Futuristic Airplane Design and Their Viability

E

Echao9

EE
Joined
9 May 2024
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hello everyone,

I have recently been looking into novel airplane configurations such as the blended wing body, transonic truss-braced wing, and box wing proposed by many aerospace companies like Boeing and NASA. I really love these designs and believe they can be of great benefit to society one day.

I feel like the designs have a lot of potential as they are currently being pursued by large aerospace companies and there are environmental and possibly economic (due to future carbon taxes and legislation) drives to bringing them into service. However, due to many technical and logistical barriers like airport infrastructure and certification, the viability of these configurations are very unclear. And considering the past appearances of these configurations, such as the blended wing body in military applications (which was cancelled after a few accidents), I am concerned there may not be much hope for these designs in the future.

Though another point I should mention is that society has obviously grown since then and new propulsive technologies such as hydrogen fuel cells and sustainable aviation fuels can be integrated into new airframes to maximise their benefit, which does increase their possible viability.

My questions are:
- can we expect to see these airplanes in operation in the next two decades?
- will the aviation industry seriously make the change so that they replace conventional tube and wing designs completely?
- will society be willing to fly on unconventional configurations?
 
Echao9 said:
Hello everyone,

I have recently been looking into novel airplane configurations such as the blended wing body, transonic truss-braced wing, and box wing proposed by many aerospace companies like Boeing and NASA. I really love these designs and believe they can be of great benefit to society one day.

I feel like the designs have a lot of potential as they are currently being pursued by large aerospace companies and there are environmental and possibly economic (due to future carbon taxes and legislation) drives to bringing them into service. However, due to many technical and logistical barriers like airport infrastructure and certification, the viability of these configurations are very unclear. And considering the past appearances of these configurations, such as the blended wing body in military applications (which was cancelled after a few accidents), I am concerned there may not be much hope for these designs in the future.

Though another point I should mention is that society has obviously grown since then and new propulsive technologies such as hydrogen fuel cells and sustainable aviation fuels can be integrated into new airframes to maximise their benefit, which does increase their possible viability.

My questions are:
- can we expect to see these airplanes in operation in the next two decades?
- will the aviation industry seriously make the change so that they replace conventional tube and wing designs completely?
- will society be willing to fly on unconventional configurations?
Click to expand...
The answer is yes to all of the above. Sooner or later, we will flying around in cubes -i.e.- no wings. Heck, if you listen to one of the NASA boys, we won't need fuel!
 
djfawcett said:
The answer is yes to all of the above. Sooner or later, we will flying around in cubes -i.e.- no wings. Heck, if you listen to one of the NASA boys, we won't need fuel!
Click to expand...
By cubes are you referring to eVTOL or alike aircraft? What fuel alternatives are you thinking - electric propulsion?
 
paralay said:
Flying saucers are knocking loudly on our door, we just need to open it...
Click to expand...
Flying saucer concepts are very cool - though I don't think it's the right time for them due to constraints in technological development, which is much more prevalent compared to those for novel airframes for planes.
 
Echao9 said:
By cubes are you referring to eVTOL or alike aircraft? What fuel alternatives are you thinking - electric propulsion?
Click to expand...
no,, more on the line that Paralay has posted.
 
We will definitely see a few Truss Wings flying, NASA is building one to prove the concept. If it pans out in terms of reduced fuel burn, then it's highly likely that the next generation of commercial aircraft will be Truss Wings.

For the BWBs, though, I'm not so sure.
1) The passenger compartment will have to be heavier/more complex due to the shape, compared to the basic tube fuselage. Yes, making it out of composites will be lighter than metal, but a composite tube fuselage will be lighter yet. It'd take very serious improvements in efficiency to override the extra weight.​
2) Passenger comfort. Even in an A380 or 777, the passengers aren't all that far from the centerline of the tube as the plane banks. In a BWB, they're going to be twice as far from the centerline or more. This increases passenger discomfort as the plane maneuvers and gets rattled around in turbulence.​
So I think BWBs will happen for military tankers and cargo planes first. Then, if the passenger discomfort isn't as bad as everyone concerned thinks, they'll get picked up for other users.
 
Truss wings are likely the most realistic advance for actual working aircraft that are not airshow-ponies.
 

Attachments

  • 6lanterne_adamski.jpg
    6lanterne_adamski.jpg
    59 KB · Views: 56
Last edited:
paralay said:
Flying saucers are knocking loudly on our door, we just need to open it...
Click to expand...
It's fair to say that for a few years I also believed it was a real flying saucer. When I saw the blueprints in Dargaud's comic in 1972, I built my first scracht model based on him.:)
It was a disappointment to find out that it was a fraud, but it is always better to know than to believe.
 

Attachments

  • 275.jpg
    275.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 42
  • 276.jpg
    276.jpg
    2.3 MB · Views: 42
  • 277.jpg
    277.jpg
    1.7 MB · Views: 50
Cyclorotor systems look interesting. They have a smaller footprint than the typical rotor system. It also offers a better ridership experience as it does not tilt like helicopters and quadcopters. My thought is a future system could incorporate wings with a pulser engine for translation for faster speeds and longer endurance, using the cyclorotor for VTOL operations during the takeoff and landing phases.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96DKtu9DFow

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfCDz9pxyyc
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
2) Passenger comfort. Even in an A380 or 777, the passengers aren't all that far from the centerline of the tube as the plane banks. In a BWB, they're going to be twice as far from the centerline or more. This increases passenger discomfort as the plane maneuvers and gets rattled around in turbulence.
Click to expand...

I do wonder if active gust alleviation could help with this, along with modified approaches to airports (i.e. lower bank angles). Active gust alleviation is much more feasible now that we have lighter actuators, and much lighter computers and sensors.

As societies get poorer we'll also likely see more people willing to accept more discomfort and more of a shift to somewhat less frequent but higher capacity flights - so I would rule out BWB designs completely.

The big issue with hydrogen (and LNG) has always been the handling facilities required for fuelling - the technology has otherwise been worked out since the 1970s... but it might require a major decision by several governments to subsidise fuelling infrastructure for it to become viable (something plausible in an era where airlines will continue to rely, and even potentially increasingly rely, on subsidies).

I think higher aspect ratios (e.g. truss-brace) and higher bypass ratios (i.e. propfans) are extremely likely, and we'll eventually probably see some airliners take 10%-15% off their cruise speed to increase economy (especially if they move to single pilot operations). Right now the high speeds are driven more by the desire to re-use the airplane for additional flights, rather than passenger preferences (these small differences in cruise speed are usually small compared to the lengthened boarding times from 'security theatre').
 
Last edited:
Dynoman said:
Cyclorotor systems look interesting. They have a smaller footprint than the typical rotor system. It also offers a better ridership experience as it does not tilt like helicopters and quadcopters. My thought is a future system could incorporate wings with a pulser engine for translation for faster speeds and longer endurance, using the cyclorotor for VTOL operations during the takeoff and landing phases.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96DKtu9DFow

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfCDz9pxyyc
Click to expand...
I wonder if this might be a true flying car for Titan…thick atmosphere, lower gravity…
roll, or fly.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom