Eric (and others)

[The Excession]

I was clicking through stuff on youtube with the little lad (watching vids of spitfires and such like - apparently he likes the 'guzzle' sound that they make), and we came across this.

Seems like a mightily strange 'craft'. Thoughts.

Edited by The Excession on Saturday 24th October 20:07

[Smiler.]

It's Thunderbird 2.

[IforB]

An interesting concept, but nothing more. It's a lifting body design and also uses bleed air from the engines to increase the airflow over the aerofoil.

Here's a link to a flight international article on it.

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1994/1...

[FourWheelDrift]

Smiler. said:

It's Thunderbird 2.

Looked more like the Dalek mother ship from "Daleks: Invasion Earth 2150" to me

[navier_stokes]

There's a lot of concepts like this, mainly due to their estimated improvement on aerodynamic efficiency and structural stength compared to conventional body + wing aircraft.

Boeing X-48


NASA BWB:


Airbus 797:


http://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/bw...

[IforB]

The blended wing idea seems good, but there are a fair few problems with the concept that I can see. Especially for passenger aicraft. How can you get the people out of the centre of the aircraft in 90 seconds in the event of an evacuation. Especially if it lands on it's belly?

[Rotary Madness]

IforB said:

The blended wing idea seems good, but there are a fair few problems with the concept that I can see. Especially for passenger aicraft. How can you get the people out of the centre of the aircraft in 90 seconds in the event of an evacuation. Especially if it lands on it's belly?

Ejector seats.......lots of them

I think theyre more worried about how to stop the people in the middle going mad because they cant see outside.

[IforB]

Rotary Madness said:

IforB said:

The blended wing idea seems good, but there are a fair few problems with the concept that I can see. Especially for passenger aicraft. How can you get the people out of the centre of the aircraft in 90 seconds in the event of an evacuation. Especially if it lands on it's belly?

Ejector seats.......lots of them

I think theyre more worried about how to stop the people in the middle going mad because they cant see outside.

Hmm, that'd be fun, especially for the people on the upper decks!

[Mojocvh]

Airbus version....LOL...

[Merry]

Rotary Madness said:

IforB said:

The blended wing idea seems good, but there are a fair few problems with the concept that I can see. Especially for passenger aicraft. How can you get the people out of the centre of the aircraft in 90 seconds in the event of an evacuation. Especially if it lands on it's belly?

Ejector seats.......lots of them

I think theyre more worried about how to stop the people in the middle going mad because they cant see outside.

Tv screen with various outside cameras?

[dr_gn]

navier_stokes said:

There's a lot of concepts like this, mainly due to their estimated improvement on aerodynamic efficiency and structural stength compared to conventional body + wing aircraft.

Boeing X-48


NASA BWB:


Airbus 797:


http://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/bw...

All the images there represent the same concept - all from a collaborative design from Boeing/NASA - the X-48B and derivatives. The final image was an 'artists impression' of the Boeing BWB 'in service', which was comissioned by, I think, Popular Mechanics Magazine. '797' would be a Boeing designation, not Airbus.

Edited by dr_gn on Sunday 25th October 14:51

[IforB]

Would having the engines in that configuration on the BWB's actually induce lift by increasing airflow over the body?

[dr_gn]

IforB said:

Would having the engines in that configuration on the BWB's actually induce lift by increasing airflow over the body?

It's not a big consideration, since flying wing type aircraft tend to have low wing loadings anyway. They also have a tendancy to 'float' when landing, even without any additional high lift devices.

[navier_stokes]

IforB said:

Would having the engines in that configuration on the BWB's actually induce lift by increasing airflow over the body?

Possibly, the suction (upper) side of an aerofoil benefits (increases lift) from larger velocities (compared to the pressure side), as a simplification.

Also it may aid seperation at higher angles of attack because it will always force the flow towards the trailing edge - and therefore create less drag.

This may be offset by any turbulence generated by the engine intakes.

NASA also have a concept for replacing 3 or 4 conventional turbines with many mini turbines on the trailing egdes of conventional wings with the assumption of the above and the fact they should be significantly less draggy - I can't find a picture of them at the moment though.

Edited:

Found an example, see page 27:
http://www.rolls-royce.com/Images/whittle_tcm92-54...

The reason why this isn't implemented at the moment is because the turbines just aren't efficient at that size (yet).

Edited by navier_stokes on Sunday 25th October 15:29

[anonymous-user]

That's such a great picture.



Love it!

[IforB]

navier_stokes said:

IforB said:

Would having the engines in that configuration on the BWB's actually induce lift by increasing airflow over the body?

Possibly, the suction (upper) side of an aerofoil benefits (increases lift) from larger velocities (compared to the pressure side), as a simplification.

Also it may aid seperation at higher angles of attack because it will always force the flow towards the trailing edge - and therefore create less drag.

This may be offset by any turbulence generated by the engine intakes.

NASA also have a concept for replacing 3 or 4 conventional turbines with many mini turbines on the trailing egdes of conventional wings with the assumption of the above and the fact they should be significantly less draggy - I can't find a picture of them at the moment though.

Edited:

Found an example, see page 27:
http://www.rolls-royce.com/Images/whittle_tcm92-54...

The reason why this isn't implemented at the moment is because the turbines just aren't efficient at that size (yet).

Edited by navier_stokes on Sunday 25th October 15:29

Hmm, that's an interesting concept. It'd certainly get rid of any ETOPS considerations! I take it that that is an awfully long look into the future.

Edited by IforB on Sunday 25th October 15:36

[Eric Mc]

Not quite a blended body but it shows that people were thinking along the lines of "more wing than fuselage" as far back as the 1920s. This is the Junkers G.38.

[RizzoTheRat]

The Americans did a fair bit of work on flying wings in the 50's too, which is a similar concept.

Good to see the username Navier-Stokes is posting about aerodynamics

[Eric Mc]

We had a thread on proper flying wings a while back. They have been around for quite a while too - with pioneering work being carried out by Jack Northrop in the USA and the Horten brothers in Germany - starting in the 1930s.

[navier_stokes]

Eric Mc said:

Not quite a blended body but it shows that people were thinking along the lines of "more wing than fuselage" as far back as the 1920s. This is the Junkers G.38.

I'm guessing they are only now seriously considering them as concepts because CF, the most suitable material for them, has substantially reduced in price relatively recently and is now commercially viable... I guess all eyes are on the performance/maintenance of the dreamliner program.