Whenever BWB designs are mentioned as a possible replacement for tube with wings design – they always talk about large airliners, 400-500 or even 800 pax numbers. They list the benefits of design then when it comes to flaws of the design two of the main complaints always are:
1. passengers are not used to fly in seating arrangements where we’d have 3-4 aisles and where most of PAX would be seated far away from windows.
2. BWB tend to have larger wingspans than tube planes of same pax capacity, for which many of the terminals on airports would need to be redesigned and rebuilt.
But, what happens if we apply BWB for next gen replacement for b737 and a320?
1. Instead of current 20-30 rows of 6 abreast we could have two aisle 3-5-3 arrangement to which pax are familiar with as those are used in b747 and will be used in a380. Distance from windows would be pretty much the same. If we wanna live on the edge, even 3-6-3 configuration could be used for economy class. 25 x 6 is 150 pax, 150:11 would mean 13,5 rows in BWB plane, roughly cutting the requiered cabin length in half and making it very suitable for requirements of BWB design.
2. Though larger wingspan may be required than from current 737/320, even a projected 45 m wingspan would still make usable on most of current terminals that are today used for the likes of b757, 767 or a300, a310. Granted, that would take away free space for those models but we are talking about short term measure. What is needed for BWB is a way it can start operating commerical to show its potential. One of the things preventing it is exactly investments needed in change of infrastructure before it can even appear at the airports. But if we forget for a moment about jumbo jets and concentrate on smaller planes, such a bwb design can be readily used at existing airports.
Then later on, given they have proven their worth and fuel consumption is indeed 20-40% lower as theory would have us believe, commercial aviation sector would gladly pay for redesign of airport terminals so they are better suited to BWB. Furthermore, any new thing takes its time to get accustomed to. Getting to experience BWB on smaller planes first, passengers may get used to such seating arrangements despite indeed less window coverage as BWB planes get larger and in some future time they may accept BWBs at any size. I know i would gladly pay 25% less for a plane ticket if i had a chance in exchange of never even seeing a window on a plane.
By: bloodnok - 13th September 2006 at 22:05
burnelli also had a blended fuselage/flying wing back in the 30’s, it even got into commercial use.
By: chornedsnorkack - 13th September 2006 at 17:18
If that was so Boeing wouldn’t even bother with its countless and, even more importantly, persistent designs which are continuously refined.
Does Boeing persist with the giant designs, or small ones?
Of course, thicker wing means more drag, but at the same time we have smaller fuselage section for less drag.
But we do not get people into the wing until it has stand-up thickness. Plenty of drag before this.
BWB is favourable for big planes, which can have thick wings anyway.
By: totoro - 13th September 2006 at 16:22
If that was so Boeing wouldn’t even bother with its countless and, even more importantly, persistent designs which are continuously refined. Of course, thicker wing means more drag, but at the same time we have smaller fuselage section for less drag. I do believe BWBs are viable for pax travel and that two reasons for stoppign them are: inadequate material science and politics.
By: chornedsnorkack - 13th September 2006 at 15:20
Junkers
Whenever BWB designs are mentioned as a possible replacement for tube with wings design – they always talk about large airliners, 400-500 or even 800 pax numbers. They list the benefits of design then when it comes to flaws of the design two of the main complaints always are:
1. passengers are not used to fly in seating arrangements where we’d have 3-4 aisles and where most of PAX would be seated far away from windows.
2. BWB tend to have larger wingspans than tube planes of same pax capacity, for which many of the terminals on airports would need to be redesigned and rebuilt.
But, what happens if we apply BWB for next gen replacement for b737 and a320?
1. Instead of current 20-30 rows of 6 abreast we could have two aisle 3-5-3 arrangement to which pax are familiar with as those are used in b747 and will be used in a380. Distance from windows would be pretty much the same. If we wanna live on the edge, even 3-6-3 configuration could be used for economy class. 25 x 6 is 150 pax, 150:11 would mean 13,5 rows in BWB plane, roughly cutting the requiered cabin length in half and making it very suitable for requirements of BWB design.2. Though larger wingspan may be required than from current 737/320, even a projected 45 m wingspan would still make usable on most of current terminals that are today used for the likes of b757, 767 or a300, a310. Granted, that would take away free space for those models but we are talking about short term measure. What is needed for BWB is a way it can start operating commerical to show its potential. One of the things preventing it is exactly investments needed in change of infrastructure before it can even appear at the airports. But if we forget for a moment about jumbo jets and concentrate on smaller planes, such a bwb design can be readily used at existing airports.
Then later on, given they have proven their worth and fuel consumption is indeed 20-40% lower as theory would have us believe, commercial aviation sector would gladly pay for redesign of airport terminals so they are better suited to BWB. Furthermore, any new thing takes its time to get accustomed to. Getting to experience BWB on smaller planes first, passengers may get used to such seating arrangements despite indeed less window coverage as BWB planes get larger and in some future time they may accept BWBs at any size. I know i would gladly pay 25% less for a plane ticket if i had a chance in exchange of never even seeing a window on a plane.
There was a commercial, in-service BWB with about 45 m wingspan.
It is Junkers/Mitsubishi G38. Passenger capacity 28 in fuselage, 6 in wings. And there are actually windows looking directly forwards in the leading edge of wing.
However, there is a reason small why passenger BWB-s do not work very well. The stand-up cabin constrains wing thickness. Junkers G-38, precisely because of its thick wing, has relatively high drag – it is out of optimum proportion. The more successful propliners of comparable wingspan, like Lockheed Constellation or DC-7 or B-377, have much thinner as well as narrower wings.
Sign In
September 13, 2006 at 2:46 pm