/n/ - Transportation » Thread #1171261

[73 / 22 / ?]

15KiB, 430x158, b747-300_concept_with_three_med-2.jpg

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Wed 28 Mar 2018 01:13:18 No.1171261 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>1171270 >>1171289 >>1171379

What do you guys think? Could it have worked?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Mar 2018 01:59:50 No.1171270 Report

Quoted By:

>>1171261
yeah it could've flown.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO transonic-767.jpg, 92KiB, 900x705

Anonymous Wed 28 Mar 2018 03:12:58 No.1171289 Report

Quoted By: >>1171300 >>1171343 >>1171345 >>1173913

>>1171261
i liked their transonic whitcomb ruled 767 proposal better

though i hate 3 holers (cause of uncontained failures) and t-tails (cause of deep stall)

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Boeing-Sonic-Cruiser-Concept.jpg, 139KiB, 1280x1024

Anonymous Wed 28 Mar 2018 03:15:19 No.1171290 Report

Quoted By:

also the sonic cruiser was bad ass and i have a lot of friends that work at boeing and they were VERY close to actually building this

it also shows how modern airliners are actually not that great in the transonic regime and the companies sacrifice area ruling for easier manufacturing

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO pan am L-1011.jpg, 111KiB, 1356x907

Anonymous Wed 28 Mar 2018 03:41:19 No.1171300 Report

Quoted By: >>1171518 >>1171520

>>1171289
>though i hate 3 holers
fuck.
you.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 101_2.jpg, 294KiB, 1024x651

Anonymous Wed 28 Mar 2018 08:31:46 No.1171343 Report

Quoted By: >>1171518

>>1171289
>(cause of uncontained failures)
they shouldn't be happening in the first place
>(cause of deep stall)
what difference does it make

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO tst1.png, 86KiB, 799x312

Anonymous Wed 28 Mar 2018 08:36:33 No.1171345 Report

Quoted By: >>1171517

>>1171289
>and t-tails (cause of deep stall)
fixed

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Mar 2018 12:51:43 No.1171379 Report

Quoted By:

>>1171261
it could work with todays technology

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 787-10_marquee.jpg, 182KiB, 1280x720

Anonymous Wed 28 Mar 2018 18:05:17 No.1171470 Report

Quoted By: >>1171514 >>1171940 >>1173914

This is the future of civil aviation. Composite tubes with 2 oversized hi bypass turbines.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO largeacsections.gif, 52KiB, 591x325

Anonymous Wed 28 Mar 2018 20:04:54 No.1171514 Report

Quoted By:

>>1171470
>composite tubes
>not nrfp double bubs

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Mar 2018 20:14:02 No.1171517 Report

Quoted By: >>1171526

>>1171345
Is the horizontal stabilizer on the t-tail of that picture supposed to be omitted?

Having engines in the same "plane" as the lifting surface means that an uncontained failure could btfo of it. Notice how on wings the engine is below the wing.. the comet had engines in the wing and at least one was lost to an engine fire.

Or are you implying that the aircraft should have an extra horizontal stabilizer? That's extra drag.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO maxresdefault (3).jpg, 143KiB, 1920x1080

Anonymous Wed 28 Mar 2018 20:16:29 No.1171518 Report

Quoted By: >>1171519 >>1171527

>>1171343
>they shouldn't be happening in the first place
yeah so i guess mechanical redundancy isnt needed either because mechanical failures shouldnt happen in the first place?

>what difference does it make
because you can recover from a normal stall if you notice it in time..

>>1171300
i guess you dont mind an engine fire or uncontained failure wiping out your hydraulics?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO brainlet5.png, 34KiB, 320x362

Anonymous Wed 28 Mar 2018 20:17:22 No.1171519 Report

Quoted By: >>1171522

>>1171518
very low IQ post

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Mar 2018 20:18:53 No.1171520 Report

Quoted By: >>1171531

>>1171300
btw i dont hate the aesthetic but i hate having engines embedded in the fuselage or tail

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Mar 2018 20:19:56 No.1171522 Report

Quoted By:

>>1171519
good job providing logical support for your argument brainlet meme poster

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Mar 2018 20:33:23 No.1171526 Report

Quoted By:

>>1171517
>Or are you implying that the aircraft should have an extra horizontal stabilizer? That's extra drag.
I'm designing a fictional millitarized version of this aircraft for a story so I'd suggest pulling a Boring 2707 and having those extra elevators be retractable. Just how much drag would it cause? It might be a good way to have another way of slowing down the aircraft or at least having a lower stall speed. Or having partially vertical movement capabilities like on the F-22, though given I am free to use the technology regardless of present day cost I would be implementing minor R/C thrusters on the bottom of the aircraft.

I'd like to consider the real world possibilities first before moving onto Sci-Fi stuff.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Mar 2018 20:39:27 No.1171527 Report

Quoted By: >>1171540

>>1171518
The L-1011 as an example can handle the Number 2 engine shitting its self just fine. When it comes to uncontained engine failure is a matter of picking your poison. It's all a matter of how well the aircraft is designed. You either got the risk of a wing mounted fuel tank fire and loss of control surfaces on the wings, or risk of stabilizer controls being lost due to impacts. (See IL-62)

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Mar 2018 20:53:35 No.1171531 Report

Quoted By: >>1171537

>>1171520
why? it has only been a problem on the death contraption-10 and each time that happened it was a manufacturing error.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Mar 2018 21:51:09 No.1171537 Report

Quoted By: >>1171621

>>1171531
>Douglas 'Deadly Contraption" series followed by the "Most Deadly' series

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Mar 2018 21:59:59 No.1171540 Report

Quoted By: >>1171595 >>1171597

>>1171527
you fucking brainlet
uncontained engine failure like you are describing is only a problem on the DC-10
the S-duct in the L-1011 explicitly prohibits this

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Mar 2018 01:26:25 No.1171595 Report

Quoted By: >>1171859

>>1171540
>the S-duct in the L-1011 explicitly prohibits this
how?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO heh_smug.png, 194KiB, 478x380

Anonymous Thu 29 Mar 2018 01:30:04 No.1171597 Report

Quoted By: >>1171858

>>1171540
http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=738573
>Overheating of adjacent airframe structure is not the main consideration in the placement of any engine, both tail mounted and wing mounted. In fact, with turbofan engines, the hottest portions of the engine are encased inside of the bypass ducts and these airframes are subjected to considerably less heat that the turbojet powered airplanes.
The possibility of airframe damage and fuel tank entry of engine parts in case of an uncontained failure is the reason for the placement of the engines.

>To be sure, uncontained engine failures had cause serious incidents and accidents; but these were mostly due to damage caused to the aircraft systems and not the structure. The Sioux City DC-10-10 accident is an example of an accident being caused by an uncontained engine failure that affected all of the hydraulic systems. There have been several L-1011 incidents due to uncontained engine failures that I am aware of, that were not publicized, that came awfully close to the loss of an airplane.

>The only uncontained engine failure that I can think up, that did affect a fuel tank, is the British Airtours 737-200. There, the engine ejected a burner can, which rebounded off the ground into an underwing fuel tank access plate. The plate failed and the resulting fuel spill ignited.

>Wing mounted engines are positioned to avoid severe structural damage or fuel tank entry. On many airplanes, there are areas in the wing adjacent to the engine where no fuel is stored. These are sometimes called dry bays.

>All the tail mounted engines that I am familiar with have the engine located well aft of all primary structure and not near any fuel tanks, even in the MD-11 which has fuel stored in the horizontal stabilizer.

**There have been several L-1011 incidents due to uncontained engine failures that I am aware of, that were not publicized, that came awfully close to the loss of an airplane. **

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Mar 2018 03:09:20 No.1171621 Report

Quoted By:

>>1171537
lmao

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO D-918.png, 843KiB, 1035x627

Anonymous Thu 29 Mar 2018 20:57:58 No.1171855 Report

Quoted By:

Here was the proposal by Mcdonnell-Douglas for a double-decker.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Mar 2018 21:13:52 No.1171858 Report

Quoted By: >>1171889

>>1171597
>"it wasnt publicized but you can totally trust me guize i swear"
weebs are the most subhuman of retards

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Mar 2018 21:14:23 No.1171859 Report

Quoted By: >>1171889

>>1171595
it is below most of the control surfaces

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Dassault_Falcon_7X_on_finals_at_ (...).jpg, 430KiB, 1500x1000

Anonymous Thu 29 Mar 2018 22:35:26 No.1171889 Report

Quoted By: >>1171893 >>1172029 >>1172216

>>1171858
>>1171859
It's still next to it!!! There have been incidents with both L-1011s and 727s, none as publicised as the DC-10 issue but many airframes were ALMOST lost or lost to the poor choice of mounting an engine between control surfaces.

The Dassault Falcon trijets are the only three holers that haven't had an incident like this but i may be wrong about that and there might be an incident that i dont know about, but they are private jets and don't fly with the same frequency and more money can be spent on maintenance. I am pretty sure that they are just as vulnerable to this problem as the more infamous three holers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Mar 2018 22:39:16 No.1171893 Report

Quoted By:

>>1171889
>almost lost
and there we go

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Image4-2.jpg, 56KiB, 798x367

Anonymous Fri 30 Mar 2018 02:19:20 No.1171938 Report

Quoted By: >>1171941 >>1172000

These were cooler.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO maxresdefault.jpg, 65KiB, 1920x1080

Anonymous Fri 30 Mar 2018 02:22:47 No.1171940 Report

Quoted By: >>1171942 >>1171944 >>1171983

>>1171470

It's probably going to be some ridiculous combination of double bubbles, blended body/wing designs and electric props. The only thing stopping it so far is getting tooling/manufacturing costs down, this is where all those stores about fuckhuge autoclaves being built are big news because that's where the change will start from. Planes would be 100% composite and run off some sort of battery or h2 cell (or maybe even beamed power for takeoffs, which NASA continues to study).

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Mar 2018 02:24:29 No.1171941 Report

Quoted By:

>>1171938
And loud as fuck.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Mar 2018 02:25:50 No.1171942 Report

Quoted By: >>1171945

>>1171940
That's like mid-century at earliest, probably more like late.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Fundo-CR-10-plus-large-printing- (...).jpg, 86KiB, 1000x1000

Anonymous Fri 30 Mar 2018 02:28:08 No.1171944 Report

Quoted By:

>>1171940

>3D print a plane, glue/vacuum it together, drop in the power/propulsion system then let it fly itself to the customer's airport of choice

or it just comes in a box and the customer glues it together like a model plane. Bonus: it's made out of corn plastic so it's biodegradable and edible if crushed.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 2015AFA_BlendedWingRenderG.jpg, 918KiB, 1654x930

Anonymous Fri 30 Mar 2018 02:29:12 No.1171945 Report

Quoted By: >>1171950 >>1171983

>>1171942

I want to believe pic related can happen before 2030.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Mar 2018 02:47:11 No.1171950 Report

Quoted By: >>1172250

>>1171945
It could, but sure as hell not for passenger travel.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO D8.jpg, 45KiB, 1024x683

Anonymous Fri 30 Mar 2018 05:06:23 No.1171983 Report

Quoted By: >>1171995

>>1171940
>>1171945
Nope, not a chance in hell. Simply too complex and expensive to manufacture for the increase in performance, and will be for the foreseeable future. Anything with a non-extruded-tube fuselage to way too hard to adapt to different customer's needs. Instead of a fuselage stretch, you'd end up designing a completely new airplane.

Something like Aurora's D8 may become the norm mid-century. Not the next generation of aircraft (those will 787-like), but the generation after that.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Artist_Rendering_B21_Bomber_Air_ (...).jpg, 53KiB, 1024x512

Anonymous Fri 30 Mar 2018 06:00:43 No.1171995 Report

Quoted By: >>1172252

>>1171983

pic related will already fly by the mid 2020s, it's not inconceivable that the AF pushes hard for blended wing/body cargo planes. That's where it would start anyway, since the greater lift efficiency is more significant for cargo planes than it is passenger planes. They'll have plenty of time to figure out stretching/shortening configurations, as was the case with normal jets.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Mar 2018 06:37:16 No.1172000 Report

Quoted By:

>>1171938
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Mar 2018 08:52:44 No.1172029 Report

Quoted By:

>>1171889
>that horizontal stab placement
SAVED

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Mar 2018 19:57:17 No.1172216 Report

Quoted By: >>1172251

>>1171889
FAA maintenance and inspection requirements work across the board, maybe to slightly varying degrees but regardless, there are definitely operators that run 900's and 7X's as charter/part 135, racking up way more hours than your average business. The #2 engine """""""could"""""" be a risk but I don't see how an uncontained failure on a trijet like a 900 would have any worse effect compared to one on a tail-mounted twin like a 2000. You're almost guaranteed to be fucked either way. And regardless, proper maintenance and inspection intervals very easily prevent something like this from happening.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Mar 2018 22:04:05 No.1172250 Report

Quoted By:

>>1171950
but whyy

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO tyjd.gif, 27KiB, 450x432

Anonymous Fri 30 Mar 2018 22:07:42 No.1172251 Report

Quoted By: >>1172294 >>1172369

>>1172216
>You're almost guaranteed to be fucked either way.
yeah exactly why wing mounted engines are the best.. even fighter aircraft statistics show that engines mounted close together are more likely to explode together

>proper maintenance and inspection intervals very easily prevent something like this from happening.
Yeah but real human beans will always make real human errors. Even computer assisted maintenance will never be *perfect.* IF you wanna go by what you are saying then why even have mechanical redundancy at al!??!

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO TR-3B_04.jpg, 9KiB, 480x391

Anonymous Fri 30 Mar 2018 22:08:48 No.1172252 Report

Quoted By:

>>1171995
pic related has already been flying since the 80s

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 31 Mar 2018 00:01:26 No.1172294 Report

Quoted By:

>>1172251
>there is only one person doing one inspection for this thing
>engine cowlings dont already have measures to prevent debris from escaping engines
you have autism. the only time the scenario you are describing has caused the loss of a major airliner was on the Death Contraption-10, never on an L-1011 or even an MD-11. plus, safety records show that there have been more engine failures on wing mounted engines than tail mounted. one of the most notable being AA 191 and El Al 1862.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 31 Mar 2018 00:02:19 No.1172295 Report

Quoted By: >>1172304

ETOPS autists are the worst.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 31 Mar 2018 00:20:35 No.1172304 Report

Quoted By: >>1172307

>>1172295
IDK, ETOPS did pretty much kill the MD-11, the A340 and the L-1011.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 31 Mar 2018 00:22:50 No.1172307 Report

Quoted By: >>1172311 >>1172402

>>1172304
yes, but ETOPS is shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 31 Mar 2018 00:30:57 No.1172311 Report

Quoted By: >>1172337

>>1172307
In what way? Airlines love it, and passengers love it in the form of cheaper airfares too.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 31 Mar 2018 02:52:24 No.1172337 Report

Quoted By:

>>1172311
it gives you the gay

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 31 Mar 2018 05:01:09 No.1172369 Report

Quoted By:

>>1172251
>If we can't eliminate ALL risk, why should we try and avoid ANY of it???

This is how retarded you sound. You're more likely to get hit and die on your way to the grocery store; does that mean we should just tear out all the airbags and seatbelts from our cars?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 31 Mar 2018 07:03:27 No.1172402 Report

Quoted By: >>1174031

>>1172307
Fuck yourself. ETOPS was instrumental in driving down long haul prices and expanding route options.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Apr 2018 05:10:20 No.1173913 Report

Quoted By:

>>1171289
>whitcomb rule
I think I recognize you from other threads

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 5abefd36d1dca.image.jpg, 84KiB, 800x533

Anonymous Wed 04 Apr 2018 05:13:51 No.1173914 Report

Quoted By: >>1174055 >>1175009

>>1171470
Did someone say oversized high-bypass turbofans?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Apr 2018 15:05:19 No.1174031 Report

Quoted By: >>1174055 >>1174236

>>1172402
It was also instrumental in the cancer that is budget airlines. That shit ruined air travel for good.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Apr 2018 15:52:56 No.1174055 Report

Quoted By: >>1174092

>>1173914
>mfw Boeing will never re-engineer the 747 as a twin :C

>>1174031
that was deregulation, Einstein

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Apr 2018 17:47:31 No.1174092 Report

Quoted By: >>1174238

>>1174055
Deregulation was in place for a long time before cancerous entities like spirit, alligent and Ryanair popped up. all thanks to ETOPS. All twin engine jets should be shot down with AA.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Apr 2018 03:09:03 No.1174236 Report

Quoted By: >>1174260

>>1174031
No cunt, deregulation and plummeting average prices (and therefore level of service) ruined air travel.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Apr 2018 03:10:04 No.1174238 Report

Quoted By: >>1174260

>>1174092
Spirit, Allegiant, and Ryanair don't require ETOPs for their operations you stupid fuck.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Apr 2018 04:17:35 No.1174260 Report

Quoted By: >>1174266

>>1174236
and deregulation led to ETOPS.
>>1174238
they popped up around the same time ETOPS got popular.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Apr 2018 04:34:41 No.1174266 Report

Quoted By: >>1174276

>>1174260
Shut the fuck up. They don't need ETOPs to operate. They are completely separate issues you fucking retard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Apr 2018 04:54:22 No.1174276 Report

Quoted By: >>1174305

>>1174266
except most of the planes they operate are ETOPS 737s or A320s?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Apr 2018 06:17:56 No.1174305 Report

Quoted By: >>1174309

>>1174276
They don't really fly routes that require it. How geographically illiterate are you?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Apr 2018 06:34:51 No.1174309 Report

Quoted By: >>1174314 >>1174315

>>1174305
they still fly them, and thus are contributing to them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Apr 2018 06:44:45 No.1174314 Report

Quoted By:

>>1174309
Good job proving that you've been wrong this entire time. Do our species a favor and blow your brains out.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Apr 2018 06:47:32 No.1174315 Report

Quoted By:

>>1174309
Every single airline on Earth that flies a plane made after the mid 1980s flies ETOPs capable planes. Don't like it? Then don't fucking fly. Nobody will miss a asshole like you on any flight.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Apr 2018 00:44:09 No.1175009 Report

Quoted By: >>1175496 >>1176425

>>1173914
>Super 747
Would 4 of those give enough thrust to offset the mass of a full-length second deck?
The wing root would have to be redesigned for strength, could add more fuel and main gear in the process...

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Apr 2018 07:40:38 No.1175496 Report

Quoted By: >>1176255

>>1175009
The highest thrust engine available for the 380 is the trent 980-84 84,100ft/lb, while the Ge9x puts out 105,000.

Yeah I think it would work

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Apr 2018 16:20:51 No.1176255 Report

Quoted By: >>1176305 >>1176425

>>1175496
But would it be necessary?
Just extending the hump wouldn't produce a true double-decker,
and each Ge90 puts out more thrust than two of the original engines:
Maybe a twin-engine 747 is viable as a less-cramped 777 alternative
a possible reuse of old airframes with new-ish efficient engines

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Apr 2018 18:08:01 No.1176305 Report

Quoted By: >>1176314

>>1176255
I think you're being serious, but I have idea why you're serious.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Apr 2018 18:32:53 No.1176314 Report

Quoted By: >>1176321 >>1176425

>>1176305
There are 747 fuselages with several thousand cycles left in them lying around and less demand for 777 engines now that the 777x is up and about:
Why not take advantage of the extra production capacity to squeeze some more use out of a few planes with plenty of spare parts?
Maybe even carry orbital payloads on the outboard pylons since only the inner mounts are necessary with engines twice as powerful as the original...

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Apr 2018 18:52:02 No.1176321 Report

Quoted By: >>1176425

>>1176314
Holy shit. You're further off the rails than I thought.

There is a laundry list of reasons why it'll never be done.

- extreme expense for engineering on a program for which there is no demand

- next to no desire among airlines for double decker quad engine aircraft (or single deck quad engine aircraft for that matter)

- expensive airport modifications would be required. A380 gates wouldn't not be inherently compatible.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

The 747 has no future except for the freighter and conversion market.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Apr 2018 21:37:55 No.1176425 Report

Quoted By: >>1176431

>>1176321
>conversion
that's what I'm suggesting
I'm just >>1176314 wondering if re-engining is viable as a way of keeping otherwise OK 747s in the air as quasi-modern widebody twins, not >>1176255 or >>1175009 suggesting a new production run of 1.5-deck super 747s

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Apr 2018 21:43:56 No.1176431 Report

Quoted By:

>>1176425
No. Conversion to freighter.

There is zero market for double decker 747 reengineering. ZERO.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches