BWBs are tempting, but let me state the usual cons mentioned for them.
- More passengers sit farther from the longitudinal axis, and consequently experience larger vertical accelerations from turbulence, as well as normal banking maneuvers.
- More passengers are farther from the windows.
- No great place to put a high bypass turbofan.
I'm hopeful that one eventually gets built though, it'll be interesting how these pan out.
I’m not sure it’s a big problem: I took a flight in business class of A380, and it was a bit of surreal experience: you are so far from the window, and there are so many partitions, that basically there could have been no window at all and experience would be the same. It was a bit spooky, but turned out fine in practice. On regular flights people actively close shades to use entertainment system, so everyone used not to having windows now.
Perhaps the baggage would be placed at the extreme ends, which should reduce the leverage that people moving about would have on the roll axis.
That does exacerbate the window issue, but honestly the last times that I've flown myself and my children seemed to be the only people looking out the windows anyway. Everybody else has a small screen shining in their face for almost the entire flight.
One more: the classical tube fuselage is much cheaper/easier/more efficient to build, because it consists largely of identical segments. Plus it's much easier to build shortened/lengthened versions of an existing airplane.
From what I can tell of the passenger airline business over the last few decades, lots of people will say that they would never fly in such an aircraft because of those things, and it wouldn't be true.
Lower cost - they'll fly. Over and over and over, lower cost? They'll fly.
Price. Price. Price. That's what passengers show they care about through their actions. They like to pretend, we all like to pretend, but the evidence is clear.
I think the airlines will find a way to turn these problems into advantages.
- Passengers won't have "normal" seats far from the plane's central axis. The distal axis seats will contain steward seating, bathrooms, additional storage, and maybe even a small lounge.
- Windows on planes are dirty and small. You're also dealing with more noise and vibration being closer to the frame and engines.
- I don't know enough about turbofans, where can I learn more about the bypass limitations?
... One unresolved question is whether such a plane would have windows or use video screens to give passengers a sense of their surroundings.
Another issue that has dogged such experiments in the past is how to handle sensations of movement.
Because passengers would be sitting further out from the center of the aircraft, compared to the classic ‘tube and wings’ model, they would move further when the aircraft turns. Rival Boeing has put more weight on a potential cargo role.
In a way windows are more of a psychological problem I think. They are already quite small and not that reachable for most passengers, but closing an option is tough.
Would it be possible to have at least roof windows for natural light or then it's not worth the bother?
Aren't these maneuvers done such that the local acceleration for all the passengers remains pointing straight toward the bottom of the plane, so that if they close their eyes they don't feel like they are tipping at all? Why can't this continue to work for BWB?
I also don't really understand the turbulence issue. Do planes typically roll during turbulence? My experience has been mostly vertical vibrations.
Global flying demand has been increasing[0] year-on-year and is estimated to continue increasing[1] into the foreseeable future, partly due to flying subsidies provided by many countries[2] to encourage tourism, etc. If you are alluding to a problem of people flying too often, I would work towards eliminating these subsidies first.
There is talk of a "Frequent Flier" tax that could be used to address this.
Currently 70% of the flights are made by 15% of the population (1). If you start adding increasing taxes on each additional flight you take, it would rapidly curtail a lot of the travel I'd expect.
I am sure a lot of us in Europe (and perhaps USA? Not sure if it is as prevalent) in the past have been guilty of taking a "weekend break" somewhere that is a 1 or 2 hr flight away where the tickets usually cost something like £30-40 return on Easyjet or Ryanair (and often cheaper than a taxi to get to the airport!)
E.g. after 2 flights a year, start adding £50 per flight (so 3rd is +£50, 4th +£100, 5th +£150 etc etc). Suddenly your £30 return flight from London to Lisbon/Rome/Dublin/Barcelona/Berlin etc is no longer so absurdly cheap. Put all the proceeds from the tax into decarbonisation and fast intercity rail.
That would soon make people (myself included) think twice about taking "frivolous" city-breaks every month or so where you fly out after work on a Friday and come home again Sunday night ready to be back at your desk on Monday morning.
AFAIU currently kerosene is very lightly taxed, if at all. If there is taxation of fuel or fuel-based payments for airlines, it will be reflected on ticket prices more than currently.
So the airlines can claw some of that back by introducing more efficient planes. But they will be expensive to develop and build, which is again reflected in ticket prices.
a) Flying is basically the only practical option for long-distance travel (edit: by which I mean humans travelling to be at a destination, not cargo/goods).
b) Travel is a hugely important good for society (debatable, but consider: experience of diverse cultures, being able to visit friends / have relationships, generation of economic value by skill sharing / conferences / etc).
I would argue that anything that increases the amount people are flying / lowers barriers to travel is a good thing.
Obviously if we can lower carbon emissions from airlines then we should, but I'd much rather curtail ANY other industry that produces huge amounts of emissions before trying to cut down on human travel.
So Jevons paradox is garbage, it's neither true nor is there evidence it would be applicable here even if it was true.
Moving on.... you're playing with words, they are talking about specific flights.
At to a global level it might be a 15% reduction or maybe 18% for these specific flight routes. But they make no claim to know that figure. It's hard to know. They just are presenting facts.
And for the 2% or 5% or whatever difference to the 20%, that's people making flights that couldn't before. That's people exploring the world. That has amazing value as well. It's not just 'less than 20%'
This kind of design could be extremely important as a way to make enough room on board for hydrogen fuel tankage.
The mass/energy ratio of hydrogen makes it an extremely attractive aviation fuel. Its lower volumetric density has made it impractical with current designs, for most potential uses. Lifting bodies enable an elegant resolution to that problem. After some time it may be considered uneconomical to fly the old submarines-with-wings airframes.
The window issue is a red herring -- if leaving them out saves money people will continue to buy the cheaper tickets. The airlines have proven that over the past couple of decades.
As for vertical motion, perhaps the same applies: first class will be in the middle; economy passengers farther out, and fuel, baggage and crew areas will be farthest from the centre.
The problem the airlines face is they are effectively massively subsidize with tax cuts on fuels and duty free status at airports etc plus their free environmental dumping of huge amounts of C02.
Air travel and freight is, by and large, is a luxury. Yet people are willing to let the world burn rather than give it up. I'm sure someone will tell me there is some scientific name for such illogical behavior.
From the model showing in the video, the aircraft has 2 vertical stabilizer mounted engines ala trijets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trijet). Barring some smaller jets, this design has ceased in most large airliners for multiple reasons, one of them being the crash of United Flight 232(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232) where the Vert stabilizer mounted engine suffered an explosive dis-integration which in turn structurally damaged the tail sections as well as its hydraulic control lines, rendering the vert stab uncontrollable.
My guess would be the present design has many more significant iterations left.
You do not really spend much time in cabin - you are either outside the ship during stops or in restaurants/bars/deck/pool during sea time. Inside cabins are often amazing value and work well if you do not have kids.
Boeing was looking at such designs around the time of the 787 program.
Whoever does manufacture one of these, I will bet you any amount of money that window seats will be at a large price premium, possibly even only for first class passengers.
[+] [-] inamberclad|6 years ago|reply
- More passengers sit farther from the longitudinal axis, and consequently experience larger vertical accelerations from turbulence, as well as normal banking maneuvers.
- More passengers are farther from the windows.
- No great place to put a high bypass turbofan.
I'm hopeful that one eventually gets built though, it'll be interesting how these pan out.
[+] [-] vl|6 years ago|reply
I’m not sure it’s a big problem: I took a flight in business class of A380, and it was a bit of surreal experience: you are so far from the window, and there are so many partitions, that basically there could have been no window at all and experience would be the same. It was a bit spooky, but turned out fine in practice. On regular flights people actively close shades to use entertainment system, so everyone used not to having windows now.
[+] [-] dotancohen|6 years ago|reply
That does exacerbate the window issue, but honestly the last times that I've flown myself and my children seemed to be the only people looking out the windows anyway. Everybody else has a small screen shining in their face for almost the entire flight.
[+] [-] rob74|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] EliRivers|6 years ago|reply
Lower cost - they'll fly. Over and over and over, lower cost? They'll fly.
Here's Forbes on it back in 2015; https://www.forbes.com/sites/airchive/2015/01/14/actually-ai... , and here's someone else on it in 2016; https://www.businessinsider.com.au/scandinavian-airline-sas-... , and someone else in 2017 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-what-us-airline-pass...
Price. Price. Price. That's what passengers show they care about through their actions. They like to pretend, we all like to pretend, but the evidence is clear.
[+] [-] jonathanpoulter|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jdonaldson|6 years ago|reply
- Passengers won't have "normal" seats far from the plane's central axis. The distal axis seats will contain steward seating, bathrooms, additional storage, and maybe even a small lounge.
- Windows on planes are dirty and small. You're also dealing with more noise and vibration being closer to the frame and engines.
- I don't know enough about turbofans, where can I learn more about the bypass limitations?
[+] [-] danmaz74|6 years ago|reply
... One unresolved question is whether such a plane would have windows or use video screens to give passengers a sense of their surroundings.
Another issue that has dogged such experiments in the past is how to handle sensations of movement.
Because passengers would be sitting further out from the center of the aircraft, compared to the classic ‘tube and wings’ model, they would move further when the aircraft turns. Rival Boeing has put more weight on a potential cargo role.
[+] [-] mrfusion|6 years ago|reply
And otherwise you could have a cool hang out / lounge with nice pa Aramaic windows and everyone could have turns sightseeing.
[+] [-] emiliobumachar|6 years ago|reply
Economy-minus section?
[+] [-] continuations|6 years ago|reply
Why is that a con? Seems to me most people don't like window seats & want aisle seats.
[+] [-] hawski|6 years ago|reply
Would it be possible to have at least roof windows for natural light or then it's not worth the bother?
[+] [-] Yizahi|6 years ago|reply
This especially. USSR Tu-154 with a 3rd engine in this spot was very affected by aerodynamic shadow from a airplane body at certain angles.
[+] [-] throwaway55554|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ragebol|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fnordfnordfnord|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jessriedel|6 years ago|reply
Aren't these maneuvers done such that the local acceleration for all the passengers remains pointing straight toward the bottom of the plane, so that if they close their eyes they don't feel like they are tipping at all? Why can't this continue to work for BWB?
I also don't really understand the turbulence issue. Do planes typically roll during turbulence? My experience has been mostly vertical vibrations.
[+] [-] abyssin|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] glenneroo|6 years ago|reply
[0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/193533/growth-of-global-...
[1]: https://www.iata.org/contentassets/d4b60cffceeb4213bb5993d5f...
[2]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318691221_Subsidies...
[+] [-] mattlondon|6 years ago|reply
Currently 70% of the flights are made by 15% of the population (1). If you start adding increasing taxes on each additional flight you take, it would rapidly curtail a lot of the travel I'd expect.
I am sure a lot of us in Europe (and perhaps USA? Not sure if it is as prevalent) in the past have been guilty of taking a "weekend break" somewhere that is a 1 or 2 hr flight away where the tickets usually cost something like £30-40 return on Easyjet or Ryanair (and often cheaper than a taxi to get to the airport!)
E.g. after 2 flights a year, start adding £50 per flight (so 3rd is +£50, 4th +£100, 5th +£150 etc etc). Suddenly your £30 return flight from London to Lisbon/Rome/Dublin/Barcelona/Berlin etc is no longer so absurdly cheap. Put all the proceeds from the tax into decarbonisation and fast intercity rail.
That would soon make people (myself included) think twice about taking "frivolous" city-breaks every month or so where you fly out after work on a Friday and come home again Sunday night ready to be back at your desk on Monday morning.
1 - https://fullfact.org/economy/do-15-people-take-70-flights/
[+] [-] lorenzhs|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Gravityloss|6 years ago|reply
AFAIU currently kerosene is very lightly taxed, if at all. If there is taxation of fuel or fuel-based payments for airlines, it will be reflected on ticket prices more than currently.
So the airlines can claw some of that back by introducing more efficient planes. But they will be expensive to develop and build, which is again reflected in ticket prices.
[+] [-] azepoi|6 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
[+] [-] Erlich_Bachman|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kohtatsu|6 years ago|reply
More subtly though, yes you are right; we need to dedicate some money to carbon offsets and not pass all of the savings to passengers.
[+] [-] acchow|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ekimekim|6 years ago|reply
a) Flying is basically the only practical option for long-distance travel (edit: by which I mean humans travelling to be at a destination, not cargo/goods).
b) Travel is a hugely important good for society (debatable, but consider: experience of diverse cultures, being able to visit friends / have relationships, generation of economic value by skill sharing / conferences / etc).
I would argue that anything that increases the amount people are flying / lowers barriers to travel is a good thing.
Obviously if we can lower carbon emissions from airlines then we should, but I'd much rather curtail ANY other industry that produces huge amounts of emissions before trying to cut down on human travel.
[+] [-] diffeomorphism|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MarkMc|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PunchTornado|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrfusion|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aaron695|6 years ago|reply
Moving on.... you're playing with words, they are talking about specific flights.
At to a global level it might be a 15% reduction or maybe 18% for these specific flight routes. But they make no claim to know that figure. It's hard to know. They just are presenting facts.
And for the 2% or 5% or whatever difference to the 20%, that's people making flights that couldn't before. That's people exploring the world. That has amazing value as well. It's not just 'less than 20%'
[+] [-] ncmncm|6 years ago|reply
The mass/energy ratio of hydrogen makes it an extremely attractive aviation fuel. Its lower volumetric density has made it impractical with current designs, for most potential uses. Lifting bodies enable an elegant resolution to that problem. After some time it may be considered uneconomical to fly the old submarines-with-wings airframes.
[+] [-] gumby|6 years ago|reply
As for vertical motion, perhaps the same applies: first class will be in the middle; economy passengers farther out, and fuel, baggage and crew areas will be farthest from the centre.
[+] [-] DrScientist|6 years ago|reply
Over a hundreds times better than air....
The problem the airlines face is they are effectively massively subsidize with tax cuts on fuels and duty free status at airports etc plus their free environmental dumping of huge amounts of C02.
Air travel and freight is, by and large, is a luxury. Yet people are willing to let the world burn rather than give it up. I'm sure someone will tell me there is some scientific name for such illogical behavior.
[+] [-] rsynnott|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] darrenf|6 years ago|reply
And the Shell Oil concept plane model at Manchester's science museum: https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co84138...
[+] [-] batsy71|6 years ago|reply
My guess would be the present design has many more significant iterations left.
[+] [-] ceejayoz|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrfusion|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smm2000|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] emayljames|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hinkley|6 years ago|reply
Whoever does manufacture one of these, I will bet you any amount of money that window seats will be at a large price premium, possibly even only for first class passengers.
[+] [-] dver|6 years ago|reply
http://wingco.com/
[+] [-] jaggednad|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sgt101|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tiatia|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] pizza|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JohnJamesRambo|6 years ago|reply
I wonder if 737 Max is making them rethink this already. I love how it looks though.
[+] [-] rwmj|6 years ago|reply