The Jetliner: still the same basic form after 6 decades
 

so man's first powered machine to take to the skies was this ungainly contraption from the early 20th century. certainly not a looker, but she proved the concept of powered flight, which is all that mattered

Wright Flyer, first flight 1903
http://www.wright-brothers.org/Infor...ight_16Nov.jpg
source: http://www.wright-brothers.org/Infor...s/Flyer_II.htm



then, a mere 54 years later, aircraft designers had hit upon the winning formula for the world's first commercially successful and fully modern jetliner, the boeing 707. it's all there: a long thin circular fuselage, a single large swept-back wing with slats and flaps and podded jet engines slung underneath, a single large vertical stabilizer with horizontal stabilizers at the base, fully retractable tricycle landing gear, etc.

Boeing 707, first flight 1957
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...lla_N707JT.jpg
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707



and then 52 years after the 707, we have the latest and greatest with the boeing 787, and while it is packed with a whole host of new technology that the 707's designers could have only ever dreamed of, from a basic overall form perspective, little appears to have changed.

Boeing 787, first flight 2009
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._in_flight.jpg
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner




we often talk about how fast our world changes, but some designs get the formula so correct from the beginning that there seems little to be gained by going back and reinventing the wheel.

in our lifetime, will the jetliner ever evolve into anything substantively different from this basic form, or is this it?

I don't know--- the ability for modern aircraft to fly non-stop between any two points in the world and for aircraft to fly much quieter and more efficiently seems like a major improvement.

^ i'm not arguing that there haven't been significant performance improvements, i'm talking about the generally static nature of the overall FORM of modern jetliners over the past 60 years.

In case you'd forget, both British-French cooperation and the Soviet Union managed to achieve something slightly different and twice faster a long time ago already.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...r_airliner.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-144

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._G-BOAC_03.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde

These were developed in the 60s and turned fully operational in the mid 70s.
Concorde was so great that the US merely banned it from their airspace.
LOL, God bless 'murika, baby!.. and no one else, huh.
Oops, anyone grumpy at me right now?

^ and both designs, despite massive government subsidies to prop them up, eventually flopped.

the successful jetliners being built today (737, 747, 767, 777, 787, A380, A350, A330, A320) all FAR more resemble the 707 than they do the concorde.

The airliner form is very efficient for what it does, and produces a very stable flight pattern.

Barring substantial new innovations in lift or propulsion, we're basically locked into a combination of airfoil wings and jet engines for air travel. Faster/supersonic engines are possible, but the technology (or at least the declassified tech) uses so much energy that it's not cost-effective for commercial air travel. Concorde only worked financially (barely) by charging astronomical rates to globe-trotting elites, connecting elite cities, with huge taxpayer contributions.

Plus, the sonic booms are generally not acceptable over populated areas except for defense reasons, which is why Concorde was only used for NY-London and NY-Paris flights, and only broke the sound barrier whilst over open water. For this reason, only a small fraction of air routes are feasible for supersonic travel.

Likewise, the airfoil is the only technology we have that's realistically capable of generating lift. It's possible that a flying wing design may eventually be developed for commercial travel, but it would take billions in R&D to produce a stable and cost-effective airliner, and you'd have to develop a whole new infrastructure both to maintain it and to accommodate it at airports.

I disagree. Can't tell about the Russian thing, but Concorde obviously left an engineering record here in Western Europe that might be recycled when demand for that kind of airliners makes their development more feasible. It's still some interesting starting point to work on, not a loss of money.

Yup. Too loud and guzzled fuel were too much to offset it's faster flight time. Not enough mega-rich passengers to keep it afloat.

Real transportation innovation is few and far between. Trains, cars, and planes are decades old and only improve marginally.

There's a valid reason why the Wright Brothers are credited being the first at controlled flight. Today's airfoils (wings) are less than 5% more efficient than their canvas and wood wings. Most of the advances in flight over the last 100 years has been advancemnets in lighter and stronger materials, and advancements in electronics.

The additional fuel and structure required to exceed the speed of sound has made ~550mph the 'sweet spot' for commercial aviation. Not to mention the sonic boom restricting supersonic speeds to just over the oceans. I agree though, it's a bit frustrating that we haven't engineered our way around these problems. It is certainly possible - it's just nobody who can do it (Boeing, Airbus) want to bet their entire company on it, since it would easily cost over $30 billion. It would be cheaper to send humans to Mars.

obviously i agree about the sonic boom thing... but aren't a huge number of the world's most lucrative routes over water? basically the entire east coast of north america to nearly all of europe, and the entire west coast of north america to most of asia...

the real issue is the cost of fuel and the inefficiency of flight at such high speeds, i think.

All forms of transportation improvements in speed has been slow. On the ground, in the air, and in space.

We are living the The Great Stagnation.

I'm old enough to remember the SST from the early 70s which Boeing just could not do and then laid-off a few thousand in Seattle and Wichita..

I don't think we are giving enough credit to the amazing advancements in design and technology of modern jetliners like the 787. The emphasis has been on reliability, operating costs, safety, and fuel efficiency because these are the things that are driven by consumer demands. There were were enough demand for supersonic trans-ocean flights they would be happening.

https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/m...13/2/air12.jpg
Source

i'm fully aware that the guts of a 787 are an entirely different universe of modern technological wizardry compared to a 707, but as i have stressed now a couple of times, this thread is about the similarity in the overall form of modern jetliners over the past 6 decades. yes, other arrangements were tried (and abandoned) over the years (the concord, trijets, "T" tails, etc.), but all modern full-size jetliners that are being built today still follow the same basic overall form first laid out by the 707 back in the 1950s.

noting this isn't so much a criticism of contemporary aviation engineering as it is a testament to how freaking far the 707's designers knocked the ball out of the park when they first conceived the aircraft so many decades ago. i stand in awe of the 707.

Good points. At the same time you could say the same about autos - 4 wheels and box with seats has been the same design for over a century.

Maybe some technology finds the best form, then just makes refinements to that form? For aircraft, standard monowing design. But that design has seen small improvements such as winglets and now the flexible wings of the 787, two large, reliable engines replacing the standard 3 or 4 smaller engine designs, etc.

Until we find another need and a large enough demand for that need, I don't see many major changes. Maybe one day there will be personal quadcoptors for everyone. Or new supersonic jet aircraft. That won't change until new tech and energy sources become cost effective compared to demand.

The biggest difference between first-generation jets and current jet from this passenger's perspective is the the new ones are far, far less comfortable.

The 707 = meh. To me, there is no airplane on earth that puts me in awe than the 747. To me, that is the definition of an airplane. The 747-8 is beautiful. Just beautiful.

http://www.airlinereporter.com/wp-co...478outside.jpg
http://www.airlinereporter.com/wp-co...478outside.jpg

https://flyawaysimulation.com/media/...rst-flight.jpg
https://flyawaysimulation.com/media/...rst-flight.jpg

I've never flown on a 747. They barely seem to be in service anymore.

That's because they've mostly been replaced by more fuel efficient large twins like the 777 and A350.

Boeing and NASA have been testing the blended-wing-body design for a while. Hopefully, we'll see these airplanes at commercial airports someday.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yPG8Gd-NkD...1600/x48b1.jpg

http://www.simviation.com/yabbupload...-56-31-429.jpg

http://www.lionheartcreations.com/si...8-1000x658.jpg

http://www.lionheartcreations.com/si...0-1000x657.jpg

http://www.lionheartcreations.com/si...1-1000x658.jpg

http://www.dauntless-soft.com/PRODUC...bus380/bwb.gif

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...rs/bwb-int.jpg

The 777X will feature partially-folding wings (the last 12 feet on each side) Not exactly new technology, but new to commercial aviation. If successful, I think you'll see more dramatic examples of this in the future given the space constraints at most airports. If you can park a 777 at a 737 gate suddenly your airfield capacity is at least doubled, and that's without spending billions on terminal infrastructure.

http://european-aviation.net/wp-cont...14/12/777x.jpg

Oh yeah because the Concorde was such elite and unique technology that the Americans couldn't touch it:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/conten...0605170453.jpg
lockheedmartin.com

The Concorde was an awesome thing, but let's not be delusional about it's superiority or practicality as a business venture. The Concorde failed because it was a terribly inefficient business with a very limited market. The 707 design has more or less been regurgitated for half a century because it is the most efficient format for reliably hauling the most passengers with the least fuel.

This is like the same reasoning as people saying "oh America has fallen behind because they aren't building as many supertalls as China or the middle East" when really it's just economics. The buildings going up in those places are mostly regurgitations of technology that was already demonstrated here 50-100 years ago and the majority of them are designed and engineered by American firms. The jetliner retains it form for business reasons just as the skyscraper in American cities like Chicago is often 30-40 floors and 300-400' for residential towers and 35-50 floors and 600-700' tall for office. Those are the most efficient programs for towers, sure the occasional supertall is profitable simply for cache and novelty, but it's not a good standard business model. Same goes for airplanes, sure a supersonic jet is great for spying or ferrying around super rich people, but the best model was perfected by the 707 and hasn't reallly changed since.

Thanks for sharing! I'd never seen this before, but I'm a huge fan of what I'm seeing.

I can't see one of these blended wing designed jetliners using existing gate ramps at airports. Wide body jetliners today require the space of two smaller aircraft, these monsters might require space of three smaller aircraft.

Efficiency on the ground at the gates should count as much as it does in the air.

Maybe they could go with a smaller design in the 300-passenger class instead of an 800-passenger monster depicted in those renderings. :shrug:

intriguing.

i like the placement of those 3 giant turbofans above and at the rear of the aircraft. it should make for a quieter cabin and it also decreases the chances of sucking runway/tarmac debris into and engine. i think it would also likely decrease bird/engine strikes as well.

and the multiple passenger sections/aisles seem like they would aid circulation during boarding/deplaning.

the biggest drawback looks like no more window seats. i love window seats.

here's a little more speculation on the future form of flying -- pretty funky design:

http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/as...m-plus-169.jpg

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hX0S2SYxqSY/maxresdefault.jpg

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tech/2015/...s-nws-orig.cnn

^ dear god.

that does not look like anything based in the realities of aerodynamics.

it looks like fanboy art.

Being the right age to have been able to fly on older types like the 727 and MD-80 / 90 aircraft I notice a world of difference on newer planes like the A380, A350 and 787. The 787 is amazing from a technological standpoint, but improvements in passenger comfort are more notable. PTV's, USB chargers in every seat, mood lighting, and more so on the A380 and A350 the sound insulation is excellent and one can sleep much more easily than on a loud older plane.

would it help if i told you the wings flapped?

:shrug:



they don't, of course. :P

i do like the outside-of-the-box thinking on it, though. and the idea of it being 75% quieter than current aircraft is a big plus.

another image of the AWWA-QG Progress Eagle, as it's called:

https://laughingsquid.com/wp-content...e95578562b.jpg

sleep?

on an air plane?

the only thing, and i mean the only thing that has ever allowed me to "sleep" on an airplane is an ambien and a glass of wine.

noise is one of the very last reasons why i have trouble sleeping on a plane. i mean, it's cool that the A350 and A380 are super-quiet (i have yet to fly on either type), but nothing short of full blown beds will ever make it easy for me to fall asleep on a plane without drugs. and i sure as shit don't make first-class cash in my line of work.

it still looks very much like a fantastical design exercise, not an engineering solution like the boeing/nasa blended wing body shown earlier in the thread.

I see them land and O'Hare all the time.

This was one of Boeing's concepts before they decided on the 787 design. I think the reasoning they scrapped it was that even though it would make flights something like 15% quicker airlines wanted the better fuel economy and range of 787.

http://free4uwallpapers.eu/wp-conten...wallpaper.jpeg

Would you like a window, aisle, aisle, aisle, aisle, aisle, aisle, aisle, aisle, aisle, aisle, aisle or aisle seat?

that's cool, it's got a SR-71 blackbird kind of vibe to it.

it seems like fuel economy is going to trump speed for the foreseeable future, at least until there is some breakthrough in propulsion.

I read about the concept of joining 2 cylindrical fuselages side by side back in the late 90's. Here's an article about that concept.

http://newatlas.com/mit-double-bubbl...ircraft/15142/

https://thumbs.mic.com/ZWZjM2UzNTQzN...ZDhjLmpwZw.jpg

http://images.gizmag.com/inline/mit-...t-design-0.jpg

https://wordlesstech.com/wp-content/...e-Bubble-3.jpg

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Xul73xd7q...s1600/D8_X.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...24457a7228.jpg

http://upgrd.com/images/upload/image...oeing-737d.jpg

http://media2.policymic.com/593ca14a...90de38fb84.jpg

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/f...?itok=ubWF5IG1

https://wordlesstech.com/wp-content/...-3-640x480.jpg

http://www.3ders.org/images2014/doub...on-foley-1.jpg

One thing is for sure, air travel is a terribly painful and uncomfortable experience compared to what it was a generation ago and far more time consuming due to endless security checks, pay extra for absolutely everything, too few staff, no meals, having to arrive at your flight 3 hours early as opposed to 40 minutes like it use to be, and being crammed in like a bloody sardine.

Air travel use to be so pleasant and now it's a painful and exhausting experience that only Chinese Water Torture could match.

Maybe true in North America, but in Asia it's still pretty tolerable. They even still give meals in coach on short haul flights on Chinese airlines!

Well, as long as the majority of passengers prioritize ticket cost over everything else, there's not much that can be done about this.

The airlines were deregulated by Carter in 1979. People who worship Ronald Reagan claim that Reagan deregulated the airlines but it was Carter. Look it up, flyboy.

Before that, the major airlines were required to provide direct domestic flights to all cities of a particular size. This meant there would always be at least one daily non-stop between, say, San Antonio and Columbus, OH and between Portland, OR and Memphis. After deregulation, the various airlines all reconfigured their service around hub and spoke systems. The airlines that could not establish a midwest hub in Chicago or Atlanta gave birth to the brief hubs that once lorded over various second-tier airports. The most notorious was Delta's Cincinnati hub, which saw everything that would have come through Chicago instead routed through CVG. This made no difference for connecting travelers but it enabled Delta to price gouge Cincinnati's customers since there was practically no competing airline at the airport. Then when Delta suddenly pulled out in 2005 all of the businesses (especially the Japanese businesses like Toyota) that had established major offices in Cincinnati in the 80s and 90s started to leave.

St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Charlotte, etc. all went through this routine with various airlines, many of them now defunct. The airports were expanded for these hubs then the airlines skipped town and left those cities holding the bag. Cincinnati is down from 500+ daily flights including about 10 internationals to maybe 150 daily flights and just one Air France flight to Paris which remains so that GE Aviation can trade spare parts and specialized personnel with Airbus. Luckily, the huge excess capacity at CVG lured DHL to the airport and they operate a 1,000+ man operation there that sees several dozen domestic flights converge at nightfall. Everything is sorted and then shipped either to Frankfurt or Hong Kong.

Air travel also used to be a luxury. Now pretty much anyone can do it.

Air travel can be dirt cheap if you know how to do it properly. When it was a luxury good it was known to have luxurious qualities. It's like complaining that a base model Nissan doesn't feel like the top level cadillacs of yesteryear. They aren't the same thing. If you want those qualities, you can still get them, you just gotta pay the premium. (First / business class)

I was going to say pretty much this. Those luxuries from yesteryear are still available in domestic first or international business and, adjusted for inflation the cost of that level of service hasn't really changed.

And that's what I think is great. There's no way I could go on 3 leisure trips a year if |I had to pay even premium economy.

del

It's interesting to look at the big picture of how air travel is changing, with the decline of the 747 and A380 in favor of smaller yet much more fuel efficient planes with long range.

The old model was the funnel people into hub airports where they would change planes to a jumbo for the long haul flight. Now they are moving to smaller flights and flying longer flights from smaller airports. For example, my home airport of Raleigh-Durham has direct flights to London and Paris.

I think design-wise we will see a focus on future designs to maximize range and fuel efficiency and we will see a lot more flights between smaller markets such as something like Nashville-Stuttgart or Birmingham-Birmingham haha.

Also, probably designs with more modular interiors that can quickly be changed seating arrangements based on AI analyzed trends. If a flight starts selling more first class seats, a quick change will allow them to add in more first class seating during a turn around. (just spit-balling an idea).