How we'll fly in 2025 -- NASA's vision

bobblepuzzle

Source CNN: http://www.cnngo.com/explorations/life/airplanes-future-nasa-sees-it-512575?hpt=C2

Looks like Boeing, Lockheed & Northrop have some pretty awesome designs...
How we'll fly in 2025 -- NASA's vision


The Boeing Company's artistic impression of future passenger aircraft, which run on hybrid propulsion technology.
NASA has begun testing revolutionary passenger aircraft set to take flight in 2025 that are faster and greener than existing models.
In late 2010, NASA contracted three design teams from Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and The Boeing Company to work on the models for the rest of 2011. The three teams have already released artist conceptions of what the planes look like, including one by Boeing that’s a dead ringer for the stealth bomber, and another that has an engine perched at the back.
Lockheed Martin's design.

The Northrop Grumman concept.

The designs will fly up to 85 percent of the speed of sound, cover a range of approximately 7,000 miles and carry between 50,000 and 100,000 pounds of passenger or cargo payload.
“Each design looks very different, but all final designs have to meet NASA's goals for less noise, cleaner exhaust and lower fuel consumption,” according to the NASA website.
“For the rest of this year, each team will be exploring, testing, simulating, keeping and discarding innovations and technologies to make their design a winner.”
The project is sponsored by NASA's Environmentally Responsible Aviation Project, which is under the agency’s Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate in Washington.
The project is currently developing technology that can cut harmful emissions in aircraft by half, burn 50 percent less fuel than contemporary models and shrink geographical areas affected by airport noise by 83 percent.



Read more: How we'll fly in 2025 -- NASA's vision | CNNGo.com http://www.cnngo.com/explorations/life/airplanes-future-nasa-sees-it-512575?hpt=C2#ixzz1BIsgPWHN

David086

That second photo looks epic.

CaptainSkidmark

IMO those aircraft are horrendous!

bobblepuzzle

The middle one looks kind of awesome :P

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

AfterDusk

All look pretty terrible tbh. The middle one looks almost decent, but 1 engine?? What about reliability?

Saruman

neil2304 wrote: »

All look pretty terrible tbh. The middle one looks almost decent, but 1 engine?? What about reliability?

I thought the same. I would not like to fly on an aircraft with only one engine.
747 with 4 FTW

Manic Moran

None of those are particularly new ideas.

1953


1980s


1942


The main reason that nobody's built them yet is that there is great concern that passengers are willing to get onto an airplane that doesn't fit in with their ideas on what a proper airplane should look like.

NTM

bobcar61

I'd get on the second plane no problem but I would feel safer if an engine was stuck on both wings as well.

I couldn't see the 1st and 3rd photo ever materialising into actual operating aircraft

Tenger

neil2304 wrote: »

All look pretty terrible tbh. The middle one looks almost decent, but 1 engine?? What about reliability?

I 've seen a few concept sketches of this idea. One was a US concept of a future aerial tanker. There were 3 engines, 1 at the back of the fuselage and 1 at each wingtip. The dual wing gives extra lift and the closed 'wingtip' lessens the vortices in this area.

Those flying wing idea as stated have been around since the Horten brothers pre-WWII. (google 'Amerika Bomber') While they are very efficient designs they are not at all practible. The B747 introduction forced most airports in the world to be redesigned for larger aircraft. Recently Airbus wanted a larger wingspan on the A380 but had to restrict it to allow it to operate in more airports. As it is most airport taxiiways and stands cannot handle the A380 in the same way they would a smaller widebody.

Those flying wings would mean redesigning pretty much all the major airports in the world. I personally cannot see them being viable within 15 years.

Have a google for some of the concept designs for the next generation of aircraft from Airbus. The maintain the cylindrical fuselage and flat wing but play around with engine locations and type. A little bit more practical in my opinion.

Steyr

They are absolutely terrible.


As the saying goes: "IF IT LOOKS RIGHT, IT FLYS RIGHT" none of those look right.

adamski8

what are you guys talking about 1 engine?? clearly thats the engine on the near side and there is another on the other which is blocked out

tippilot

Hi Manic Moran,

Are you sure that second concept dates from the 1980's? There is a Qatar A340-600 in the graphic. Qatar Airways was founded in 1993 and the 346 was first flown in 2002 and introduced by Qatar in 2006.

seamus

I like the look of the stealth one, but clearly the passenger cabin would be a large wide area, like a ship more than an aircraft. I like to be able to see out the window, but maybe others don't.

The 3rd one has a "wacky racers" feel about it.

tricky D

First one has no windows, might be ok for cargo but psychologically pax will reject it. Also less stable.

Third one has a layout which looks unwieldy from a stresses handling point of view. Also runway and taxiway widths problems arise and need for 4-wheel config.

The second goes against the trend towards 2 engines abeam of the centre of gravity for larger capacities (despite A340/A380 exceptions). The wing looping to the tail might cause structural and wake problems.

Imho not that much will change: wider bodies, more fuel efficiency, new materials, no significant speed increase due problems at >mach0.9 and the problems of supersonic flight and maybe some extension in range in some models. Pax perception is huge in all this as noted in ~3 other posts - 1 tube and 2 regular wings with engines please.

iPlop

tricky D wrote: »

First one has no windows, might be ok for cargo but psychologically pax will reject it.

Totally agree with this

tricky D wrote: »

. Pax perception is huge in all this as noted in ~3 other posts - 1 tube and 2 regular wings with engines please.

Spot on ,and Please someone bring back the concord modernised please with fuel efficient engines so it's not so pricey.

Manic Moran

tippilot wrote: »

Hi Manic Moran,

Are you sure that second concept dates from the 1980's? There is a Qatar A340-600 in the graphic. Qatar Airways was founded in 1993 and the 346 was first flown in 2002 and introduced by Qatar in 2006.

Oh yes. I remember it from my Top Trumps days as a schoolboy.
The picture is certainly an updated one, but check out this Popular Science from 1982. (Go to page 40)

http://books.google.com/books?id=zlosooWOcW8C&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=lockheed+ringwing+design&source=bl&ots=HJ3GV_79ky&sig=dQmzuKP7rs3yBtRlEDW0ZUuEeo0&hl=en&ei=FMg1TdrfK4P_8Aaa2-WMCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CDoQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Back then, it looked like this:


Granted, the one in the OP looks a lot closer to the Boxwing of about 2002.


NTM

Holybejaysus

That mono wing is an interesting design, it seems much more practical. I wonder what the vortices would be like on it, reduced or increased?


On the transport side of things, aren't NASA experimenting with massive cargo lifting airships at the moment?

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

chinchin

Are any of those designs based on any thought through physical/aerodynamic/comfort/economic advantage over current designs?

It looks like an exercise in lets draw a plane with some of the bits in the wrong place or the wrong shape and see what it looks like?

Manic Moran

The twin-tail concept in the first picture could be a nightmare to fly.

Oh, I don't know. People have been flying angled twin tails (as opposed to Bonanza/Fouga style V-Tails) for several decades now, from at least the YF-17 days. I'm sure any quirks with handling have been sorted out by now, the question is over what the benefits are. Other than the ability to fit in a hangar with a low door, of course.

Edit: Another view gives a bit more info. The thing's a double-wide. Think of it as an airborne version of a Typhoon class sub.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_-Oqf_vOmanM/SpEW2utfmkI/AAAAAAAAAHc/vElW_04-pbU/s1600-h/AirbusP500.jpg

NTM

Turbulent Bill

chinchin wrote: »

Are any of those designs based on any thought through physical/aerodynamic/comfort/economic advantage over current designs?

At a guess, the conventional designs with the wraparound wings give greater wing area than current designs with the same wingspan, same idea as the twin fins. This means the designers have more flexibility with wing design while being able to use the same airport infrastructure.

The flying-wing style designs are efficient, but for practical reasons (loading/unloading, passenger perception etc.) I don't think they're a runner for airliners.

TBH NASA comes out with this stuff every few years, might see parts of the designs implemented in future but overall it's just window-dressing.

Manic Moran

I've always wondered why more aircraft don't use the overwing engine position such as the AN-72 Coaler. As aircraft get bigger and runway length starts to become an issue again, it seems to me that the extra lift wouldn't be a bad thing.

Or is there some bizarre drag problem I'm not seeing?

NTM

Turbulent Bill

Manic Moran wrote: »

I've always wondered why more aircraft don't use the overwing engine position such as the AN-72 Coaler. As aircraft get bigger and runway length starts to become an issue again, it seems to me that the extra lift wouldn't be a bad thing.

Or is there some bizarre drag problem I'm not seeing?

NTM

I don't think drag would be an issue (should be the same above or below the wing), and similarly the tail design shouldn't be that difficult. From memory though there are operational problems (e.g., having to lift an engine up rather than just dropping it for replacement, height off the ground for visual inspections etc.).

The VFW-Fokker 614 had a similar arrangement.

View Profile

If you build it, they will come.....

Manic Moran

The VFW-Fokker 614 had a similar arrangement.

Not really. Those pods are mounted on pylons above the wing, too high to contribute to the wing airflow.

If you look at Coaler (or the Boeing YC-14), the pods are mounted on the wings themselves, with the exhaust flush with the upper surface area and thus directly increasing airflow speed. The engines are also mounted forward enough (to allow more surface area to be covered) that dropping them for changeout isn't going to be an issue.



NTM

CatFromHue

Turbulent Bill wrote: »

At a guess, the conventional designs with the wraparound wings give greater wing area than current designs with the same wingspan, same idea as the twin fins. This means the designers have more flexibility with wing design while being able to use the same airport infrastructure.

The flying-wing style designs are efficient, but for practical reasons (loading/unloading, passenger perception etc.) I don't think they're a runner for airliners.

TBH NASA comes out with this stuff every few years, might see parts of the designs implemented in future but overall it's just window-dressing.

the wrap around wing is called an annular wing, here is a link to a wiki page on it.

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

Savman

lol at some of these designs. Do people really think we will see an entire revolution of the aviation industry in 14 years??? My guess is that the drive is towards fuel efficiency (rising oil costs etc) so I don't see where there is room for adventurous design or next generation concepts. Business rules at the end of the day, and I doubt Ryanair will be surrendering their Boeing workhorses for something that wouldn't look out of place in a James Cameron movie.

I suppose, NASA's duty is to appeal to our sense of wonder and imagination

Turbulent Bill

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not really. Those pods are mounted on pylons above the wing, too high to contribute to the wing airflow.

If you look at Coaler (or the Boeing YC-14), the pods are mounted on the wings themselves, with the exhaust flush with the upper surface area and thus directly increasing airflow speed. The engines are also mounted forward enough (to allow more surface area to be covered) that dropping them for changeout isn't going to be an issue.
NTM

I hadn't realised the Coaler its engines right on the wing surface, so the flaps almost act like blown ones, must have good STOL performance.

From memory, I think there are noise arguments for and against having the engines over the wings (which act as noise deflectors) - quieter for passengers if they're below the wings, quieter for people on the ground if they're above.