Future Aircraft, Boeings answer to the 380! (Hoax)

[T@T]

The experiential Boeing 797, Boeing's answer to the Airbus 380. Seats 1000 passengers also tough to get a window seat



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 LangleyResearchCenter. 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 up 159 orders, but has not yet flown any passengers. Boeing decide to kill its 747X stretch 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 todrag 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 bodyrigidity 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 0.88 or 654 mph (+-1046km/h) cruising speed another advantage over the Airbus tube-and-wing designed A380's 570 mph (912 km/h .) The exact date for introduction is unclear, yet the battle lines are clearly drawn in the high-stakes war for civilian air supremacy.
__________________________________________________ __

[STeeLy]

I dunno man... seems pretty sketchy to me...

[T@T]

Originally Posted by STeeLy

I dunno man... seems pretty sketchy to me...

Gezz a winner in the first post

One would have thought to at least put Seattle in the background

[arsenal]

That looks awesome!
I think i would actually enjoy flying on that plane. Once they iron out all the bugs and stuff.

[flamesfan6]

im pretty sure the a380 is flying passengers now.............. so part of that article thing is wrong

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by flamesfan6

im pretty sure the a380 is flying passengers now.............. so part of that article thing is wrong

that's not the only thing...

[QuadCityImages]

That first image is stolen from a Popular Science article.

This is an email hoax. See Snopes link here: http://www.snopes.com/photos/airplane/boeing797.asp

[I-Hate-Hulse]

The problem with a BWB (blended wing body) is that it has problems in meeting the evacuation times required of all commercial aircraft. Put simply, those in the center of the aircraft can't get to an exit fast enough.

Maybe they can counter this with floor / roof exits, but that'll take some convincing of the authorities. Or maybe ejection seats.

Also, those seated at the ends of the wings would experience more up/down motion than those closer to the center.

[mykalberta]

It was a design, problem is requires to many airport infrastructre changes.

Also, Boeing doesnt believe in the mass Hub->Hub concept as airbus does.

Boeing is betting on 787, Airbus on 380

[Dan02]

from what i understand the 797 is slated to be a replacement for the 737 not for the 747.

[Incogneto]

Saw Dreamliner 1 when I was in Seattle this Fall. Those things are the future of aviation. Roughly the same size of the 747, but made of carbon Fiber, which makes it cheaper to make, and maintain. Also much much lighter, so gas usage is decreased significantly.

plus, they put them together in 3 or 4 days, compared to a 5 week build cycle for the 747. Really quite Amazing.

If you are ever in Seattle, I highly reccomend doing the tour of the Boeing plant in Everett. You won't get a more interesting tour for $15

[BlackArcher101]

I doubt carbon fiber is cheaper to make and maintain than it's Alum. counterpart.

[SteveToms]

The 787 is not even close to the size of 747...

[foofighter15]

Originally Posted by InCoGnEtO

Saw Dreamliner 1 when I was in Seattle this Fall. Those things are the future of aviation. Roughly the same size of the 747, but made of carbon Fiber, which makes it cheaper to make, and maintain. Also much much lighter, so gas usage is decreased significantly.

plus, they put them together in 3 or 4 days, compared to a 5 week build cycle for the 747. Really quite Amazing.

If you are ever in Seattle, I highly reccomend doing the tour of the Boeing plant in Everett. You won't get a more interesting tour for $15

I used to live right there, and never got around to it. I regret it for sure. I've heard nothing but cool things about it.
I know the Boeing plant is the worlds largest building in square mileage.

[Incogneto]

Originally Posted by foofighter15

I used to live right there, and never got around to it. I regret it for sure. I've heard nothing but cool things about it.
I know the Boeing plant is the worlds largest building in square mileage.

Biggest in Volume, not Sq. Footage. The building is Massive.

[foofighter15]

Originally Posted by InCoGnEtO

Biggest in Volume, not Sq. Footage. The building is Massive.

I knew it was something like that.
I drove by it all time to go Go Karting. It was a great track!

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

I doubt carbon fiber is cheaper to make and maintain than it's Alum. counterpart.

I wouldn't be too sure about that, especially on an industrial scale.

Carbon fiber is a lot easier to transport than aluminum, so you instantly get a savings on transoprtation of raw materials. Plus no matter what shape you are making the process is basically the same. The more complex of a shape you start to make with aluminum, the more steps you need and the more it costs to produce the part.

Plus, aircraft grade aluminum, isn't exactly the cheapest material around either.

I'd be willing to bet that a company using the ammount of material that Boeing would, can get some pretty good cost reductions.

[STeeLy]

Originally Posted by InCoGnEtO

If you are ever in Seattle, I highly reccomend doing the tour of the Boeing plant in Everett. You won't get a more interesting tour for $15

I would recommend this too. I've been to the plant in Everett once when my family drove down there when we visited Vancouver... We didn't get to take the tour because we got there a little late, but it was still really cool.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I wouldn't be too sure about that, especially on an industrial scale.

Carbon fiber is a lot easier to transport than aluminum, so you instantly get a savings on transoprtation of raw materials. Plus no matter what shape you are making the process is basically the same. The more complex of a shape you start to make with aluminum, the more steps you need and the more it costs to produce the part.

Plus, aircraft grade aluminum, isn't exactly the cheapest material around either.

I'd be willing to bet that a company using the ammount of material that Boeing would, can get some pretty good cost reductions.

I'm pretty sure the use of carbon fibre in such an immense application would be more expensive than aluminum. One of the biggest issues in the aerospace industry is safety testing and validation. After using aluminum for decades the aerospace safety codes are well established and the methods of manufacturing aircraft are very sound. To use ANYTHING in the aerospace industry requires a lot of testing and validation, which was one of the stumbling blocks for carbon fibre being used in passenger aircraft.

As for total cost - for simple shapes I imagine aluminum would be immensely cheaper to use than carbon fibre. Carbon fibre is much more complicated to use due to requirements of multiple layers, directionality of fibres, stress concentrations, and requirements of resin impregnation into the weave. One of the issues one of my composites professors emphasized during his lectures is the complexity of removing the windows from a solid carbon fibre fusalage. If you have the entire body of a jet made of wrapped carbon fiber, cutting the windows out will be more complex.

The use of carbon fibre is driven by weight reduction, which decreases fuel consumption and allows for greater efficiency. I would be willing to bet that the carbon fibre construction is more expensive than traditional aerospace aluminum. Plus.. the fatigue properties and behaviours of carbon fibre are not nearly as well understood as aluminum.

As a side note - we used carbon fibre to make body panels, cooling ducts, and the seat for our Formula SAE car at the University of Waterloo, and the cost of the carbon cloth itself went up considerably in price and was much harder to get due to, what our distributor described as "a global shortage due to skyrocketing use by the aerospace industry". I'm pretty sure the costs to make these jets are extremely high.

[Burninator]

Wow in the future they really like spires.