PDA

View Full Version : Boeing to take on Airbus with (1000 seat) giant 797



Jay
25 Apr 06,, 02:35
Boeing is preparing a 1000 passenger jet that could reshape the Air travel industry for the next 100 years. The radical Blended Wing design has been developed by Boeing in cooperation with the NASA Langley Research Center. The mammoth plane will have a wing span of 265 feet compared to the 747’s 211 feet, and is designed to fit within the newly created terminals used for the 555 seat Airbus A380, which is 262 feet wide. The new 797 is in direct response to the Airbus A380 which has racked up159 orders, but has not yet flown any passengers.

....Boeing decide to kill its 747X stretched super jumbo in 2003 after little interest was shown by airline companies, but has continued to develop the ultimate Airbus crusher 797 for years at its Phantom Works research facility in Long Beach, Calif. The Airbus A380 has been in the works since 1999 and has accumulated $13 billion in development costs, which gives Boeing a huge advantage now that Airbus has committed to the older style tubular aircraft for decades to come.

....There are several big advantages to the blended wing design, the most important being the lift to drag ratio which is expected to increase by an amazing 50%, with overall weight reduced by 25%, making it an estimated 33% more efficient than the A380, and making Airbus’s $13 billion dollar investment look pretty shaky. High body rigidity is another key factor in blended wing aircraft, it reduces turbulence and creates less stress on the air frame which adds to efficiency, giving the 797 a tremendous 8800 nautical mile range with its 1000 passengers flying comfortably at mach .88 or 654 mph cruising speed (another advantage over the Airbus tube-and-wing designed A380’s 570 mph)

....The exact date for introduction is unclear, yet the battle lines are clearly drawn in the high-stakes war for civilian air supremacy.

http://www.newtechspy.com/AprilArt/797.jpg

http://www.newtechspy.com/articles06/boeing797.html

gunnut
25 Apr 06,, 03:30
I questioned the practicality the minute I laid my eyes on the A380. The damned thing is just such an ugly brute. My suspicions were right. It's an overweight piece of outdated technology.

This new 797 concept is interesting. However, I must ask the same question: is there a need, or economical, to stuff 1000 people into a jet liner?

The new trend is to have light, advanced, economical, medium sized jets that can fly direct routes rather than the old fashioned hub-and-spoke system. I don't want to change planes. I don't want overnight stays. I want to get in and out as hassle free as possible. Boeing had the answer in the 787.

What Boeing really should do is shrink that 797 concept down to 787 size. It will be even smaller, cheaper, faster, more efficient than the 787 carrying the same number of passengers, able to reach more small air ports.

Jay
25 Apr 06,, 03:44
What Boeing really should do is shrink that 797 concept down to 787 size. It will be even smaller, cheaper, faster, more efficient than the 787 carrying the same number of passengers, able to reach more small air ports.
Prolly Boeing wants a piece of pie in that segment, looking at the order list for Airbus. Anyway, major airports are being upgraded to accomodate 380's, and those can also accomodate 797.

The question is how economical this bird would be, and how much money they are going to spend on this bird. I heard that Airbus didnt really make that much money on 380, but may be it helps them not to layoff their workers.

gunnut
25 Apr 06,, 04:16
Airbus won't make money on the 380, especially with the penalties they have to pay due to the delay.

I think the number of airports in the US that will accommodate the 380 can be counted on one hand, if any at all. It's unwise if Boeing goes with a super jumbo. Maybe something using the blended wing-body design that can carry 400 - 500 passengers to replace the 747, but 30% more economical, would be the future. The 747 is a bit long on the tooth. A revolutionary design will be fit to replace it.

Blademaster
25 Apr 06,, 05:41
The biggest problem is the loading and unloading times. With increasing passenger capacity, the loading time will take much longer because there's only one gate to embark and disembark on.

If the airport would create two or three gates to speed up the loading/unloading time, that would be good.

Bigger is good because it means cheaper tickets. It cost less to fly 1000 people on a single plane than to fly 1000 people on several planes when you factor in maintenance, gas, airport fees, and landing fees. WIth the oil prices going up, I don't think people will mind spending a couple more hours. Besides these planes are only useful for long transatlantic, pacific flights, or continental flights.

Blademaster
25 Apr 06,, 05:44
Airbus won't make money on the 380, especially with the penalties they have to pay due to the delay.

I think the number of airports in the US that will accommodate the 380 can be counted on one hand, if any at all. It's unwise if Boeing goes with a super jumbo. Maybe something using the blended wing-body design that can carry 400 - 500 passengers to replace the 747, but 30% more economical, would be the future. The 747 is a bit long on the tooth. A revolutionary design will be fit to replace it.

A revolutionary design won't do because it is revolutionary in design meaning that it will take at least a decade to get the bugs out of the new design and new support systems must be built in to accommodate the new design.

Remember this kind of size is only good for transatlantic, transpacific, and continental flights so you don't need that many airports. I would say about 10 to 15 airports in US would be enough.

Jay
25 Apr 06,, 07:28
The biggest problem is the loading and unloading times. With increasing passenger capacity, the loading time will take much longer because there's only one gate to embark and disembark on.

If the airport would create two or three gates to speed up the loading/unloading time, that would be good.

Jumbo's have 2 gates, one for the first and business class, rest for the 'K' class.



Bigger is good because it means cheaper tickets. It cost less to fly 1000 people on a single plane than to fly 1000 people on several planes when you factor in maintenance, gas, airport fees, and landing fees. WIth the oil prices going up, I don't think people will mind spending a couple more hours. Besides these planes are only useful for long transatlantic, pacific flights, or continental flights.
True, but we will have to look at the consumption of this flight and see if its economical. Defn you can save on landing fees, but then the airports might start charging more based on the seats. If its economical, I guess, you could use it for hub to hub transport as well, like Chicago to LA. Miami to the north.

gunnut
25 Apr 06,, 08:03
A revolutionary design won't do because it is revolutionary in design meaning that it will take at least a decade to get the bugs out of the new design and new support systems must be built in to accommodate the new design.

Remember this kind of size is only good for transatlantic, transpacific, and continental flights so you don't need that many airports. I would say about 10 to 15 airports in US would be enough.

Yeah, but something like this will be in service for 40 years or more. It's worth taking 15 years to come up with one.

Actually I doubt there'll be even 10 airports in the US cleared to take the A380. LAX and one of the NYC airports might. Maybe one in Miami. I don't think the enthusiasm in the states is very high for the A380. The cost of modification is just too high.

Here's another problem that popped up recently. It appears the A380's wake turbulance is so horrible that the take off interval has to be lengthened to double the normal time. That means the volume of passengers moved is still the same because we're moving twice the number of people, but take twice as long.

Captain Drunk
25 Apr 06,, 13:30
First flow in 1988, standing 7 storeys high the Antonov 225 "Mriya" can carry approximately 1500 passengers, 3 times that of the Boeing 747-400. But such large jets are not commercially feasible as most of the time they fly only half occupied, its speculated smaller types like Boeing 737s and Airbus 320s that save on fuel are a better option.

http://www.air-and-space.com/19890618%20Paris/891532%20An-225%20Burran%20left%20rear%20m.jpg

Blademaster
26 Apr 06,, 04:38
Jumbo's have 2 gates, one for the first and business class, rest for the 'K' class.


True, but we will have to look at the consumption of this flight and see if its economical. Defn you can save on landing fees, but then the airports might start charging more based on the seats. If its economical, I guess, you could use it for hub to hub transport as well, like Chicago to LA. Miami to the north.

Two gates won't be feasible because the rest of the K class consists of 350 people while the first and business class may consist of 150 to 200. You need one more gate to speed up the loading times.

Airports might see the other way around since more people would mean more people buying stuff at the airports, paying for parking, etc.

Blademaster
26 Apr 06,, 04:40
Yeah, but something like this will be in service for 40 years or more. It's worth taking 15 years to come up with one.

Actually I doubt there'll be even 10 airports in the US cleared to take the A380. LAX and one of the NYC airports might. Maybe one in Miami. I don't think the enthusiasm in the states is very high for the A380. The cost of modification is just too high.

Here's another problem that popped up recently. It appears the A380's wake turbulance is so horrible that the take off interval has to be lengthened to double the normal time. That means the volume of passengers moved is still the same because we're moving twice the number of people, but take twice as long.

I don't think it is gonna matter that much because that's only for landing which only takes a certain portion of the flying time like around 10%.

gunnut
26 Apr 06,, 04:52
I don't think it is gonna matter that much because that's only for landing which only takes a certain portion of the flying time like around 10%.

I was thinking the flow volume of passengers.

If the A380 with 800 passengers forces the plane after it to take off in 2 min rather than 1 min, then wouldn't it be like 2 747s each with 400 passengers taking off in 1 min interval?

Time is money. The less time a passenger spent at the airport, the more money the airport and the airline make. We want to move as many people, as quickly as possible to maximize our profit. Lengthening the take off time between flights costs money.

Blademaster
26 Apr 06,, 09:13
I was thinking the flow volume of passengers.

If the A380 with 800 passengers forces the plane after it to take off in 2 min rather than 1 min, then wouldn't it be like 2 747s each with 400 passengers taking off in 1 min interval?

Time is money. The less time a passenger spent at the airport, the more money the airport and the airline make. We want to move as many people, as quickly as possible to maximize our profit. Lengthening the take off time between flights costs money.

No it doesn't work that way. If you have two 747s, then you got to factor in crew maintenance checkup, preflight checkup, tower clearance, and not to mention the fact that you will be taking two spots on the queuing instead of one.

Dago
20 May 06,, 21:50
Old design.

Didn't Boeing abandon it during the Mid 90's?

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/design/q0108.shtml




Blended Wing Body concept

A completely different path that Boeing may choose to pursue in the near future is the Blended-Wing-Body, or BWB. Despite your rather unappreciative comments, some of our staff have had the opportunity to meet with and talk to one of the concept's creators, and we've found it to be a most interesting design. The BWB is related to the flying wing, but is a somewhat more sophisticated concept that resulted from a study to determine the optimum low-drag shape to contain a given volume of passenger space. The resulting fuselage resembles a flattened sphere that tapers down and blends into the outboard wings, hence the name Blended-Wing-Body. The thick center-section could hold some 500 to 800 passengers, as illustrated below. Additional studies have focused on smaller variants in the 250- to 300-passenger range, and a recently reported study indicated that a cruise speed of Mach 0.9 over a range of 7,500 to 8,900 nm (13,875 to 16,465 km) might be an optimum design point.


The BWB was first created by the commercial aircraft division of McDonnell Douglas (MDD), a firm that was purchased by Boeing in the mid-1990s. Though Boeing expressed little interest in continuing most of MDD's projects, they have shown the foresight to carry on low-level development of the revolutionary BWB. However, Boeing has not yet provided any indication that the design will go into full-scale development or production. While such an aircraft could potentially reduce operating costs significantly, concerns have been raised about compatibility with existing airport infrastructure and the difficulty of evacuating so many people from the deep interior cabin in an emergency. In addition, many airlines are worried that passengers may be unwilling to fly an aircraft that is so different looking from what they are used to.

That pretty much sums up what we know of the possible future directions Boeing may take, but Airbus is even more of a mystery. The multinational conglomerate has focused so much of its efforts on developing the latest variants of the A330 and A340 as well as the completely new A380 that little is known of what its next big project might be.



http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/design/airliners/bwb-ext.gif
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/design/airliners/bwb-int.jpg

TopHatter
20 May 06,, 21:54
Nice looking aircraft :) ;)

Dago
20 May 06,, 22:05
More like a flying mid-sized airport. ;)

ArmchairGeneral
21 May 06,, 17:21
Now that is a sweet plane. Is it CGI? My only problem with these blended wing designs is the lack of window seats, but you can't have everything, I suppose.

TopHatter
21 May 06,, 17:36
Now that is a sweet plane. Is it CGI?.
I would imagine so, I don't even remember where downloaded it from :redface:


My only problem with these blended wing designs is the lack of window seats, but you can't have everything, I suppose.
I too would want a window seat. Who wants to fly if you can't see the takeoff and landing...and all points in between? :)

Sea Toby
22 May 06,, 02:43
I wonder whether range is all that important. Many of my Aunt Clara's family in Australia refuse to fly non stop to America as is, preferring to stop in Hawaii and in California to stretch their legs. Sitting in a cramped seat in an airliner for up to 16 hours isn't welcomed.

Nemesis
22 May 06,, 06:42
Boeing is preparing a 1000 passenger jet that could reshape the Air travel industry for the next 100 years. The radical Blended Wing design has been developed by Boeing in cooperation with the NASA Langley Research Center. The mammoth plane will have a wing span of 265 feet compared to the 747’s 211 feet, and is designed to fit within the newly created terminals used for the 555 seat Airbus A380, which is 262 feet wide. The new 797 is in direct response to the Airbus A380 which has racked up159 orders, but has not yet flown any passengers.

....Boeing decide to kill its 747X stretched super jumbo in 2003 after little interest was shown by airline companies, but has continued to develop the ultimate Airbus crusher 797 for years at its Phantom Works research facility in Long Beach, Calif. The Airbus A380 has been in the works since 1999 and has accumulated $13 billion in development costs, which gives Boeing a huge advantage now that Airbus has committed to the older style tubular aircraft for decades to come.

....There are several big advantages to the blended wing design, the most important being the lift to drag ratio which is expected to increase by an amazing 50%, with overall weight reduced by 25%, making it an estimated 33% more efficient than the A380, and making Airbus’s $13 billion dollar investment look pretty shaky. High body rigidity is another key factor in blended wing aircraft, it reduces turbulence and creates less stress on the air frame which adds to efficiency, giving the 797 a tremendous 8800 nautical mile range with its 1000 passengers flying comfortably at mach .88 or 654 mph cruising speed (another advantage over the Airbus tube-and-wing designed A380’s 570 mph)

....The exact date for introduction is unclear, yet the battle lines are clearly drawn in the high-stakes war for civilian air supremacy.

http://www.newtechspy.com/AprilArt/797.jpg

http://www.newtechspy.com/articles06/boeing797.html
ROFL!

How much you wanna bet they started this project the second they heard about Airbus' A380? And all the while they were saying "our stance on the A380 is that it is too big."

Nemesis
22 May 06,, 06:45
Now that is a sweet plane. Is it CGI? My only problem with these blended wing designs is the lack of window seats, but you can't have everything, I suppose.
A Discovery Channel show that I saw was about this plane, and they said that there would probably be tv's mounted into the seats, so that people could watch a movie or play games or watch the outside from a camera that was mounted somewhere on the plane.

highsea
22 May 06,, 20:34
...Didn't Boeing abandon it during the Mid 90's? Well, the concept is still alive anyway... Who knows if it will ever be developed.
By JEREMIAH MCWILLIAMS, The Virginian-Pilot
© May 5, 2006

HAMPTON –– Perched atop a support stand in the bowels of a cavernous wind tunnel at NASA Langley Research Center, the X-48B prototype airplane evokes visions of a UFO. However, emblems from NASA, the Air Force and The Boeing Co.’s Phantom Works on its black and green composite body give a better indication of its origins.

The X-48B Ship No. 1 is a test vehicle – shrunk to 8.5 percent scale – for what developers hope one day could be a massive troop transport or fuel tanker. On Thursday, researchers unveiled the plane for a low-speed wind test at Langley’s Full-Scale Tunnel.

The plane’s blended wing body design resembles a flying wing, as opposed to a more traditional tube and wing configuration.

“These kinds of airplanes have some pretty quirky aerodynamics,” said Norman Princen, chief engineer for the X-48B at Boeing’s Phantom Works in Huntington Beach, Calif. “A conventional airplane has a tail and normal wings. Those are things you can see and touch and know they’ll do their job. Here, we’re taking all that away. Instead, we’re relying on computer smarts.”

To stabilize the X-48B in flight, the plane will rely on computer-guided flaps on the rear edges of the wings rather than a vertical tail fin.

“It’s unconventional,” said Drew Landman, an Old Dominion University associate professor who manages the wind tunnel under an agreement with NASA, as he stood near the plane in the shadow of the wind tunnel’s twin propellers. “You don’t see a lot of these things being built throughout history. They’re different, but there’s no reason they can’t be tamed.”

The X-48B prototype has a 21-foot wingspan, but a full-scale version could stretch about 240 feet from tip to tip – as large as a Boeing 747.

The flattened profile of the X-48B could yield serious advantages in fuel efficiency, Princen said. The plane has a high cargo capacity compared with outside surface area, which means it experiences less air drag than standard craft, he sai d.

The potential of the X-48B, which follows in a long line of “X-” or experimental aircraft, has caught the Air Force’s eye.

The blended wing body “concept has the potential to cost-effectively fill many roles required by the Air Force, such as tanking, weapons carriage, and command and control,” said a statement by Capt. Scott Bjorge, the plane’s program manager for the Air Force Research Laboratory.

The plane is the result of cooperation between government and industry and across national borders. Boeing’s Phantom Works in Huntington Beach designed it. Boeing subcontracted with England’s Cranfield Aerospace Ltd. to build the X-48B.

Plane No. 1 – not to be confused with No. 2, which still is in England being prepared for flight – has undergone stress tests at Langley’s Full-Scale Tunnel since April 7.

Boeing representatives say the program is still young and that the plane is perhaps 15 years from hitting the runways as a military craft. Engineers would have to tackle numerous challenges to make that happen, they said.

“There’s a long road to prove this thing out,” Princen said. “It’s not something where we’ll see products coming out in the immediate future.”

Boeing spokesman Thomas Koehler declined to say how much Boeing has spent on the X-48B. H e said the project involves less than 50 Boeing employees nationwide.

The X-48B is scheduled to have endured 250 hours of testing at the wind tunnel by the time testing ends May 12. Then it will go to Edwards Air Force Base in California for remote-controlled test flights later this year. The plane is expected to be able to reach altitudes of 10,000 feet and speeds of 138 mph .

On Thursday afternoon, engineers started up the propellers – each about three stories tall – to drive air over the plane at 62 mph . The plane’s wings rocked slightly as engineers in the control room raised the plane’s nose to simulate a takeoff or landing.

“This is the fun part of the job: seeing the concepts come together into reality,” said Dan Vicroy, senior research engineer at NASA Langley Research Center , as he watched the plane from an observation deck, propellers thrumming in the background. “It makes it all worthwhile.”
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=103978&ran=172953

Here's the pic from the article.

hello
26 May 06,, 15:07
I too would want a window seat. Who wants to fly if you can't see the takeoff and landing...and all points in between? :)

Of course the 797 has window seats, but only in 2 of the 5 cabin compartments. I guess windows will only be for first and business class, then. ;) For everyone else, they'll have to use the camera and TV screen.

Neo
26 May 06,, 17:47
Jumbo's have 2 gates, one for the first and business class, rest for the 'K' class.
I'm afraid the claim is wrong. According to current FAA/JAA safetyregulations there has to be an exit every 20m. The 'Jumbo' is 75+ meter, the upperdeck has one exit and there are four more on the lowerdeck.

gunnut
26 May 06,, 20:02
I'm afraid the claim is wrong. According to current FAA/JAA safetyregulations there has to be an exit every 20m. The 'Jumbo' is 75+ meter, the upperdeck has one exit and there are four more on the lowerdeck.

Those are "emergency" exits. There are only 2 or 3 regular exits people use during normal operations.

Neo
26 May 06,, 20:10
Correct, most airports have gate aerobridges operating maxim three doors. Special aerobridges are being installed at several airports with capacity of 4 to handle A380.

Jay
26 May 06,, 20:35
I'm afraid the claim is wrong. According to current FAA/JAA safetyregulations there has to be an exit every 20m. The 'Jumbo' is 75+ meter, the upperdeck has one exit and there are four more on the lowerdeck.

I'm talking about the gates that are used to board/dis-embark not the exits.

Neo
26 May 06,, 20:45
I'm with you. :)

2DREZQ
27 May 06,, 18:15
I too would want a window seat. Who wants to fly if you can't see the takeoff and landing...and all points in between? :)


Bah! Every seat will be equipped with a VR headset, to give passengers the feeling of sitting on the wing during takeoff!

Screw the window seats!

hello
27 May 06,, 18:28
Apparently, this "797" is supposed to be called the "Yellowstone Project", which is supposed to build replacements for the 747, 757 and 777. The 757 replacement was the Sonic Cruiser, with a really s****y design. However, when it was produced, as the 787, the design got reverted to a normal airframe. So the chances of the blended wing design being used in the 797 aren't that huge, and it will probably end up looking like a huge behemoth similar to the A-380. Looks gets sacrificed for price, and of course, window seats.

ArmchairGeneral
27 May 06,, 18:42
I'm pretty sure the Sonic Cruiser and the 787 "Dreamliner" are completely separate projects, with completely different designs. The Sonic Cruiser was specifically designed to fly at near Mach 1 speeds, kind of a Concorde lite. IIRC, that project was canned, and they started up the Dreamliner concept, which is basically just a complete modernization of the old std airliner designs. It emphasizes fuel efficiency, use of modern materials, and lots of small improvements in design. Not really a revolutionary design, just a complete slickening up of the standard airliner. It's kind of the anti-A380.