ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Why would you (not) want to ride the Flying V
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ส.ค. 2024
- Claim your SPECIAL OFFER for MagellanTV here: try.magellantv... Start your free trial TODAY so you can watch Berlin Wall: The Night The Iron Curtain Closed and the rest of MagellanTV’s collection: www.magellantv...
More about the Flying V for Airbus can be found here: www.tudelft.nl...
Discord: / discord
New Channel: / @aviationstationyt
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @foundandexplained
Planes haven’t actually really changed.
They got faster - even breaking the sound barrier.
They got bigger, with double decks
and six engines.
And they even got wacky with double fuslages to carry more.
But one key component remains the same.
The tube and the wings.
Now, it didn’t have to always be like this.
This just happens to be the most efficient way to build an aircraft, perform maintenance, and keep it cheap.
That is, until now.
Blended wings have always been a bit of an odd outlier of aerospace engineering.
The concept is relatively straightforward - instead of a tube and wings, why not make the wings the plane? This would massively increase the internal area - and the fuel efficiency.
Even the most basic blended wing design would be approx 20% more fuel-efficient than the standard wing design.
Boeing, Airbus and others have always been working on blended wings -
infact it can be traced back to Northrop back in World War 2,
and the Horton Brothers for the Nazis with their plans for a massive amerika bomber.
But the design never really took off…pun intended.
That is until now - with the Flying V
This concept such a novly design that it truely deserves its own video - which is what you are watching right now.
Lets get into it
The Flying V was developed as a concept at Delft University of technology, by Justus Benad while working with Airbus . It is a flying V shape, hence the name, and can carry up to 314 passengers in a mixed configuration
You will notice that this is the same capacity - well technically one seat less - than the Airbus A350-900, which seats 315 passengers over two classes.
Speaking off this plane, the flying V has roughly the same wingspan as a Airbus A350,
allowing it to use the same infrastructure at airports - gates, taxiways and runways - without any modification.
An issue that plagued the massive Airbus A380 when it arrived to the world in the past.
In terms of cargo capacity, it has around 160m3 of cargo space onboard, 36 pallets - allowing it very much the same profile as the aforementioned airbus.
But heres the catch. It has a much lower surface area than the standard plane - meaning the resistance is lower and it needs far less fuel.
Operating at around 20% less consumption - a huge saving over a year of flying.
The twin engines are placed above the fuselage, to keep noise away from the cabin and allow access for engineering - an issue with all blended wing internal engines that have come before.
But lets just talk about the flaws with this concept - big ones.
From passenger point of view, those beds would be really nice for long flights. I remember flying from central Europe to Japan and not being able to sleep whatsoever in regular seat. So I would definitely go for it next time.
you can try business class
They're not gonna put beds in. For these companies, more space means more seats which means more tickets sold and more $$$, even if the flight costs the same amount they'll take the opportunity to make more profits instead of more comfort.
I agree, but are we gonna ignore the bald play of saying "pun intended"
Heh, I flew from central America to Japan and slept like a baby on a regular tourist class seat.
7:35 are you packing us like sardine!? Those beds look like a place to stash MORGS
The evacuation problem seems simple enough to solve. Take a page from building fire codes and school buses, add more doors.
It's a V shape, meaning there's plenty of space on the inside and outside for exits. Even the roof is an option.
my first thought was "put in evacuation slides underneath, where the bomb bay would be" But that wouldn't work for a water or belly landing. Maybe paired exits above and below depending on the nature of the evacuation
My other idea is to have larger doors so people can evacuate two abreast, and to have differentially sized aisles, the aisles on the outside being standard size, but the interior aisles being slightly wider so passengers on the inside can move about more easily and faster than those on the outside.
Attic style stairs that drop is even a better idea considering water landings and the leading edge is also the exit
@@KTo288 not exactly practical. A rooftop exit prior to a crash with injuries and debris would be problematic from the get with children and mobility impared.
Yeah but buildings and buses do not pressurize or fly at 30.000 feet. Rooftop exits exist because tall land vehicles are more likely to roll over on their side. Each airplane door cost money and is a potential point of failure. So you need to be as efficient as possible.
@@arbhall7572 "A rooftop exit prior to a crash [...] would be problematic"
To be fair, in almost all instances any exit from anywhere in the plane *prior* to a crash would be highly problematic. Not in the least because you're probably still around 30.000ft high...
I saw this plane being built while doing my thesis at TU Delft. The guy running this project was my supervisor. I sometimes worked with the team seen in the video and pitched them a few ideas for the prototype. It took them about two years to make the prototype and the amount of engineering that went into it is astonishing!
It really is the pride and glory of the TU Delft aerospace department :)
Why don't you throw some pdfs then ? www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi_8qnskqP3AhUJKBoKHfJ-ARwQFnoECA8QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Frepository.tudelft.nl%2Fislandora%2Fobject%2Fuuid%3A9e8f9a41-8830-405d-8676-c46bf6b07891%2Fdatastream%2FOBJ%2Fdownload&usg=AOvVaw3uhZbXcdaRDc1VxgrV0o5C
Don't you think the jet engines mounted as underslungs would have been better from a maintenance view?
@@PS-nf3xw Do you want the coolness design be sacrificed for addressing petty practical details ? /s
@@PS-nf3xw oh they're better from multiple perspectives. However, it was impossible to put the engines underneath in this case because of ground clearance.
@@alexandrunechifor there was a planned Luftwaffe ww2 flying wing with fixed landing gears and the engine nachells fitted around it. Did you folks consider any underslung concept with a fairing for retractable landing gears for higher ground clearance?
Other clear advantages include the ability to reduce damage from FOD and with a flip up grate, possibly even bird strikes to the engines. This is a wonderful concept aircraft, even with the limitations pointed out. Turns will be a little more exciting for passengers at the furthest points from the center, but humans are adaptable. Great video.
FWIW, the FOD thing came to my mind immediately.
Among the reasons these concepts get killed before they can ever make it to a full sized prototype is a concern for passengers. Specifically, the passenger experience toward the end of the wings. As a normal tube plane banks for a turn, you do notice it, but it's nothing to mention. When a flying wing or blended wing banks over the passengers towards the wingtips feel a sudden drop or elevation of several meters, depending on the angle of the bank. Even with sufficient warning, this could frighten some passengers greatly, and increase the likelihood of air sickness. Anyone who happens to be ignoring the seatbelt sign at the time will have a difficult time to say the least, meaning that air stewards / cabin crew will have to either be centerline or buckled in during turns.
And that's just PLANNED manoeuvres. Unplanned, or emergency banking manoeuvres could be catastrophic. Imagine a 100 kg trolley appearing to suddenly lift into the air because the pilot needed to make an emergency manoeuvre. Where is it going to come down?
It would be amazing to see blended wing airplane designs in passenger service, but the aforementioned risks and concerns are one of the many things that will keep them on the page and out of the sky.
Concord
I agree
What if the flight attendants just have a rope on them that is connected to a track on the ceiling like on a ropes course. I am partially joking but it would be a possible option.
And freight and military users don't care.
As for me, give me a wing=tip seat and it'd be a great flight.
Passengers who supposedly can't take it go up into the mountains and ski, or race sailboats or ride amusement park rides. Yet they won't take a cheaper seat in a better plane because of being off-center in a roll.
I would LOVE that, put me as close to the edge as possible!
“V” would stand for Vomitcraft!!
Could work as a cargo plane tho, boxes dont need windows, and the costs savings would be considerable
Yeah, Boeing actually flew a subscale blended wing body aircraft in the 1990s to research it. It worked well enough, but they found passengers want windows.
why couldnt they provide a virutal window they could even switch around to var places on the plane even the front camera..why such a lack of imagination. the tvs are already in the seats to use.
@@marsmotion where does the cargo go? its seems that it is not underneath the passengers. there is potential for floor windows
A flying wing always looks cool.
BUT THE PLANE GOES TO AURELIA
B2 bomber..
The biggest problem from Boeing BWB study is evacuations… they can’t find a way to evacuate people in 90 seconds with half of the exits blocked
And plenty of other studies that avoid the same bad assumptions in layout, to show that's not necessarily the end.
Also, any smaller plane benefits from eliminating static drag fuselages, and don;'t have any problem with evacuation.
Anyway, everyone from Boeing and Lock-Mart and NASA, to TSAGI to Airbus all have published studies of it and say it's not a problem.
Also, freight and the military don't care.
@@JFrazer4303 I assure you there is a reason why Boeing-NASA BWB study canceled. If it's not a problem they would have built it, the study is done in 2012.
Heck BWB even have a flyable scaled prototype (6/100 scale).
If evacuation isn't a problem think about this: What if in a crash, one side of wing's front exit can't be used and rear exit blocked by the engine wreckage/fire...and people have to traverse a crashed plane to the other side to evacuate.
The biggest problem by far is stability, especially lateral stability during engine failure, and difficulty of recovery during a stall. Which I stated in another comment.
Also, I assume what you said about "static drag" is skin friction drag drag? There are many different types of drags, remove fuselage reduces skin friction drag (drag caused by attaching to a surface), but a thicker wing cause larger pressure drag due to bigger frontal projection area.
The biggest drag airliners face are lift-induced drag and wave drag, one is caused by lift produced by wings (which can be worse for flying wings because the wing is thicker). Wave drag on the other hand is why 787 and A350 are considered as major upgrade from 767 and A330. The new wings have less wave drag which is important for long flights.
The good new is flying wings can barely fly at speeds where wave drag matter... YB-49's (largest flying wing built) maximum speed is slower than the cruise speed of a ATR-72 turboprop. YB-49 cruise at 0.47
Evacuation testing is what limits capacity. The JAA certified the NG 737 for fewer pax than the FAA based on their tests. If you add more exits on the exterior, then you’ll increase weight and wind up with a seat pitch that isn’t economical.
To improve this, every single seat will have a trapdoor below.
So its just a funky looking B-2?
FaE : Nooo... Yes.
uhm okay...
1. centre of gravity very close to engines which means hard work for pilots during take-off
2. cargo space at the same position as engines (centre of gracity far behind)
3. interior is revolutionary but I personaly would feel unconfortable in those bentch seats (turbulance and hard landing)
4. wings like 2 huge fuselages, with short wing tips , I dont think it could lift easely or at all
5. train seats??? tail gunners on military aircraft were trained flying facing backwards but for some passagers could find it uncomfortable
personally I would fill the gap between the wings to increase lift and reduce fear about the centre of gravity + it would increase capacity for fuel, passagers or caargo space
1. Since when is it a problem?
2. When did it say anything about cargo?
4. Depends on aerofoil and wingspan airflow. If designed properly, it will be more efficient.
Hard to fly ? The software would cover it. Next generation will have pilot for safety reasons only.
I do not see this working mainly because of passenger seating and evacuation problems. Also, in a regular aircraft you have individual components that can be repaired or replaced on their own. An integrated design does not allow this. If a normal plane has damage to the wing for example, it's damage to the wing. If a V plane has damage to the wing, it's damage to the entire plane.
BUT I can see it working first as a cargo plane. For passenger transport I would be inclined towards lifting bodies, something in between the radical flying wing and the traditional tubes.
@@uggiebear1 Just like it did on the 737 Max, right?
@@scottthewaterwarrior I'm thinking perfect world sadly. Yes things do go wrong sadly 😦. I was just thinking moving forward In aviation but yes sadly it is sometimes at more than financial cost.
Riding in that in turbulence, on the outboard seats, would be a bumpy ride.
Not as bumpy though as the Tu-104 in the tropopause. (They broke up in that turbulence)
Most of these blended wing concepts rely on computer stabilisation to fly. I haven't researched the flying V in detail, I wonder if it has natural static stability. If not, it will never be commercially available.
Flying wings and blended wing body airplanes are hard to stabilize, because, well, you've removed the stabilizers. Therefore, most concepts go to computer stabilisation as the natural next step in technology. It's already used in fighters, why not in large planes then?
The b737Max came just short of the stability target, a minor computer interference in the edge cases should've gotten it to the target. Didn't end well. Now imagine if you want to use that for the majority of your stability.
Also, if you allow computer stabilisation on a flying wing, why not on a conventional aircraft? You could delete/reduce the tail section on a regular plane too, and suddenly, the efficiency of the flying wing isn't that much better.
I was about to comment the same thought when i saw yours. Thanks for stating a very good point. The flying wing concept an design has been around for ages and i also believe that this was the hardest issue that designers have to solve. Manueverability for this concepts are physically impossible for pilots to fly on their own. I just hope technology and innovation will make this great concept reliable and safe for use.
@@g.zoltan false
The issue with stabilization and flying wings is not an issue since we've been doing it just fine since the B2 bomber. The Max MCAS system was grossly mishandled but isn't a indication of computer stabilization being a bad thing. MCAS was also just put on the 737 Max to avoid having to get a new type rating for the Max. Computer stabilization is already extremely widespread in the form of a yaw dampener.
Also flying wings usually require computer stabilization because of the lack of vertical stabilizers. This has vertical stabilizers.
@@g.zoltan false
As an aerospace engineering student at TU Delft, where they developed this aircraft, I really loved this video!
I really dream of going to TU Delft since it’s my favorite university in my country.
Many people don’t realize is, yes a flying wing does have a smaller frontal cross-section and lighter, but the wing is also thicker, meaning less suitable for transonic flight. Why? Because wave drag and transonic drag divergence (top of the wing have supersonic flow).
So instead of flying at Mach 0.80, a flying wing may only reach 0.7 or lower. Making a 10 hour flight longer.
In addition, a flying wing is hard to control when close to stall, and cause the entire crane tumbling end-to-end. Even with fly-by-wire and advanced autopilot we can’t rule out the possibility of reverting back to full manual control, and in full manual control, pilot may stall the plane.
Stability is further compromised by engine loss. A loss power near stall is likely fatal. There is not nearly enough redundancy or throttle control with this design. Likely few large bypass engines are required for fuel consumption. The cost of ensuring proper flight control surfaces will drive the cost up and shorten the lifespan of aircraft. Not likely viable for commercial service. I also suspect the passenger areas are not considerate for long flights. I suspect the market for this still does not exist.
Mach .7 is around the usual crushing speed for a commercial Jet anyway, and that's likely to decrease on long haul flights soon anyway
@@silentdrew7636 I am already quite optimistic when I say they can cruise at Mach 0.7. Realistically, with a wing that thick, you are looking at best 0.64, which is how fast YB-49 flew (Cruise at 0.5 Mach by the way). It would most likely slower due to thicker wing than YB-49.
For some perspective, the Maximum speed of YB-49 is slower than the cruise speed of a ATR-72 modern turboprop.
Modern jets are designed to fly at 0.80, there isn't much fuel saving by flying slower (unlike slow steaming used by ships). The longer flight time is caused by routing and air traffic congestion.
Cooking noodles and watching this somehow relating with this
As a structural engineer, I see one major problem that is the pressurization. If the pressure difference is 10 psi, that would be roughly 1500 psf. For a non-circular section, the member would be very heavy. For a circular section, it just turns the pressure into tension with no bending moment. That is why current aircrafts are all circular or near-circular oval shape for the fuselage. Maybe it can be used for cargo planes.
Back to the beginning when travel by plane was about luxury, space, and sharing the experience.
And enormous prices
It’s been proven that people rather pay 20€ to fly in a crammed aircraft than 400€ for what it is you’re talking about
@@birilol 20, what is this, a bus? Airplane tickets are like 400 _for_ that crammed aircraft!
@@scottthewaterwarrior not sure where you live but I have booked often 50 euro return tickets on easyjet and seen 5 euro ryanair tickets in europe
Must have better price controls in Europe then or something. Looking it up it's actually a bit cheaper in the US then I was expecting, but something like Washington DC to New York City is still like $150 one way, and that's before they add on all the extra hidden fees they don't tell you about till later.
i have been watching the growth of this aircraft for the last 5 year's and i would definitely fly on this aircraft! if given the chance! i have been around civilian and military air craft all my life and I think or should i say i know this design has great potential!
So since fuel was stored in the wings of previous tube + wing designs, now I'm guessing in a 'flying V' fuel storage would be integrated with the fuselage. Does that affect safety in a catastrophic event?
Edit: Those seats are at really funky angles and the reclining lounge seats while "using space efficiently" look very claustrophobia inducing. Easy to imagine someone getting bopped in the face by a reclining passenger from the row in front.
Previous design also had fuel in the fuselage. So, no difference here.
@@Vox_Unius Most jet designs use all of the wings' volume to store the fuel though and from the diagrams i've seen, sometimes there are smaller auxiliary tanks dotted around the fuselage. So my point on safety is that the majority of fuel is stored away from the passengers.
@@Lucius.Hercules Not quite. Yes, aircraft designers try to use as much wing volume as possible, but usually aircraft also have pretty large fuselage tanks. For example, B727 has 3 tanks, 2 in wings, 1 in the fuselage. Each wing tank is ~6780L, the central one is ~16460L.
@@Vox_Unius ö well that's good to know lol, fully thought most the fuel was in the wings.
Thing that immediately strikes me is this new configuration of seats would add a lot of weight in reinforcement. This arrangement without specific strengthening would turn most seats into deadly debris. Rattling everything and everyone like beans in a coffee grinder.
Similar designs have existed for at least 30 years or more and none of them moved past the design/theory stage. The drawbacks you mentioned are certainly present, though the evacuation issue wouldn't be an negative if it was in an all cargo configuration. While a passenger airline can raise and lower prices, almost on a daily basis it seems, cargo carriers like UPS, FedEx, and DHL often have contracted rates that are difficult to change. If the economy is there, this could work as an all-cargo option.
Looking at the concept design and model, beyond what's already been pointed out as negatives, where will the passenger luggage (both checked and carry-on) be stored? The advantage of a tube design is that you have at least a half to 3/4 deck below the cabin floor for luggage and other small volume/high priority cargo.
Dam this is going to look futuristic if it does come out
I'll be honest, all those new cabin seat designs sound terrible and claustrophobic. Especially the bunks (basically zero headroom with someone's butt directly above you, and people above you will need to climb over your bunk to get in) and those lounge seats. Who thought anyone would be fine with a seat where the view ahead is blocked by the backs and bottoms of those ahead?
Great video, and the plane itself is fascinating. Those folks should stick to designing planes and leave the internal floor plan to someone else.
As an aircraft mechanic, i can say changing those engines would suck. You'd quite literally need a hangar with a crane inside it and even still the thing will be like 30+ feet in the air once its out making it really sketchy to move.
I feel like the actual wing surface area is a bit low. When turbulence hits that thing, it's gonna hit HARD. The B-2 Spirit should be taken more into consideration before this hits production in my opinion, since that extra bit of wing area might really help stabilize it. I'm not an aeronautical engineer by any means, but I have been watching these types of videos left and right since I was a kid.
First thing I think of Flying V is Gibson
Ha same but for Dean
RIP the Mriya. May she be rebuilt someday.
I think the swinging lounge seat is actually a great idea. Combination of being a seat, and more comfortable for sleeping then the current seat types.
I think it's going to require more than a 20% fuel savings to make this much of a radical change in aviation.
Probably which is sad
15% with the Airbus A320 Neo really shook up the aviation industry. The margins are very tight and that much of a fuel savings will definitely get their attention.
And that's why it hasn't happened all the decades of air travel.
"If it looks right, it'll fly right" is ironclad rule, in the minds of those who've already made up their minds and won't be swayed by fact.
the point of this design is that it isn't actually that radical, as far as infrastructure goes. No in-body engine means it can use whatever engine comes out on the market. The same footprint and wingspan as a regular plane means it can still use normal airport spaces.
Half the people away from doors? Just make the "inside" of the V partly open. Between the steering flaps or inside of them, all you have to add is 4 hinges and you could just "pop off" the entire section. I have seen that kind of "exit" in a lot of modell aircraft to acces the steering motors in flyingwing modell planes.
Of course in a real plane it would have to be much more suffisticated, but it is defenetly not impossible. An alternative would be to use exit stairs through the roof of the plane. Because the fuselage is oval shaped, the roof is much closer to the passengers, so in theory the top of the inside wing area could be made to "drop down" intothe cabin in case of an emergency exit. All you have to do is to use 1 less row of seats and allow the roof to drop dwon there and then people can just walk away to the top of the plane. Or just make the floor drop, that works as well but might be harder to do, because the floor would often be blocked by the ground in case of a damaged landing gear.
Flying V is a guitar shape 😂😂
How
@@sta11ed15 It was a design by Gibson to make a more exotic looking guitar shape with better solo capability. It’s a guitar more suited for hard rock/heavy metal
@@cranklabexplosion-labcentr8245 sheesh
I’ll call the military version of it
The flying Vendetta or The flying V as an abbreviation
I definitely would not fly on this, its safety is not exactly going to be great, because if the engine pylons are not well built, during a crash, the impact may cause them to slam into the cabin, the non-motion facing seats mean the forces will not be from the front to the back of a body, it will be from the front right/left to the back left/right, meaning the brace position would no longer be effective in protecting the person, the face to face seating is probably going to be fine as long as the table can be fully retracted out of the way during take-off and landing, and the swing seat idea is just stupid on multiple levels. Evacuation is also going to be an absolute nighmare.
windows on the leading edge of the wing?
It's anything but a good idea
Yes, and it even has secret manuevers that turns it into a stealth bomber known as the "C-3 Ghost Stealth Bomber"
All the different seating angles and positions sound like a crash safety nightmare
Make sure the "V' transition components are "smoothed" out to make it the strongest and the last mechanical component to fail. I know co-workers who ripped their tight pants and covering it with a jacket or a sweater. LOL. You can't do it on a falling plane. It'll rip in half like those tight pants.
F&E: *Flashes video of the 225 on screen*
Me: (sobbing quietly)
...and it will have a bar.... and a lounge... and a piano.... and an olympic pool next to the golf court! 😜
Next aviation improvement: no tube, no wings just engine
1:00 RIP :(
Why not connect the middle of the "V" (making a triangle wing)? It looks exciting because it is so different, but there is wasted empty space in the middle.
Love the group seating and the beds, but the other seat designs are awful, especially the swing ones I would hate to be under someone for an entire flight
fart city
I think one of the biggist issues with flying wings is how thick the wings need to be. Sure on paper there is less surface area to create drag, but that tall leading edge often more then counteracts this.
This is a myth.
The fact that we're eliminating static non-lifting drag and replacing it with lift-producing volume, helps.
The increase in L/D is paramount. Such planes fly farther, carrying more payload. Period. According to everybody from NASA and Boeing and Lock-Mart and Airbus and TSAGI
I would absolutely fly on this and give me a lounge seat. they look the most interesting and adaptable. Screw the windows, i never book window seats if i can make the choice anyway.
Amazing video and an amazing looking airplane, but after seeing some comments on the negative reasons, I agree, this will never be commercially used.
I wouldn't want to sit staggered. They'll probably want to line up the seats sideways so people can talk next to each other can talk to each other.
these designs need to be seen in the small general aircraft sectors before they will be accepted in larger scales
I wouldn't think twice about boarding one. 👍 I like the seats attached to the ceiling, which can change their positions depending on whether yoy want to sleep, watch a movie, or surf the net on my laptop.
The blown wing aspect, as well as sound blocking ability of this design is a win, but the takeoff distance is far long and this thing can't pull up to existing gates. They are going to have to double up the wings and keep a straight tube fuselage.
Not sure why there is no mention of Boeing and others BWB concepts. If I recall, along with evacuation issues, the plane reacted differently to turbulence, which meant a pretty rough ride for passengers, and more disorientation in turns and banks for passengers near to edges of the BWB.
Love the concept! However, instead of a boomerang shape, have a "web between the fingers". Could the engines be lowered and housed as with the F117 or B-2? Just my 2 cents worth.
The scale mockup of this plane was in the NASA Headquarters /I think-in a corridor, on top of a book-case!/ not on public display but in view of any employee/ during late 78 already. Probably put there before that time I saw it regularly.
I'd ride in one of these in a heartbeat. I use a cane to get around and the only real issue I'm seeing is the change to overhead /underseat storage. I'd even take a bunk for shorter flights as stretching out would ease my back problems over sitting in a cramped space.
LOVE THIS DESIGN!.. But the BWB concept would be more ideal & suited for hauling freight than passengers. Cuz being farther from the center, you'll Really feel it when the plane banks side 2 side. Even a little, so it would require rudder more than ailerons 2 turn to keep folks from getting sick..
i like the idea, however, have you ever heard of the boeing 797? probably. but there is also a blended wing concept for it
The Scorpions, Metallica and Judas Priest have been using flying V’s for decades. About time aviation catches on
If it can fly more efficiently then it can also glide more efficiently. So it should be more safe in case of engine failure allowing greater range without power.
The main issue that I foresee, would be the G forces exerted on the passengers in the aft portion outside of CL engine in either cabin. This point has been made by other designers working blended wind designs. I would think that the +/- G effect in a high angle bank would have serious effect on passengers prone to motion sickness. I do like the concept though.
man the graphics are super top notch
👍👍👍
The flexing motion of the wings during normal flight is transfered thru the seating areas to the point of the v connect....the wings absorb motion during turbulance and is transfered from port to starboard wings across the cabin, this design the cabin(s) will be a part of that wing motion before transfer point. I am guessing first class will be behind the cockpit, the point of least motion and the seats will be cheapest where the cabin becomes the wing tip (greatest motion) during flight
I’m just sad that planes will most likely be like this in the future because I love how planes are now
0:59 RIP
Seeing the engine placement that seems like a high possibility for compressor stalls seeing how low they are in relation to the roof of the plane.
Great job, I love the channel man, this is the quality of programming you get from the Smithsonian channel. I've been waiting to see a good video on this design for a while now.
I like those angled seats more personal space
Just imagine the adjustments airports would have to do. Even the a380 made sweat pants in adjusting the airports for the behemoth
This youtuber in 1905: Will we ever see monoplanes? Unlikely. :D
best way to avoid the passenger evac issuewould be to make a cargo plain, reducing cost and emission for air freight would be a great USP
i doo really like how the plane looks
Also helps against metal fatigue issues of tube+wings planes due to Its bad airodynamics issues.
Start with a shortrange regional before going longhaul. Fuel efficency is what airlines demand!
i like to see outside , they could cameras outside so you could watch a movie or outside on a monitor
I see a big problem with the fact that some passengers will be sitting very far from the roll axis of the plane, so when the plane rolls slightly, they will experience a large amount of acceleration, that cant be comfortable.
In the early days of passenger plane design, weird shapes, like the dolphin like shape of the Lockheed Super Constellation were tried, and had some aerodynamic benefits. However, constant pressurisation/depressurisation puts more stress on a non-cylindrical body.
So practically, I think we'll be stuck with passenger planes that look similar to the ones today, for a very long time. In actual fact, a Boeing 707 of the late 50s looks almost the same as planes today!
Why not have the idea for smaller commercial air. Like private jet? Keep the passengers in the middle of the v?
It makes more sense for cargo planes, but I’d totally take that over a conventional plane any day.
Just the idea of be on a bed-box inside a falling plane is making me feel anxious.
To be honest, stacked bunks should just replace seats altogether.
I have always loved the quality and work you put into your video
Add a couple of electric plasma pods and a groovy paint job and I'll take one
This aircraft might be a future airliner
id like to point out it is not an issue for the engines that are integrated into all wings like the horten or the B2 spirit it is to keep radar profile and stealth factors which would be drastically less if they just had an engine thats sucking in loads of air and throwing it out on the back of it not to mention it would be harder to hide heat profile and material as well
I think flying wings are a wonderful solution to reducing drag and therefore improving fuel consumption - massive improvement in efficiency. There have been some great examples but mostly a lot of the military top brass and bean counters couldn’t handle something as radical so looked for a way of dismissing the concept. Basic stuff like rudders are usually missing - again those sorts (above) don’t understand or don’t want to. I flew hang gliders for 35 years so I know it works! Jack Northrop was always up against these stick-in-the-mud people.
This would be such an awesome plane!
Companies would like it because it saves cash,and I like it because it looks cool!
And I thought the B-2 was shaped like a boomerang. BUT I WOULD TOTALLY LOVE A SEAT ON THIS
Captain America basically did a Hindenburg on this design :) but it looks cool
Not only, but also people who had it on the tip of the V will get seasick, just like in the Blended Wing Body
This is one bold design! But, it needs work. Maybe it needs a 'tube' instead of using the raw space of the blended wing.
There are military flying wings, i.e. the Stealth Bomber, but should there be an airliner blended wing?
Let's see how things work out at Airbus.
Hey, quick correction/tip. Instead of saying the “tube”, try to say it as “fuselage”.
I’ve heard of it before I’m happy your doing a video of it.
Beautiful and innovating design very refreshing....
maybe slides deployed from the belly of the aircraft in the event of an emergency?
The U.S. Air Force already has flying wings. They're stealthy too.
The seating options all seem quite horrible to be honest. I have no interesting crawling in a coffin sized hole, swinging under some farting fatty or facing some random person for hours. Why does everything have to be super communicative? I don't want anybody to look at or talk to me on a flight, I just want my noise cancelling headphones, watch a stupid movie and have some me-time. Nowadays we have to be communicative all the time, so give me a break during those few hours on a flight!!
I bet that plane gonna go on loop endlessly on mid air until fuel dies
The G forces for the passangers would be too high when flying a curve.
Could be really a wild roller coaster ride when you're near the edge coming off a high bank angle.
It's actually a Flying Wing From W2 but then havilly renewed .
I like the lounge seats first. Then the group seats. 3rd is a tie. I do very much hope to see this aircraft design for commercial use! I know it would be expensive initially, but if fuel efficiency is truly 20% better than conventional aircraft, in the long run it would be greatly beneficial and would pay for itself.
All it needs is a parachute and it's perfect :)