digg

Join DiggAbout

The B2 Bomber and 787 Have Kids. Check Out This Bad Boy[PIC]

bp3.blogger.com — *****

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • netgeek06, on 06/25/2008, -11/+37great picture of the B2 Bomper
  • rasputin, on 06/25/2008, -5/+9That's quite the craft
  • bendiggn, on 06/25/2008, -8/+254This is Boeing's X-48B Blended Wing Body concept. A successful model has flown.
    • robbh66, on 06/25/2008, -1/+68It would be an unbelievable passenger/cargo plane as they're way more fuel efficient. Boeing has to figure out a few issues first, though:
      1) Get people to accept that passenger planes don't have to be flying tubes with wings
      2) Figure out how to get people to get out of the plane quickly in case of emergency.
      3) Figure out how to get it to work with current airport setups which are designed to efficiently park vastly different planes from the BWB concept.

      • swordedge, on 06/25/2008, -2/+82)... same issue with that gigantic airbus. Some configurations hold over 1000 people. Getting them on and off the plane period is an issue. Requires redesigning the airport terminal.

        It also makes the schedule seriously important cause even the airlines don't need over 1000 people pissed off at them per plane.
        • bono4u, on 06/25/2008, -5/+1Would be worth the investment if you can guarantee full seated plains.
        • thatsmyaibo, on 06/25/2008, -3/+8The Airbus A380 can evacuate the whole plane in 77 seconds. It is extremely resourceful.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weOcrP7u7Y8
        • dmurphy, on 06/25/2008, -0/+37I think 77 seconds would seem a lot longer if you were on fire.
        • itspuddingtime, on 06/25/2008, -3/+11the A380 passed its evacuation test with flying colors, as already mentioned. And no, it can't hold over 1000 passengers. 853 max. 5 seconds on google would have told you this. Damn, the internet is filled with misinformation, isn't it?
        • dafragsta, on 06/26/2008, -3/+7That evacuation test was pretty much in a vacuum. Are you telling me that 77 seconds will be enough time if it's even a water landing? What about the undertow from a HUGE ***** airplane sinking?
        • Chompy, on 06/26/2008, -1/+13Yes, let's limit worldwide efficiency (time, energy, and environmental) because of how long it takes to evacuate a plane compared to the average passenger's one-in-a-billion chance of experiencing a survivable plane crash.
      • sfkit, on 06/25/2008, -4/+194. PROFIT
        • kjm16, on 06/25/2008, -0/+8Well actually, that is an appropriate step.
      • ChileanGoD, on 06/25/2008, -0/+162)... are ejection seats out of the question?
        • bono4u, on 06/25/2008, -0/+10perhaps "ejection section" would be more efficient, if they are constructed to be a boat as well as a part of an airport bus.
        • dalectrics, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1Hmmm... Probably not much comfort come an emergency ground landing..... You know, just throwing it out there....
      • trollick, on 06/25/2008, -3/+84) Give tranquilizers to people who have to sit far from the center inside the wings.
        (they would not be comfortable during the turns)
        • Qeveren, on 06/26/2008, -0/+10Give me a discount and I'd take one of those seats. Quick travel and a rollercoaster, all in one!
        • dacheetah, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1I'm not sure you could really tell how far from the centre you are (without looking or hearing where everyone else is, i.e. you have earplugs and a blindfold).
          Given that you wind up rotated the same distance, the only difference would be a small amount of lateral movement that when compared to the other movements of the plane would be almost undetectable.
        • SteveMax, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4dacheetah, imagine the airplane is turning. Say it tilts 30 degrees in one second (to make things easier to calculate; the conclusion would be the same for any angle).

          If you are 20cm from the centre, you would move 10cm vertically in one second. You would hardly feel it.
          Now, if you are 20m from the centre, you'd move 10 meters vertically in the same one second. That's a 36 km/h vertical movement, which you can (and will) feel. This vertical movement is what causes sickness. Add to that the pretty heavy linear accelerations you'd face and the situation looks worse;

          I know I wouldn't mind traveling there (and would rather like it, actually), but think of small children, pregnant women, elderly people, people who don't like flying, people who get sick at rollercoasters... And basically everyone who doesn't explicitly say they want an adrenalin overdose during the flight. It's a big problem
        • TxAggie08, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Just use those areas for cargo or fuel, neither of which get air sick.
      • htan, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4apparently some people are also protesting the use of carbon fiber on this plane which, unlike metals which are flexible, carbon fiber tends to shatter when drastically bent.
        • salinemist, on 06/26/2008, -0/+16Apparently some people are idiots.
        • htan, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1there's no doubt that carbon fiber would have benefits but did you get a chance to watch the monaco grand prix this year? it was in the wet and with the amount of collisions and all that carbon fiber flying around, it does raise some concerns about it being used on aircraft
    • franklymister, on 06/25/2008, -1/+106Just to be clear, by successful "model," he means literally a model. A scale model with a 21-foot wingspan, to be precise.

      This photo is an artist's rendering.

      Still amazing, though.
      • desertDenizen, on 06/25/2008, -1/+25Damn good rendering too.
        • teh_spazz, on 06/26/2008, -7/+3Rendering? You mean photoshopping!
        • ispeakasian, on 06/26/2008, -1/+6the pixels are all wrong!
        • GunnerMan, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2Actually it was probablyy a combo of both. The artist probably had to make the model and render it to get it to picture form. Since he is rendering it would be to easy for him to throw the texture map on and render it that whay he got all the realistic lighting and shadows that would take forever in PS. PS was probably used for the foreground and background.

          Photoshop is not "the" tool that every CGI image is made from. There is much more power in other programs it just takes more brains to unleash that power.

          *Just read this is a false photo so it was probably photoshoped an existing image to stretch and skew the standard airline into something more flat. explaining the lack of depth on the fuselage.*
    • Lukesed, on 06/25/2008, -4/+70*****, kind of. This picture is on snopes:
      http://www.snopes.com/photos/airplane/boeing797.as ...
      • psion01, on 06/25/2008, -0/+9Well ... that's a bit of a let-down, but good job on the debunking.
      • SkuLLpHucT, on 06/26/2008, -2/+7I think the buildings in the background kinda hint at the authenticity of the photo.
      • Nyfeh, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2Err... Kind of?
      • bmystry, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Oh common! I was really excited about something like that being created.. the internet kills a little bit of my joy once again.
    • taosd, on 06/25/2008, -1/+3Also, think of turning in that thing, sitting towards the outside of the wing (I guess the whole thing is a wing, but, I think you can understand what I mean). In a normal plane, you wouldn't feel much of a difference between you and the guy/girl on the other end, however, in this beast, there would be quite a distance (about the distance of the wingspan, imagine that) between you and the person on the other end, and if that plane is on a 20 degree angle, the person on the other end is going to be 90 feet higher than you (the wing span is listed as 265 feet). That's kind of weird to think about and adjust to.
      • attercob, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2You won't notice. When a plane banks, it turns to keep the overall acceleration vector pointed toward the floor of the aircraft. That's why you don't feel like you're tilted when a plane turns. The same effect would make it seem like the people 90ft over you were sitting level with you.
        • itspuddingtime, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1absolutely right. It's called a coordinated turn
      • Kormiku, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1what you are talking about is slightly confusing but i understand what you are saying. really, it will just make people airsick more easily. More like on a boat than on an airplane.
      • kindwarrior, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1No.

        You are confusing real movement (or relative movement) with perceived movement. A turn is a change of direction, which will generally mean an increase G forces -- can be a decrease or even no change in G force if the turn is accompanied by a loss of altitude. The plane tilts (banks) while turning so that the G forces are pulling down evenly across the entire body of the air craft (it'scalled a coordinated turn and it's not just done for passenger comfort it's done to minimize structural stress). This is conceptually similar to why the turns are banked in a race track. Even in a barrel role, the axis of rotation is not the center line of the hull but a point in space above the ***** pit whose distance from the planes centerline is determined by the force of the turn such that, again, all radial thrust is distributed evenly across the surface of the wing. The only thing that could make you sick is your rate of turn (dramatically altering the G forces on your body -- think of the vomit comet (aptly named)) and that's exactly the same as in conventional aircraft. I suppose there might be the possibility of a flat spin (slim to none) and there the distance from the center of spin would determine the amount of centrifugal force but again this would happen with the front and back sections of a conventional plane too.
    • culbeda, on 06/25/2008, -0/+12Don't cloud the issue with your "facts".
    • FlyingPhotog, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3Yes, a small-scale, remote-controlled, un-manned model has flown. That's hardly a successful proof of concept.
    • Featherlake, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Was it Claudia Schiffer?
    • bosssmiley, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3Nah, it's Thunderbird 2.
  • madmariner, on 06/25/2008, -4/+11Looks otherworldly...but cool!
  • mixsense, on 06/25/2008, -26/+5This is the first time I've felt inclined to make one of those *****, generic, spammy comments I love to bury.

    Great picture!! So amazing...... A+++!
  • vroom101, on 06/25/2008, -5/+25The "relationship" between B-2 Spirit and B-52 Stratofortress . . .
    http://chamorrobible.org/images/photos/gpw-2005112 ... (Medium), http://chamorrobible.org/images/photos/gpw-2005112 ... (Large) via 11 http://chamorrobible.org/gpw/gpw-20051129.htm

    . . . and B-2 Spirit and F-15E Strike Eagle just wasn't meant to be!
    http://chamorrobible.org/images/photos/gpw-2005082 ... via 1 at http://chamorrobible.org/gpw/gpw-20050822.htm
    • shidairyproduct, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1the b2 seems like quite the slut. a sexy slut, too.
  • vroom101, on 06/25/2008, -5/+33More info about the "Skyray" -- Boeing X-48B Blended Wing Body:
    a) http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/improvingflight/x ... (www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/improvingflight/x48b.html)
    b) http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/research/X-48B/ ... (www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/research/X-48B/index.html)
    c) Photos: http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/X-48B/index ... (www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/X-48B/index.html)
    d) Video #1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5z_vcGlVmAU
    e) Video #2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnZrUksNU1E
    f) http://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/bw ... (www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/bwb_main.html)
    g) http://www.physorg.com/news104680301.html
    h) http://www.aviation.com/technology/080521-x-48b-bl ... (www.aviation.com/technology/080521-x-48b-blended-wing-body.html)
  • MattFid, on 06/25/2008, -5/+127The photo is a mock-up, not real:
    http://tinyurl.com/6ge5or
    • DeskFlyer, on 06/25/2008, -15/+3............................................________
      ....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
      .............................,.-”...................................“-.,
      .........................,/...............................................”:,
      .....................,?......................................................,
      .................../...........................................................,}
      ................./......................................................,:`^`..}
      .............../...................................................,:”........./
      ..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
      ............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
      .........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/
      ..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
      ...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
      ...,,,___.`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../
      ............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”
      ............/.`~,......`-...................................../
      .............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__
      ,,_..........}.>-._...................................|..............`=~-,
      .....`=~-,__......`,.................................
      ...................`=~-,,.,...............................
      ................................`:,,...........................`..............__
      .....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
      ........................................_..........._,-%.......`
      ...................................,
    • marcus1060, on 06/25/2008, -0/+4That post is almost a year old.
    • tubateater, on 06/25/2008, -4/+0Wow, and you came to that conclusion all on you own!
    • randomstupid, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3i wanted to believe... sniff
  • ethomas046, on 06/25/2008, -12/+22Fake. But still a cool concept.
    • bluepass, on 06/26/2008, -5/+1A stealth passenger jet -- sounds like every terrorist's dream.
  • bytor4232, on 06/25/2008, -3/+6I bet that would be quite fuel efficient.
    • whitezombie420, on 06/25/2008, -0/+4according to the nasa site the design alone gives 30% increased fuel efficiency.
    • anarchytv, on 06/25/2008, -12/+230% increased fuel efficiency of something that burns several gallons A SECOND is.... what??? Its a joke, that's what.

      These gas guzzling behemoths and the sump fund their development costs humanity needs to be AXED.

      This thing is going to cost us billions, and you know where they are all going to end up? Rotting out in a desert in Arizona by the thousands. Millions to spent to build aluminum rust proof housing for desert rats. Don't believe me. There are plenty of photos of millions of dollars worth of aircraft already rotting away... just do a google search on "airplane graveyard".
      • Ramble, on 06/25/2008, -0/+7What an idiot. Planes carry hundreds of people, they're really very efficient per person.
      • desertDenizen, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1I live in Arizona, and yes, it's a strange sight.
      • gta3uzi, on 06/25/2008, -0/+4No, it's not a joke. If you're burning 10 gallons a second, and you decreased that to even 8 per second (conservatively) on a 3 hour flight you're looking at...

        108,000 gallons for the original model, and 86,400 gallons for the improved version. A savings of 21,600 gallons of fuel for one flight. Multiply that by the MULTITUDES of flights made daily and that's a huge savings.

        Also, planes are very fuel efficient compared to cars. Tally up the amount of congestion, fuel, and road wear for thousands of people driving 700 miles versus flying them there in jets. I think you'll find the oil companies wouldn't mind of passenger jets weren't around.
      • formergthing, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2You can't be serious.

        Columbus should have axed circumnavigation, Eisenhower should have axed the bomb, we should have axed electricity, computers, the internet, cars, and fire.

        I'm so sick of progress.
      • SwedishNinja, on 06/25/2008, -1/+2^ THIS IS WHAT ENVIRONMENTALISTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE
        • housewarmer, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2Some environmentalists seem to hold variations on that view, but being anti-progress is counter-productive. Only through further technological advancement can we solve our current environmental issues.
        • gernblansted, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2Yes, ALL OF THEM, because believing that is easier than thinking for some anti-environmentalists.
      • adriantr, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2So they spend millions of dollars on rust proof planes that rot? Metal rotting is rust. But they are rust proof, so theres no rotting *****.

        And like gta3uzi said, 30% savings on fuel is huge in aviation.
      • senatorpjt, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Yeah, which works out to 100 miles per gallon per person.
        http://science.howstuffworks.com/question192.htm
    • desertDenizen, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2Can somebody please explain why they're more efficient? It looks like there should be more drag due to increased frontal area. Thanks.
      • colinnwn, on 06/25/2008, -0/+9In a blended body, the whole craft acts as the lifting body (wing). Doing so is much more efficient. You can't just look at the frontal area but also how the front smoothly transitions into the lifting surface. In a regular aircraft the tubular body is just dead drag from the frontal area, and parasitic drag along the side, and provides almost no lift. Due to this, tubular aircraft travel at a slightly nose up altitude further increasing its effective drag, where a blended body doesn't have to do this.
        • desertDenizen, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3Awesome. Thank you! That's a great explanation.
        • Wargasmic, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3Beat me to it, good explanation though. Why didn't they just make a blended body aircraft first? Would have saved trillions in fuel.
        • noahhoward, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Because the original had a nasty habit of doing a triple back-flip to swan-dive in a stall. The problems with bwb aircraft weren't solved until the advent of modern computers.
  • s4g4n, on 06/25/2008, -4/+9So if it can carry more bombs it can carry more passengers, Genius.
  • seabass341, on 06/25/2008, -9/+2Hard to see it from this angle
    I WANT MOAR ANGLES!
  • PrometheusBorn, on 06/25/2008, -6/+8Anybody know what skyline that is in the background? It's kind of impressive.
    • spuncoke, on 06/25/2008, -0/+6I was thinking the same thing. I'm thinking its a fake skyline never seen one like that before.
    • vespagirl, on 06/25/2008, -0/+6Looks like a pasted together "future" NYC or something. Definitely the Chrysler Building behind the left engine. Though looks like the CN Tower is thrown in twice as well.
      • bravo1995, on 06/25/2008, -1/+2Good call. For a minute, I was wondering what city had such a hard-on for spires.
    • ronintetsuro, on 06/25/2008, -1/+1Neo Tokyo?
    • poopdigger, on 06/26/2008, -1/+5If anything, Dubai in 30 years
    • Wargasmic, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3Pretty sure it's fake.
    • ed54, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Its fake. And whoever made this didn't put in the time to put in a real skyline.
      • cwmather, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Would it not take more time to put in a fake skyline?
    • kindwarrior, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1This is very well done -- and well thought out: it is the tarmac @ Kennedy International; everything is right; the lighting angles, the position of manhattan skyline the other plane on the taxiway. Even the architectural designs for the super-skyscrapers is plausible and derivative of current concepts. The amount of haze seems about right too -- kudos to the digital artist; this could pass for a photo from an alternate time line. (sadly)

      the whole x-48B saga makes me sad; Boeing used to be such a bold and innovative company but they've been ganged up on for a long time by the unholy alliance of Airbus the EU and the Democratic Party -- I understand why they've gotten timid on this project; After all, who needs dramatic improvements in fuel efficiency, reliability and maintenance if it's not controlled by the European banks and aristocracy??? -- When will these bourgeois Americans give up their absurdly gauche notion of enterprise and individual rights and go back to being the peasants they were meant to be!
  • OffPiste, on 06/25/2008, -3/+28But are people ready for sitting in a plane like that? The first 20 degree or greater bank and every passenger sitting at window ***** their pants. There's a reason beyond aerodynamics that we fly in small tubes. Even in a wide body a 60 degree bank only means a small position change for passengers at windows. In a flying wing a 60 degree bank would mean passengers moving a hundred feet or so up and and down.
    • Mononuclear, on 06/25/2008, -8/+2Why exactly would a 20 degree bank on this airplane be any different than a 20 degree bank on any other airplane?
      • PdxPhoenix, on 06/25/2008, -0/+5from http://johnfenzel.typepad.com/john_fenzels_blog/ai ...
        about some of the problems to overcome with a BWB plane...

        -Due to the majority of passengers' location far from the roll axis of the aircraft, passengers will be far more affected as a result of a steep turn than they would be in a conventional tube-with-wings airliner, where all the passengers are located immediately next to the roll axis
      • Zaneris, on 06/25/2008, -1/+2I hope that was sarcasm...
      • thirteenthcor, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1No, no ill take this one... Because your father out from the center-point of rotation PdxPhoenix... exactly how gears work, almost everything rotary works on this principle. The farther you are from the central fulcrum point, the more you are going to traverse. i.e. if your sitting near the window seat, your going to traverse farther than someone in the center of the plane.. Ever ridden a swinging ship at a carnival? Same principle.
    • Ramble, on 06/25/2008, -1/+10Then you bank slowly.
    • bravo1995, on 06/25/2008, -0/+7Sounds like fun, assuming they develop some kind of pneumatic tube system for removing all the ***** from our pants.
    • BadseedJR, on 06/25/2008, -2/+18I would purposefully buy those end seats. It's like a free amusement park ride.
      • gta3uzi, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1Agreed. I'd videotape the people who threw up :)
      • afidler, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4A free amusement park ride that you pay for with money? Now, how does that work?
        • thirteenthcor, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2a free ride... for 9 hours.
        • BadseedJR, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1You pay for the flight... the ride is free!
    • prometheanspark, on 06/25/2008, -0/+5So you put people near the centerline and luggage, cargo and fuel closer to the wingtips, while charging less for seats along the edges. Tube-type airplanes have seats that suck too, near the back where engine noise is louder and it takes forever to offload. I'd rather a slightly more dramatic ride for 2/3 the price myself.
      • IrwinFletcher, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1If you confine people to the centerline, then what's the point? You're then limited to however many people can fit within that space, which won't be that much different than a conventional airliner. There won't be that much more luggage and as for fuel, is there a need for that much extra?
        • thirteenthcor, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1but with this wing shape you getting better mpgs, can carry more luggage and weight with less fuel, and the planes better distribute the load across the entire superstructure... the plan lasts longer.
    • colinnwn, on 06/25/2008, -0/+8Commercial aircraft would only bank 60 degrees in an emergency, 20 degrees is a steep normal turn. If done slowly and coordinated in a blended body it would feel different but not scary or wild. Traditionally aircraft turn and bank coordinated for better responsiveness and so the sensation is just heavy or light in your seat, and almost no side or centripetal force. Another option would be to turn but no longer bank except in emergencies. It would feel more like turning in a car with the high side forces.
      • massyboy, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1No commercial airliner would ever bank at 60 degrees. there would be no need to bank at 60 degrees in an emergency. Trust me, you may find it does a steep DESCENT in an emergency but it would not bank at any more than 10-15 degrees
        • PhireN, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3Commercial airliners 'can' bank up to 60 degrees in an emergency.
          As you pointed out, problem is finding an emergency that needs a lot of banking.
    • elementop, on 06/25/2008, -0/+14Airliners don't fly at 60 degrees of bank in normal operation. A 60 degree banked turn (assuming at level altitude) pulls 2Gs -- not something your average airline passenger would appreciate -- with G forces increasing exponentially beyond 60 degrees.

      Airliners limit turns to 30 degrees of bank unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise.
    • senatorpjt, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2The scariest part would probably be the landing.
      • aussiessuck, on 06/26/2008, -0/+0Bingo!

        Flying wings don't use flaps to slow down like regular aircraft... they just use insane angles of attack.
    • frequentFlyer, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0The max roll during an airline turn is 30 degrees.
  • Junior612, on 06/25/2008, -4/+1So this is what the X-33 turned into?
    • bravo1995, on 06/25/2008, -0/+5No, the X33 is wasting away in the DoD's Indiana Jones warehouse somewhere.
  • Coolmatt49, on 06/25/2008, -2/+4The picture is only a concept. It looks pretty sweet though.
  • OhTheHumanity1, on 06/25/2008, -0/+4It is from a Popular Science article from many years past I believe. Or at least, if PopSci didn't create it, they used it, which now that I say that probably sounds more likely...
    • emcc24, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1I thought so. 'Future of aviation' or something right?
    • FelixDrylock, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1I was going to mention this also. They had a lot of really impressive/realistic-looking mock ups in that issue.
    • shawn811, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1I agree, I saw that in a pop sci mag a while ago.
  • 3amboo, on 06/25/2008, -0/+25the first time i glanced at the title i thought i read: "B2 Bomber and 787 Kids." My eyes opened wide enough to read it correctly.
  • idavidtang, on 06/25/2008, -0/+4Aircraft sperm must have been one of those bombs in the B2 somewhere.
  • TheWriteGuy, on 06/25/2008, -0/+10At the rate things are going, who knows if in another decade or two, there will even be a viable airlines industry in the United States to support having such cool, futuristic passenger aircraft.
    • whatever01, on 06/25/2008, -1/+2Yeah, because people are going to stop flying.
      • Qeveren, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1They will if there aren't any airlines left.
        • Gndoab, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1and there won't be any airlines left is gas keeps going up.
    • FlyingPhotog, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1People will always need to get somewhere faster than cars & trains will take them.
      • Lawbringer, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1That's assuming that cars and trains are faster than planes. admittedly thats still very probable but trains can get over 350mph now so that gap is closing.
  • bpollay, on 06/25/2008, -7/+1Why is this a good design for a plane? It doesn't seem aerodynamically practical.
    • pr0t0, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2It's a good design for a plane because it can carry more passengers while consuming the same amount of fuel as today's aircraft. More passengers/flight = fewer flights (less expense) or more customers (increased revenue).

      The problem is that they are so big, they don't fit the gates at most airports. So airports want to impose a tax on them to justify enlarging the space between gates. Which in turn, nullifies the cost benefits of the aircraft.
    • colinnwn, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2Because the body of an aircraft is a drag that provides no usefulness to the airframe (aside from holding the people or cargo). If you put the cargo in the wings and kill the body of the aircraft, the ratio of drag to lift is much better and the aerodynamic efficiency increases greatly.
  • BarnacleBob, on 06/25/2008, -10/+1Big, or not-so-big, it's still a WMD.
    • ElderBieler, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2and the first liberal douche comes out to play.

      "don't create weapons and arsenals to be technologically advanced, in fact let's just make pink pillow hearts and mail them to everybody who now or will threaten us."

      ass hat.
  • duke1981, on 06/25/2008, -2/+2Thats sick looking.
  • cyberguy23, on 06/25/2008, -1/+8I'd like to say that this is real, but there's an entire page on snopes.com that proves otherwise:
    http://www.snopes.com/photos/airplane/boeing797.as ...

    I have to admit, it's a good job by a photoshopper!
    • davidwasman, on 06/25/2008, -0/+4Actually, it was an artist rendering made in 1996...Photoshop was probably not used.
    • MajorOutage, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1And if this picture was the first you'd ever heard of these newfangled planes, and you still believed it was real...you're really a moron.
    • ed54, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Actually, not that great of a job. Took me only about five seconds to realize it was fake.
  • adml_shake, on 06/25/2008, -1/+2The next Google jet...
    • FlyingPhotog, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Next? Is there already a Google jet?
  • jmcneilly, on 06/25/2008, -1/+5Forget the planes; I want to know more about the city in the back ground!
  • db0255, on 06/25/2008, -1/+3I know everybody knows this picture is a fake because they haven't made that airplane yet. But did anybody notice the city behind the plane? What kind of city has that many towers?
    • wc3452, on 06/25/2008, -0/+3One from the future?
    • Drakk0n, on 06/25/2008, -0/+3The world of TOMORROW!!!
    • c0mputar, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1You can see Petronius (don't know how to spell it) from Taiwan or something, one of the tallest buildings in the world, and it's protrayed here as half the size as its surrounding.
  • thedinomeister, on 06/25/2008, -3/+30IT SEATS OVER 9000!!!!!!!!
    • Kajman, on 06/25/2008, -0/+7ok, that was actually really funny.
    • Baronvontito1, on 06/25/2008, -0/+6Well done, sir. You win... this time.
  • Tyrghast, on 06/25/2008, -3/+3that image is a shop, It was featured in Popular Science a few years back because it was such a good shop.
  • scrumpy, on 06/25/2008, -4/+82001 called, they'd like their pic back.
  • samyoungguitar, on 06/25/2008, -7/+1If it runs on jet fuel no one could afford to fly in it. Might as well bring back the Concord. There should be hydrogen fueled planes..if people would stop being such pussies.
  • ShadowFoxxx, on 06/25/2008, -5/+0Impressive, but is it real?
  • Ledjar, on 06/25/2008, -3/+1dude what city is in the background it looks like the future.
    • Fracture98, on 06/25/2008, -1/+1You chose "what is this futuristic city of millions that I've never even heard of" over "I wonder if the picture is a mock-up"? You fail at skeptic.
  • compgeek7889, on 06/25/2008, -7/+1wen the boeing blened wing design goes commercial airbus is going to make an exact copy of it and change a few thing and call it their own. i.e the 787 and airbus a350. thats a rly old pic btw
  • firebert69, on 06/25/2008, -3/+2you can tell this is fake if you look at the skyline. I cant think of any place having weird buildings like that. except maybe dubai
    • sk8kidpat, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1no matter if the back look fake the plane looks real rite?
  • camaroz06, on 06/25/2008, -4/+2???
    I hope none of you thought this picture was real, its been around as concept art for a bit now.

    Anyways Boeing has been thinking of a blended wing design for awhile now, hopefully this is the next generation of passenger aircraft, I believe it is the next step. The most inefficient thing on aircraft as we know it are the tube fuselage it provides nothing to lift. But, the non circular cabin of the blended wing is one of the hurdles of the design when it comes to presurising the cabin.

    Plus the airlines could charge anice premium for passengers to sit at the leading edge seats! I would pay extra a few times at least.
    • FlyingPhotog, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2They can't put windows on the leading edge of a wing. For protection from hail storms and bird strikes they would have to be like a foot thick. And how would they be de-iced? Airlines don't always want passengers to see the storm they might be flying into.

      / I work for an airline.
  • NeoHomer, on 06/25/2008, -6/+1Old and Fake.
  • techweenie, on 06/25/2008, -9/+7Fake as a Fox News broadcast.
  • stunta1350, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1that gave me a hard on
  • Escudo56, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2super ***** old
  • grewal1212, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1funny thing is that when i hit the digg button, the previous number of diggs were 777...haha...
    anyways... that pretty f@#king crazy...
  • ancientdinko, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3gee the future looks smoggy!
  • Homerr, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2Dugg for Chinese smog.
  • airshowfan, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4McDonnell Douglas has been wanting to make a Blended Wing Body airliner for like 15 years. One of many projects that got shelved (along with the propfan-powered MD-94 and the A380-like MD-12) when the company started having trouble selling airliners in the mid 90s.

    http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/mdc/97-158.htm ...

    At Stanford University, the AeroAstro department (especially Ilan Kroo) also went through a BWB phase about 10 years ago, and worked with McDD people (even after the merger with Boeing - McDD is now "Boeing Long Beach") to explore the concept:

    http://endo.sandia.gov/AIAA_MDOTC/sponsored/final_ ...

    The first image on the page below shows the McDD mock-up, which is now at the Hiller Museum, near Stanford. The page also includes many nice pictures of a remote-controlled model which was test-flown by Stanford people at NASA Ames (Moffett Field):

    http://aero.stanford.edu/BWBProject.html

    There was an email going around claiming that the 797 would be a BWB:

    http://www.snopes.com/photos/airplane/boeing797.as ...

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

    (even though everyone knows that the next 7-something-7 will be a 737 replacement:)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Y1

    After that email went around, there was plenty of discussion of all the reasons why a BWB airliner would not work: people near the edges moving up and down when the plane banked, people being too many seats from an aisle, ground service infrastructure having to be redesigned, the difficulty of stretching a BWB to make a bigger or smaller version...(stretching a tube is relatively easy)

    http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_a ...

    But who knows, it could happen:

    http://www.twitt.org/bldwing.htm

    http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/pdf/FS-1997-07-24-La ...

    Boeing right now is testing the X-48:

    http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets ...

    The USAF might want it as a transport, and FedEx has already expressed interest, since it really does take less fuel to fly stuff with a BWB. Having seen a presentation enthusiastically given by one of the most experienced aerodynamicists on the planet, who is helping to run the X-48 project, I am now an optimist that within my lifetime we'll move to BWB planes. I think if the USAF orders a big BWB and FedEx can fly it too, it won't be long before a lot of people want to fly something that cool-looking.
  • rheaume, on 06/26/2008, -6/+2Fake called, they want their fakedy fake fake
    • AutoTom, on 06/26/2008, -2/+1the banhammers called, they'd like to discuss your comments
  • airshowfan, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Dang, it, most of the URLs I posted got chopped. Take two...

    Stanford BWB:

    http://endo.sandia.gov/AIAA_MDOTC
    /sponsored/final_wakayama_ppr_7-1-98.pdf

    http://aero.stanford.edu/BWBProject.html

    Email about BWB "797":

    http://www.snopes.com/photos
    /airplane/boeing797.asp

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

    Forum discussion with all the reasons why a BWB airliner would be a bad idea:

    http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums
    /general_aviation/read.main/2737489/

    It could happen:

    http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/
    pdf/FS-1997-07-24-LaRC.pdf

    X-48:

    http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/
    FactSheets/FS-090-DFRC.html
  • elementalwinds, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1I can't wait for NASA to get these planes out of testing and into flight. They have a much better Fuel/Weight ratio due to the increase in lift body area. They are like flying hybrids.

    http://thethreelaws.net
    • FlyingPhotog, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1The only testing that has taken place is small-scale models in a wind tunnel.
      • AutoTom, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2they flew like 1/10 scale models back in 2006 dude
        • FlyingPhotog, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1OK so it was remote controlled, big whoop.
    • aussiessuck, on 06/26/2008, -1/+0Hybrids are gay.
  • mtrem225, on 06/26/2008, -5/+0Your tax dollars at work...
  • FlyingPhotog, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1That design would never work on a passenger aircraft for 2 reasons.

    1. Emergency evacuation would be difficult.
    2. Nobody wants to sit 100 feet or so from the nearest window.
  • jzuska, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Submitted headline really melted my brain.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 71 of 71 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.