Thank you soooo much Petter sir and team🤍💙👍🏼 for bringing this one out. . Honest to God, the other day.. when watching ua-cam.com/video/Xm5LYkGHkTc/v-deo.html Scott Manley's video on NASA's plans.. I was literally thinking as to when Mentour team would do some new coverage on the Boom Overture or other newer research on wing designs and so. . Very happy that you did!🙇🏻♂️🧡👌🏽 . Had to pause the video, just to type this. Now back to the video.🙂
Great video but the wing design is dumb as hell. As an airline mechanic myself, I guarantee you that no one is going to be looking for lift equipment to go up and inspect the top of that wing over and over and over, for every airplane that comes into the gate, there’s so many other service items need to be done on the plane. It’s one of the dumbest ideas I’ve seen in awhile. They should be going back to the “Boeing sonic cruiser’ idea with Hydrogen fuel cell technology driving electric motors. That’s a real winner and no wingtip problems at the gate either.
I'm surprised that nobody is developing a wing with a swing-folding mechanism for part of its length, instead of an upwards-folding one. If they are, then can you tell us about them, please, Petter? Thanks. 🙂👍
Mentour, I recall now how the general aviation prototype aircraft, Celera 500L, which claimed truly incredible performance, uses this very same wing design mounted mid-spar rather than this example. That might be worth a few minutes of discussion time. No?
The days of the Kelly Johnsons are over. I doubt this design makes it into the tooling and production phase. Boeing is still feeling the hurt of the carbon fiber 787 Dreamliner design. Unless Airbus flies outside the box on a bread-and-butter fleet aircraft (such as the A321), Boeing has no real reason to stray outside the lines of old, but proven, technology.
@@krozareq You might just be right. The only hope is the new CEO waiting for technology to move forward so Boeing has another 707 or 747 moment and owns the market again. The 787 though problem ridden was a turning point for the company. Nobody quit fills that slot with the A350 being larger and the closest. IMHO the 786 lead the the 777X wings being an option. Let’s hope they get leaders who aren’t going to sink the company out of fear of moving forward
In 1955 I flew on a BA Boeing 707 from London to Paris. I was 14 at the time and the crew were so sweet to me, it was by far the best experience of my young life.
If the commercial aircraft industry as a whole eventually moves to those wider wingspans, airport gates might have to change rather than forcing every single airliner to ship with foldable wings. It'll be fascinating to see how this goes down.
Instead of the wings folding up, which is inherently unstable, what if the wings folded forward? At speed, the air pressure would push the wings back, preventing them from folding forward. Maybe have them fold forward and at a positive 20 degree angle, so they clear the doorway and make it easy to dock at airports.
Making room for wider airplanes would lower number of gates in airports and hence number of passengers they can handle. And hardly any airport has lots of room to just expand to maintain old capacity.
@@tuunaes That is a good point. I was thinking that the main reason why they would _not_ want to change the gates around in airports would be the enormous cost of such an operation, but the fact that in some cases it could necessitate a reduction in the actual number of gates is definitely an issue as well.
@@tuunaes But that is also a relic of the way thing are currently. Things could be changed so that (for instance), the planes park side on to the gates are towed out sideways on some kind of dollies which would enable them to be much more densly packed and could leave the terminal without engines running. There is always a way of doing things, it just requires imagination, and yes, money
Did your dad ever tell you that there’s no way you can fit thousands of pounds of fuel in both wings? Did he tell you that or did he take that to his grave that there was never gas in the wings!??
Maybe so... BUT a new "radical design" would be more FUN if it just made ONE of the wings fold straight up in the air instead... don't spoil the SHOW, man... AND yes, before anyone gets pissy... some REALLY strange looking aircraft ideas have actually FLOWN over the years of avionic history... from the "Ass-ender" to the "Scissor-wing" and few that were completely nuts... Even the Nazis got on the wagon for weird sh*t, trying for a bomber with off-set wings... People have had weird ideas about how to make planes "better" for a LONG time. I highly recommend "Dark Skies" for some over-views and jot down notes to deep dive technical terms and design numbers/models/series while you're trying not to laugh too hysterically. ;o)
@@dannydaw59 a part is always heavier than no part, so yes. It obviously still makes economic sense because the tips on the 777x fold. The decrease in drag from the longer, slimmer wings must beat the costs of added weight, and by a significant amount, or it wouldn't be worth doing.
This design doesn’t allow visual inspection for damage on top of the wing, and as an airline mechanic I’m not going up on a lift over aver over again all day to inspect every airplane wing that comes to the gate, it’s dumb as fk. The rest of the plane needs maintenance servicing and no one is going to waste time looking for equipment to go up on top of every airplane. They should be going after the Boeing sonic cruiser design with Hydrogen fuel cell driving electric motors, that’s a real winner not this stupid thing.
@@tropicthndr If it comes to production levels of a "fleet" like most of Boeing's other series, you and I BOTH know there's going to be an alternative innovated over using a lift to look at the tops of the wings... There'll be a robot to send up, or a telescopic tool to test by ultrasonic frequency or something and bring you back better information for sending a tech to "waste more time" than has already been spent on wing-inspections... It might be a matter of time, but it's a "when" and not an "if". ;o)
I'd also want to mention Hurel-Dubois, whose research into long, high aspect-ratio braced wings must have influenced the SugarVOLT concept and so this. It saw the light of day in a few planes such as the Shorts Skyvan and its descendants. And I don't count it as a biplane; the truss is an integral, angled element of the main wing.
Open source doesn't have to be forced through taxes. That is a command and control style approach. Remove regulations preventing cheap entry into the space and there will be a plethora of ideas thrown about. Most will fail but unimagined innovation will occur. NASA and gov is a barrier, not a benefactor. The incentives are backwards. There should be no barriers or qualifications for putting aircraft in the sky so long as no one can be injured. By that I don't mean individuals. I mean the everything when it comes to injury, human life, environmental pollution, accidents, the works. It's not simple to consider but it has to be done if you dare apply for insurance with a wacky idea. Some people will be successful and some won't. It's in the relationships where the details are worked out as it should be. One size does not fit all. It's the way everything should work. Top down approach works great for mil spec (or at least we assume it does since it's worked in the past) but outside conflicts, civvies will come up with much better ideas if left alone to try. Compare it to the tech space and Linux. Practically the entire internet is run on a user created and modified over several generations version of the original idea. Because of it the planetary population has been able to communicate more freely and accessibly. What do you think would have happened if gov got in the way of managing how to interface software with hardware? They would have if they could have but the tech industry evolves too fast for their glacial pace to keep up.
@@miinyoo im not actually sure what youre trying to say here, but i can tell that you dont know what youre talking about on a fundamental level. "removing regulations preventing cheap entry into the space" is a direct contradiction to "there should be no barriers or qualifications for putting aircraft in the sky so long as no one can be injured." in order to enforce the last point, the former can not happen. the point of regulation is to control those who would take flight. one of the reasons this control is necessary is safety. in order to comply with the rigorous and specific criteria necessary to take flight in any aircraft safely you need to spend money to make certain that aircraft is in fact safe. because of this glaring contradiction in your logic I'm forced to contend with a few possibilities. the first, is that you dont recognize the contradiction. that seems unlikely. the second, is that you simply misspoke, and you dont actually want deregulation at all. which seems very unlikely considering your wording. the possibility ive chosen to believe for the time being is that you are not actually concerned with the safety of others and would rather a "move fast and break things" approach to aviation. which is obviously not an opinion anyone should have, so you have added "so long as no one can be injured" to cover for yourself. i suppose perhaps you believe the current regulations are simply uneccessary to maintain safe aviation practices, but if thats the case i feel like you should watch a lot more of this channel. the failures we see on this channel are prime examples of how perilous air flight is even with our current, extremely safe practices. deregulating would likely kill our poor host, either because he crashes his plane or dies of exhaustion trying to cover other crashes. and the idea that "civies will come up with much better ideas if left alone to try" is the truly backwards thinking. research does not succeed -- or even happen -- without funding. if you leave the free market to decide who does research on what, the only ideas that will prosper are those that are incredibly safe investments for companies. because the ONLY non-government organizations with the funding and interest to do research on planes are companies like boeing, who are motivated by profit alone. they will never try any "wacky ideas." they will only fund research that they feel is highly likely to return their investment. which we can see happening TODAY with them waiting an entire decade before designing their next aircraft. waiting until their government subsidized research is complete before taking any further steps to minimize risk. and this subsidized research is also MUCH cheaper than you would expect for a company that makes billion dollar planes pretty much on a weekly basis. now, imagine a world where NASA didnt work with boeing on this new design. what do you think boeing would be doing? do you think they would be doing MORE research if the US government wasnt helping them pay for it? no. less money means less research, that is common sense. and none of the small amount of research they did would be shared with the world either, further slowing the advancement of the industry as a whole. now, i could write an entire essay on why your comparison to linux is not only a bad comparison, but is filled with similar misconceptions about how the world works and how the history of linux unfolded, but frankly I'll be surprised if you even read this far. and shocked if you took the time to both read it critically and self reflect on if anything ive said was true.
The original Boeing 367-80 shown at the beginning of the video 0:05 is on display at the Smithsonian annex at Washington Dulles airport. Only one was built. Known more commonly by its nickname the Dash 80, as Mentour mentioned it was the prototype for the KC-135 aerial tanker and the Boeing 707 jet airliner. When you see the Dash 80 in person it's surprising how small it is. The Dash 80 fuselage was 11 feet wide, which would have allowed for five seats per row. After seeing the prototype the Air Force liked the design but wanted it wider for the tanker, so the KC-135 was built with a 12 foot wide fuselage. But then as Boeing began working on the passenger version they found out that the Douglas DC-8 would have six seats per row, and airlines were leaning towards the DC-8 because of this. Boeing had to add four more inches to the 707 fuselage width to accommodate six seats per row. So even though the KC-135 and 707 look identical, the 707 is actually four inches wider
There's a lot of low cost carriers who don't really care about gate size restrictions, when you're bussing people to the ramp who cares how wide your wings are.
I never put Boeing down or out of the picture. In every business we have well crooks only wanting to help themselves. It's a growing pain that always is around. But a company that has built air planes and more isn't just going to go down without a fight. So thank you sir for bringing this information to us.
They actually would without extensive government handouts. The exact thing they are claiming Airbus is doing. But you know how it is in America, if it's a government handout for me it's a good thing. If it's a government handout for you it's socialism.
Between engine and aero design trends, I can't believe were headed forward back to 'open prop/biplanes' aesthetics - 2050 style of course. But then, we used to cross the Atlantic in 3 hours on a futuristic looking high alt/mach jet too, but went 'back' to higher tech efficiency at lower pure performance
Well, most of 'us' never crossed the Atlantic in 3 hours because it was horribly inefficient and, thus, extremely expensive compared to the alternative. You can cross the Atlantic today in a flat-bed seat for a fraction of the cost of a seat that wasn't much more spacious than a modern domestic economy seat on the Concorde. Ever since the 747, subsonic widebodies have accounted for the vast majority of long-haul passenger air travel.
@@vbscript2 I'm making a very specific conceptual point which apparently escapes you. No one is arguing that Concorde was economically attainable, feasible or sustainable.
Another reason for these struts is to help passively prevent dynamically unstable flutter of the wings. It’s definitely one of the biggest reasons for these struts!
At 0:13 you can see the noise suppression pipes at the back of the 707's engines. You can get a better view of the pipes at 2:58. Noise suppressors were installed on early jetliners and were comprised of several exhaust pipes arranged in a circle. Early models had 21 pipes per engine, comprised of 10 large pipes in an outer ring, 10 smaller pipes in an inner ring, and a center pipe. Later designs had 8 large pipes with a flower-style center exhaust pipe. As engines got quieter the noise suppressors were no longer needed. You can get a glimpse of some pipes through an early type of thrust reverser at 3:36. Then another brief look 4:34. Another interesting thing to notice is the tiny air intake above the 707 engine at 4:25. This air intake is for the cabin air pressurization system. Behind the air intake is a small turbo compressor. This was supplemental to the cabin pressurization provided by the engine bleed air. They only had the turbo compressors on two or three of the four engines.
@@sharoncassell9358 Sort of but it worked differently. In a car muffler the exhaust gas bounces around inside the muffler in a certain way which reduces noise. In a jet engine most of the noise comes from the exhaust slamming into the outside air. Running the exhaust through pipes changed the way that the exhaust hit the air which reduced noise. Only somewhat though, the early engines were still very noisy especially at takeoff.
Another good video. "canoe-less" wings ... like B707 and like Gulfstream planes, wings without canoes have restricted the flap deployment with the flap track constrained to the wing envelop. This is sort like your explanation (the canoe fairings fit inside the wing) but emphasizes the engineering trade-off. If you want ugly canoes, look at the Canadair (oops Bombardier) Challenger. I appreciate you're speaking to an audience, but aspect ratio is only one parameter in designing a wing. Thickness is a significant parameter in defining the transonic speed (refer the difference between a Hurricane and a Spitfire). Wing profile has a significant role in subsonic drag rise, refer Whitcombe sections vs earlier NACA sections. A huge consideration is wing volume, where with "wet wings" we gain a hugely significant "inertia relief" due to the fuel (a huge problem for electric planes, particularly electric conversions). Everything in wing design is a trade-off ... aspect ratio, wing section, wing weight, flap design, manufacturing cost, etc. The key to a successful is making the correct trade-offs ... decisions that can only be made with limited data and much guesswork ! Yes, lighter more aerodynamically efficient wings are "better", so too are gust alleviation controls. But, these impact the structure in unexpected and negative ways. Lighter wings are more dynamic in there response to gusts, increasing the stresses in the wing. Gust alleviation tries to limit this, but then it removes the high gust loads, which have a (surprisingly) beneficial impact on wing fatigue life. Increasing wing span is indeed a real technical challenge ... look at the 777X wing tips ... the airport gates are a significant design limitation (sort of like the Shorts Stirling, wing span limited to suit the existing hangars). I think this strutted wing is a dead end. i think the aero impacts of the strut/wing joint are going to be "horrendous". I think their blended wing concept had a better chance. Current strutted wings have very low speeds, that's why they're straight. Weight of the demonstrator is pretty irrelevant ... it's "just" testing the aero models. the NASA angle is interesting ... will the reports generated by available to the public (like all other NASA projects, except of course those with military applications) ?
A lot of work has gone into analyzing and optimizing the wing-strut-jury connection both for design and off-design conditions. There's definitely unknowns (that's why there's a demonstrator!), but I doubt they're going to be purely aerodynamic effects of that intersection. Can you elaborate on high gust loads being good for wing fatigue?
A lot of work was done on "prop-fans" ... with little result. I only suggested the aero effects as an "obvious" issue ... I'm sure there are many others. Airplane design is very unforgiving to new technology ... remember the Li battery issue on 787 ? now we barely think about Li batteries, 'cause we "know" the problems. High fatigue loads are good to fatigue. A wing (unlike a fuselage) has a highly varying fatigue load spectrum. Infrequent high loads set up compression stresses at crack tips, which retard the crack growth and increase the fatigue life (well, really, the crack growth life which is more important today as it sets up the structural inspections. "What about Miner's rule ?" yeah, well, Miner's rule is a very simplistic analysis for combining different fatigue loads.@@AmbientMorality
@@russellblake9850 Right, and of course they wouldn't be building a demonstrator if they thought the technology was already ready. Just wanted to mention that that is unlikely to be a primary reason they think a demonstrator would be valuable. Interesting on fatigue: my total background on this is a single undergraduate class, so very basic. Do you know of any keyword or name for that effect? I'm curious to learn more about how that works.
It would earn the nickname of a kamikaze falcon, or dropping pigeon.. I always fear something like that happens, but obviously it is the biggest fear of every engineer and mechanic involved, so it does seem to happen remarkably rarely (i think, as i can't remember one instance of a foldable vehicle collapsing intantly).
@@TheLastPhoen1x I guess so, and even in those situations i rarely hear of failing wings, it's mostly the takeoffs and landings causing incidents. My favorite fighter is the F-4 Phantom II, and it also had foldable wingtips, and although it wasn't quite known to be a graceful bird, but i don't remember the foldable parts specifically being a hazard. Btw, i just imagined a massive aircraft carrier, made for passenger airlines.. Imagine how huge that ship must be, but also, how cool would be it be to have a floating airport? Surely they must've been toying with this idea for a while. Although, it has to really be incredibly massive, with multiple airstrips, otherwise it wouldn't make sense economically, or there'll be a lot of planes circling around it like vultures doing multiple attempts at landing and it would be a big mess. And i don't want any more pollution in the oceans anyway, but the idea of a giant vessel is cool though.
Looks like an interesting concept. After the first couple of crashes caused by cost cutting measures regarding safety and the subsequent enforced updates, I might even board one of those!
I've refinished the wings on several Dreamliners since they have issues with UV damage. The wings are absolutely humongous and you can comfortably walk along them without worrying about room lol
We are now seeing the limitations of fiberglass, it hates UV. AS such, all wings and bodies made of this stuff will weaken over time. Carbon fiber, fiberglass, whatever iteration you make those wings spars and fuselages out of. It has a limited lifespan.
@@orthopraxis235 not only that, but the complete disregard taken in the search for more profit. Even if it's pennies. When we refinish these planes they're only looking at weight savings. Rarely does an issue get reported or resolved. There isn't enough protection in the form of coatings to protect these composites in an effective way because they don't want the extra weight
Thanks for the video. I just wanted to draw your attention to several mistakes in it: wingbox is not the structure that you have shown, the one you shown is called as center wingbox; the high wing scheme is heavier not because it has to transfer load to the wing, in opposite the wing has to transfer the landing load to fuselage, but this is not the only reason; the picture of ttbw in your video is little bit obsolete, now it has greater sweep angle for wing and negative angle for strut; the high wing scheme provides some additional space for fuel in fuselage lower deck; btw the 777-200lr carries fuel in section 46; the benefits of wing high aspect ratio reduces the fuel consumption and the weight of the structure and increase the maximum performance range, so the amount of fuel required is less than for 737; high wing gives little bit bigger lift-to-drag ratio; there are still issues in the wing design and drag but we'll see how Boeing will resolve it. It will be interesting.
@@glennchartrand5411 it's hanging from a low wing...., the CFM LEAP-1B on the 737MAX is 2.45m wide and 2.2m tall (16.6m2 frontal surface), the fuselage is 3.76m wide (40m2 frontal surface)
Airbus started out with 3 new plane types. They had already dropped the plan for the blended wing. We may see it show up as an electric plane somewhere as it would have a nice spot to put batteries near the CG. But as you know there are people problems with the blended wing.
Blended wing just does not work in any scenario other than GARGANTUAN. 130m wingspans or greater. No airport in the world could handle such an aircraft.
The problem of wingspan will not be so much in the current configuration of departure gates and boarding bridges, which is of course solvable by folding them (although folding 8 meters on each side will still be a challenge...), but primarily in the field of certification of airports themselves, where the wingspan is one of the essential parameters for determining the category of the airport, or determining the critical type of aircraft, i.e. the largest type that can be operated at a given airport. And this can become a major problem for regional airports that are now certified in category 3C and 4C.
@@Markle2k Uh, a flat NO to that as zero difference between big and small airports in that respect other than the RARE airport modified for the a380 and this proposed craft is not even close to midsize
@@w8stral Airport reference code (ICAO Annex 14) The intent of the reference code is to provide a simple method for interrelating the numerous specifications concerning the characteristics of aerodromes so as to provide a series of aerodrome facilities that are suitable for the aeroplanes that are intended to operate at the aerodrome. The code is not intended to be used for determining runway length or pavement strength requirements. The code is composed of two elements which are related to the aeroplane performance characteristics and dimensions. Element 1 is a number based on the aeroplane reference field length and element 2 is a letter based on the aeroplane wingspan and outer main gear wheel span.
As always, thank you for a most informative & enjoyable video. To just deviate a moment. I was once subscribed to Pilot Patrick's channel, hoping to see similar videos, but alas, his videos tend to display his modeling and the good life! Okay, thanks again for your efforts in showing us the evolving world of aviation. Don
I read some aviation news and then the next week you do a video about it! Had it with this, CFM rise, airbus hydrogen, rolls Royce ultrafan and so on, really love the content
So I’m not feeling great about having to point this out but you should probably be aware that Petter is biased. Honest, I think so for the most part but he’s biased. And not that I really blame him but you should know that the aircraft he flies is Boeing made, variants of the 737 ng variety. The airline he flies for only uses Boeing aircraft and its understandable that he’d feel affection toward the aircraft he flies. It happens and it’s fine but I do feel that more people should be aware of this. Heck I’m not immune to bias myself. On a purely technical level I think Airbus has the overall better design philosophy and from working on the ground crews I definitely like the simplicity, practicality and ease of use doing anything with an Airbus over a Boeing but… I’m sort of fond of the 787-800 both because a unique set of circumstances meant that one predawn tail end of my shift led to forty minutes with my butt parked in the first officer seat with an engineer in the captain seat teaching me as much about it as my primitive little mind could absorb. And because the 787 has a vent on the belly that blows out perfectly warm air, which is perfect for helping a half frozen ramper thaw a bit in the predawn chill.
I think a swept ring-wing (wing profiles forming a triangle from the top like toroidal propellers)could be another solution both to support high aspect wings and eliminate wing tip vortices
Horse shoe votex 👍. On my urban walk tonight, cars parked up, all look the same. Its optimised. Same as diamond bike frames. Personally, I think the future is slower, more efficient per unit of energy. 👍
How if the wing is producing lift does this magically eliminate wing vortices? Is this the next sonic cruiser? Boeing PR are great at doing these pieces which may or may not be true..
@@timempson2146 Why you shit talking the sonic cruiser? Nothing wrong with the concept, the project was only killed because parasite transplants from Mcdonnal Douglas used the post-9/11 market downturn to cancel it and build a slightly more fuel efficient 767 instead.
The thing is, just like torroidal propellers we're just recycling 50 year old ideas. But thats not a bad idea because this that were difficult to manufacture now could be. The tip vortex occurs because its moving fowards with high pressure on one side and low on the other so you get a swirl. So stop that and no vortex drag and therefore less drag right? It never quite works out to be worth it. Then all design is a compromise you have to put the fuel somewhere and in the wings is already optimal. So one thing gets better another gets worse. Still worth research but doubtful we'll see much change.
I do think their will be a substantial increase in wing loading with this design and that's the main point of this wing. I don't think their will be a folding wing the extra weight and complexity will almost negate any performance gains if the design catches on airports will eventually be redesigned to suit the newer aircraft.
I'm not sure you can quantify NASA's help given to Boeing in financial terms. You can have all the money in the world, just like China has ;-), but without the deep institutional knowledge and armies of researchers and engineers of an organisation like NASA it'd take you many decades to reach the stage where you'd be ready for operational tests of a new wing design. In this case, NASA basically did all the research and initial tests and now it's Boeing taking over the design to make it into a product. I'm glad that they're looking into this, airplanes of the future must become a lot more efficient and cleaner than today's, but we shouldn't really pretend that it was all "Boeing's" idea, which you aren't, btw. Cheers! Great video. Loved it.
I gotta say, thanks a ton for the videos you make. I have learned so so much about aircraft from your Mentour Pilot videos and these videos. Hats off to you
This will have the strut blocking some of the view, but less of it. Of course most seats will be in front of or behind the wing anyway - especially with such high aspect ratio wings. This also solves John Nunn's concern - get a seat near the front or back and the wing won't block sky or ground.
This is a good list of issues and benefits of the concept but of course there are many more. For example: - the engines under the high wing can be potentially larger (higher bypass) and therefore more efficient (I say potentially because the flow through the truss and wing cell needs to be carefully designed and optimized) - due to larger rolling inertia and not enough space at the tips of the wings, ailerons may need to be larger in span as well as maybe chord. Similarly, the flap mechanisms will require some clever engineering. It's sad to have such a thin and optimized wing and have very large pods hanging underneath creating all this drag... - cabin noise from the engine may be worse. Also, the truss will generate some noise as well. This may be a more noisy aircraft as a whole. Noise is less easy to predict compared to aero or structures so this remains to be seen. Maybe the efficiency will allow flight with less thrust and that'll reduce the noise significantly. - some fuel will have to be placed in the fuselage and refueling may be interesting. Also, there is less inertial relief from fuel in the wing so the structure actually needs to be stronger to withstand the larger bending moment. Of course the truss really helps with this. - the ceiling in the cabin may be lowered near the wing box. This may require some clever cabin design. - the top of the wing will be harder to inspect. May require airport ground equipment Overall a very exciting time in aviation history where the leading manufacturers are seriously performing conceptual studies rather than seeking a few percentages in efficiency here and there. Learn more about the other concepts under consideration by NASA: www.nasa.gov/aeroresearch/sustainable-aviation
All very good points! unfortunately, all they’ve done is talk about new designs and show concepts for the past three decades, but have only made small changes here and there. And, as we all know, the experience of flying commercial has only gotten worse. If you can afford to pay for Upgrades to business, or first class, it’s a lot better. But for the rest of us, we are just cattle :-)
I think a swing wing might be a better width reduction option than a folding wing. it wouldn't need such a strong flashlight, and if the pivot was built into the truss point, the plane could be narrower at the gate than the current planes.
love me some swing wings. But we will have to see if they can make the wing box strong enough without sacrificing passenger/cargo space and weight. To my understanding swing wings are better used for transitioning through the sound barrier, but are a little on the heavy side for light efficient aircraft which is where the industry is obviously trying to go.
I understand having folding wings (16 meters) for the planes to be able to park at the gate with the current airport fees. However, if 16 meters (or more) unfold when the plane gets to the runway, are the runways going to be able to have that wide of a plane? We have seen accidents that occurred due to the planes being off-center and the wings clipping an obstacle. Thank you for this channel.
Tall objects are kept far away from runways. The Boeing 777 and 787 have wingspans of about 60 meters. A runway wide enough for the 737 is wide enough for a 787, even if it may not be long enough.
The constraining factor for runway space is margin of error for not flying perfectly straight (and that goes double in low visibility). But TAXIways are another story; even major hubs have wingspan restrictions on certain taxiways.
Knowledge of high aspect wing performance is not new, just look at old WWII designs. The limiting factor for commercial planes is the fuel storage, when you need to fold a significant part of the wing (not necessarily vertical). I doubt we'll see this in a long time. It was already well known. In the future building airports with aprons in two levels may allow closer parking of long wing aircraft - but it's not in the close future. Keep on thinking boys 😉
Given the Boeing is an absolutely *gargantuan* defence contractor I am always pretty unaccepting of their "we're not getting any advantage, look at how much we are investing!" arguments. Having said that the Max scandal combined with the timing of the pandemic has clearly set their commercial aviation segment back a lot, so while they absolutely are and have been receiving an unfair advantage I think Airbus has a genuine opening in the market at the moment. I do feel that longer term the EU or Europe as a whole will likely be incentivized to ensure Airbus remains competitive one way or another, though we also have to keep in mind that Airbus will *also* more than happily complain if they think it will net them more profits too- regardless of what the *actual* truth is.
Great information , As both a Pilot and Mechanical Engineer, I find myself thoroughly enjoying your videos as they offer incredibly precise and informative content. Your work is truly exceptional, my friend. As an Engineer I believe Im not enjoy so much the 737 since has faced some accidents related to the automated control to avoid loss of weight and balance, particularly in relation to the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) software. This software was designed to automatically adjust the aircraft's angle of attack in certain situations to prevent stalls, which can occur when the aircraft's wing loses lift due to insufficient airspeed or other factors. Additionally, the design of the 737 MAX's engines, which were larger and mounted further forward on the wings than previous 737 models, changed the aerodynamics of the aircraft and increased the risk of stalls in certain flight conditions. The MCAS system was intended to address this risk, but the reliance on a single AOA sensor made the system vulnerable to malfunctions or errors. Yes I know we are talking about new wings design but I saw so much the 737 in this video that that I want just to mention that.
I know business is always nastier than even the cynics give it credit for but I do think it's a good thing that public research programs help improve our everyday aeronautics. The world is in need of the most efficient aircraft possible. I just wish our world also didn't need so much of these projects to be centered around military.
2 wild thoughts regarding the drag penalty of struts. 1. Fashion struts to promote lift! Is that possible? It might need to be larger (add weight) because that shape bears a lower load than a symmetric one. 2. (If that wasn't crazy, this sure might be:) Retractable struts! Does their necessity remain during cruise phase? What about on smaller craft? Could it leverage the existing systems for gear retraction?
The fuselage doesn’t lose much weight in flight, so you couldn’t really decrease the strength of the wing much just because you got to cruise altitudes.
The struts in this style do add lift. It doesn't make up for the drag though. Yes, they need the struts in cruise. Folding wings exist, including in flight. Yes you can use the hydraulic systems.
Well, that Mad Dog project can only be flown by Howling Mad Murdock in the left seat, and Lt. Reginald Broccoli Barclay in the right seat. Amis and The Keeper can join them in the cockpit, btw
The truss design looks like it would mean a complete structural failure of the entire wing if the plane drops an engine. Wouldn't the engine collide with the truss and cause the entire wing to shear off ?
Re 16:23 and public financial involvement; You are Swedish (I’m Norwegian - no, not the carrier…😅), so we have (or had?) a culture for transparent governmental involvement in business, an industrial policy. Well, every government have economic policies, but during the last 30+ years we’ve told each other that politics should not interfere with anything “private”. This is a very strange narrative, also for an American or European person - or person speaking for a company. We’ve even legislated bans on subsidies, but in reality politics are hugely involved in both finance (2008, 2020) and industry (military, welfare, civil order). To me, this narrative just points to the lack of transparency - of course politics and business are connected. Some would argue those are more connected than people themselves are to economic policies. We know that huge leaps in technology and innovation have happened when public and private interests are pooled, not split. NASA, the internet (arpa-net) and the transistor itself are huge examples, all American. We should honour developments for sustainable airliners, but stop telling biased stories about the role or threat of governments in all of this. After all, a central bank can put new money into our economy, they do all the time for financial growth. So sure, our biggest companies are part of this, when they buy or release state bonds in dollars or euros. We just need to fix the transparency issues, so that we make good choices - also for better aeronautical tech. Thanks for very exciting insights! 👍
I love that they're using two MD-90's for this project, that the old DC-9 fuselage can still be part of cutting edge new research and development 60+ years later. I read that they have to shorten them, the MD-90 was too long otherwise.
@@thejatomis That is a good question, since the 717 is already 29 ft shorter. Maybe it is hard to find two of the ~50 which have been retired which are also in servicable condition and not parted out. Maybe they just already own the MD-90s so might as well use them, although acquiring other airplanes sounds much simpler than shortening those you already have. But maybe the length they want is longer than 717, and it is more feasible to shorten than lengthen an already-built airframe.
I dunno... struts on a full-size airliner would make me nervous. Fortunately, my "jet-setting" days are over. I loved it back in the day when commercial flights were civilized.
During World War II, the Consolidated B-24 Liberator had high aspect wings letting it fly higher and faster than its stable-mate, the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress. It also had tricycle landing gear where the Boeing bomber was a tail-sitter. The movie actor James Stewart was a pilot of the B-24 during the war.
He was a Colonel I believe .Squadron Commander of the 703rd Bomb Wing flying B24 Liberators . He flew 20 missions in combat. I picked up this information on the net so don’t know how accurate it is . What is accurate he was a Squadron Commander & Flew B24’s out of English fields. He flew B58’s in the mid to late 1950’s
As always, we could be way ahead if by engineering alone by now. But as it goes: It's not the wind rushing around the wings that keep an airplane in the air. It's money!
2 Comments: 1.) Ratio = Ray-She-Oh. Not = Rate-E-Oh. 2.) And, if some-one knows better/different, I would be interested to hear it... But as far as I know, the only way to make this sort of slim, high aspect ratio, transonic wing work, is with active trailing-edge anti-flutter devices. And there is no way to make that a fail-to-safe design. If your active system stops working, then at high speeds and high altitudes, your wing is going to fold up in a heartbeat.
I had an uncle (now deceased) who for many years worked for Boeing in Seattle. I seem to remember a controversial swept wing fighter jet many years ago. Was that project in any way similar to this new wing design? I don’t remember what finally killed that project.
One correction: It doesn't "beg" the question; it simply raises it. To beg the question is to answer a question by simply restating the question in different words in the answer. In formal debate, this is considered an error, a logical error.
This isn't actually a correction because "beg the question" is commonly used as a synonym for "raise the question" when the context is not a debate. Indeed, if the context isn't classic logic, it's pretty challenging to find an example of someone using "beg the question" in that sense. Language has evolved, and it is probably a good idea to get used to it instead of whining about it.
@@mmm0404 Well yes but you are probably aware of the problems they have had. In 2014 when Boeing and SpaceX were selected by NASA to provide crewed flights to ISS, most people expected that newcomer SpaceX would struggle, but that it would be no problem for Boeing considering their decades of aerospace experience. SpaceX had some challenges along the way but they launched astronauts to ISS in 2020. Meanwhile Boeing's first uncrewed Starliner test flight in December 2019 was a disaster, failing to reach ISS. NASA had until then pretty much left Boeing on its own, but they now took a much more hands-on approach with Boeing, and their investigation into Boeing's practices led to a list of 80 recommendations for changes. Boeing did all of it and repeated the test flight in May 2022, this time successfully. The next Starliner test flight will be with crew. Meanwhile in two weeks SpaceX will be making it's eighth crewed flight to ISS, and then another one later this year. The earliest Starliner crew rotation mission to ISS won't be until sometime in 2024, assuming that their upcoming test flight to ISS is successful. That's four years later than SpaceX, although to be fair SpaceX already had several years experience with cargo Dragon.
@@StevePemberton2 well spaceX have rockets that can return to site and land on their own. Its a very ambitious company Their progress over the recent years has been insane. I'm not shocked they managed to pull ahead so quickly. SpaceX are like the iPhone that arrived latter but still managed to take the market by storm and become a big market player. Starliner has nothing on Crew/Cargo Dragon, and the delays have been disappointing more especially for such an experienced company but the main reason both were selected is offer some kind of redundancy and systematic backup of having two crew capsules instead of one. And hey you have to admit that the statliner is one good looking space capsule. I cant wait for e crewed flight.
@@StevePemberton2 Also consider that for OFT-2 and CFT, Starliner is now at the whims of the ISS docking schedule which is pushing dates out farther ever since OFT-2 landed. They really need a 3rd docking port, deconflicting these is going to be a real pain in the future.
@@mmm0404 They definitively need dissimilar redundancy. It's fortunate that Dragon has flown without any problems. Hopefully Starliner goes smoothly. OFT-2 seemed to go well which is a good sign.
Could a future solution to the gate problem with high aspect ratio wings be addressed by revising airport design, perhaps taking passengers to aircraft on the tarmac with electric buses? Maybe the current concept of a gate doesn't mesh well with future aircraft design and the push for more efficient systems?
NASA is one of our greatest investments, It is of course unfortunate how many forget that first A is there. While spaceflight is their flagship identity, They have since the era of being called NACA been vital in the innovations for atmospheric flight. They also helped a lot with the foundations of what is called Crew Resource Management today.
Great video once more! It does make sense for Boeing to wait for something with a much larger efficiency improvements, even if it means waiting it out now, rather than wasting development money in something just marginally better today. Will it work? That is the Billion-dollar question.
People like you discourage innovation and forward progess. Boeing has always been the industry leader in design and improvement, and there is always a good reason to improve. Sitting around and waiting will do nothing for anyone.
@John Ellis I'm as big a fan of Boeing as anyone else. However, there are no technology upgrades available and fully mature today to allow a 737 replacement with any significant efficiency improvements. No OEM is offering anything radical. I don't think a 3% improvement is worth the effort and expense.
I have a question that's probably a dumb one. I'm not a pilot but absolutely love aviation. My question on this wing is. Do the wing struts in this application add to lift and stability? Also do big struts like that make the airplane difficult to keep in a turn?
@@johnnunn8688 I considered this being about speculation of "I wonder how low drag would be if we would have good enough materials to avoid any braces".
Very informative video, Mentour Pilot. Having wing struts on a high altitude jet doesn't seem to make any practical sense. It looks like it'll generate more disturbance and drag. It's one reason you find wing struts on high-wing prop and turbo prop aircraft. As for wings without the fairings like the 707, go check out the 747 SP's wing and its flap system.
With the wing located above fuselage create greater stability than former design.More weight or center of gravity is below wing working horizontal line make it a natural counter force or balancer or stabilizer during flight.
It annoys me that we have to assume that for instance the pricing model at airports cannot change. Skip the folding wings which is costly and probably even prohibitive and park at an a380 gate. If aviation must become more sustainable, airports should be contributing ..
It's not a box wing, it's a strut braced wing. WZ-7 has a very short wing, even compared to comparable UCAVs like the Global Hawk. The design goals are not even remotely comparable.
@@kilianortmann9979 It's pretty obvious WZ-7's wing design is for structural reasons, where the back half of the wing asts as structural support for the main wing but also generates lift like a biplane. For the Global Hawk's its long and slender wings with extremely high aspect ratio (kudos to American material science for that) is optimized for low speed high endurance and is not suitable for airliners traveling at subsonic speed. If we were to use bracings to increase the wingspan of airliners, I think it's good idea to adopt WZ-7's braced sweep wing where the bracings also generates lift
I think you are missing a big thing here. That lower truss almost turns this new design into a sesquiplane. That truss will be generating lift and thus adding length to the wing in the cruise phase increasing its aspect ratio even further.
for the past few weeks I've been looking at this thing and it looks so futurist as a sc fi nerd I can see space craft rated for atmosphere flight using this
Thank you soooo much Petter sir and team🤍💙👍🏼 for bringing this one out. . Honest to God, the other day.. when watching ua-cam.com/video/Xm5LYkGHkTc/v-deo.html Scott Manley's video on NASA's plans.. I was literally thinking as to when Mentour team would do some new coverage on the Boom Overture or other newer research on wing designs and so. . Very happy that you did!🙇🏻♂️🧡👌🏽 . Had to pause the video, just to type this. Now back to the video.🙂
The main design feature of jetliner wings was the super critical aerofoil which permits high subsonic cruise near Mn1 before or delaying the transonic drag rise. These wings have deep thickness to chord ratio (thicker wing section) that gives excellent fuel capacity without a drag penalty. Adding another airframe main wing component has its draw backs of areodynamic compability and wing loading transfer paths to contend with. Sounds like the research department is in need of work.
You do know that they go slow on purpose, right!? Adding another jet that can go such and such miles an hour they still not gonna go over the minimum speed they’re going to go way under it you get more money by going there slower!
I made a similar design in a modded version of Kerbal Space Program. Different physics from the real world, but I was surprised how far it glided with engines off. Now if I could just find a mod that includes a working version of the CFM Rise.
The truss braced wing concept presents challenges in the areas of structural loading and drag inducing wing deformation outboard of the truss during flight maneuvers. This could be addressed with variable camber wings for load alleviation function but that would add complexity and weight to the design. As you stated, where to put the fuel presents a challenge for designers. We live in exciting times.
Couldn't they do a low wing design with bracing on top (essentially, flip the wing from the concept) and mount the engines above the wing like the HondaJet?
I was wondering that. One consideration is that those above wing struts would be in compression. Structures designed for tension are much simpler and lighter (often just a cable) than structures designed for compression, which have to resist bucking.
I've always thought that adding more bits to a fuselage will create more inteference drag. That's why NASA's lifting body has stubby wings to reduce drag at high speed. So in this case, if you created a high aspect-ratio wing but support it with struts, wouldn't the wing efficiency get cancelled out by the drag created by the strut?
That was my first reaction too. Additionally, why bother with a swept wing if the strut isn’t swept as well? Critical Mach is just gonna be bottlenecked by the non-swept strut anyway. Waste of time. I’m thinking this might be yet another patented Boeing&govt money laundering scam.
The low wing design has an advantage, as rare as they are, when it comes to water landings When it comes to folding wings: it doesn't necessary to have it fold up. They could use a sweep back design
Sweep back design? The important aspect with respect to lift is the face that goes into the air. The swept back design is important when approaching the speed of sound but otherwise it's all losses.
@@Milamberinx I don’t think he was referring to sweeping the wings back when the plane is in the air, but only when on the ground. Still, that seems like it would be a lot more complicated than just folding the wings.
@@henrikcsuri sorry, I completely misunderstood what you meant. What you're talking about it more usually called "swing wing", it's been used in fighter planes with... mixed results.
I could Google anything that he does videos for and get the answers quicker. The point is that I want to watch him do a video about the subject. Creators are always asking for video suggestions, I obliged
As an A&P and someone who worked the KC 135, C5, and C17 for 19 years how you describe the flap track and flap fairings are wrong. The reason why the KC135 has no external fairing is due to the flaps being on tracks and jack screws which gets covered by the flap itself and cove lip doors when up. On C17s and newer airframes they have massive hydraulic actuators that get housed in the flap fairings.
Are they adopting the way of the gliders regarding wing designs? Also it's wonderful that they test scaled down prototypes as radio controlled airplane models for feasibility. Thus having a real device to simulate flying dynamics 😉
Remember DARPA’s XS-1? Boeing won the design competition by promising to put up matching funds, which smaller companies couldn’t afford, for development. Then, after a few years, it dropped the project. Keeping the government money it had received in the interim. I wouldn’t be surprised if something similar happened here.
The weight of a folding wing mechanism would be roughly comparable to a fuselage clamping system. In other words the fuselage detaches, and like a bus, it goes to the gate while the wing section remains in an uncontested area.
@TheRookieGamer I worry about the composite to metal interface of folding wing. Maybe there is some really good fasteners and glue. But yes a removable passenger compartment is radical.
For those of us who love aviation and aerospace, please remember Boeing is run strictly for profit, not for advancement of aviation and certainly not aviation safety. If they took their lobbying budget and put it into R&D they would make amazing new products. Not designing a new platform this decade? And experienced engineers retiring sooner than that? Any remaining questions on their business decisions?
Get Exclusive NordVPN deal here ➼ nordvpn.com/mentournow It's risk-free with Nord's 30-day money-back guarantee!
Thank you soooo much Petter sir and team🤍💙👍🏼 for bringing this one out.
.
Honest to God, the other day.. when watching ua-cam.com/video/Xm5LYkGHkTc/v-deo.html Scott Manley's video on NASA's plans.. I was literally thinking as to when Mentour team would do some new coverage on the Boom Overture or other newer research on wing designs and so.
.
Very happy that you did!🙇🏻♂️🧡👌🏽
.
Had to pause the video, just to type this.
Now back to the video.🙂
Thank you. Works great
Great video but the wing design is dumb as hell. As an airline mechanic myself, I guarantee you that no one is going to be looking for lift equipment to go up and inspect the top of that wing over and over and over, for every airplane that comes into the gate, there’s so many other service items need to be done on the plane. It’s one of the dumbest ideas I’ve seen in awhile. They should be going back to the “Boeing sonic cruiser’ idea with Hydrogen fuel cell technology driving electric motors. That’s a real winner and no wingtip problems at the gate either.
I'm surprised that nobody is developing a wing with a swing-folding mechanism for part of its length, instead of an upwards-folding one. If they are, then can you tell us about them, please, Petter? Thanks. 🙂👍
Mentour, I recall now how the general aviation prototype aircraft, Celera 500L, which claimed truly incredible performance, uses this very same wing design mounted mid-spar rather than this example. That might be worth a few minutes of discussion time. No?
Let’s hope aircraft designers and engineers finally get to lead the company’s vision again
i wouldn't bank on it
Capitalism: HAH
lol lmao
The days of the Kelly Johnsons are over. I doubt this design makes it into the tooling and production phase. Boeing is still feeling the hurt of the carbon fiber 787 Dreamliner design. Unless Airbus flies outside the box on a bread-and-butter fleet aircraft (such as the A321), Boeing has no real reason to stray outside the lines of old, but proven, technology.
@@krozareq
You might just be right. The only hope is the new CEO waiting for technology to move forward so Boeing has another 707 or 747 moment and owns the market again. The 787 though problem ridden was a turning point for the company. Nobody quit fills that slot with the A350 being larger and the closest. IMHO the 786 lead the the 777X wings being an option. Let’s hope they get leaders who aren’t going to sink the company out of fear of moving forward
Your advert was interrupted by a YT advert. Advertising Inception.
Not on my browser setup. In any case there is this thing called the right arrow key that you may not be aware of ....
Easy workaround, download the video, and then watch it offline. No ads. ☺👍
@@johnsmith1474 It is on UA-cam.
Kinda disappointing to have YT ads in a sponsored video, but given the quality of the content I just eat it.
@@johnsmith1474 do you have a link to a video that will explain that function to me?
Getting very sick of this new youtube and all it's guidelines, remember the dislike button number days...Rumble, more free speech.
In 1955 I flew on a BA Boeing 707 from London to Paris. I was 14 at the time and the crew were so sweet to me, it was by far the best experience of my young life.
That would not be possible.. the 707 didn't enter commercial service until 1959.
Actually late 1958 @@stephenp448
If the commercial aircraft industry as a whole eventually moves to those wider wingspans, airport gates might have to change rather than forcing every single airliner to ship with foldable wings. It'll be fascinating to see how this goes down.
Instead of the wings folding up, which is inherently unstable, what if the wings folded forward? At speed, the air pressure would push the wings back, preventing them from folding forward.
Maybe have them fold forward and at a positive 20 degree angle, so they clear the doorway and make it easy to dock at airports.
Making room for wider airplanes would lower number of gates in airports and hence number of passengers they can handle.
And hardly any airport has lots of room to just expand to maintain old capacity.
@@tuunaes That is a good point. I was thinking that the main reason why they would _not_ want to change the gates around in airports would be the enormous cost of such an operation, but the fact that in some cases it could necessitate a reduction in the actual number of gates is definitely an issue as well.
@@tuunaes But that is also a relic of the way thing are currently. Things could be changed so that (for instance), the planes park side on to the gates are towed out sideways on some kind of dollies which would enable them to be much more densly packed and could leave the terminal without engines running. There is always a way of doing things, it just requires imagination, and yes, money
Issue Is you would have less gates, thus the economical advantage of better efficiency would be offset by less passenger capacity per airport apron
My dad was involved in building the wood mock up of the -80. He worked on all models as a mechanic through the 747, 757, and 767.
He is a hero, kudos
I invented the internet
OK
So what secrets did he tell you?
Did your dad ever tell you that there’s no way you can fit thousands of pounds of fuel in both wings? Did he tell you that or did he take that to his grave that there was never gas in the wings!??
The folding section actually only needs to be 8m because, presumably, both wings would fold. Still not small, but much more manageable.
Maybe so... BUT a new "radical design" would be more FUN if it just made ONE of the wings fold straight up in the air instead... don't spoil the SHOW, man...
AND yes, before anyone gets pissy... some REALLY strange looking aircraft ideas have actually FLOWN over the years of avionic history... from the "Ass-ender" to the "Scissor-wing" and few that were completely nuts... Even the Nazis got on the wagon for weird sh*t, trying for a bomber with off-set wings... People have had weird ideas about how to make planes "better" for a LONG time.
I highly recommend "Dark Skies" for some over-views and jot down notes to deep dive technical terms and design numbers/models/series while you're trying not to laugh too hysterically. ;o)
I wonder if folding wings are heavier because of the mechanisms to fold it up like Motors and gears, hinges, cables, etc.
@@dannydaw59 a part is always heavier than no part, so yes. It obviously still makes economic sense because the tips on the 777x fold. The decrease in drag from the longer, slimmer wings must beat the costs of added weight, and by a significant amount, or it wouldn't be worth doing.
This design doesn’t allow visual inspection for damage on top of the wing, and as an airline mechanic I’m not going up on a lift over aver over again all day to inspect every airplane wing that comes to the gate, it’s dumb as fk. The rest of the plane needs maintenance servicing and no one is going to waste time looking for equipment to go up on top of every airplane. They should be going after the Boeing sonic cruiser design with Hydrogen fuel cell driving electric motors, that’s a real winner not this stupid thing.
@@tropicthndr If it comes to production levels of a "fleet" like most of Boeing's other series, you and I BOTH know there's going to be an alternative innovated over using a lift to look at the tops of the wings... There'll be a robot to send up, or a telescopic tool to test by ultrasonic frequency or something and bring you back better information for sending a tech to "waste more time" than has already been spent on wing-inspections... It might be a matter of time, but it's a "when" and not an "if". ;o)
I'd also want to mention Hurel-Dubois, whose research into long, high aspect-ratio braced wings must have influenced the SugarVOLT concept and so this. It saw the light of day in a few planes such as the Shorts Skyvan and its descendants. And I don't count it as a biplane; the truss is an integral, angled element of the main wing.
One of the requirements NASA has for funding projects like this is that the information learned is released to the public.
Open source doesn't have to be forced through taxes. That is a command and control style approach.
Remove regulations preventing cheap entry into the space and there will be a plethora of ideas thrown about. Most will fail but unimagined innovation will occur.
NASA and gov is a barrier, not a benefactor. The incentives are backwards. There should be no barriers or qualifications for putting aircraft in the sky so long as no one can be injured. By that I don't mean individuals. I mean the everything when it comes to injury, human life, environmental pollution, accidents, the works. It's not simple to consider but it has to be done if you dare apply for insurance with a wacky idea. Some people will be successful and some won't. It's in the relationships where the details are worked out as it should be. One size does not fit all.
It's the way everything should work. Top down approach works great for mil spec (or at least we assume it does since it's worked in the past) but outside conflicts, civvies will come up with much better ideas if left alone to try.
Compare it to the tech space and Linux. Practically the entire internet is run on a user created and modified over several generations version of the original idea. Because of it the planetary population has been able to communicate more freely and accessibly. What do you think would have happened if gov got in the way of managing how to interface software with hardware? They would have if they could have but the tech industry evolves too fast for their glacial pace to keep up.
Except the moon landing!
They *accidentally* deleted that one. wink wink*
@@miinyoo im not actually sure what youre trying to say here, but i can tell that you dont know what youre talking about on a fundamental level. "removing regulations preventing cheap entry into the space" is a direct contradiction to "there should be no barriers or qualifications for putting aircraft in the sky so long as no one can be injured."
in order to enforce the last point, the former can not happen. the point of regulation is to control those who would take flight. one of the reasons this control is necessary is safety. in order to comply with the rigorous and specific criteria necessary to take flight in any aircraft safely you need to spend money to make certain that aircraft is in fact safe.
because of this glaring contradiction in your logic I'm forced to contend with a few possibilities. the first, is that you dont recognize the contradiction. that seems unlikely. the second, is that you simply misspoke, and you dont actually want deregulation at all. which seems very unlikely considering your wording. the possibility ive chosen to believe for the time being is that you are not actually concerned with the safety of others and would rather a "move fast and break things" approach to aviation. which is obviously not an opinion anyone should have, so you have added "so long as no one can be injured" to cover for yourself. i suppose perhaps you believe the current regulations are simply uneccessary to maintain safe aviation practices, but if thats the case i feel like you should watch a lot more of this channel. the failures we see on this channel are prime examples of how perilous air flight is even with our current, extremely safe practices. deregulating would likely kill our poor host, either because he crashes his plane or dies of exhaustion trying to cover other crashes.
and the idea that "civies will come up with much better ideas if left alone to try" is the truly backwards thinking. research does not succeed -- or even happen -- without funding. if you leave the free market to decide who does research on what, the only ideas that will prosper are those that are incredibly safe investments for companies. because the ONLY non-government organizations with the funding and interest to do research on planes are companies like boeing, who are motivated by profit alone. they will never try any "wacky ideas." they will only fund research that they feel is highly likely to return their investment. which we can see happening TODAY with them waiting an entire decade before designing their next aircraft. waiting until their government subsidized research is complete before taking any further steps to minimize risk. and this subsidized research is also MUCH cheaper than you would expect for a company that makes billion dollar planes pretty much on a weekly basis.
now, imagine a world where NASA didnt work with boeing on this new design. what do you think boeing would be doing? do you think they would be doing MORE research if the US government wasnt helping them pay for it? no. less money means less research, that is common sense. and none of the small amount of research they did would be shared with the world either, further slowing the advancement of the industry as a whole.
now, i could write an entire essay on why your comparison to linux is not only a bad comparison, but is filled with similar misconceptions about how the world works and how the history of linux unfolded, but frankly I'll be surprised if you even read this far. and shocked if you took the time to both read it critically and self reflect on if anything ive said was true.
The original Boeing 367-80 shown at the beginning of the video 0:05 is on display at the Smithsonian annex at Washington Dulles airport. Only one was built. Known more commonly by its nickname the Dash 80, as Mentour mentioned it was the prototype for the KC-135 aerial tanker and the Boeing 707 jet airliner.
When you see the Dash 80 in person it's surprising how small it is. The Dash 80 fuselage was 11 feet wide, which would have allowed for five seats per row. After seeing the prototype the Air Force liked the design but wanted it wider for the tanker, so the KC-135 was built with a 12 foot wide fuselage.
But then as Boeing began working on the passenger version they found out that the Douglas DC-8 would have six seats per row, and airlines were leaning towards the DC-8 because of this. Boeing had to add four more inches to the 707 fuselage width to accommodate six seats per row. So even though the KC-135 and 707 look identical, the 707 is actually four inches wider
There's a lot of low cost carriers who don't really care about gate size restrictions, when you're bussing people to the ramp who cares how wide your wings are.
Indeed, we have very few gates at our airports and just bus pax to the stands.
I never put Boeing down or out of the picture. In every business we have well crooks only wanting to help themselves. It's a growing pain that always is around.
But a company that has built air planes and more isn't just going to go down without a fight.
So thank you sir for bringing this information to us.
Airbus has been the real crooks if you study there past.
They actually would without extensive government handouts. The exact thing they are claiming Airbus is doing. But you know how it is in America, if it's a government handout for me it's a good thing. If it's a government handout for you it's socialism.
Between engine and aero design trends, I can't believe were headed forward back to 'open prop/biplanes' aesthetics - 2050 style of course.
But then, we used to cross the Atlantic in 3 hours on a futuristic looking high alt/mach jet too, but went 'back' to higher tech efficiency at lower pure performance
Concorde barely cruised past mach 2. That's not exactly high mach.
Well, most of 'us' never crossed the Atlantic in 3 hours because it was horribly inefficient and, thus, extremely expensive compared to the alternative. You can cross the Atlantic today in a flat-bed seat for a fraction of the cost of a seat that wasn't much more spacious than a modern domestic economy seat on the Concorde. Ever since the 747, subsonic widebodies have accounted for the vast majority of long-haul passenger air travel.
@@nameberry220 Neither is .8
@@vbscript2 I'm making a very specific conceptual point which apparently escapes you. No one is arguing that Concorde was economically attainable, feasible or sustainable.
@@nameberry220 But more than 2 times faster than any Airbus or Boeing. Which was the point you seem to have missed..
Another reason for these struts is to help passively prevent dynamically unstable flutter of the wings. It’s definitely one of the biggest reasons for these struts!
At 0:13 you can see the noise suppression pipes at the back of the 707's engines. You can get a better view of the pipes at 2:58. Noise suppressors were installed on early jetliners and were comprised of several exhaust pipes arranged in a circle. Early models had 21 pipes per engine, comprised of 10 large pipes in an outer ring, 10 smaller pipes in an inner ring, and a center pipe. Later designs had 8 large pipes with a flower-style center exhaust pipe. As engines got quieter the noise suppressors were no longer needed. You can get a glimpse of some pipes through an early type of thrust reverser at 3:36. Then another brief look 4:34.
Another interesting thing to notice is the tiny air intake above the 707 engine at 4:25. This air intake is for the cabin air pressurization system. Behind the air intake is a small turbo compressor. This was supplemental to the cabin pressurization provided by the engine bleed air. They only had the turbo compressors on two or three of the four engines.
Mufflers?
@@sharoncassell9358 Sort of but it worked differently. In a car muffler the exhaust gas bounces around inside the muffler in a certain way which reduces noise. In a jet engine most of the noise comes from the exhaust slamming into the outside air. Running the exhaust through pipes changed the way that the exhaust hit the air which reduced noise. Only somewhat though, the early engines were still very noisy especially at takeoff.
GAWD I love your channel! Your unbiased coverage of such a huge array of aeronautical topics is just so Professional (capital P intended).
Another good video.
"canoe-less" wings ... like B707 and like Gulfstream planes, wings without canoes have restricted the flap deployment with the flap track constrained to the wing envelop. This is sort like your explanation (the canoe fairings fit inside the wing) but emphasizes the engineering trade-off. If you want ugly canoes, look at the Canadair (oops Bombardier) Challenger.
I appreciate you're speaking to an audience, but aspect ratio is only one parameter in designing a wing. Thickness is a significant parameter in defining the transonic speed (refer the difference between a Hurricane and a Spitfire). Wing profile has a significant role in subsonic drag rise, refer Whitcombe sections vs earlier NACA sections. A huge consideration is wing volume, where with "wet wings" we gain a hugely significant "inertia relief" due to the fuel (a huge problem for electric planes, particularly electric conversions). Everything in wing design is a trade-off ... aspect ratio, wing section, wing weight, flap design, manufacturing cost, etc. The key to a successful is making the correct trade-offs ... decisions that can only be made with limited data and much guesswork !
Yes, lighter more aerodynamically efficient wings are "better", so too are gust alleviation controls. But, these impact the structure in unexpected and negative ways. Lighter wings are more dynamic in there response to gusts, increasing the stresses in the wing. Gust alleviation tries to limit this, but then it removes the high gust loads, which have a (surprisingly) beneficial impact on wing fatigue life.
Increasing wing span is indeed a real technical challenge ... look at the 777X wing tips ... the airport gates are a significant design limitation (sort of like the Shorts Stirling, wing span limited to suit the existing hangars).
I think this strutted wing is a dead end. i think the aero impacts of the strut/wing joint are going to be "horrendous". I think their blended wing concept had a better chance.
Current strutted wings have very low speeds, that's why they're straight.
Weight of the demonstrator is pretty irrelevant ... it's "just" testing the aero models.
the NASA angle is interesting ... will the reports generated by available to the public (like all other NASA projects, except of course those with military applications) ?
A lot of work has gone into analyzing and optimizing the wing-strut-jury connection both for design and off-design conditions. There's definitely unknowns (that's why there's a demonstrator!), but I doubt they're going to be purely aerodynamic effects of that intersection.
Can you elaborate on high gust loads being good for wing fatigue?
A lot of work was done on "prop-fans" ... with little result. I only suggested the aero effects as an "obvious" issue ... I'm sure there are many others. Airplane design is very unforgiving to new technology ... remember the Li battery issue on 787 ? now we barely think about Li batteries, 'cause we "know" the problems.
High fatigue loads are good to fatigue. A wing (unlike a fuselage) has a highly varying fatigue load spectrum. Infrequent high loads set up compression stresses at crack tips, which retard the crack growth and increase the fatigue life (well, really, the crack growth life which is more important today as it sets up the structural inspections. "What about Miner's rule ?" yeah, well, Miner's rule is a very simplistic analysis for combining different fatigue loads.@@AmbientMorality
@@russellblake9850 Right, and of course they wouldn't be building a demonstrator if they thought the technology was already ready. Just wanted to mention that that is unlikely to be a primary reason they think a demonstrator would be valuable.
Interesting on fatigue: my total background on this is a single undergraduate class, so very basic. Do you know of any keyword or name for that effect? I'm curious to learn more about how that works.
@@AmbientMorality Crack Growth Retardation. It's as feature of Damage Tolerance Analysis under spectrum loading.
@@russellblake9850 Alright, thanks! o/
Oh boy, I just hope we won't be seeing "Wing folded in flight" accidents.
Yep, that’s why the 777X is being so thoroughly tested
It would earn the nickname of a kamikaze falcon, or dropping pigeon..
I always fear something like that happens, but obviously it is the biggest fear of every engineer and mechanic involved, so it does seem to happen remarkably rarely (i think, as i can't remember one instance of a foldable vehicle collapsing intantly).
@@Games_and_Music Well, they had time to practice it since the WW2 and carrier-based aircraft with folding wings.
@@TheLastPhoen1x I guess so, and even in those situations i rarely hear of failing wings, it's mostly the takeoffs and landings causing incidents.
My favorite fighter is the F-4 Phantom II, and it also had foldable wingtips, and although it wasn't quite known to be a graceful bird, but i don't remember the foldable parts specifically being a hazard.
Btw, i just imagined a massive aircraft carrier, made for passenger airlines..
Imagine how huge that ship must be, but also, how cool would be it be to have a floating airport?
Surely they must've been toying with this idea for a while.
Although, it has to really be incredibly massive, with multiple airstrips, otherwise it wouldn't make sense economically, or there'll be a lot of planes circling around it like vultures doing multiple attempts at landing and it would be a big mess.
And i don't want any more pollution in the oceans anyway, but the idea of a giant vessel is cool though.
@@Games_and_Music I believe Tokyo airport is built on a floating 'island.'
Looks like an interesting concept. After the first couple of crashes caused by cost cutting measures regarding safety and the subsequent enforced updates, I might even board one of those!
Old habits will be hard to kick
You are very uninformed 😭
It would be a long while before I trust my life with something unproven from the mass murderers at boeing.
Totally agree with this statement. All product quality has declined, and airliners are products.
I won’t
I've refinished the wings on several Dreamliners since they have issues with UV damage. The wings are absolutely humongous and you can comfortably walk along them without worrying about room lol
We are now seeing the limitations of fiberglass, it hates UV. AS such, all wings and bodies made of this stuff will weaken over time. Carbon fiber, fiberglass, whatever iteration you make those wings spars and fuselages out of. It has a limited lifespan.
@@orthopraxis235 it's more so the matrix medium that hates it directly.
@@orthopraxis235 not only that, but the complete disregard taken in the search for more profit. Even if it's pennies. When we refinish these planes they're only looking at weight savings. Rarely does an issue get reported or resolved. There isn't enough protection in the form of coatings to protect these composites in an effective way because they don't want the extra weight
Thanks for the video. I just wanted to draw your attention to several mistakes in it: wingbox is not the structure that you have shown, the one you shown is called as center wingbox; the high wing scheme is heavier not because it has to transfer load to the wing, in opposite the wing has to transfer the landing load to fuselage, but this is not the only reason; the picture of ttbw in your video is little bit obsolete, now it has greater sweep angle for wing and negative angle for strut; the high wing scheme provides some additional space for fuel in fuselage lower deck; btw the 777-200lr carries fuel in section 46; the benefits of wing high aspect ratio reduces the fuel consumption and the weight of the structure and increase the maximum performance range, so the amount of fuel required is less than for 737; high wing gives little bit bigger lift-to-drag ratio; there are still issues in the wing design and drag but we'll see how Boeing will resolve it. It will be interesting.
That high wing will make it a lot easier to mount the new massive engines.
Imagine seeing two engines almost as big as the fuselage...🤣
@@hectoraccented5312 The engines on the 737 MAX are almost as big as fuselage.
@@glennchartrand5411 it's hanging from a low wing...., the CFM LEAP-1B on the 737MAX is 2.45m wide and 2.2m tall (16.6m2 frontal surface), the fuselage is 3.76m wide (40m2 frontal surface)
I'm still crossing my fingers for Airbus's blended wing design to get off the ground... literally.
Airbus started out with 3 new plane types. They had already dropped the plan for the blended wing. We may see it show up as an electric plane somewhere as it would have a nice spot to put batteries near the CG. But as you know there are people problems with the blended wing.
Blended wing just does not work in any scenario other than GARGANTUAN. 130m wingspans or greater. No airport in the world could handle such an aircraft.
@@w8stral No airport in the world is going to be able to handle the other new wing concepts either. Airports are going to have to change.
@@w8stral Why are they limited to large aircraft ?
@@darthkarl99 Uh, no, they will handle them just fine.
The problem of wingspan will not be so much in the current configuration of departure gates and boarding bridges, which is of course solvable by folding them (although folding 8 meters on each side will still be a challenge...), but primarily in the field of certification of airports themselves, where the wingspan is one of the essential parameters for determining the category of the airport, or determining the critical type of aircraft, i.e. the largest type that can be operated at a given airport. And this can become a major problem for regional airports that are now certified in category 3C and 4C.
Well no, that is determined for accurately by MTOW of said aircraft as that determines how strong the vortices are by and large, not its wingspan.
@@w8stral There are also issues with navigating on taxiways both for conflicts between aircraft and with equipment on the ground
@@Markle2k Uh, a flat NO to that as zero difference between big and small airports in that respect other than the RARE airport modified for the a380 and this proposed craft is not even close to midsize
@@w8stral Airport reference code (ICAO Annex 14)
The intent of the reference code is to provide a simple method for interrelating the numerous specifications concerning the characteristics of aerodromes so as to provide a series of aerodrome facilities that are suitable for the aeroplanes that are intended to operate at the aerodrome. The code is not intended to be used for determining runway length or pavement strength requirements. The code is composed of two elements which are related to the aeroplane performance characteristics and dimensions. Element 1 is a number based on the aeroplane reference field length and element 2 is a letter based on the aeroplane wingspan and outer main gear wheel span.
@@w8stral Wing span of 52 m will effectively put this aircraft into E category (by wing span) which is similar to A330/787/747-400.
As always, thank you for a most informative & enjoyable video. To just deviate a moment. I was once subscribed to Pilot Patrick's channel, hoping to see similar videos, but alas, his videos tend to display his modeling and the good life! Okay, thanks again for your efforts in showing us the evolving world of aviation. Don
Fascinating video, Mentour! Thanks for the reminder about what the first A in NASA stands for.
I read some aviation news and then the next week you do a video about it! Had it with this, CFM rise, airbus hydrogen, rolls Royce ultrafan and so on, really love the content
Awesome! We are trying to keep on the forefront of things here on the NOW channel 😉
Thanks for bringing us honest Aviation news in small bites we don't choke on.
It’s ironic that Petter was just talking about span. Wing though, not the attention kind.
So I’m not feeling great about having to point this out but you should probably be aware that Petter is biased. Honest, I think so for the most part but he’s biased. And not that I really blame him but you should know that the aircraft he flies is Boeing made, variants of the 737 ng variety. The airline he flies for only uses Boeing aircraft and its understandable that he’d feel affection toward the aircraft he flies. It happens and it’s fine but I do feel that more people should be aware of this.
Heck I’m not immune to bias myself. On a purely technical level I think Airbus has the overall better design philosophy and from working on the ground crews I definitely like the simplicity, practicality and ease of use doing anything with an Airbus over a Boeing but… I’m sort of fond of the 787-800 both because a unique set of circumstances meant that one predawn tail end of my shift led to forty minutes with my butt parked in the first officer seat with an engineer in the captain seat teaching me as much about it as my primitive little mind could absorb. And because the 787 has a vent on the belly that blows out perfectly warm air, which is perfect for helping a half frozen ramper thaw a bit in the predawn chill.
I think a swept ring-wing (wing profiles forming a triangle from the top like toroidal propellers)could be another solution both to support high aspect wings and eliminate wing tip vortices
Horse shoe votex 👍. On my urban walk tonight, cars parked up, all look the same. Its optimised. Same as diamond bike frames. Personally, I think the future is slower, more efficient per unit of energy. 👍
How if the wing is producing lift does this magically eliminate wing vortices?
Is this the next sonic cruiser? Boeing PR are great at doing these pieces which may or may not be true..
@@timempson2146 There wouldn't be wing tip vortices because there won't be wing tips. The bottom and top profiles would be one continuous piece
@@timempson2146 Why you shit talking the sonic cruiser? Nothing wrong with the concept, the project was only killed because parasite transplants from Mcdonnal Douglas used the post-9/11 market downturn to cancel it and build a slightly more fuel efficient 767 instead.
The thing is, just like torroidal propellers we're just recycling 50 year old ideas. But thats not a bad idea because this that were difficult to manufacture now could be. The tip vortex occurs because its moving fowards with high pressure on one side and low on the other so you get a swirl. So stop that and no vortex drag and therefore less drag right? It never quite works out to be worth it. Then all design is a compromise you have to put the fuel somewhere and in the wings is already optimal. So one thing gets better another gets worse. Still worth research but doubtful we'll see much change.
I do think their will be a substantial increase in wing loading with this design and that's the main point of this wing. I don't think their will be a folding wing the extra weight and complexity will almost negate any performance gains if the design catches on airports will eventually be redesigned to suit the newer aircraft.
It isn't a redesign issue, you can fit less gates at your airport.
I'm not sure you can quantify NASA's help given to Boeing in financial terms. You can have all the money in the world, just like China has ;-), but without the deep institutional knowledge and armies of researchers and engineers of an organisation like NASA it'd take you many decades to reach the stage where you'd be ready for operational tests of a new wing design. In this case, NASA basically did all the research and initial tests and now it's Boeing taking over the design to make it into a product.
I'm glad that they're looking into this, airplanes of the future must become a lot more efficient and cleaner than today's, but we shouldn't really pretend that it was all "Boeing's" idea, which you aren't, btw. Cheers! Great video. Loved it.
I gotta say, thanks a ton for the videos you make. I have learned so so much about aircraft from your Mentour Pilot videos and these videos. Hats off to you
As a passenger the view out of a high-wing plane is much nicer too.
Not if you want to look at the stars.
This will have the strut blocking some of the view, but less of it. Of course most seats will be in front of or behind the wing anyway - especially with such high aspect ratio wings. This also solves John Nunn's concern - get a seat near the front or back and the wing won't block sky or ground.
@@quillmaurer6563 😭😭😭😭😭😭, you got me 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
This is a good list of issues and benefits of the concept but of course there are many more. For example:
- the engines under the high wing can be potentially larger (higher bypass) and therefore more efficient (I say potentially because the flow through the truss and wing cell needs to be carefully designed and optimized)
- due to larger rolling inertia and not enough space at the tips of the wings, ailerons may need to be larger in span as well as maybe chord. Similarly, the flap mechanisms will require some clever engineering. It's sad to have such a thin and optimized wing and have very large pods hanging underneath creating all this drag...
- cabin noise from the engine may be worse. Also, the truss will generate some noise as well. This may be a more noisy aircraft as a whole. Noise is less easy to predict compared to aero or structures so this remains to be seen. Maybe the efficiency will allow flight with less thrust and that'll reduce the noise significantly.
- some fuel will have to be placed in the fuselage and refueling may be interesting. Also, there is less inertial relief from fuel in the wing so the structure actually needs to be stronger to withstand the larger bending moment. Of course the truss really helps with this.
- the ceiling in the cabin may be lowered near the wing box. This may require some clever cabin design.
- the top of the wing will be harder to inspect. May require airport ground equipment
Overall a very exciting time in aviation history where the leading manufacturers are seriously performing conceptual studies rather than seeking a few percentages in efficiency here and there. Learn more about the other concepts under consideration by NASA: www.nasa.gov/aeroresearch/sustainable-aviation
All very good points! unfortunately, all they’ve done is talk about new designs and show concepts for the past three decades, but have only made small changes here and there. And, as we all know, the experience of flying commercial has only gotten worse. If you can afford to pay for Upgrades to business, or first class, it’s a lot better. But for the rest of us, we are just cattle :-)
Hangar space, engine maintenance, high tailplane, wake turbulence etc
Good to see that parts of the MD-80/90 design are still being put into use.
I think a swing wing might be a better width reduction option than a folding wing. it wouldn't need such a strong flashlight, and if the pivot was built into the truss point, the plane could be narrower at the gate than the current planes.
love me some swing wings. But we will have to see if they can make the wing box strong enough without sacrificing passenger/cargo space and weight. To my understanding swing wings are better used for transitioning through the sound barrier, but are a little on the heavy side for light efficient aircraft which is where the industry is obviously trying to go.
@@Amehdion you're thinking of the variable geometry swing wing. I'm talking about the wwII carrier fighter design
@@kenbrown2808 ah, yeah that would be cool to see.
@@Amehdion had to look up models, and the Grumman Wildcat and the Avenger seem to be the most prominent of that type.
I understand having folding wings (16 meters) for the planes to be able to park at the gate with the current airport fees. However, if 16 meters (or more) unfold when the plane gets to the runway, are the runways going to be able to have that wide of a plane? We have seen accidents that occurred due to the planes being off-center and the wings clipping an obstacle.
Thank you for this channel.
Tall objects are kept far away from runways. The Boeing 777 and 787 have wingspans of about 60 meters. A runway wide enough for the 737 is wide enough for a 787, even if it may not be long enough.
The constraining factor for runway space is margin of error for not flying perfectly straight (and that goes double in low visibility).
But TAXIways are another story; even major hubs have wingspan restrictions on certain taxiways.
Knowledge of high aspect wing performance is not new, just look at old WWII designs. The limiting factor for commercial planes is the fuel storage, when you need to fold a significant part of the wing (not necessarily vertical). I doubt we'll see this in a long time. It was already well known. In the future building airports with aprons in two levels may allow closer parking of long wing aircraft - but it's not in the close future. Keep on thinking boys 😉
Once you said that the strut generated some lift my first thought was that this could be thought of as the revenge of the biplane.
At low speed only…..
This would benefit the entire airline industry. This should be a project for both Boeing and AirBus.
What, because boeing dug up this ancient design? There's a huge number of issues with it, it'd be better airbus pick another path.
Given the Boeing is an absolutely *gargantuan* defence contractor I am always pretty unaccepting of their "we're not getting any advantage, look at how much we are investing!" arguments. Having said that the Max scandal combined with the timing of the pandemic has clearly set their commercial aviation segment back a lot, so while they absolutely are and have been receiving an unfair advantage I think Airbus has a genuine opening in the market at the moment. I do feel that longer term the EU or Europe as a whole will likely be incentivized to ensure Airbus remains competitive one way or another, though we also have to keep in mind that Airbus will *also* more than happily complain if they think it will net them more profits too- regardless of what the *actual* truth is.
Great information , As both a Pilot and Mechanical Engineer, I find myself thoroughly enjoying your videos as they offer incredibly precise and informative content. Your work is truly exceptional, my friend. As an Engineer I believe Im not enjoy so much the 737 since has faced some accidents related to the automated control to avoid loss of weight and balance, particularly in relation to the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) software. This software was designed to automatically adjust the aircraft's angle of attack in certain situations to prevent stalls, which can occur when the aircraft's wing loses lift due to insufficient airspeed or other factors. Additionally, the design of the 737 MAX's engines, which were larger and mounted further forward on the wings than previous 737 models, changed the aerodynamics of the aircraft and increased the risk of stalls in certain flight conditions. The MCAS system was intended to address this risk, but the reliance on a single AOA sensor made the system vulnerable to malfunctions or errors. Yes I know we are talking about new wings design but I saw so much the 737 in this video that that I want just to mention that.
Very interesting, and so informative and clearly presented as always. Thanks as always for the great content!
I know business is always nastier than even the cynics give it credit for but I do think it's a good thing that public research programs help improve our everyday aeronautics. The world is in need of the most efficient aircraft possible. I just wish our world also didn't need so much of these projects to be centered around military.
2 wild thoughts regarding the drag penalty of struts. 1. Fashion struts to promote lift! Is that possible? It might need to be larger (add weight) because that shape bears a lower load than a symmetric one.
2. (If that wasn't crazy, this sure might be:) Retractable struts! Does their necessity remain during cruise phase? What about on smaller craft? Could it leverage the existing systems for gear retraction?
The fuselage doesn’t lose much weight in flight, so you couldn’t really decrease the strength of the wing much just because you got to cruise altitudes.
The struts in this style do add lift. It doesn't make up for the drag though. Yes, they need the struts in cruise. Folding wings exist, including in flight. Yes you can use the hydraulic systems.
Well, that Mad Dog project can only be flown by Howling Mad Murdock in the left seat, and Lt. Reginald Broccoli Barclay in the right seat. Amis and The Keeper can join them in the cockpit, btw
The truss design looks like it would mean a complete structural failure of the entire wing if the plane drops an engine. Wouldn't the engine collide with the truss and cause the entire wing to shear off ?
Re 16:23 and public financial involvement; You are Swedish (I’m Norwegian - no, not the carrier…😅), so we have (or had?) a culture for transparent governmental involvement in business, an industrial policy. Well, every government have economic policies, but during the last 30+ years we’ve told each other that politics should not interfere with anything “private”.
This is a very strange narrative, also for an American or European person - or person speaking for a company. We’ve even legislated bans on subsidies, but in reality politics are hugely involved in both finance (2008, 2020) and industry (military, welfare, civil order). To me, this narrative just points to the lack of transparency - of course politics and business are connected. Some would argue those are more connected than people themselves are to economic policies.
We know that huge leaps in technology and innovation have happened when public and private interests are pooled, not split. NASA, the internet (arpa-net) and the transistor itself are huge examples, all American. We should honour developments for sustainable airliners, but stop telling biased stories about the role or threat of governments in all of this.
After all, a central bank can put new money into our economy, they do all the time for financial growth. So sure, our biggest companies are part of this, when they buy or release state bonds in dollars or euros. We just need to fix the transparency issues, so that we make good choices - also for better aeronautical tech.
Thanks for very exciting insights! 👍
I love that they're using two MD-90's for this project, that the old DC-9 fuselage can still be part of cutting edge new research and development 60+ years later. I read that they have to shorten them, the MD-90 was too long otherwise.
I share this sentiment. My first commercial flight was on a DC-9, so there is definitely some nostalgia here for me.
I wonder why they are using md-90s as opposed to 717s or md-95s
@@thejatomis That is a good question, since the 717 is already 29 ft shorter. Maybe it is hard to find two of the ~50 which have been retired which are also in servicable condition and not parted out. Maybe they just already own the MD-90s so might as well use them, although acquiring other airplanes sounds much simpler than shortening those you already have. But maybe the length they want is longer than 717, and it is more feasible to shorten than lengthen an already-built airframe.
I dunno... struts on a full-size airliner would make me nervous. Fortunately, my "jet-setting" days are over. I loved it back in the day when commercial flights were civilized.
During World War II, the Consolidated B-24 Liberator had high aspect wings letting it fly higher and faster than its stable-mate, the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress. It also had tricycle landing gear where the Boeing bomber was a tail-sitter. The movie actor James Stewart was a pilot of the B-24 during the war.
He was a Colonel I believe .Squadron Commander of the 703rd Bomb Wing flying B24 Liberators . He flew 20 missions in combat. I picked up this information on the net so don’t know how accurate it is . What is accurate he was a Squadron Commander & Flew B24’s out of English fields. He flew B58’s in the mid to late 1950’s
the look of that Transonic wing is absolutely stunning! I love it
As always, we could be way ahead if by engineering alone by now. But as it goes: It's not the wind rushing around the wings that keep an airplane in the air. It's money!
How refreshing to read a comment from somebody with brains.
2 Comments:
1.) Ratio = Ray-She-Oh. Not = Rate-E-Oh.
2.) And, if some-one knows better/different, I would be interested to hear it...
But as far as I know, the only way to make this sort of slim, high aspect ratio, transonic wing work, is with active trailing-edge anti-flutter devices.
And there is no way to make that a fail-to-safe design.
If your active system stops working, then at high speeds and high altitudes, your wing is going to fold up in a heartbeat.
I had an uncle (now deceased) who for many years worked for Boeing in Seattle. I seem to remember a controversial swept wing fighter jet many years ago. Was that project in any way similar to this new wing design? I don’t remember what finally killed that project.
You have heard of Google, right?
@@johnnunn8688 Some people prefer conversation. And also this way all of us get to hear the answer.
One correction: It doesn't "beg" the question; it simply raises it. To beg the question is to answer a question by simply restating the question in different words in the answer. In formal debate, this is considered an error, a logical error.
This isn't actually a correction because "beg the question" is commonly used as a synonym for "raise the question" when the context is not a debate. Indeed, if the context isn't classic logic, it's pretty challenging to find an example of someone using "beg the question" in that sense. Language has evolved, and it is probably a good idea to get used to it instead of whining about it.
Oh good. Biplanes are back!
Boeing and Airbus fight like two siblings over the last scoop of ice cream.
Very interesting and well produced. I suggest a discussion of Boeing's difficulties with their CST-100 Starliner.
A crewed flight for the starliner is planned this year. Sounds like progress to me.
@@mmm0404 Well yes but you are probably aware of the problems they have had. In 2014 when Boeing and SpaceX were selected by NASA to provide crewed flights to ISS, most people expected that newcomer SpaceX would struggle, but that it would be no problem for Boeing considering their decades of aerospace experience. SpaceX had some challenges along the way but they launched astronauts to ISS in 2020.
Meanwhile Boeing's first uncrewed Starliner test flight in December 2019 was a disaster, failing to reach ISS. NASA had until then pretty much left Boeing on its own, but they now took a much more hands-on approach with Boeing, and their investigation into Boeing's practices led to a list of 80 recommendations for changes. Boeing did all of it and repeated the test flight in May 2022, this time successfully. The next Starliner test flight will be with crew.
Meanwhile in two weeks SpaceX will be making it's eighth crewed flight to ISS, and then another one later this year. The earliest Starliner crew rotation mission to ISS won't be until sometime in 2024, assuming that their upcoming test flight to ISS is successful. That's four years later than SpaceX, although to be fair SpaceX already had several years experience with cargo Dragon.
@@StevePemberton2 well spaceX have rockets that can return to site and land on their own. Its a very ambitious company
Their progress over the recent years has been insane. I'm not shocked they managed to pull ahead so quickly.
SpaceX are like the iPhone that arrived latter but still managed to take the market by storm and become a big market player.
Starliner has nothing on Crew/Cargo Dragon, and the delays have been disappointing more especially for such an experienced company but the main reason both were selected is offer some kind of redundancy and systematic backup of having two crew capsules instead of one.
And hey you have to admit that the statliner is one good looking space capsule. I cant wait for e crewed flight.
@@StevePemberton2 Also consider that for OFT-2 and CFT, Starliner is now at the whims of the ISS docking schedule which is pushing dates out farther ever since OFT-2 landed. They really need a 3rd docking port, deconflicting these is going to be a real pain in the future.
@@mmm0404 They definitively need dissimilar redundancy. It's fortunate that Dragon has flown without any problems. Hopefully Starliner goes smoothly. OFT-2 seemed to go well which is a good sign.
I don't agree with folding wings, any mechanism to that effect is going to negate the possible gains. Its the airports that must change.
Years ago many planes had struts and props. It seems like they are going back to struts and props again.
It looks like we'll be landing a big shiny rocket ship on the moon, who'd have thought?! 😄
However, we've been speaking about flying-wings for decades. How would this design compare or compete with the flying-wing design?
Could a future solution to the gate problem with high aspect ratio wings be addressed by revising airport design, perhaps taking passengers to aircraft on the tarmac with electric buses? Maybe the current concept of a gate doesn't mesh well with future aircraft design and the push for more efficient systems?
It really looks like redesign of airports must be considered to keep abreast of aircraft development. Good point Robin.
NASA is one of our greatest investments, It is of course unfortunate how many forget that first A is there. While spaceflight is their flagship identity, They have since the era of being called NACA been vital in the innovations for atmospheric flight. They also helped a lot with the foundations of what is called Crew Resource Management today.
Great video once more! It does make sense for Boeing to wait for something with a much larger efficiency improvements, even if it means waiting it out now, rather than wasting development money in something just marginally better today. Will it work? That is the Billion-dollar question.
People like you discourage innovation and forward progess. Boeing has always been the industry leader in design and improvement, and there is always a good reason to improve. Sitting around and waiting will do nothing for anyone.
@John Ellis I'm as big a fan of Boeing as anyone else. However, there are no technology upgrades available and fully mature today to allow a 737 replacement with any significant efficiency improvements. No OEM is offering anything radical. I don't think a 3% improvement is worth the effort and expense.
No one seemed to mind when NASA was involved in stream lining semi trucks for fuel efficiency.
I love the videos more focused on engineering, please do more if them
I have a question that's probably a dumb one. I'm not a pilot but absolutely love aviation. My question on this wing is. Do the wing struts in this application add to lift and stability? Also do big struts like that make the airplane difficult to keep in a turn?
I should have watched to rest of the video first.
Yes, and they do affect control, partially from struts but also aileron placement.
It would be interesting to see the amount of drag that the brace produces.
I expect they’ll be factoring that in, do you reckon?
@@johnnunn8688 I considered this being about speculation of "I wonder how low drag would be if we would have good enough materials to avoid any braces".
Very informative video, Mentour Pilot. Having wing struts on a high altitude jet doesn't seem to make any practical sense. It looks like it'll generate more disturbance and drag. It's one reason you find wing struts on high-wing prop and turbo prop aircraft.
As for wings without the fairings like the 707, go check out the 747 SP's wing and its flap system.
Reducing induced drag is huge and there aren't many ways to do that besides increase span like this
I am inspired with confidence that Boeing will master this project (sarcasm off)
🤣
With the wing located above fuselage create greater stability than former design.More weight or center of gravity is below wing working horizontal line make it a natural counter force or balancer or stabilizer during flight.
Thanks!
Thank you!
It annoys me that we have to assume that for instance the pricing model at airports cannot change. Skip the folding wings which is costly and probably even prohibitive and park at an a380 gate. If aviation must become more sustainable, airports should be contributing
..
Box wing concepts has been around for decades. For aircrafts currently in service with this wing design, you may look up the WZ-7 UAV.
It's not a box wing, it's a strut braced wing. WZ-7 has a very short wing, even compared to comparable UCAVs like the Global Hawk. The design goals are not even remotely comparable.
@@kilianortmann9979 It's pretty obvious WZ-7's wing design is for structural reasons, where the back half of the wing asts as structural support for the main wing but also generates lift like a biplane. For the Global Hawk's its long and slender wings with extremely high aspect ratio (kudos to American material science for that) is optimized for low speed high endurance and is not suitable for airliners traveling at subsonic speed. If we were to use bracings to increase the wingspan of airliners, I think it's good idea to adopt WZ-7's braced sweep wing where the bracings also generates lift
Just the stylistic changes in major airline manufacturers alone will really change a lot about aviation
it would be cool to see you do a "flight stream " live stream in the air.
but i understand it not allowed due to you being distracted.
Great video and production! Thanks mate
I think you are missing a big thing here. That lower truss almost turns this new design into a sesquiplane. That truss will be generating lift and thus adding length to the wing in the cruise phase increasing its aspect ratio even further.
for the past few weeks I've been looking at this thing and it looks so futurist as a sc fi nerd I can see space craft rated for atmosphere flight using this
Thank you soooo much Petter sir and team🤍💙👍🏼 for bringing this one out.
.
Honest to God, the other day.. when watching ua-cam.com/video/Xm5LYkGHkTc/v-deo.html Scott Manley's video on NASA's plans.. I was literally thinking as to when Mentour team would do some new coverage on the Boom Overture or other newer research on wing designs and so.
.
Very happy that you did!🙇🏻♂️🧡👌🏽
.
Had to pause the video, just to type this.
Now back to the video.🙂
I hope you will find it interesting!
100% i do!🤍👍🏼
Yes this is where I first saw the wing, it's good to see more coverage on it though :)
"Save money wherever they possibly could".... sounds a whole lot like McDonnell Douglas!
The main design feature of jetliner wings was the super critical aerofoil which permits high subsonic cruise near Mn1 before or delaying the transonic drag rise. These wings have deep thickness to chord ratio (thicker wing section) that gives excellent fuel capacity without a drag penalty. Adding another airframe main wing component has its draw backs of areodynamic compability and wing loading transfer paths to contend with. Sounds like the research department is in need of work.
You do know that they go slow on purpose, right!? Adding another jet that can go such and such miles an hour they still not gonna go over the minimum speed they’re going to go way under it you get more money by going there slower!
I made a similar design in a modded version of Kerbal Space Program. Different physics from the real world, but I was surprised how far it glided with engines off. Now if I could just find a mod that includes a working version of the CFM Rise.
So, basically the biplanes are making a return ! 👍 Wont beat a Beech Staggerwing, in the looks department though....😉
Or a Pitts, Stearman, Waco, TravelAir... OK, it won't beat any of them in looks! LOL
@@serg2963 Agree 😉👍 They were soooo cool !
Boeing is a defense contractor. The commercial sector has become a side-hustle
So Cessna was right all along....
Hahaha
The truss braced wing concept presents challenges in the areas of structural loading and drag inducing wing deformation outboard of the truss during flight maneuvers. This could be addressed with variable camber wings for load alleviation function but that would add complexity and weight to the design. As you stated, where to put the fuel presents a challenge for designers. We live in exciting times.
Couldn't they do a low wing design with bracing on top (essentially, flip the wing from the concept) and mount the engines above the wing like the HondaJet?
What do you think would be the benefit of that?
That could have been a possibility, but something must have weighted against that.
@@Jehty_ Retaining engineering and manufacturing methods?
I was wondering that. One consideration is that those above wing struts would be in compression. Structures designed for tension are much simpler and lighter (often just a cable) than structures designed for compression, which have to resist bucking.
I've always thought that adding more bits to a fuselage will create more inteference drag. That's why NASA's lifting body has stubby wings to reduce drag at high speed.
So in this case, if you created a high aspect-ratio wing but support it with struts, wouldn't the wing efficiency get cancelled out by the drag created by the strut?
That was my first reaction too. Additionally, why bother with a swept wing if the strut isn’t swept as well? Critical Mach is just gonna be bottlenecked by the non-swept strut anyway. Waste of time.
I’m thinking this might be yet another patented Boeing&govt money laundering scam.
Very interesting video, thanks!!
Indeed!🙂 it is!
.
.
And what a pleasant surprise to find you here (watching aviation reports).
..
Bonne journée🙂
À bientôt
The low wing design has an advantage, as rare as they are, when it comes to water landings
When it comes to folding wings: it doesn't necessary to have it fold up. They could use a sweep back design
Sweep back design? The important aspect with respect to lift is the face that goes into the air. The swept back design is important when approaching the speed of sound but otherwise it's all losses.
@@Milamberinx I don’t think he was referring to sweeping the wings back when the plane is in the air, but only when on the ground. Still, that seems like it would be a lot more complicated than just folding the wings.
@@Milamberinx John is correct. I was referring to have the folding wings/wing parts sweep back instead of folding up
@@henrikcsuri sorry, I completely misunderstood what you meant. What you're talking about it more usually called "swing wing", it's been used in fighter planes with... mixed results.
@@Milamberinx That's where i got the idea from. I live near the USS Midway museum and they have some pretty cool airplanes onboard
Could we get a break down of how much it costs to run a flight? Like airport fees, pilot fees and so on
I see the keyboard warriors are out
I could Google anything that he does videos for and get the answers quicker. The point is that I want to watch him do a video about the subject. Creators are always asking for video suggestions, I obliged
*yawn* okay bobo
As an A&P and someone who worked the KC 135, C5, and C17 for 19 years how you describe the flap track and flap fairings are wrong. The reason why the KC135 has no external fairing is due to the flaps being on tracks and jack screws which gets covered by the flap itself and cove lip doors when up. On C17s and newer airframes they have massive hydraulic actuators that get housed in the flap fairings.
Are they adopting the way of the gliders regarding wing designs? Also it's wonderful that they test scaled down prototypes as radio controlled airplane models for feasibility. Thus having a real device to simulate flying dynamics 😉
I'll wait for flight tested hardware because I've watched Revolutionary concepts come and go for 60 years
I was googling this like 2 hours ago, but was like nah my favorite Swede is probably gonna make a video about it. ;-)
And here I am!! 💕
Remember DARPA’s XS-1? Boeing won the design competition by promising to put up matching funds, which smaller companies couldn’t afford, for development. Then, after a few years, it dropped the project. Keeping the government money it had received in the interim.
I wouldn’t be surprised if something similar happened here.
The weight of a folding wing mechanism would be roughly comparable to a fuselage clamping system. In other words the fuselage detaches, and like a bus, it goes to the gate while the wing section remains in an uncontested area.
a fuselage clamping systen sounds much more prone to failure though
@TheRookieGamer I worry about the composite to metal interface of folding wing. Maybe there is some really good fasteners and glue. But yes a removable passenger compartment is radical.
For those of us who love aviation and aerospace, please remember Boeing is run strictly for profit, not for advancement of aviation and certainly not aviation safety.
If they took their lobbying budget and put it into R&D they would make amazing new products.
Not designing a new platform this decade?
And experienced engineers retiring sooner than that?
Any remaining questions on their business decisions?