The Flying V

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

KLM to fund development of fuel-efficient Flying-V plane:
https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/klm-flying-v-plane-scli-intl/index.html

Not sure what they are thinking because the further you are from center the greater the distance you travel up or down during a roll. Which means during strong cross wind landings you may end up injuring or killing people sitting the furthest out from center with high vertical g-forces, but anyhow what do I know about physics 🤣

The article has no mention of the roll effect on these aircraft but I think this is just a marketing ploy

Edited June 3, 2019 by Matthew Kane

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

I think that you are right about it being a marketing ploy. Everything that I've read recently regarding aircraft R&D seems to be related to autonomous flying and electric propulsion.

[Bob Scott 7,715]

6 hours ago, Matthew Kane said:

KLM to fund development of fuel-efficient Flying-V plane:
https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/klm-flying-v-plane-scli-intl/index.html

Not sure what they are thinking because the further you are from center the greater the distance you travel up or down during a roll. Which means during strong cross wind landings you may end up injuring or killing people sitting the furthest out from center with high vertical g-forces, but anyhow what do I know about physics 🤣

The article has no mention of the roll effect on these aircraft but I think this is just a marketing ploy

You already have the same effect in the longitudinal axis with people sitting at various distances away from the center of gravity...people are not at risk or harmed as the result of being as much as 100 ft fwd or aft of the point the aircraft rotates around during high-rate pitch changes like rotation, landing etc.

I do see some issues with it as-pictured.  To start, in a traditional fuselage/wing design you only have to have a relatively small number of fortified multi-ply heated windows (the pilot's fwd windscreen), but in a design like this, all those pax windows along the wing would need to be strong enough to survive a severe birdstrike, as I don't think a passenger taking a 12-lb Canadian goose in the face at 250 knots would do much for the public relations end of things.  And those multi-ply windows are *heavy*.

Adding a significant lateral dimension to the CG envelope would be, at the very least, an interesting technical challenge, as the weight distribution of pax, cargo, and fuel in two dimensions would become a fairly complex set of variables to be managed.

Fitting that flying-wing geometry into current airport parking spots would be another interesting set of problems to solve.

Regards

[John_Cillis 2,406]

20 hours ago, w6kd said:

 

Fitting that flying-wing geometry into current airport parking spots would be another interesting set of problems to solve.

Regards

As far as airport parking spots, given that these would probably be less common given they might carry more pax, they would probably be parked at the ends of most concourses.  The BA 747-400 which parks at Sky Harbor has to do just that, it parked at the end of our International Concourse in Terminal 4 when I boarded it, that is, like many cats prefer (lol), it's "spot".

John

Edited June 4, 2019 by 188AHC
Edited long unnecessary quote.

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

1 hour ago, w6kd said:

You already have the same effect in the longitudinal axis with people sitting at various distances away from the center of gravity...people are not at risk or harmed as the result of being as much as 100 ft fwd or aft of the point the aircraft rotates around during high-rate pitch changes like rotation, landing etc.

I don't have actual numbers but I believe an airliner will roll much quicker then it will pitch, but you are correct it is the same phenomena. I pointed out a cross wind landing as the roll can be quite significant compared to changes in pitch. I live in Wellington, New Zealand and for us hard cross wind landings are notorious.

The angled windows are quite funny because everyone does become a backseat driver, and yes a bird strikes would scare the bejeezus out of ya, but windows could be made strong enough at a cost. Near misses would also be captured well in the many smart phones as everyone gets a better vantage point.

My thoughts are Airbus and Boeing would have penciled this idea a long time ago and abandoned it do to the roll issue. The Vulcan Bomber and B2 Bombers are fantastic and proven air frames so this is nothing new, just passenger comfort is would have been the consideration, otherwise they would have done it long ago. 

Closest civilian aircraft I can think of close to this was the Beechcraft Starship, which was an awesome aircraft

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_Starship

Edited June 4, 2019 by Matthew Kane

[Chock 17,769]

I should imagine a big problem in terms of making such a craft workable, would be how you load it? And where is the payload stowed?

It's difficult to put a narrow body airliner out of trim in the roll axis via cargo placement since the payload isn't very wide, and even with a wide body which can have multiple AKE ULDs side by side, the load is still for the most part centralised in the roll axis. But this thing presumably would have a large area available inside which could be used for the payload. Now of course you could still keep that payload central as a design choice, but then how do you load it? From underneath? From the rear?

You would probably need to have a powered floor roller system to make loading workable (these systems certainly exist but they do add weight). You would probably also need specifically-designed GSE vehicles to facilitate being able to be placed on the aircraft. Now you could certainly design some new GSE vehicles to make that workable, but then you'd have the requirement for every destination airport to have such vehicles available for one specific aircraft until such time as this kind of aircraft configuration became the norm. This is not inconceivable, but look at all the faffing about which occurred worldwide at airports simply to accommodate the Airbus A380; some airports didn't even bother trying to accommodate it. Even Manchester International, where I work only has two stands which can accommodate it, and not only because of the sheer size of the thing, but also because of the airbridges, mobile steps and indeed the shoulder weight restrictions and available turning widths of the taxiways.

Thus the design of an aircraft has to consider fitting into the available infrastructure of airports where it is to be operated. A good example of this is something as - by comparison quite mundane -  the Boeing 737 Classic's tail redesign and the decision by Boeing to add a dorsal fillet to increase tail area, rather than to simply make the tail taller. This wasn't Boeing's preferred design option - they wanted to simply make the tail a bit taller, since that was easier to do - but the more complex addition of a dorsal fillet was basically forced on them by the fact that several operators of the 737-200, who would of course be the target customers for the proposed newer 300, 400 and 500 models, said that they didn't want a taller aircraft because it wouldn't fit in their existing 737 hangars and that if the 737 was made taller, they'd probably buy a rival aeroplane such as the DC-9 or or 1-11 instead, simply because these would fit in their existing hangars!

It is a cool design and one suspects it probably is the way to go for future designs, but it'll take more than only KLM getting on board with it to make it a goer. And of course beyond this issue, everyone knows that the only real Flying V, is the one made by Gibson in 1958 🤘, which incidentally if you've ever tried to play one sat down, is also somewhat impractical because of its shape. But then again, anyone who actually does want to play a Flying V whilst sat down, just really isn't getting with the program are they? 🤣

Edited June 4, 2019 by Chock

[HighBypass 2,339]

Rock on, Chock! Rock ON!  

Forget the flying V - I'd much prefer this big bifter... at least it's a tri-holer too!  (Lionheart Creations Boeing 797 concept)

[Paraffin 2,197]

I could see a "fat flying wing" more like the Boeing 797 concept above working.

You could keep the payload centered better than the split V design.

Remove all pax windows to avoid the risk of bird strike or hail strike, and you have a nice strong shell with no weak spots. Instead of windows, install flat panel TV's on the interior sides of the cabin, with a merged view from outside cameras. Or just rely on seat-back displays to let people see outside, with a control for tilting and panning the view based on a synthesized surround image from the cameras. Most of the seats on a widebody don't have an outside view anyway. 

[goates 576]

21 hours ago, w6kd said:

Fitting that flying-wing geometry into current airport parking spots would be another interesting set of problems to solve.

This particular design is meant to fit into the same space as an A350, so should be able to use existing gates.

[ChrisDa 41]

Here is a great doco if you have the time to watch it.

Quote

This is the VHS show about Jack Northrup's flying wing that was converted to DVD & uploaded here. At least Mr. Northrup got to see the end result of all his research & testing on the YB-35 & YB-49; which evolved into the B-2 stealth bomber. A very touching comment by Mr. Northrup when shown the model of the B-2 is the ultimate highlight! RIP Mr. Jack you did it!

 

Chris.