BOEING 797 / General Chatting / Forums

Forums

4hv.org :: Forums :: General Chatting

« Previous topic | Next topic »

BOEING 797

Move Thread

LAN_403

Ash Small

Fri May 25 2012, 05:49PM

Registered Member #3414 Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245

Wow, what a plane!

BOEING 797 It can comfortably fly 10,000 Miles (16,000 km) at Mach 0.88 or 654 mph (1,046 km/h)
with 1000 passengers on board ! They have kept this secret long enough.
This shot was taken last month by an amateur

photographer.

Boeing is preparing this 1000 passenger Jet Liner that could reshape the Air Travel Industry. Its radical "Blended Wing & Fuselage" design has been developed by Boeing in cooperation with NASA Langley Research Centre. The mammoth aircraft will have a wing span of 265 feet compared to 211 feet of its 747, and its been designed to fit within the newly created Air Terminals for the 555 seat Airbus A380, which is 262 feet wide.

The new 797 is Boeing's direct response to the Airbus A380, which has racked up orders for 159 already. Boeing decided to kill its 747X Stretched Super Jumbo in 2003 after little interest was shown for it by Airline Companies, but continued to develop its "Ultimate Airbus Crusher", the 797 at its Phantom Works Research Facility in Long Beach, California.

The Airbus A380 had been in the works since 1999 and has accumulated $13 Billion in development costs, which gives Boeing a huge advantage. More so because Airbus is thus committed to the older style tubular structure for their aircraft for decades to come.

There are several big advantages in the "Blended Wing & Fuselage" design, the most important being the â€˜Lift to Dragâ€™ ratio which is expected to increase by an amazing 50%, resulting in an overall weight reduction of the aircraft by 25%, making it an estimated 33% more fuel efficient than the A380, and thus making the Airbus's $13 Billion Dollar investment look pretty shaky.

"High Airframe Rigidity" is another key factor in the "Blended Wing & Fuselage" technology. It reduces turbulence and creates less stress on the airframe which adds to fuel efficiency, giving the 797 a tremendous 10,000 Mile range with 1,000 passengers on board cruising comfortably at Mach 0.88 or 654 MPH, which gives it another advantage over the tube-and-wing designed A380's 570 MPH.

The exact date for introduction of the 797 is as yet unclear, but the battle lines are clearly drawn in the high-stakes war for future civilian aircraft supremacy.

Mattski

Fri May 25 2012, 05:56PM

Registered Member #1792 Joined: Fri Oct 31 2008, 08:12PM
Location: University of California
Posts: 527

Snopes on the 797

Still makes for some cool pictures!

Ash Small

Sat May 26 2012, 07:51AM

Registered Member #3414 Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245

I did have some reservations about the authenticity of the above article, mainly because there were no references to where or when it was published. I recieved it in an email from an aircraft engineer.

As you point out, Mattski, it makes for some nice pictures.

This is the way things are going though. The 'blended wing and fuselage' design is already in use on the stealth bomber, and boeing apparently has plans for military versions similar to the 797 design.

So Boeing still can't compete with the european A380?

Conundrum

Sat May 26 2012, 09:12AM

Registered Member #96 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 05:37PM
Location: CI, Earth
Posts: 4062

I saw something like this the other day and thought it had to be a spoof.

That said, with modern avionics and active flight surface control a flying disk passenger airliner might be possible.
Plus the advantage of VTOL meaning that a >300 foot diameter craft could land at any medium sized airport would be useful indeed.
Just the thing for carrying massive amounts of cargo to disaster zones, etc.

-A

radiotech

Sun May 27 2012, 06:14PM

Registered Member #2463 Joined: Wed Nov 11 2009, 03:49AM
Location:
Posts: 1546

That ship looks pretty good for steam technology. However it still needs petroleum
to heat the water.

Since the engines are swept back and away from the passengers, two questions:
How far can it glide if some doofus forgets to top up the fuel, like the 767 incident
in Canada, and could they drive it with a nuclear mill, now that computers can
do most of the design details? .

Tetris

Mon May 28 2012, 04:15PM

Registered Member #4016 Joined: Thu Jul 21 2011, 01:52AM
Location: Gainesville, FL
Posts: 660

I travel a lot. Though I do love long flights (I love being in the air).... woooow I just heard SUPER loud thunder where did that hit... Is that a sign?... hehe anyways, I'd still love this new style of aircraft and its speed. I can't wait until we get Mach 1 public aircraft. But this style is nice, why hasn't anyone thought of it before? More rigidity in the wings= less turbulence. I guess it's the fuel to weight efficiency ratio. I still don't think it would reduce international flight air tickets :P

EDIT: I accidentally a word: reduce the price of
Whoops double post. Delete that above one, I don't know how to.

Ash Small

Mon May 28 2012, 06:06PM

Registered Member #3414 Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245

HighVoltageChick wrote ...

I can't wait until we get Mach 1 public aircraft.

We had Mach 1 public aircraft in the '60's

Harry

Mon May 28 2012, 07:44PM

Registered Member #4081 Joined: Wed Aug 31 2011, 06:40PM
Location: UK
Posts: 139

Even had a commercial aircraft that could reach Mach 2.
Was very dangerous and inefficient, but still speedy :)

But there is now very little market for such planes, people want cheap, not speed. It made sense in the '60s, before video calling, as meetings took place all over the world, and a Â£5000 ticket made sense when missing a meeting may have lost them Â£500,000.
But apparently the Boeing 797 has been a hoax spread since 2006:

Ash Small

Tue May 29 2012, 03:04PM

Registered Member #3414 Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245

NASA is claiming a breakthrough in quiet supersonic aircraft, with successful windtunnel tests of designs that combine low sonic boom and low cruise drag - characteristics once thought to be mutually exclusive.

Photo: Boeing

Commenting on the completion of boom and performance tests by Boeing and Lockheed Martin, NASA Supersonic Fixed Wing project manager Peter Coen says: â€œThis is a breakthrough. Itâ€™s the first time we have taken a design representative of a small supersonic airliner and shown we can change the configuration in a way that is compatible with high efficiency and have a sonic signature than is not a boom.â€

The trick is in the shaping of the airframe to tailor the shockwaves so that they produce a sinusoidal pressure signature at the ground, rather than the abrupt N-wave shape of a traditional "double-bang" sonic boom. Instead of powerful bow and aft shockwaves, the aim is to generate lots of smaller shocks along the airframe that attenuate more quickly as they travel through the atmosphere. Boeing's model (above) shows the result of all that subtle shaping.

Boeing's design for a 202ft-long, 30-passenger supersonic airliner acheived a boom level of 81PLdB at Mach 1.8 in NASA Ames' 9 x 7ft tunnel. Lockheed's design for a 230ft-long, 81-passenger trijet (below) achieved 79PLdB at Mach 1.6. NASA's goal is 85PLdB. "That's 25dB less than Concorde and 20dB less than the best we achieved under HSR [NASA's High Speed Research program]," Coen says.

1338303854 3414 FT139015 Lockheed Martin

Concept: Lockheed Martin

Both concepts for a 2025-timeframe small supersonic airliner achieved the cruise lift-to-drag ratio required to meet their design range of 4,000nm. "We've broken the low-boom/low-drag paradox, where you could get one, not both," he says. "They achieved low boom with a good level of supersonic lift-to-drag."

But we can do better, it seems. Longer term, NASA is targeting a boom level of 65PLdB, and 70PLdB is widely regarded as the threshold for public acceptance of unrestricted supersonic flight over land. Both the Boeing and Lockheed designs are at the high end of what would be acceptable. â€œWeâ€™ve learned that shaping technology will improve, and we'll probably be able to reduce the boom further,â€ Coen says.

So Boeing and Lockheed will further refine the shaping of their designs in Phase 2, for which NASA has two goals: to reduce boom levels across the full 60-mile-wide ground "carpet", and not just under the aircraft's track, and to measure the effects of engine inlet and nozzle shock systems on the boom signature. Refined models will go back in the tunnel in October/November.

CFD graphic: Lockheed Martin

Getting the aft-fuselage shockwave shaping right is tricky. The 3D geometry optimizer used "makes some pretty fine adjustments to the aft end of the aircraft," says Coen. "Shock position is pretty important, and even small shocks from the nozzle flow could have an effect." The models tested this year had only representative flow-through nacelles. but the new ones will have accurately modelled inlets and nozzles, with their shock systems.

The Skunk Works' John Morgenstern says Lockheed's design achieved a full-carpet low boom averaging 79PLdB "with a cruise L/D impact of less than 10%". He is aiming for a boom of less than 78PLdB, and ideally less than 73PLdB, with the refined design, which will also introduce natural laminar flow to further reduce drag. Boeing Research & Technology's Todd Magee says his team will evaluate ramp and conical inlets and take another look at how the upper-mounted engines on their design are integrated with the body.

All this success is increasing pressure on NASA to find the funds - from somewhere - for a low-boom supersonic flight demonstrator. The agency has been working with Gulfstream on design of the X-54A Low Boom Experimental Vehicle (LBEV - below), but does not have the budget unless it cuts other programs or persuades Congress or its government and industry partners to put in money.

Concept: NASA

For now, NASA uses an F-18 to fly a dive maneuver that creates a shaped boom at a certain point on the ground. But to assess the public acceptance of shaped booms, it needs to get away from the boom-inured populace around Edwards AFB. â€œUltimately we would like to do a flight demonstration of low boom in steady level flight, as a way to look at community acceptance,â€ says Coen.

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob