[HN Gopher] JetZero: Ultra-efficient blended wing body jet
___________________________________________________________________
JetZero: Ultra-efficient blended wing body jet
Author : belter
Score : 103 points
Date : 2024-03-27 16:43 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.jetzero.aero)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.jetzero.aero)
| idontwantthis wrote:
| Are those windows on top of the plane? Would seeing the empty sky
| above you be a good thing for passengers?
| bakies wrote:
| Definitely want them closed on long-hauls, but would be nice
| for light on domestic flights... Could also wear eye covers I
| guess.
| someplaceguy wrote:
| > Would seeing the empty sky above you be a good thing for
| passengers?
|
| I would imagine seeing the ground above you to be much worse
| for passengers...
| i5heu wrote:
| Maybe a looping from times to times would reduce the fear of
| space above the passengers.
| pwagland wrote:
| And it would make those warnings about your baggage maybe
| having moved in flight much more notable.
| canucker2016 wrote:
| ...until all those people, who don't wear seatbelts while
| seated, end up falling to the ceiling and then falling to
| the floor.
|
| Anything not held down - imagine all the laptops and
| electronic gear - flying around the cabin...
| forgetfreeman wrote:
| Except for the sociopath in B3 who gets off on all the
| screaming...
| Arelius wrote:
| They are called skylights in buildings, I have to imagine being
| able to let in more natural light into the cabin, especially in
| a plane with such a wide body and corresponding distance
| between side windows is a generally good thing for humans.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| I always thought you didn't want to do this because of UV
| exposure and heat reasons...
| cm2187 wrote:
| Plus occasionally the sun will shine straight into
| someone's head.
| netsharc wrote:
| If only someone would invent electrochromic windows...
| ada1981 wrote:
| or manual pull shades.
| ada1981 wrote:
| this happens in regular aircraft all the time.
| cchance wrote:
| Both are blocked with any decent coating to block UV and IR
| itishappy wrote:
| Surprisingly so! Humans really don't like being confined, and
| travel is stressful enough as it is...
|
| One of the options for my senior design project (~5 years ago)
| was designing an artificial skylight for a hyperloop-style
| vehicle. Evacuated tubes make natural lighting difficult, and
| they'd already determined this was going to be a major hurdle
| for making the thing an attractive option for passenger
| transit. They wanted it to respond to the vehicles movements as
| well. Cool project!
| tintor wrote:
| Side windows only for business class. How to make economy even
| more miserable.
| nashashmi wrote:
| sunroof windows coming soon.
| ElijahLynn wrote:
| That would be really nice!
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Side windows only for business class_
|
| I'm currently in a lay-flat seat home from Europe. Center
| aisles. Nobody at the windows ever opened them.
| jurassicfoxy wrote:
| In Economy (not lay-flat) the best feature of having a window
| is about having a wall next to you for sleeping, not for
| sight-seeing.
| makestuff wrote:
| The best will be when the double decker economy seats start to
| be installed. /s
| ElijahLynn wrote:
| On recent flights, I was surprised how many people who somehow
| chose a window seat, closed the window, during broad daylight.
| This is a big change from when I was younger, where so many
| more people had the window open and were interested in seeing
| what was outside. I wonder what changed? Is it phones? Is it
| sleep debt? Is it that they have flown 100 times now and the
| novelty is gone?
|
| I always love listening to music and looking out the window.
| i5heu wrote:
| Is there anything more then nice renders? Like a model that works
| or something?
| slater wrote:
| https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/emerging-technologies/faa...
| pwagland wrote:
| Cool:
|
| JetZero's four-year development plan is due to culminate in
| flight tests of the full-scale demonstrator beginning in the
| first quarter of 2027. Sized around the capacity of a Boeing
| 767 with a wingspan close to that of an Airbus A330, the
| demonstrator will be built and tested in collaboration with
| Northrop Grumman and its prototyping subsidiary Scaled
| Composites.
|
| It's an ambitious plan though, given that they have only just
| been granted licenses for their 1:8 scale model.
| mey wrote:
| How hard is it to get clearance from the FAA to fly a large
| drone? This seems to indicate they are very very early in the
| development process.
| thePhytochemist wrote:
| Haha, nice timing that this appears after the "why are airplanes
| so hard to build?" article! Putting the engines to radiate sound
| upwards does make a lot of sense.
| ralfd wrote:
| Link? Search can't find it.
| tekla wrote:
| We don't put engines on top because it makes maintenance alot
| harder.
| abadpoli wrote:
| Also safety. Uncontained engine failures shouldn't ever
| happen (and maybe happen less as technology gets better), but
| when they do happen, it's better for them to be under the
| wing away from the fuselage rather than right in the path of
| critical control systems.
|
| Since this is a blended wing with no vertical stabilizer, it
| might be different, but it does still look like there are
| control surfaces right next to the engines..
| thesh4d0w wrote:
| > it's better for them to be under the wing away from the
| fuselage rather than right in the path of critical control
| systems
|
| but.... all the control surfaces are on the wing right next
| to that engine.
| abadpoli wrote:
| Ailerons and flaps are, but elevators and rudder that
| control the yaw and pitch of an aircraft are in the tail.
| See United Flight 232.
| JorgeGT wrote:
| There's also the issue of ingesting the turbulent/detached
| boundary layer of the fuselage at high angles of attack,
| causing inlet distortions and the corresponding risk of
| compressor stall.
| olleromam91 wrote:
| I was intrigued, but acoustically it doesn't make a lot of
| sense really...the thrust exhaust where all the fast moving air
| comes out, also happens to be where all the loud comes out too.
| Their renderings don't look like the engines are far enough
| forward for the fuselage to provide any significant
| obstructions to the path of sound from the exhaust down to the
| ground.
| ElijahLynn wrote:
| I think that is what Nasa's X-59 plane that is doing to
| eliminate/minimize the sonic boom too. Pushing the boom
| upwards.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jAH-51feAA (Cleo Abram - NASA
| Is Bringing Supersonic Planes BACK)
| karmajunkie wrote:
| I feel like I see these kinds of proposed improvements to air
| travel (e.g. this, improved seat designs, improved volumes, etc),
| and yet, we're still flying in the same basic design with ever-
| smaller seat allocations as we have for decades. What are the
| chances planes like this will actually see the light of day in
| our lifetimes? It feels like i'm more likely to see fusion become
| a realistic contributor to the power grid than I am to see air
| travel change in any noticeable way (for the common flier at
| least, discounting fares like transoceanic business class).
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _we 're still flying in the same basic design with ever-
| smaller seat allocations as we have for decades_
|
| We have a rent-seeking duopoly of airframe designers. The
| history of commercial air frames ended in the era of the
| Concorde.
|
| What we need is competition, and national leadership willing to
| bet on it.
| tekla wrote:
| No, aircraft frames are the way they are because they balance
| the billion different requirements the best. A blended wing
| body is nothing new.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _aircraft frames are the way they are because they
| balance the billion different requirements the best. A
| blended wing body is nothing new_
|
| One big one being the fixed cost of new air frame
| development and certification. Nobody would incur that
| expense unless forced to by the competition.
| tekla wrote:
| And yet new airframes do get certified.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _yet new airframes do get certified_
|
| Last one was the 737 Max in 2017. It's a derivative. The
| last truly new frames were the 787 in 2011 and A380 in
| 2006. Both focussed on subsystems, propulsion and
| materials for their novelty; only one has been a
| commercial success.
|
| One successful (two attempted) new airframes in over two
| decades is extraordinarily slower than the pre-
| consolidation frequency. It is also notable that neither
| attempted to introduce a new air frame that directly
| competes with the other's; Airbus and Boeing trade market
| segments. There is zero head-to-head competition.
|
| Modern planes are a marvel of engineering. And newer
| planes are more comfortable. That doesn't change that
| we're stuck in a local optimum due to a cessation of risk
| taking.
| tekla wrote:
| Why do you keep thinking competition is what prevented
| blended wing bodies? Blended wing bodies make big trade
| offs that don't neatly fit with commercial flight.
|
| The analysis of different lifting bodies is fairly
| fundamental aeronautical engineering work every student
| learns. There is no weird conspiracy here.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Why do you keep thinking competition is what prevented
| blended wing bodies?_
|
| Never said as much. OP asked why all planes since the 70s
| look about the same. It's because there isn't a sustained
| budget for experimentation.
|
| > _no weird conspiracy_
|
| Never said as much. It's not exactly groundbreaking for
| entrenched supplies to cease innovating and focus on
| extraction.
| notahacker wrote:
| There's been more competition in the regional market
| including clean sheet designs by new entrants, but
| they're all conventional tubes and wings and podded
| turbofans too. China's state funded A320/737 competitor
| is a clone with a shared engine platform too.
|
| Improving on current generation airliners is _hard_
| compared with improving what flew between 1920 and 1950,
| and consolidation happened because it wasn 't profitable.
| Airlines and financiers don't like uncertainty either.
| ClarkMarx wrote:
| The A350, a clean sheet composite design, was certified
| in 2014.
| Ekaros wrote:
| A220 in 2015 I think was also clean sheet.
| shash wrote:
| Both of you are correct - there is a duopoly because of the
| complexity, and the duopoly has no real incentive to
| change, given that the current local optimum seems to be
| working for the foreseeable future. There is no pressure to
| innovate, and a strong one to keep the status quo.
| mannykannot wrote:
| And yet efficiency gains are vigorously pursued and
| adopted, where real - and most recently, that has been
| with engines and composites. Meanwhile, the blended-wing
| concept has been experimented with for over a century,
| and it has never demonstrated a compelling improvement.
| Until I see a proposal that comes with a paper explaining
| what recent innovation has made things different this
| time, I will remain skeptical.
| RachelF wrote:
| I am sceptical, too. There are no efficiency numbers on
| their website, just marketing boilerplate.
|
| In terms of pure frontal area, their design looks fatter.
|
| Would be interesting to see some drag data from wind
| tunnel tests.
| stetrain wrote:
| The airframe designers don't decide the seat space per
| passenger.
|
| They can include all of the spacious reclining seats and
| lounge sofas as they want in the design, and airlines will
| spec it with seats and seat pitches that produce the greatest
| profit per flight by maximizing the number of passengers
| within the limits of safety regulations.
| ordinaryradical wrote:
| Airplanes have changed, but in ways not immediately visible.
|
| The Dreamliner is something like 80% composites by volume now,
| a material profile almost unthinkable 30 years ago.
|
| But the visual dynamics of the design changes have been far
| less dramatic.
|
| I do think we may see things change significantly with eVTOLs
| and battery tech improvements.
|
| Major increases in energy density plus solid state (for safety)
| would probably trigger a Tesla-fication, and at that point the
| incumbents will inevitably be late adopters and some upstart is
| going to build something new looking.
|
| Finally, if shape-memory polymers ever really take off, we
| could see some exciting things. Imagine a dynamically shaping
| airfoil, or, way out there, a wing which can translate itself
| from wide body to delta with almost no moving parts required to
| do so.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Dreamliner is something like 80% composites by volume now,
| a material profile almost unthinkable 30 years ago_
|
| This--and no bleed air, fly by wire, _et cetera_ --are big.
| But not on the level of air frame improvements. We've been
| stuck in a local optimum due to overconsolidation for decades
| now. We're seeing it bleed into safety simply because
| complacence evolved into corruption.
| nurple wrote:
| Excellently said.
|
| I would love to see a regulatory world where
| experimentation outside of the high-end is more prolific.
| Even the constraints that were put on UAVs by the FAA have
| stifled that spirit in a real way.
|
| Where is the hacker culture in aviation that we've been
| amazed by in the AI space? Even people doing cool things as
| small groups, like the black arrow guys, are just building
| in the same local minima.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > Where is the hacker culture in aviation that we've been
| amazed by in the AI space?
|
| I mean, if you mess up your AI model, it generates photos
| of black Nazis or people with an extra arm. Everyone
| laughs at you a bit.
|
| If you mess up your plane, it kills people. There are
| absolutely people building experimental aircraft, but for
| good reasons there's a bit more caution involved.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Where is the hacker culture in aviation that we've been
| amazed by in the AI space? Even people doing cool things
| as small groups, like the black arrow guys, are just
| building in the same local minima.
|
| Well, a basic body + wings shape, anyone with moderate
| skill can construct that with a kit in their garden shed
| and fly it.
|
| But all these exotic design ideas? These require immense
| amounts of compute power to design them so that they'll
| actually take off and _substantial_ investment into
| manufacturing tooling to manufacture them, far surpassing
| the capabilities of all but a very few very rich
| hobbyists, and people with that kind of money generally
| don 't subject themselves to the high operational risk of
| general aviation. Even in cars there's no one working on
| home-builds for carbon composite stuff, and the potential
| for failures and the risk of said failures to not just
| the pilot but everyone on the ground there is orders of
| magnitude lower than with planes.
|
| And on top of that come the regulatory issues associated
| with anything that flies. There are many MANY MANY orders
| of magnitude less people with pilot licenses in the first
| place, most of Europe doesn't allow flights from anything
| else than a licensed airstrip (although the US is
| different there IIRC), and new designs require an immense
| amount of certification paperwork, which is also the
| reason why it took until last year to get unleaded fuel
| certified (whose rollout will take at least 3-5 years).
| cm2187 wrote:
| Pressurisation is better. In the 90s I would always have ear
| pains, which happened to me only once in the last 15 years,
| on an old brazilian b777.
| jajko wrote:
| Not sure if this is true, you can see that on any device
| with pressure meter (basically all 'smart' watches and
| phones), the standards are 2000-2500m altitude. Once you
| can create an altitude X inside the plane, you can do say
| 70% of X too.
|
| Maybe just your condition improved?
| IndrekR wrote:
| New composite ones like A350 and Dreamliner have cabin
| altitude of ~1800m
| zonkerdonker wrote:
| This is a multifaceted issue, involving the duopoly of
| commercial airline manufacturers, strict regulation, and
| massive subsidies.
|
| It costs Boeing 10s of billions of dollars and usually around a
| decade to design an aircraft from a clean sheet, with very
| little incentive for truly disruptive innovation. Developing
| and testing a wholly new design like this would probably take
| double the time and more than double the cost. When your
| assembly, all testing, designs, control systems, and pilots
| have been optimized "wings on a tube" shape for 70+ years, I'd
| imagine it's difficult to pivot the core design that
| drastically.
|
| I'm hoping to see some of the government subsidies shifted
| towards more competition with Boeing's recent failures, but
| lobbying is powerful, so we'll see.
| nurple wrote:
| I agree. I am disappointed that NASA abdigated its role in
| driving forward not only space but aviation to commercial
| interests. It made, and still makes, many people very rich, but
| profit motives lead to the masses to feeling, and being
| handled, like cattle.
|
| I'm particularly frustrated by the dearth of general aviation
| as a means of travel outside of the wealthy. We built small
| airports EVERYWHERE, and in most cases they sit rotting in
| rural areas instead of being hubs of inter-city trade.
|
| I have plans to change that, but the aviation space is
| notoriously coin-operated and high impedance. Even with funding
| it's going to require some serious SV-style hacking to change
| anything meaningfully.
| bane wrote:
| My understanding that the difficult part of these blended wing
| concepts is the uneven volume of the aircraft makes
| pressurization difficult.
| atonse wrote:
| Totally random but why does this website need a cookie pop up?
| What would a Jet company need with my cross domain browsing data?
| durkie wrote:
| also the site is "protected" by dmca.com
| closewith wrote:
| They're using Hubspot as their CRM and all the tracking that
| comes with that.
|
| They also use Google Fonts, which Google says is not used for
| tracking, but the EU disagrees.
| chessgecko wrote:
| Probably the same analytics/funnel bs that's everywhere these
| days. Though in this case the users are probably vcs not
| buyers.
| geodel wrote:
| Well, they want to see what other jets you are buying and give
| you a good deal on in-flight entertainment, or free fuel for 2
| cross Atlantic trips if you buy their jet.
| aorloff wrote:
| Because otherwise they would have to make sure they don't need
| a cookie popup, and nobody is ever sure of that with modern
| marketing stacks
| cchance wrote:
| THIS! I put cookie popups on basically all my sites just to
| avoid having to screw with figuring out what minor analytics
| cookie might break some law somewhere.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| At this point, it is probably just good practice to have it on
| every site. I imagine it is a default in every template now.
| zbentley wrote:
| Good practice for whom?
| codr7 wrote:
| The people who make the rules?
| MattGaiser wrote:
| Anyone who has a website. It is zero downside butt
| coverage.
| cchance wrote:
| Every website owner, that doesn't want to get shit on
| because they forgot to notify you they're dropping a cookie
| because they use google analytics or something else to
| monitor their site data.
| yabones wrote:
| Unless this has the capacity of a 737-700 / Max-7, there's no way
| six emergency exits are enough. They're also all up at the front,
| making egress difficult if an isle is blocked.
|
| Yes, it's a nitpick, but if that's a design flaw that jumps out
| to a complete amateur with moderate aviation knowledge and no
| industry experience, it doesn't inspire a great deal of
| confidence.
| rozab wrote:
| This is part of why Boeing shut down the idea back in the 90s
| iirc.
|
| But I think this company is not actually aiming to develop an
| airliner at all, it just makes for pretty pictures. Their
| demonstrator is being built for the USAF (along with Northrop
| Grumman and Scaled Composites), with a view to being used as a
| tanker and transport.
|
| I'm sceptical. Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Airbus have all
| investigated this exact concept over the last few decades, and
| none have gone forward with it.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Airbus have all investigated
| this exact concept over the last few decades, and none have
| gone forward with it_
|
| Low incentives for taking risks and massive improvements in
| CAD and computer testing. A new airframe should always bring
| scepticism. But as someone with aerospace engineering
| training, it's somewhat funny to see the space side of the
| market seeing more competition and thus innovation than the
| aero.
| tekla wrote:
| I don't think its THAT particularly surprising.
|
| The old school rocket engines are still some of the most
| efficient engines ever created and most rockets never had a
| strong commercial market backing it so there was never
| pressure to try something else. The RS68 and RS25 are still
| amazing pieces of technology.
|
| SpaceX succeeded because they were able to take advantage
| of NASA literally creating a commercial market (and also
| making an amazing engine that is "good enough" for 99% of
| payloads)
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _old school rocket engines are still some of the most
| efficient engines ever created_
|
| Sure. But there are other niches than maximal ISP. SpaceX
| and other launch providers have demonstrated it.
|
| In both cases--airlines and rocketry--there was latent
| demand once someone looked for it. And in both cases, I
| believe, public support is necessary.
| notahacker wrote:
| I think the person suggesting their more realistic short
| term goal is defense funding for future USAF tanker
| contracts might not be too far from the mark.
|
| Whether the fuel economy of an airliner-sized tanker is
| enough to convince doubting airline execs facing very
| different operational constraints is another question.
| mdasen wrote:
| I'm skeptical too, but part I wouldn't necessarily write it
| off because a company like Boeing hasn't gone forward with
| it. Boeing won't even go forward with a redesign of the 737,
| preferring to go the cheaper route of continually modifying
| an existing design from the 1960s.
|
| I do think there are other concepts that are farther along
| and have more promise like the Aurora D8 "double bubble"
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_D8). Its design isn't
| as much of a departure, but it would still reduce fuel burn
| and noise significantly. Likewise, Boeing's TTBW (transsonic
| truss braced wing) design is promising especially since they
| have a full-sized demonstrator at this point.
|
| But companies have been hesitant to invest in new types of
| aircraft. It's an industry that's essentially a duopoly where
| the big two have a decade worth of orders for their current
| aircraft. There isn't even a lot of competition between the
| two because neither has the capacity to produce more planes
| if they create something that airlines want. The A380 was
| probably the biggest risk that's been taken recently and that
| turned out to be a pretty big failure. I don't think either
| Boeing or Airbus wants to take risks when they have pretty
| guaranteed profits by staying the course. Boeing has even
| shelved its plans for the Boeing NMA (new midsize airplane)
| to replace the 737.
|
| I'd also add that these projects often end up learning
| important things about aeronautics even if they don't become
| things you fly on. For example, one of the big things with
| the Aurora D8 was figuring out how to deal with boundary
| layer ingestion inefficiencies. Even if the D8 never becomes
| something you'll fly on, the knowledge gained there might be
| used in other planes that you will fly on.
|
| You're right to be skeptical and I am too. It's really
| difficult to bring a new plane to market. However, I'm not
| sure I'd take Boeing and Airbus' reticence as evidence that
| it isn't worth exploring more. We've been talking about the
| bean counters taking over Boeing for months now and
| complaining about Boeing continually modifying the 737 rather
| than creating a new plane. Is it likely we'll be flying on
| these things? No. Even if it's a good and viable design,
| there's so much beyond that to get done. Actually
| manufacturing something as complex as a plane is very hard -
| there's a reason Airbus and Boeing have a decade long backlog
| of orders. But there's also a reason why places like NASA
| want to fund experimental projects like this - because there
| aren't really incentives for companies like Boeing to take
| risks on new designs.
|
| I mean, you're right: this probably won't happen. At the same
| time, I think it's important to keep trying because sometimes
| these things do work and even when they don't work we often
| learn important things that can be applied in the future.
| interestica wrote:
| Those skylights? Just pop em out to exit in a hurry.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| Only if it is inverted.
| fakedang wrote:
| This is a valid point, but as a hobbyist pilot, damn that
| aircraft is beautiful. It may not replace the Boeing, but it
| would certainly replace a Gulfstream or Pilatus.
| lettergram wrote:
| What I will say, is their board of advisors is impressive -
| https://www.jetzero.aero/company
|
| And they have many roles open.
|
| To me this seems like it has a decent shot. I do wonder if they
| should focus on one category (e.g. tanker) or something that'll
| get it off the ground.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Maybe, and I'd love to see aviation innovation (ahem) take off,
| but...
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/theranos-former-board-member...
|
| I'd be careful how much I take from just a fancy list of board
| members.
| relativ575 wrote:
| It's different:
|
| _Holmes ' board going into the scandal included an unusual
| roster of names for a healthcare startup, with leaders who
| had more experience in politics and government than
| healthcare_
|
| OTOH, JetZero's board include former executives of:
|
| Airbus
|
| Learjet
|
| Gulfstream
|
| AirFrance KLM
|
| Pratt & Whitney
|
| Major aircraft and jet engine makers as well as airlines. In
| other words, very strong industry knowledge and connections.
| jack_riminton wrote:
| How much more expensive would this shape be to build?
| dver wrote:
| Company that was trying this design for a kit built GA BWB.
|
| http://www.wingco.com/index.html
|
| Looking at the site, this is 20 years ago now since the last
| update, a taxi test accident appears to have ended the project.
| martinky24 wrote:
| I like how they suggest the new body design will lead to improved
| comfort and space for passengers.
|
| Absolutely no way -- they'll find a way to fill it as tight as
| possible.
| RajT88 wrote:
| Depends on the airline.
|
| RyanAir would.
|
| Air Emirates would figure out how to cram a discotech into the
| back.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Related:
|
| _JetZero 's ultra-efficient blended wing demonstrator cleared
| for takeoff_
|
| https://newatlas.com/aircraft/jetzero-blended-wing-demonstra...
| xnx wrote:
| Blended wing body jets have a number of disadvantages:
|
| * Low ratio of window seats may not be acceptable to passengers
|
| * Passengers seated at the edges will experience greater positive
| and negative g-forces when rolling
|
| * Don't fit well into existing airports for parking, jet bridges,
| etc.
|
| * More difficult to design for pressurization than a tube
| nurple wrote:
| Never really thought about how being far from the centerline
| would change how much/quickly you move in a roll, I can
| definitely see that feeling being unnerving, expecially the
| inevetable(though rare?) negative G moments.
| geoffeg wrote:
| > * Low ratio of window seats may not be acceptable to
| passengers
|
| Is that really a problem though? A lot of window passengers
| seem to close the window almost as soon as they get in their
| seat.
| Cerium wrote:
| Sure isn't a problem on long-haul where the windows stay shut
| the whole time.
| snakeyjake wrote:
| This specific model of BWB, when overlayed with a 737/A320
| seems to put the outer-most passengers at the approximate
| location of the nacelles on the narrow-body aircraft.
|
| The nacelles on a 737 are BARELY wider than an A380. Is
| differential force an issue on the A380? It is one of the only
| models of commercial aircraft I have never flown on.
| Solvency wrote:
| How can anyone take this site seriously? It looks looks some
| stock Joomla nonsense from 2008 with a few cheap CG mock-ups of a
| jet that look amateurish at best. Not a god look for a company
| claiming to disrupt the jet space.
| ElijahLynn wrote:
| They do have a video, fwiw, from the CEO.
|
| https://www.jetzero.aero/
| hagbard_c wrote:
| Hm, haven't we seen this before? Yes, we did:
|
| 2019: https://www.flightglobal.com/programmes/flying-v-concept-
| rec...
|
| 2020: https://www.businessinsider.com/klm-royal-dutch-airlines-
| fut...
|
| _A prototype of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines ' futuristic-looking
| flying-wing aircraft just took its first flight in Germany --
| take a look at the Flying-V_
|
| That one was closer to a V-shape while this contender fills up
| the space between the V's legs with more seating.
|
| May the best one win...
| Gravityloss wrote:
| Put a price on carbon and there might be suddenly some space for
| more innovation in airliners.
|
| Right now it makes sense to fly old planes even when they're less
| efficient since fuel is cheap.
| nradov wrote:
| Fuel prices are just one factor. Airlines prefer underwing
| engines for ease of maintenance. Mechanics can reach everything
| with a simple ladder.
| Kognito wrote:
| Any evidence for this?
|
| Airliners have steadily gotten more fuel efficient at a rate of
| about 1.3% per year since the 1960s, driven by fierce
| competition.
|
| If someone could produce a massively more efficient design then
| there'd be huge interest but when the risk of failure is so
| high, why would manufacturers take a chance instead of
| iterating on what is already proven?
| ElijahLynn wrote:
| What this means to me, if not vaporware, is that either ticket
| prices will go down for the same space or I'll get much more room
| and not be so crammed into the seat. Maybe we can ride with more
| comfort, and have more standing moving room, like a train.
| kqr wrote:
| The 1930 outline looks like a DC-3. Can someone name the others?
| I'm especially curious about 1949.
| cchance wrote:
| I mean at this point anythings better than fucking boeing.
| thelittleone wrote:
| The seating mockup feels uncomfortable to me as the rows angle
| towards one another. It's ok to face a stranger for a short train
| ride, but on a long flight I'd feel less comfortable.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-03-27 23:01 UTC)