You really read all the comments?!? How bout this one where I tell you that you sir, are a huge, steaming pile of awesomeness! Love these videos to nerd out over! Your Channel and Mustard, never let me down with entertaining content!
@@FoundAndExplained why is the map of India in every single video of yours is wrong? Why you don't respect the sovereignty of a country? Kashmir is India's part don't try to show it as seperate country , or at least use a dotted line
@@lagaming3554 Ikr! He doesn't respect One China policy either! That small island is part of China it should be colored the same! Thank you Indian brother! Let's fight for our sovereignty! Taiwan is part of China just like how Kashmir is India! respect!!!!!!!!
@@merrylica6463 nah I don't trust China , Taiwan is better independent ,China claims a huge part of my country that's like size of a small country, wtf! I won't be surprised if China someday claims usa
One thing I never hear people talk about when the subject of blended wing or flying wing passenger planes comes up are the passengers furthest from centerline. When a plane banks over, it does so from the centerline. Even in a normal plane it's a bit dramatic when the cabin tilts over; in an ultra-wide plane, the further you are from center, the more dramatic the bank will feel. In a normal plane you feel the bank as a sudden tilt, a dramatic rise or fall of anywhere from a few inches to a few feet. In an ultra-wide, that feeling would go from a tilt to a sudden drop or elevation of several feet along with a MUCH more dramatic tilting of the seat. Sure they would likely favour the rudder over a banking turn in an aircraft like that, but at some points it would be unavoidable. One possible way of dealing with this would be mounting the seats on a gyro-stabilised tilting mechanism to keep everyone level... But that would add a lot of weight and anyone standing in an aisle would not have a good time of it, PARTICULARLY those heavy food/drink carts that get pushed around.
@@OskarOH lol oh I don't know why in general, but in my case, in this specific instance, i thought it would be funny (funny to MYSELF... not anybody else and the fact you did NOT find this funny gives credence to my claim) if I took his sentence... changed a few words... yet maintained the same structure of his sentence... Still with me, but for it to be about something... COMPLETELY different... to the original topic. Did you get that? So, while you and most other people may not find what I said funny, I'm willing to bet you probably posses the intelligence to understand how a completely different person to you (like my insignificant self) may find it humorous. Sorry for such a verbose response, but you, yes YOU... deserve a full and complete answer to your query and you KNOW that because... humans in 2021. lol Dam I love saying "because... Humans in 2021" it just says... so much in certain situations. =P That being said, have yourself a super awesome day! =D
Cabin pressure is always a concern on non-cylindrical airframes. I wonder what the problems with running an oxygen enriched atmosphere are that prevent it being tried. This would allow the cabin to be kept at much lower pressure. Maybe 20K equivalent instead of 10K.
That's how one of the Apollo crews were lost in a practice run. A spark ignited the oxygen rich atmosphere in the capsule and all 3 were incinerated. After that incident it was decided that oxygen enrichment was too much of a safety hazard.
So many potential problems with this plane: How often are you going to get 750 to 1,000 passengers booked for one flight, on the same day at the same time? And imagine the time it would take to board and de-board that many people. How long would the first people seated have to wait before it took off? And how long until the last person is off after it lands? - What airport/terminal can handle 1,000 people showing up at the same time? Etc, etc, etc.
Blended wings have an advantage when it comes to fuel economy so I think designs like this will succeed eventually. It was before it's time because you really need a plane that is made of composites for this to be viable.
I remember the biggest problem with BWB airliners is that the seats farthest from the center line would move up and down too much every time the plane banked. Passengers in the outer seats would have to stay belted into their seats almost the whole flight.
Indeed, when it comes to concepts and prototypes - even if dead beyond an proof of design test build, some of the most awe inspiring stuff was never going to more than an exercise but in the flesh, you'd never forget the impression of beauty and sheer size - I recall when I first saw a Sunderland flying boat at Henson where it was the first exhibt you saw, awe inspiring to say the least to a then 10 yr old aviation nut :)
This wasn’t a unique concept jack northrop had envisaged the passenger carrying flying wing back in the 40’s and developed a prototype as a long range bomber. The only reason it wasn’t scaled was it had flight control issues as a flying wing needs need to be heavily automated just to stay fable in flight. . He was also credited as the inspiration for the B-2 which was only possible through computer controlled flight control surfaces.
McDonald Douglas proposed a BWB design in 1988. The prop fan location in your video would have issues with boundary layer causing ineffective airflow to the props. The McD design had the turbojet engines on short pylons above the rear flat fuselage. One issue delaying the BWB design is the increased fabrication costs as the structural members would almost all be unique. Where as the current tube & wing design has many common repetitive parts in the tube. Also in the video you mentioned one BWB design would be supersonic, not likely.
Blended wing design will be in the future as the design offers lighter weight for cubic volume of transported goods or passengers.Electrified versions will offer reduced noise levels ,higher fuel efficiency and cleaner less CO2 per passenger mile. 100 - 200 passenger versions could be smaller than similar tube and wing planes allowing gates to be closer. Cargo versions offer easier loading and off loading options.
Another great video! Looking at the design, you have to wonder how it would be to land something like this when the view from the cockpit is just more airplane ahead and beside you rather than the ground below.
they should've gone ahead with a cargo version first, easier certification and the fact that they can build it at a lower cost will make it competitive to the 747-f. they could also make western engines available or even exclusive to help them lobby governments and get through certification, along with woldwide services. the russians can even use it as a heavy lift strategic transport for their military since antonov is now in ukraine and ilyushin doesn't make really large cargo aircraft. wishful thinking on my part i guess, would've been great to see it.
I'm kinda surprised there hasn't been a market for blended wing freight aircraft, you'd think something with that kind of cargo volume would be useful to someone
The present shape and design of passenger planes have been going on for decades. It would be so interesting to see what new shapes emerge in the next 20/30 years. Something tells me it will be none of what we have seen so far.
Very reminiscent of the Norman Belle Geddes 'Airliner #4' from the Late 1920's that was never developed. Only models and concept drawings were ever produced.
Right now on a wide body plane very few people get a window. I don't see that as being a huge issue. In the common areas you could have emergency slides that deploy out the bottom of the plane, or emergency ramps that would deploy out the top. I agree, point to point will kill the need for huge planes that service hub to hub.
Yes, we must make sure after the inexperienced pilot with a couple years experience slams you into a mountain at 800km/h, you can quickly and safely evacuate!
@@TheOriginalCFA1979 well, actually, yes. By FAA standards, a passenger plane must demonstrate the ability to evacuate all passengers within 90 seconds.
5:21 "gimme a like to let me know", I reach to close the video instinctively upon hearing these words, oh wait. There's still a few more minutes left of the video...
Easy to escape such a plane like that, you would need to have a few sealed compartments below the plane or above the plane where a large groups of passengers can climb either up or down into a sealed area before closing the hatch to the normal cabin so that they could open the outer door to get to the ground or above the wing where they could use a inflatable ramp. The problem with opening the cabin to the outside is that it allows fresh air to make the flames increase. Passengers in the future will need to have a self contained full face mask with re breather that has about 30mins of air to escape. Of course these changes will most likely never happen due to the cost or until several plane loads of passengers burn up in flames on the tarmac because they couldn't get out.
The Blended Wing Body design is an Excellent concept for hauling freight, NOT passengers.. The extra space inside a fuselage thats producing additional Lift as well, increasing range & efficiency, Would make this 1 HELL OF a cargo craft... & Thanks to NASA who tested 3 different BWB designs "A,B,&C", they discovered that putting the Vertical Stabilizers on the rear edge of fuselage & NOT on the wingtips "like earlier disigns depicted" not only performed way better, It also muffled the engines mounted between making it alot less noisy...
The point about evacuation is huge. I'd think cargo in the middle could help, along with improving the window ratio. But who mixes big cargo with passengers? Turnaround in that environment would be tricky.
The passengers in the wing design concept is not new, Junkers of Germany built them back in the 1930's (the J-38) and Mitsubishi of Japan also under licence (as the Ki-20). It must have been a thrill to fly in them as a passenger has a good view of the sky and ground.
Emergency exit or even normal boarding/deboarding could be done from belly side/underside of that plane..Remember, unlike the traditional desined planes this would not have a cargo bay below the passengers as there would be a seperate section behind the pasenger section for the cargo..
Yes, we must make sure after the inexperienced pilot with a couple years experience slams you into a mountain at 800km/h, you can quickly and safely evacuate!
Crafts at such size magnitudes is possible with simplistic alternative levitation, like part blimp, or verticle levitation convertions, body morphing origami transform to meet velocity adjustments.
I must admit, at first thoughts the Tu-404 sounds like a airplane not found - as in page 404 not found. However, the channel known as Mentour Pilot has already suggested a combined wing passenger jet where the passenger compartment was the entire wing and the pilots would be able to control the aircraft from the tail using video screens to look in all directions.
I really like the design! I don't think the technical / certification challenges are as big as you think, they could do more ceiling-mounted windows for natural light and emergency exits out the bottom, which would probably be safer in an evacuation anyway with less distance to tumble down the slide and potentially use the same under-mounted doors for cargo loading.
Emergency exits come into use when there's a strong possibility of an aircraft fire. Quickly evacuating 1200 passengers from a burning aircraft by having them climb through the cargo compartment so they could eventually end up underneath a burning aircraft sounds challenging.
The Boeing model 754 was a lifting fuselage design, very like many by Vincent Burnelli, who is worth a show on his own. Not at all a "blended wing/body". Various models were proposed by Boeing in the '70s, and by their numbers pitched to carriers like Husky, Cargolux, and Emirates; with the same engines and fuel load as a "normal" plane, it would get x 1.75 the payload and range, onto smaller runways. No fancy materials, and known engines, for vast improvements in efficiency. The Burnelli Estate learned of it, offered to let Boeing license the relevant Burnelli payments, and Boeing promptly dropped it because they despise lifting fuselage body planes and have stated that they won't ever use it despite the savings in fuel. Modern planes are scraping a few percent efficiency in any way that they can, but won't use simple known lifting fuselage body planes because they're "not invented here", and they look funny. About lifting body design, we usually hear that passengers will spontaneously projectile vomit and die if they're seated a little off the center line when the airliner does aerobatics and of course they're too far from an emergency exit. Not that military or freight users care, and none of these usual objections apply to many Burnelli designs or the Boeing 754. The Tu-304 & Frigate Ecojet, and the recent Lock-Mart hybrid wing-body logistics plane make the same sort of claims for the same reasons: increased L/D for range and payload, with entirely contemporary known materials and engineering practices.
@@FoundAndExplained I love LUV how EVERY channel I subscribe to basically says the exact same thing. Makes me feel... (closes eyes and hugs self) ...Mmmmmm, feel all warm and fuzzy inside! ^_^ Kudos Found and Explained! =D Have a super awesome day everyone!
Another superb episode! I'd love to see more examination of the challenges with BWB aircraft designs, like how does the fuselage flex (safely) during flight with all those bubble sections side-by-side, what would that flexing look like from a passenger's perspective, (yikes) and has the West figured out any solution to passenger egress locations in emergencies. Airbus has pitched a future BWB. I wonder what its solutions are.
Passenger and cargo planes of the future are going to go with this design more often simply because its naturally buoyant design leads to an ability to carry more poundage with less fuel. They tend to be a hair slower, but.... this is passengers and cargo planes we're talking about... Seems Russia was a little too far ahead of it's time, but many designers are looking at these types of planes for those exact listed reasons. Also, electric planes coming in the future need to be in planes that are efficient at carrying a lot of weight, because batteries tend to weigh a lot for the amount of energy they store. So, these types of designs will be seen with electric flight. Cool, right?
I think insane is the prefect word for this design..... wow! There were 2 things that were mentioned, escape and windows..... For escape, why not have those inflatable chutes spaced out on the bottom so that at the push of a button a panel pops out and the escape chute unfurls downward. as for the window situation, how about some sky lights with remote controlled shades.
There is also the problem in that all of the non-cylindrical designs are failing because they can't efficiently hold back the high forces of pressurization. For a run down of what reasons I have seen for large planes failing beyond the hub and spoke model fading into the point to point model are: 1. Large plane designs tend to move away from the perfectly round cylinder design and thus lose mass efficiency trying to hold in the pressure. Poorer mass efficiency inherent in the design means less competitive plane. At least the 747 had a floor/ceiling to build its bubble on, but still the 747 isn't the most efficient design. 2. With traditional plane designs, each engine adds a whole system of redundant parts running throughout the aircraft. This adds a whole lot of complexity. A whole lot more complexity means a whole lot more money to maintain the aircraft. 3. Two big engines are more efficient than 4 or more smaller engines. So in addition to the complexity issue, for fuel efficiency the airline company wants to scale to bigger engines, not more engines. 4. Really big planes need specialized, expensive terminals. Airline companies often don't want to spend on this, but instead have more standardized terminals that all of their planes can go to for maximum utilization. 5. For the point to point model, many of these airports are pretty small and you just can't fit a big plane there or even have the facilities to efficiently load and unload passengers for a big plane. 6. With greater size, there tends to be fewer in number. This makes it harder to justify the design cost investments into materials to make the plane lighter. If you know you are going to produce a whole lot of the smaller planes, this is where you are going to make the investment in materials. So after a certain point economies of scale fade into material efficiencies of the smaller planes. This is why the smaller 787 is more fuel efficient than say an A380. Airbus is mainly trying to go after the bigger A350 design because Boeing already has cornered the smaller plane market for the 787, so selected a different sized plane where Boeing is less competitive to try to get enough orders to justify the design costs. Getting up to A380 size, part of the reason the A380 is going the way of the dodo bird is the fuselage is a more historical, heavier design because Airbus didn't think it made sense to invest in making it as light as possible due to the number of planes they were hoping to produce. However in part because of more fuel and mass efficient smaller planes in addition to the rise of the point to point model and the complexity of the A380, this hastened the demise of the A380. The Russians are experimenting with the next breakthrough on airliner efficiency, which is to use high temperature superconductors for hybrid electric airliners. With current superconductors you can use LNG to keep the superconductors at operating temperature and then as the LNG boils off, feed it into the jet engines. There are a few reasons why why you would want to do that over what we do now: 1. Electronic gear reduction - The current jet designs are a compromise between efficiency lost trying to slow down the air over the turbine blades turning the big bypass fan and efficiency lost by trying to make the plane go faster, including the extra structure needed for large wing sweep. With a hybrid electric design, this gear reduction can be done electronically, so the jet engine can be a much more efficient straight through design, the bypass fan can be bigger and move more slowly, and the wing sweep can be reduced, making the plane more mass efficient. Just a modest slowdown of the plane can greatly increase its efficiency. People don't mind so much if the plane is in the air for say 15% longer if the price of the ticket is say 30% less, especially as you tend to lose much more than 15% of your time in ground delays anyway. 2. On demand power - Jet turbines are far more efficient at or near max throttle than near idle, plus they take time to spool up and down. However the normal flight profile has these engines running at much less than full throttle throughout most of the flight so they can provide peek power when needed, meaning they tend to run far from their max efficiency. A hybrid electric design could get more instant power out of batteries, reserve power out of batteries and focus more on smaller turbines that spend more to most of their time at or near max throttle with the batteries handling the ongoing shifts in demand as well as providing more takeoff power. 3. Mechanical simplicity in redundant design - A big problem airlines have in say operating a 747 is the cost of maintenance. The 747 has proven to be a very reliable plane that can keep flying with any number of individual part failures, which airlines do value as plane crashes can ruin an airline company, but they also don't want to pay a lot of money for planes that don't crash. With a hybrid electric plane you can delete the APU (auxiliary power unit) as you just draw power from the plentiful batteries. Instead of having separate hydraulic lines, electrical lines, and air/pressurization systems and such for each engine and APU, you just have redundant electrical buses with all of your 'accessories' powered off of these electrical buses. If the jet turbines stop for whatever reason, power is not lost, but instead comes from the batteries directly connected to these electrical buses. As you can have battery packs in the wings and throughout the plane, some of these packs will be near important flight systems such as control surfaces, so these important systems can have a direct connection to a local pack. So if for some reason the wires get severed in some part of the plane, you can still get power to these important system through the local battery pack. No longer do you have to worry about a punctured hydraulic causing loss of control of the plane. At this with electric servos moving control surfaces, if the control wire gets cut, you can fall back to radio from the cockpit to the electric servo. As there are multiple control surfaces doing the same thing and redundant on each side of the plane, you can have individual servo failures and still fly the plane fine. As electric motors are mechanically very simple and can be made to be super reliable while jet turbines are very mechanically complex and much more prone to failure, in the event a jet engine fails, on one side of the plane, the power can be distributed to the electric motors to have even thrust on both sides of the plane. This makes the plane easier to control in an engine out scenario, plus it will fly more efficiently. Also because of this mechanical simplicity of the electric motors as well as having more surface area with slower moving bypass fans, more likely to have say four ducted fans instead of two for ground clearance reasons. Even if one breaks, having 1 out of 4 fail tends to be better than 1 out of 2 failing. At this slower moving fan blades have less stress on them, so all of these fan disk failures we have been seeing lately should be a lot less likely, especially as the force on the fan blades will go down exponentially with just modest decreases in speed. With less wing sweep, it is easier to maintain control of the plane when getting into a stall condition as wing sweep tends to lead to the plane nosing up as it is about to stall, hastening the stall. So less wing sweep means it is inherently easier to keep the nose of the plane down in order to avoid a stall in addition to being able to apply power more quickly and safely. So instead of hoping you are not going so slow that you will never get the nose down to avoid a stall and hoping you have the ground clearance to pick speed back up, there is a lot more control-ability to keep the nose down and apply power, so you can recover, even when close to the ground. 4. Better emergency power - If a jet engine fails on takeoff, just draw more power from the batteries. For battery longevity you don't want to be hitting the battery packs at their maximum rated draw all of the time, so most of the time you will be far short of this, but for say an engine loss on the takeoff roll, you could get emergency power from the batteries to make for a smooth takeoff. If say the plane runs out of fuel, the batteries could provide emergency power and on demand thrust to help get the plane to a safe spot to land. So for example the miracle on the Hudson deal, the big bypass fans survived, but the jet turbine cores of the engines failed. With a hybrid electric plane, the big bypass fans would still be in operation even with the jet turbines broken from the birds and so the batteries would have supplied the power to get the plane back to the airport. At this no delay waiting for the APU to spool up as the batteries would keep the plane continuously powered. You would probably also have conventional power wires, just at lower capacity than the superconducting system as something to fall back on so you have something in any case. If push comes to shove with conventional wiring, you could go way over the rated capacity and damage the insulation in an emergency; just replace the wiring after the emergency so it is not an ongoing hazard. However most likely you will just really need control surfaces in the worst possible scenario of no fuel and no LNG to cool the superconductors and control surfaces don't need much power, so conventional wiring is fine. It is mainly the large ducted fans that need a lot of power.
i dont think there would actually be problems with emergency exists in such design. put cargo on lower deck and emergency exit at back. than you just run in straight line towards exit.
@@jebise1126 Hmmm 🤔 This airliner would need emergency exits on both decks. The cargo doors on the lower deck could work fine in normal boarding conditions at airports, but these doors wouldn't be useful in an emergency water landing nor landing gear failure cases.
Ah yes, the perfect plane for wide Putin
*Song For Denise* starts
Lol 😆
Plutin
Had to say something about Putin there to make a commercial plane political.
Are there other people in Russia but Putin?
Others seem to be expendable.
You really read all the comments?!? How bout this one where I tell you that you sir, are a huge, steaming pile of awesomeness! Love these videos to nerd out over! Your Channel and Mustard, never let me down with entertaining content!
Wow, thanks! haha you had me worried for a second with that steaming pile gag!
@@FoundAndExplained why is the map of India in every single video of yours is wrong? Why you don't respect the sovereignty of a country? Kashmir is India's part don't try to show it as seperate country , or at least use a dotted line
@@lagaming3554 Ikr! He doesn't respect One China policy either! That small island is part of China it should be colored the same! Thank you Indian brother! Let's fight for our sovereignty! Taiwan is part of China just like how Kashmir is India! respect!!!!!!!!
@@merrylica6463 nah I don't trust China , Taiwan is better independent ,China claims a huge part of my country that's like size of a small country, wtf! I won't be surprised if China someday claims usa
@@merrylica6463 it's just a map for crying put loud he never implied this
To be fair he doesn't care and nor do we.
I Actually saw this aircraft while plane spotting at Moscow turned out i drank too much Vodka and started allucinating
Happens to the best of us
@@FoundAndExplained i hate it when I allucinate because it's better than actual life which makes me sad. =,(
My friend Ivan said he saw this plane, I think he had a little to much of babuska's pelmeshky.
One thing I never hear people talk about when the subject of blended wing or flying wing passenger planes comes up are the passengers furthest from centerline. When a plane banks over, it does so from the centerline. Even in a normal plane it's a bit dramatic when the cabin tilts over; in an ultra-wide plane, the further you are from center, the more dramatic the bank will feel. In a normal plane you feel the bank as a sudden tilt, a dramatic rise or fall of anywhere from a few inches to a few feet. In an ultra-wide, that feeling would go from a tilt to a sudden drop or elevation of several feet along with a MUCH more dramatic tilting of the seat. Sure they would likely favour the rudder over a banking turn in an aircraft like that, but at some points it would be unavoidable.
One possible way of dealing with this would be mounting the seats on a gyro-stabilised tilting mechanism to keep everyone level... But that would add a lot of weight and anyone standing in an aisle would not have a good time of it, PARTICULARLY those heavy food/drink carts that get pushed around.
Yes I came across this on my research. that the people there would experience impressive g's and likely, throw up!
This could make Antonov An-225 Mriya look like a maintenance part of its own.
This one didn't age well either.
@@jonasvag5030 🤣🤣
Some say, this plane is already built then had some errors and now it will not be found :D
Some say, the 2020 election was stolen then had some 60+ court cases and now evidence will not be found :D
Well that escalated quickly
There's always someone who feels like they have to drag this up, regardless of the topic. Why?
@@OskarOH lol oh I don't know why in general, but in my case, in this specific instance, i thought it would be funny (funny to MYSELF... not anybody else and the fact you did NOT find this funny gives credence to my claim) if I took his sentence... changed a few words... yet maintained the same structure of his sentence... Still with me, but for it to be about something... COMPLETELY different... to the original topic. Did you get that?
So, while you and most other people may not find what I said funny, I'm willing to bet you probably posses the intelligence to understand how a completely different person to you (like my insignificant self) may find it humorous.
Sorry for such a verbose response, but you, yes YOU... deserve a full and complete answer to your query and you KNOW that because... humans in 2021.
lol Dam I love saying "because... Humans in 2021" it just says... so much in certain situations. =P
That being said, have yourself a super awesome day! =D
I initially didn’t get the joke but then I heard that the design model was 404.
"i'll like to purchase a wing seat ticket"
Check in girl *begins to laugh russianly*
purchase? dont u know that seats are decided at check in not at purchase?
@@magmasaurusrex1509 r/woosh
@@tomatosoupwoo r/wooshwoosh
Guys leave him alone
Cabin pressure is always a concern on non-cylindrical airframes. I wonder what the problems with running an oxygen enriched atmosphere are that prevent it being tried. This would allow the cabin to be kept at much lower pressure. Maybe 20K equivalent instead of 10K.
i would guess something like "gets mentioned as a proposal, the fire department starts to riot"
Fire....
it seems internal structure here would be many hulls. so that would be partially soled but i wonder how heavy it would be.
@@jebise1126 double (multiple) bubble hull seems to be a sensible concept
That's how one of the Apollo crews were lost in a practice run. A spark ignited the oxygen rich atmosphere in the capsule and all 3 were incinerated. After that incident it was decided that oxygen enrichment was too much of a safety hazard.
This brings new meaning to the term W I D E B O D Y
*Fantasia Piano starts*
Tupolev's philosophy seems to be:
1) It has to look weird.
2) If it can fly, even better.
So many potential problems with this plane: How often are you going to get 750 to 1,000 passengers booked for one flight, on the same day at the same time? And imagine the time it would take to board and de-board that many people. How long would the first people seated have to wait before it took off? And how long until the last person is off after it lands? - What airport/terminal can handle 1,000 people showing up at the same time? Etc, etc, etc.
Blended wings have an advantage when it comes to fuel economy so I think designs like this will succeed eventually. It was before it's time because you really need a plane that is made of composites for this to be viable.
Large blended wing passenger aircraft are *never* happening because of evacuation requirements.
2:44 Totally normal wing design there...
I remember the biggest problem with BWB airliners is that the seats farthest from the center line would move up and down too much every time the plane banked. Passengers in the outer seats would have to stay belted into their seats almost the whole flight.
Ok
Yep, a 10° bank 30m away from the center would mean a movement of 5m up/down for those seats. It would be quite the roller coaster ride.
Great channel. I would love to see a video on the An-325 concept.
Great video but there’s a mistake on your wingspan measurements at 3:27. Love this kind of video, keep it up :)
Why do I feel like this sorta plane is eventually gonna actually be developed 🤔
I wish
realistically all planes will basically be the a220
The plane was canceled when intelligence dried up. Simple as that.
It is in US.
I hear KLM are already interested.
it wont be because its very unlikely there ever will be market for ir.
Nice video! What is the Russian music that starts at 1:12 ?
I personaly love it when people just lecture me on random stuff like cool-never-built-planes!
This channel is basically mustard but less upload wait times.Its great!
I kind of wish this was a thing... I don't really have much of a reason why, just that it would be cool to see
Indeed, when it comes to concepts and prototypes - even if dead beyond an proof of design test build, some of the most awe inspiring stuff was never going to more than an exercise but in the flesh, you'd never forget the impression of beauty and sheer size - I recall when I first saw a Sunderland flying boat at Henson where it was the first exhibt you saw, awe inspiring to say the least to a then 10 yr old aviation nut :)
@@christopherblackmur7962 Umm Vincent J Burnelli proved the efficacy of the BWB back in the 1920's.
In mother Russia, you don't evacuate the plane, the plane evacuates you.
I love your channel! So informative and amazing! Keep up the good work!
This wasn’t a unique concept jack northrop had envisaged the passenger carrying flying wing back in the 40’s and developed a prototype as a long range bomber. The only reason it wasn’t scaled was it had flight control issues as a flying wing needs need to be heavily automated just to stay fable in flight. . He was also credited as the inspiration for the B-2 which was only possible through computer controlled flight control surfaces.
sadly the plane number said tu 404 not found.
Next Request : Sukhoi Su-80
nice vid! I think that this plane would have a lot of potential if it was made.
The fuselage shape reminds of a pentagon somehow...
Remove the wings and it becomes one!
I know for one thing if all these planes from tupolev were actually true then aviation would have been much better.
Six NK-12 and contra-rotating props would be _unbelievably_ loud.
McDonald Douglas proposed a BWB design in 1988. The prop fan location in your video would have issues with boundary layer causing ineffective airflow to the props. The McD design had the turbojet engines on short pylons above the rear flat fuselage. One issue delaying the BWB design is the increased fabrication costs as the structural members would almost all be unique. Where as the current tube & wing design has many common repetitive parts in the tube. Also in the video you mentioned one BWB design would be supersonic, not likely.
The freejet managed to be the better idea all along, hopefully they get it working, the pancake plane of tomorrow is just a neat concept.
please make the video of the Boeing B-314, and love the content take care
Blended wing design will be in the future as the design offers lighter weight for cubic volume of transported goods or passengers.Electrified versions will offer reduced noise levels ,higher fuel efficiency and cleaner less CO2 per passenger mile. 100 - 200 passenger versions could be smaller than similar tube and wing planes allowing gates to be closer. Cargo versions offer easier loading and off loading options.
that place looks dope would be amazing to see it built :D!
That would be cool!
Another great video! Looking at the design, you have to wonder how it would be to land something like this when the view from the cockpit is just more airplane ahead and beside you rather than the ground below.
they should've gone ahead with a cargo version first, easier certification and the fact that they can build it at a lower cost will make it competitive to the 747-f. they could also make western engines available or even exclusive to help them lobby governments and get through certification, along with woldwide services. the russians can even use it as a heavy lift strategic transport for their military since antonov is now in ukraine and ilyushin doesn't make really large cargo aircraft. wishful thinking on my part i guess, would've been great to see it.
Great vídeo !! 👍👍. Extremely rare content...
AMAZINGNES!!!
Nice fantastic film its new startrek? :)
have you done a video on the russian ekranoplan yet?
0:30 I wonder where the center of gravity would be, considering the position of the wing and the (presumably heavy) aft engines.
I’d love to see airships and helicopters as well as planes
I'm kinda surprised there hasn't been a market for blended wing freight aircraft, you'd think something with that kind of cargo volume would be useful to someone
And when flying cargo, you don't have to worry about emergencies, or with certain types not even about pressurization!
"It's GLORIOUS" 🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩
I wish all success to the Russian aviation industry offering new concepts and cost effective design.
The present shape and design of passenger planes have been going on for decades. It would be so interesting to see what new shapes emerge in the next 20/30 years. Something tells me it will be none of what we have seen so far.
Small error : wing span of 110m in audio, and 59.7m shown in the video 3:27
Great interesting video.
Very reminiscent of the Norman Belle Geddes 'Airliner #4' from the Late 1920's that was never developed.
Only models and concept drawings were ever produced.
Depending on one stream of income had never made any millionaire and earning check don't put you on forbes
I totally agree with that
Crypto is the new gold
@Casia Quintanilla Miranda Yeah, but only when you trade without a professional
You are right, in the past I tried trading on my own but made almost no profit until I was link to a professional, the result was exceptional
He's obviously the best I invested 2500USD with him and I have made a profit of 9340USD
Right now on a wide body plane very few people get a window. I don't see that as being a huge issue.
In the common areas you could have emergency slides that deploy out the bottom of the plane, or emergency ramps that would deploy out the top.
I agree, point to point will kill the need for huge planes that service hub to hub.
Yes, we must make sure after the inexperienced pilot with a couple years experience slams you into a mountain at 800km/h, you can quickly and safely evacuate!
@@TheOriginalCFA1979 well, actually, yes. By FAA standards, a passenger plane must demonstrate the ability to evacuate all passengers within 90 seconds.
5:21 "gimme a like to let me know", I reach to close the video instinctively upon hearing these words, oh wait. There's still a few more minutes left of the video...
Easy to escape such a plane like that, you would need to have a few sealed compartments below the plane or above the plane where a large groups of passengers can climb either up or down into a sealed area before closing the hatch to the normal cabin so that they could open the outer door to get to the ground or above the wing where they could use a inflatable ramp. The problem with opening the cabin to the outside is that it allows fresh air to make the flames increase. Passengers in the future will need to have a self contained full face mask with re breather that has about 30mins of air to escape. Of course these changes will most likely never happen due to the cost or until several plane loads of passengers burn up in flames on the tarmac because they couldn't get out.
The Blended Wing Body design is an Excellent concept for hauling freight, NOT passengers.. The extra space inside a fuselage thats producing additional Lift as well, increasing range & efficiency, Would make this 1 HELL OF a cargo craft... & Thanks to NASA who tested 3 different BWB designs "A,B,&C", they discovered that putting the Vertical Stabilizers on the rear edge of fuselage & NOT on the wingtips "like earlier disigns depicted" not only performed way better, It also muffled the engines mounted between making it alot less noisy...
The desing makes me think about the airbus maveric concept plane. Now we now where they took their inspiration hehe
The point about evacuation is huge. I'd think cargo in the middle could help, along with improving the window ratio. But who mixes big cargo with passengers? Turnaround in that environment would be tricky.
Keep Up The Good Work!
The passengers in the wing design concept is not new, Junkers of Germany built them back in the 1930's (the J-38) and Mitsubishi of Japan also under licence (as the Ki-20). It must have been a thrill to fly in them as a passenger has a good view of the sky and ground.
Error 404 plane not found
I feel like wing seats would look great
When it's lost they just say *404 NOT FOUND*
Basically TU Delft's Flying V some decades earlier
wing span of 110 meter??? but text says 59.7 so which is it?? :P 3:24
What music starts playing at 1:12?
Great video mate. Had no idea about this . But I think you got the dimensions a bit wrong in the video?
What is the music name at 1:12?
Emergency exit or even normal boarding/deboarding could be done from belly side/underside of that plane..Remember, unlike the traditional desined planes this would not have a cargo bay below the passengers as there would be a seperate section behind the pasenger section for the cargo..
Yes, we must make sure after the inexperienced pilot with a couple years experience slams you into a mountain at 800km/h, you can quickly and safely evacuate!
Crafts at such size magnitudes is possible with simplistic alternative levitation, like part blimp, or verticle levitation convertions, body morphing origami transform to meet velocity adjustments.
Futuristic design definitely will need loads of money to make it airborne
I must admit, at first thoughts the Tu-404 sounds like a airplane not found - as in page 404 not found. However, the channel known as Mentour Pilot has already suggested a combined wing passenger jet where the passenger compartment was the entire wing and the pilots would be able to control the aircraft from the tail using video screens to look in all directions.
UA-cam: Look at this massive plane concept never built!
Me: is it a flying wing, again?
UA-cam: ehhhh yes it is
😁
Mandatory Arsenal-Bird comment
All respect to be with mother Russians 🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺❤❤❤🇹🇿🇹🇿🇹🇿✊🏾✊🏾✊🏾
I really like the design! I don't think the technical / certification challenges are as big as you think, they could do more ceiling-mounted windows for natural light and emergency exits out the bottom, which would probably be safer in an evacuation anyway with less distance to tumble down the slide and potentially use the same under-mounted doors for cargo loading.
Emergency exits come into use when there's a strong possibility of an aircraft fire. Quickly evacuating 1200 passengers from a burning aircraft by having them climb through the cargo compartment so they could eventually end up underneath a burning aircraft sounds challenging.
The Boeing model 754 was a lifting fuselage design, very like many by Vincent Burnelli, who is worth a show on his own. Not at all a "blended wing/body".
Various models were proposed by Boeing in the '70s, and by their numbers pitched to carriers like Husky, Cargolux, and Emirates; with the same engines and fuel load as a "normal" plane, it would get x 1.75 the payload and range, onto smaller runways.
No fancy materials, and known engines, for vast improvements in efficiency.
The Burnelli Estate learned of it, offered to let Boeing license the relevant Burnelli payments, and Boeing promptly dropped it because they despise lifting fuselage body planes and have stated that they won't ever use it despite the savings in fuel.
Modern planes are scraping a few percent efficiency in any way that they can, but won't use simple known lifting fuselage body planes because they're "not invented here", and they look funny.
About lifting body design, we usually hear that passengers will spontaneously projectile vomit and die if they're seated a little off the center line when the airliner does aerobatics and of course they're too far from an emergency exit.
Not that military or freight users care, and none of these usual objections apply to many Burnelli designs or the Boeing 754.
The Tu-304 & Frigate Ecojet, and the recent Lock-Mart hybrid wing-body logistics plane make the same sort of claims for the same reasons: increased L/D for range and payload, with entirely contemporary known materials and engineering practices.
Why no floor- and ceiling windows?
imagine a plane like this but a lot smaller and basically an RV for the sky
Definitely a cargo version would be more useful.
Russian designers are never afraid to go big 👍😌
Imagine an bird-strike as passenger with an almost forward facing window.
Hi Sir not a bad concept but as you said it might not get certified or not have a big market for it
Yup, good channel, FINALLY subscribed!
And now I don’t need anybody else to subscribe
@@FoundAndExplained I love LUV how EVERY channel I subscribe to basically says the exact same thing. Makes me feel... (closes eyes and hugs self) ...Mmmmmm, feel all warm and fuzzy inside! ^_^
Kudos Found and Explained! =D
Have a super awesome day everyone!
Vincent Burnelli designed such plane configuration in 1951, it appeared in Popular Science and Popular Mechanics.
3:25 both dimensions are displayed the same
Another superb episode! I'd love to see more examination of the challenges with BWB aircraft designs, like how does the fuselage flex (safely) during flight with all those bubble sections side-by-side, what would that flexing look like from a passenger's perspective, (yikes) and has the West figured out any solution to passenger egress locations in emergencies. Airbus has pitched a future BWB. I wonder what its solutions are.
Well it gave birth the idea of the arsenal bird,
just waiting for someone to build that...
Hey why don't u try converting the B2 spirit into an commercial or private business jet ( just enlarge the aircraft structure to fit in passengers )
I would definitely like to fly on that TU-404
Passenger and cargo planes of the future are going to go with this design more often simply because its naturally buoyant design leads to an ability to carry more poundage with less fuel. They tend to be a hair slower, but.... this is passengers and cargo planes we're talking about... Seems Russia was a little too far ahead of it's time, but many designers are looking at these types of planes for those exact listed reasons. Also, electric planes coming in the future need to be in planes that are efficient at carrying a lot of weight, because batteries tend to weigh a lot for the amount of energy they store. So, these types of designs will be seen with electric flight. Cool, right?
I want that to become mainstream ❤❤❤❤ we need this change!!
That is the perfect shape for evacuating to space or economy class space tourism.
Will we seen blended wing aircrafts in the future?
I think insane is the prefect word for this design..... wow! There were 2 things that were mentioned, escape and windows..... For escape, why not have those inflatable chutes spaced out on the bottom so that at the push of a button a panel pops out and the escape chute unfurls downward. as for the window situation, how about some sky lights with remote controlled shades.
You could have emergency doors on the floor of the plane. That would work for the lower level only though.
There is also the problem in that all of the non-cylindrical designs are failing because they can't efficiently hold back the high forces of pressurization.
For a run down of what reasons I have seen for large planes failing beyond the hub and spoke model fading into the point to point model are:
1. Large plane designs tend to move away from the perfectly round cylinder design and thus lose mass efficiency trying to hold in the pressure. Poorer mass efficiency inherent in the design means less competitive plane. At least the 747 had a floor/ceiling to build its bubble on, but still the 747 isn't the most efficient design.
2. With traditional plane designs, each engine adds a whole system of redundant parts running throughout the aircraft. This adds a whole lot of complexity. A whole lot more complexity means a whole lot more money to maintain the aircraft.
3. Two big engines are more efficient than 4 or more smaller engines. So in addition to the complexity issue, for fuel efficiency the airline company wants to scale to bigger engines, not more engines.
4. Really big planes need specialized, expensive terminals. Airline companies often don't want to spend on this, but instead have more standardized terminals that all of their planes can go to for maximum utilization.
5. For the point to point model, many of these airports are pretty small and you just can't fit a big plane there or even have the facilities to efficiently load and unload passengers for a big plane.
6. With greater size, there tends to be fewer in number. This makes it harder to justify the design cost investments into materials to make the plane lighter. If you know you are going to produce a whole lot of the smaller planes, this is where you are going to make the investment in materials. So after a certain point economies of scale fade into material efficiencies of the smaller planes. This is why the smaller 787 is more fuel efficient than say an A380. Airbus is mainly trying to go after the bigger A350 design because Boeing already has cornered the smaller plane market for the 787, so selected a different sized plane where Boeing is less competitive to try to get enough orders to justify the design costs. Getting up to A380 size, part of the reason the A380 is going the way of the dodo bird is the fuselage is a more historical, heavier design because Airbus didn't think it made sense to invest in making it as light as possible due to the number of planes they were hoping to produce. However in part because of more fuel and mass efficient smaller planes in addition to the rise of the point to point model and the complexity of the A380, this hastened the demise of the A380.
The Russians are experimenting with the next breakthrough on airliner efficiency, which is to use high temperature superconductors for hybrid electric airliners. With current superconductors you can use LNG to keep the superconductors at operating temperature and then as the LNG boils off, feed it into the jet engines. There are a few reasons why why you would want to do that over what we do now:
1. Electronic gear reduction - The current jet designs are a compromise between efficiency lost trying to slow down the air over the turbine blades turning the big bypass fan and efficiency lost by trying to make the plane go faster, including the extra structure needed for large wing sweep. With a hybrid electric design, this gear reduction can be done electronically, so the jet engine can be a much more efficient straight through design, the bypass fan can be bigger and move more slowly, and the wing sweep can be reduced, making the plane more mass efficient. Just a modest slowdown of the plane can greatly increase its efficiency. People don't mind so much if the plane is in the air for say 15% longer if the price of the ticket is say 30% less, especially as you tend to lose much more than 15% of your time in ground delays anyway.
2. On demand power - Jet turbines are far more efficient at or near max throttle than near idle, plus they take time to spool up and down. However the normal flight profile has these engines running at much less than full throttle throughout most of the flight so they can provide peek power when needed, meaning they tend to run far from their max efficiency. A hybrid electric design could get more instant power out of batteries, reserve power out of batteries and focus more on smaller turbines that spend more to most of their time at or near max throttle with the batteries handling the ongoing shifts in demand as well as providing more takeoff power.
3. Mechanical simplicity in redundant design - A big problem airlines have in say operating a 747 is the cost of maintenance. The 747 has proven to be a very reliable plane that can keep flying with any number of individual part failures, which airlines do value as plane crashes can ruin an airline company, but they also don't want to pay a lot of money for planes that don't crash. With a hybrid electric plane you can delete the APU (auxiliary power unit) as you just draw power from the plentiful batteries. Instead of having separate hydraulic lines, electrical lines, and air/pressurization systems and such for each engine and APU, you just have redundant electrical buses with all of your 'accessories' powered off of these electrical buses. If the jet turbines stop for whatever reason, power is not lost, but instead comes from the batteries directly connected to these electrical buses. As you can have battery packs in the wings and throughout the plane, some of these packs will be near important flight systems such as control surfaces, so these important systems can have a direct connection to a local pack. So if for some reason the wires get severed in some part of the plane, you can still get power to these important system through the local battery pack. No longer do you have to worry about a punctured hydraulic causing loss of control of the plane. At this with electric servos moving control surfaces, if the control wire gets cut, you can fall back to radio from the cockpit to the electric servo. As there are multiple control surfaces doing the same thing and redundant on each side of the plane, you can have individual servo failures and still fly the plane fine. As electric motors are mechanically very simple and can be made to be super reliable while jet turbines are very mechanically complex and much more prone to failure, in the event a jet engine fails, on one side of the plane, the power can be distributed to the electric motors to have even thrust on both sides of the plane. This makes the plane easier to control in an engine out scenario, plus it will fly more efficiently. Also because of this mechanical simplicity of the electric motors as well as having more surface area with slower moving bypass fans, more likely to have say four ducted fans instead of two for ground clearance reasons. Even if one breaks, having 1 out of 4 fail tends to be better than 1 out of 2 failing. At this slower moving fan blades have less stress on them, so all of these fan disk failures we have been seeing lately should be a lot less likely, especially as the force on the fan blades will go down exponentially with just modest decreases in speed. With less wing sweep, it is easier to maintain control of the plane when getting into a stall condition as wing sweep tends to lead to the plane nosing up as it is about to stall, hastening the stall. So less wing sweep means it is inherently easier to keep the nose of the plane down in order to avoid a stall in addition to being able to apply power more quickly and safely. So instead of hoping you are not going so slow that you will never get the nose down to avoid a stall and hoping you have the ground clearance to pick speed back up, there is a lot more control-ability to keep the nose down and apply power, so you can recover, even when close to the ground.
4. Better emergency power - If a jet engine fails on takeoff, just draw more power from the batteries. For battery longevity you don't want to be hitting the battery packs at their maximum rated draw all of the time, so most of the time you will be far short of this, but for say an engine loss on the takeoff roll, you could get emergency power from the batteries to make for a smooth takeoff. If say the plane runs out of fuel, the batteries could provide emergency power and on demand thrust to help get the plane to a safe spot to land. So for example the miracle on the Hudson deal, the big bypass fans survived, but the jet turbine cores of the engines failed. With a hybrid electric plane, the big bypass fans would still be in operation even with the jet turbines broken from the birds and so the batteries would have supplied the power to get the plane back to the airport. At this no delay waiting for the APU to spool up as the batteries would keep the plane continuously powered. You would probably also have conventional power wires, just at lower capacity than the superconducting system as something to fall back on so you have something in any case. If push comes to shove with conventional wiring, you could go way over the rated capacity and damage the insulation in an emergency; just replace the wiring after the emergency so it is not an ongoing hazard. However most likely you will just really need control surfaces in the worst possible scenario of no fuel and no LNG to cool the superconductors and control surfaces don't need much power, so conventional wiring is fine. It is mainly the large ducted fans that need a lot of power.
7:45 The second thing I thought after saying "awesome" was: where are the emergency exits? Haha
i dont think there would actually be problems with emergency exists in such design. put cargo on lower deck and emergency exit at back. than you just run in straight line towards exit.
@@jebise1126 Hmmm 🤔 This airliner would need emergency exits on both decks. The cargo doors on the lower deck could work fine in normal boarding conditions at airports, but these doors wouldn't be useful in an emergency water landing nor landing gear failure cases.
Airbus concept of the future plane seems inspired by this. Just my opinion.
Very cool , aircraft
737 ought to be replaced with blended wing with more room.