-
Typical of what you get when a "designer" starts drawing pretty pictures of something about which he knows nothing.
I don't think tilting the engines 45 degrees would in any way allow for short-runway landings or for VTOL. And I don't think those wings could possibly generate enough lift for what that thing would have to weigh. I also don't think three engines (based on engines available today) could generate enough thrust.
-
In a crash, wings tend to dig in and cause the fuselage to roll. No bueno.
-
In a crash, wings tend to dig in and cause the fuselage to roll. No bueno.
So you think withOUT wings it wouldn't roll?
Don't ... think ... so.
-
So you think withOUT wings it wouldn't roll?
Don't ... think ... so.
I think the idea is that they break off when they dig in.
-
modern-day version of the Titanic
Now there's a prophetic vision :O
I think this guy is an artist and not an engineer.
Boeing has some designs on the board for a/c with integrated wings/fuselage, supposed to be more efficient because the fuselage is part of the lift.
But I think the reason that they haven't actually built something like that is that an a/c with a non-tubular fuselage would be problematic at current airport gates. Not to mention that a cylinder with wings is probably cheaper to build. AFAIK, nobody has even build a tapered fuselage since the Constellation.
-
Imagine how long it would take to disembark 750 passengers from 3 stories of aircraft. Ugh. You'd need multiple jetways per plane.
-
Eh, wing thing isn't a big deal. I've worked with rotorcraft that had explosive bolts to remove stuff they wanted gone during a crash. No biggie.
That said... Near zero chance of it going into production. There's thousands of nifty aircraft that only fly on paper. Real world, there's a reason why all aircraft tend to look similar and usually boring.
-
This reminds me of a plane featured on an old TV series I enjoyed as a kid; "Thunderbirds." It was a huge plane with multiple levels of cabins -- the wings were big enough alos to be occupied, and the cockpit was on top of the "T" type tail secion. It was hypersonic and ejected the fuel tanks in emergencies, plus, even better, it was plagued with problems giving Gerry Anderson's International Rescue guys plenty of opportunities to rescue it. [tinfoil]
It was called the "Sky Flash," IIRC, which is a lot nicer sounding name than "Sky Whale," which makes me think of harpoons....for some reason.... :angel: [tinfoil] [tinfoil] >:D [popcorn] >:D :facepalm: :rofl:
-
Imagine how long it would take to disembark 750 passengers from 3 stories of aircraft. Ugh. You'd need multiple jetways per plane.
They already do that.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dlr.de%2Ftdlr%2FPortaldata%2F63%2FResources%2Fimages%2Ftdlr%2Fa380_frankfurt.jpg&hash=ef34f5bc01fb69f4adcfad83736247f519227157)
-
NASA/Boeing have the big delta lifting body/blended wing airliner designs that are actually aerodynamically worthy, scale models have flown. But even then such designs are problematic. The main reason all airliners are tube-n-wings is that maintaining cabin pressure in anything other than shapes as close as possible to tubes or spheres is structurally difficult, and requires lots of extra webs, struts, braces etc. and all sorts of extra stress risers and shear points for cycling fatigue to set in.
Composites might free us from this, but so far only a little. The A380 has a more ovoid cross-section etc.
-
The craft matches advances in technology with a huge capacity of 755 passengers, making it economically viable for an airline.
Already lagging behind in capacity, and still on the drawing dream board. The A380 is certified for 853 people sardines in a single class configuration. Not that anyone is doing that......yet.
bob
-
don't most airlines wanted smaller more efficient planes? it's interesting in that it pretty much looks like a shark. going with a time tested design!
-
don't most airlines wanted smaller more efficient planes? it's interesting in that it pretty much looks like a shark. going with a time tested design!
At least it might be better to try making a smaller version first .... :facepalm:
Seems like there would be a market for an efficient VTOL aircraft that could carry 50-100 victims passengers =|
-
Already lagging behind in capacity, and still on the drawing dream board. The A380 is certified for 853 people sardines in a single class configuration. Not that anyone is doing that......yet.
bob
You could get pretty much most of the legislative and executive branch on such a plane. =D
-
You could get pretty much most of the legislative and executive branch on such a plane. =D
modern-day version of the Titanic
One can only hope. =D =D
-
NASA/Boeing have the big delta lifting body/blended wing airliner designs that are actually aerodynamically worthy, scale models have flown. But even then such designs are problematic. The main reason all airliners are tube-n-wings is that maintaining cabin pressure in anything other than shapes as close as possible to tubes or spheres is structurally difficult, and requires lots of extra webs, struts, braces etc. and all sorts of extra stress risers and shear points for cycling fatigue to set in.
Composites might free us from this, but so far only a little. The A380 has a more ovoid cross-section etc.
This right here.
Puckers my behind a little bit to think about flying in a plane that is designed to separate from its wings. They talk about doing that for safety reasons in the event of a crash, but I'd rather see perhaps selective ejection of the fuel tanks, rather than a link between the fuselage and wings that is deliberately designed to fail or be separated by exploding bolts.
That would most likely (IMHO) involve substantially increasing the weight of the acft, since the fuel tanks are generally a stressed structural member .
-
Where the [expletive] are you going to find that many people at one time that want to go from Point A to Point B? Especially when seated in Economy Class?
Back in the days of the great ocean liners they did not turn around within hours of docking. I recall a few times when the QEII had been in port the whole time my dysfunctional family had touched base by rail in four European non-contiguous countries and then returned to Le Havre. Plenty of time to accumulate enough bodies to fill up the berths. It was also part of the grand adventure to travel from Point A to the embarkation port and play tourist for a day or more before finding out if you were suceptable to seasickness. ("Skid, be a dear and take this weak tea and toast to Mrs. X's 13-year old) daughter. And stay there and read to her for a while." I was 14. She apparently never upchucked her hormones.)
stay safe.
-
Where the [expletive] are you going to find that many people at one time that want to go from Point A to Point B? Especially when seated in Economy Class?
The annual migration to Mecca comes to mind. ;)
bob
-
Where the [expletive] are you going to find that many people at one time that want to go from Point A to Point B? Especially when seated in Economy Class?
Asia. Little folks, and looooots of 'em.
-
Flew around the country quite a bit in airliners at one point. Had a few hairies.
Also flew around locally in small private planes from time to time.
Rather fly in the small planes, where when the plane bounced around and dropped and did other funny things, you could glance at the pilot's knuckles to verify that all was well after all.
Much more comforting.
You could never assess the knuckle-state of the commercial pilots while the stewardi voiced soothing blandishments over the PA system.
-
You could never assess the knuckle-state of the commercial pilots while the stewardi voiced soothing blandishments over the PA system.
We are asleep.
-
I don't even like trains, where you can't see what's in front of you.
-
We are asleep.
I thought you were a pilot, not an engineer.
-
I thought you were a pilot, not an engineer.
Close enough.
-
I thought you were a pilot, not an engineer.
Same difference: they just open up the steam valve and let the rails computer guide the plain.
-
We are asleep.
Relaxed and worry free then.
-
Just inflate the autopilot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQbj9uvYL8I
-
And what do you suppose will happen if the Sky Whale gets tangled in Sky Net?
-
Save the Sky Whales! :angel:
-
Same difference: they just open up the steam valve and let the rails computer guide the plain.
I do have to wonder why Clippy hasn't made it to the cockpit yet, given how long the planes have been overcomputerized.
"You appear to be landing. Wouldn't arming the spoilers be a nice idea? How about flaps and slats, too?"
"Your left engine appears to be burning fuel at a rate four times what it's capable of. Shall I bring up the fuel leak checklist, or would you rather start a transfer so you can leak the rest of it too?"
Of course, with the price of tiny, extremely durable HD cameras, I find it somewhere between silly and grossly negligent that there's not one pointed at every potential problem on every commercial plane. We're talking 2-3 ounces per camera, plus a bit for either wires or a wireless transmitter, to give the pilots an on-demand walkaround at any time. A dozen of them fully installed should cost less than a full load of fuel and weigh less than a large carryon bag. Is the computer saying the #3 engine is on fire? Click and look. Controls acting funny? Scan through the wing and tail views to see what's actually happening.
The number of incidents where pilots took ultimately wrong actions because of insufficient information, in situations where even a rearview mirror and a floodlight or two would have allowed them to solve the right problem, is disturbing.
-
It was called the "Sky Flash," IIRC, which is a lot nicer sounding name than "Sky Whale," which makes me think of harpoons....\
I think of "Beached Whale", laying helplessly in the sand.
-
I do have to wonder why Clippy hasn't made it to the cockpit yet, given how long the planes have been overcomputerized.
"You appear to be landing. Wouldn't arming the spoilers be a nice idea? How about flaps and slats, too?"
"Your left engine appears to be burning fuel at a rate four times what it's capable of. Shall I bring up the fuel leak checklist, or would you rather start a transfer so you can leak the rest of it too?"
Of course, with the price of tiny, extremely durable HD cameras, I find it somewhere between silly and grossly negligent that there's not one pointed at every potential problem on every commercial plane. We're talking 2-3 ounces per camera, plus a bit for either wires or a wireless transmitter, to give the pilots an on-demand walkaround at any time. A dozen of them fully installed should cost less than a full load of fuel and weigh less than a large carryon bag. Is the computer saying the #3 engine is on fire? Click and look. Controls acting funny? Scan through the wing and tail views to see what's actually happening.
The number of incidents where pilots took ultimately wrong actions because of insufficient information, in situations where even a rearview mirror and a floodlight or two would have allowed them to solve the right problem, is disturbing.
Weight isn't the problem, or even cost (surprisingly), but the certification is. And the maintenance. Is everything crash worthy, fire resistant, EMI shielded, and liability insurance funded? Some bean counter decided it isn't worth effort.
Personally, I like the idea of cameras to see the gear, but where would we put the monitor?
-
And what do you suppose will happen if the Sky Whale gets tangled in Sky Net?
:laugh:
-
Weight isn't the problem, or even cost (surprisingly), but the certification is. And the maintenance. Is everything crash worthy, fire resistant, EMI shielded, and liability insurance funded? Some bean counter decided it isn't worth effort.
Personally, I like the idea of cameras to see the gear, but where would we put the monitor?
TCP/IP over satellite. So it would be in India. =)
Or if it's Spirit or Southwest, crowdsource it. Monitors on the seat backs.
-
I do have to wonder why Clippy hasn't made it to the cockpit yet, given how long the planes have been overcomputerized.
"You appear to be landing. Wouldn't arming the spoilers be a nice idea? How about flaps and slats, too?"
"Your left engine appears to be burning fuel at a rate four times what it's capable of. Shall I bring up the fuel leak checklist, or would you rather start a transfer so you can leak the rest of it too?"
'Cuz Tallpine can't program anything more complicated than 8-bit. ;) WordPerfect 5.1, okay. Office '97? No way. =D
-
'Cuz Tallpine can't program anything more complicated than 8-bit. ;) WordPerfect 5.1, okay. Office '97? No way. =D
"Your flight control system has been updated. Would you like to reboot now?"
(this, on short final :P )
-
"Your flight control system has been updated. Would you like to reboot now?"
(this, on short final :P )
This would be where the hero pilot rips up a floor panel, and starts yanking on the linkages manually. Except there aren't any. =D
-
Weight isn't the problem, or even cost (surprisingly), but the certification is. And the maintenance. Is everything crash worthy, fire resistant, EMI shielded, and liability insurance funded? Some bean counter decided it isn't worth effort.
Personally, I like the idea of cameras to see the gear, but where would we put the monitor?
Well, older craft being retrofitted, that still have a flight engineer spot, would put it there. Others, heck, mount a flatscreen on the inside of the cockpit door. Looking over your shoulder is still quicker and easier than climbing around various maintenance bays. (For the craft that even have a bay accessible from inside to give a view of the nose gear. Incidentally, why does it always seem to be the nose gear giving problems?) Readily available surveillance combiners already have a multiplexed "overview" that can run most of the time, and almost all of them have a remote so you don't have to get up to cycle through the individual cameras.
Looks like at least the A380 doesn't have anything on the ceiling sides, beyond the shared switch panel, so that's plenty of room for a 6-12" display. A display on the back of one of the main seats would be available for anyone in the jump seat. Train up some flight attendants in how to interpret and communicate what's on the screen, and when a situation arises, have one come up to the jump seat if continuous monitoring is needed. Obviously, if an instructor is present, this would be a good extra job, and a big training help at times.
-
Personally, I like the idea of cameras to see the gear, but where would we put the monitor?
Same monitor that you use to play solitaire and post on APS :P
-
Same monitor that you use to play solitaire and post on APS :P
I never!
I don't have an internet connection on the plane. :mad:
-
I never!
I don't have an internet connection on the plane. :mad:
Thank goodness the iPad has the 4G at 38,000 feet, eh?
-
Same monitor that you use to play solitaire and post on APS :P
Which raises another thought; when the plane is that heavily computerized, every "multi function" display should be in-flight configurable to show every flight-relevant display. It's really just another LCD monitor anyway, and there are plenty of times when 3-4 specific displays need constant close monitoring while other (including normally important displays, remember aviate, then navigate, then communicate; if you don't keep the plane in the air, all the nav screens and other messages in the world are useless) displays can wait until the current problem is handled.
-
Which raises another thought; when the plane is that heavily computerized, every "multi function" display should be in-flight configurable to show every flight-relevant display. It's really just another LCD monitor anyway, and there are plenty of times when 3-4 specific displays need constant close monitoring while other (including normally important displays, remember aviate, then navigate, then communicate; if you don't keep the plane in the air, all the nav screens and other messages in the world are useless) displays can wait until the current problem is handled.
I agree. The EMB190 is close to doing that.