70% fuel consumption reduction would be revolutionary. At 0.9 mach? Even more so.
Highly unlikely to be real.
If this concept had legs I would expect it to have been already gobbled up by one of the major aircraft manufacturers even while the company was in 'stealth mode'.
Not only it's supposed to be 70% more efficient, but it is supposed to be easier to construct. On another article(https://paxex.aero/se-aeronautics-fever-dream/) they are saying they have a "new construction technique" that can build a whole airframe in a week. New, unproven construction technique could be revolutionary in itself - and an uphill certification battle.
Oh and also the engines will be swappable in 30 minutes. And it's so efficient that even though it has two engines, only one will be in use at a time in cruise. So this means they will be close together. This is a safety concern.
Its economy class will be more comfortable than today's economy class too (how can you claim that, that's entirely up to the airlines, unless they won't offer other seating arrangements)
Lots of outlandish claims. Sure, the airline industry has only made very incremental developments over the past few decades and is overly conservative. Probably ripe for disruption. But to claim that you can suddenly leapfrog them on cost, efficiency, construction time and other verticals AT THE SAME TIME... sounds like snake oil to me.
This really makes me wonder how much of the lack of innovation in recent years is regulatory capture.
> If this concept had legs I would expect it to have been already gobbled up by one of the major aircraft manufacturers even while the company was in 'stealth mode'.
The Fermi paradox[0] of innovation. Surly it's possible this is feasible but the incumbent powers are not incentivized to adopt for other reasons.
> But to claim that you can suddenly leapfrog them on cost, efficiency, construction time and other verticals AT THE SAME TIME... sounds like snake oil to me.
Totally. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.
All that said I really hope we can innovate on this front. 70% fuel savings is an insane amount of pollution we can prevent, among other benefits.
Engines close together as a safety concern? I'm not an aerospace engineer but I can't recall that ever being a real concern. It's a safety feature in most cases (less roll in the event of engine failure). The only thing they'd really need is a barrier that is guaranteed to stop a free flying fan blade and a piping design that ensures a fan blade doesn't cut lines to the other engine.
When I was nine, I designed a race car that could go 1000 miles an hour, used only one gallon of gas, and could be piloted by anyone who could sit in the seat and tell the computer where they wanted to go.
I don’t see much in the way of material differences here.
This is the second time I've seen this design posted here, but as far as I can tell, SE Aeronautics is not a real aerospace company, and this jet is pure vaporware. The address on their website is a wedding venue at Mathews Manor. (Probably-not-coincidentally, Tyler Mathews is SE Aeronautics CEO.)
Anyone can throw together a 3D rendering of a jet with extra wings and make all sorts of claims about its performance.
These things often involve a number of newish technologies in the pitch. Using "next gen" engines from existing companies, going composite over more of the aircraft to save weight, using a new shape or in this case more wings.
By the time you stack up the evolutionary stuff - which is going to happen anyway - the revolutionary part isn't that big a deal. And by the time they overcome the challenges of doing a real design, the industry has evolved and the revolutionary concept fades away.
>Anyone can throw together a 3D rendering of a jet with extra wings //
Seems not as the first image either has the wings/wing tips on upside down or is missing the upward facing winglets. I've seen aircraft with upward, both down- and up-ward, but never just downward facing winglets.
This sort of engine arrangement seems likely to suffer with centre of gravity problems? The side scoops feed the rear engine so the top engine could be occluded by the fuselage?
All things considered, not _that_ irrational. For example the flight in Okinawa
> The pilots attempted to use the cockpit escape rope to climb to the ground, but the first officer was knocked off the rope when the number 2 engine and right wing fuel tanks exploded, triggering a large fireball that consumed much of the fuselage. The captain subsequently leapt from the window without using the rope.
Now, would I prefer to have the fuel above me or below me? Probably above. But in the wings away from the cabin does seem a bit safer.
Crazy looking. If they can actually drop fuel consumption by 70%, every passenger and cargo jet in the country will look like that in no time. I'll believe it when I see it, although sketchy drawings (as opposed to a prototype) always make me in favor of a thing.
Seriously, as someone who is not an aerospace designer guy, I would have thought that the turbulence thrown off the front wing would cause problems for the back two (or at least cause them to look radically different).
> can actually drop fuel consumption by 70%, every passenger and cargo jet in the country will look like that in no time.
That is true if it had an actual reduction in total fuel spend over the journey.
This promises a ~70% reduction in rate, which is not the same thing as 70% reduction over distance, unless someone says at the same speed.
For instance, the double-bubble Aurora D8 did get 70% more efficiency out of the aerodynamics but also by cutting the cruise speed from 0.8 mach to 0.72 to make the aero work.
So more efficient per hour, but longer hours of flight which introduces additional spend.
The SUGAR FREEZE did something similar with extra wings under the main wings like a bi-plane, but again with big savings at mach 0.7 and only 10% at mach 0.8. But of course, the real cost shift there was switching the fuel type to something that can be manufactured out of co2+h20 (like pure methane).
70% less fuel doesn't make sense. The energy required to lift and move a certain amount of weight is a known static quantity. The savings would have to be made up entirely in efficiency, and modern plane designs are very efficient.
Reducing fuel usage to that extent based on wing and airframe shape alone seems rather ridiculous.
Lifting and moving mass can take quite little energy compared to actual air travel energy consumption. Lifting 100 kg straight up by 1000 m at the lower bound of physics takes ~1 MJ. But real life air travel comes to 1+ MJ per just horizontal passenger-km.
I am not an aerodynamic engineer but I am an ultralight pilot and work for an aeronautic company, and for me, the design doesn't make much sense.
First, having the fuel in the wings is the most obvious choice, it stabilizes the plane and reduces strain on the wing spar. It makes the choice of 3 short wings instead of a single, longer one, and yet, as seen on gliders, longer wings are generally more efficient. It is probably necessary in order to make them thin (which is good) and strong enough to support, among other things, the fuel that isn't in the wings. And having the wings one behind the other doesn't look great for aerodynamics, I can easily imagine the wingtip vortex of the front wing hitting the back wing on the way down.
It looks like the kind of thing that can do well in a simulation with very well defined parameters but I don't expect it to pass the real world test (or even just a wind tunnel).
Is this something we're actually going to see in reality?
Call me a cynic, but I've seen innovative new designs for commercial planes since I was a kid, yet here we are nearly 25 years later flying planes that look like they're from the 1950s.
If humanity sticks around, I think we (well, not us, but you know what I mean) will eventually see change toward more advanced, more efficient designs. But when you have an effective duopoly of massive incumbents selling aircraft with decades of R&D behind each individual product (and that's on top of the broader academic foundation of aerodynamics and aeronautical engineering they rely on) to an industry with razor-thin margins and zero appetite for risk, that change is going to be slow.
That said, making a habit of flying people and things across long distances seems kind of wasteful and inefficient, and if we do stick around I'd expect us to be making the kinds of decisions that would lead to us doing less of it. But I think we will have aircraft as long as we have industrialized society.
This could be caused by physics. Also, it could be caused by thousands and thousands of engineers working on aerodynamics, jet engine efficiency and of course economics all being totally stupid over those 25 years.
By the way, I know someone who just inherited a few million dollars and is looking for someone to create an account for her to transfer the money to.
This is bonkers. Sorry for the really snarky remark.
This is cool, love to see interesting new designs. Wish the article head touched on feasibility since market economics decide the design of the final product as much as anything, but doesn't make this design any less cool.
This got some quick downvotes, but it's a reasonable concern. Anytime you reduce the takeoff and landing speed [in pursuit of being able to use shorter runways], you reduce the relative margin against unpredicted wind shear. A 20 knot loss of airspeed [windshear] is more "easily" ignored by an airplane with a rotation speed of 145 knots than one that rotates at 100 knots.
Landing aircraft are spaced ~minutes apart to avoid turbulence caused by the plane in front. Surely wings immediately behind on another suffer significant turbulence and reduced lift?
If this or another design could actually reduce fuel requirements by that much, how much closer would we be to full-size battery-electric planes being viable?
Current requirements are pegged at 400 Wh/kg, while current batteries are between 250-280. A major efficiency improvement should put us much closer.
at 0.9mach wing will be in the low pressure/high turbolence area of the wing ahead, especially with how low swept these are. at least the third one is off axes, but still.
also, these are the same guy of the huge ass v shaped thing.
how long has to pass before we can call them the theranos of aviation?
[+] [-] outworlder|4 years ago|reply
Highly unlikely to be real.
If this concept had legs I would expect it to have been already gobbled up by one of the major aircraft manufacturers even while the company was in 'stealth mode'.
Not only it's supposed to be 70% more efficient, but it is supposed to be easier to construct. On another article(https://paxex.aero/se-aeronautics-fever-dream/) they are saying they have a "new construction technique" that can build a whole airframe in a week. New, unproven construction technique could be revolutionary in itself - and an uphill certification battle.
Oh and also the engines will be swappable in 30 minutes. And it's so efficient that even though it has two engines, only one will be in use at a time in cruise. So this means they will be close together. This is a safety concern.
Its economy class will be more comfortable than today's economy class too (how can you claim that, that's entirely up to the airlines, unless they won't offer other seating arrangements)
Lots of outlandish claims. Sure, the airline industry has only made very incremental developments over the past few decades and is overly conservative. Probably ripe for disruption. But to claim that you can suddenly leapfrog them on cost, efficiency, construction time and other verticals AT THE SAME TIME... sounds like snake oil to me.
[+] [-] SaltyBackendGuy|4 years ago|reply
This really makes me wonder how much of the lack of innovation in recent years is regulatory capture.
> If this concept had legs I would expect it to have been already gobbled up by one of the major aircraft manufacturers even while the company was in 'stealth mode'.
The Fermi paradox[0] of innovation. Surly it's possible this is feasible but the incumbent powers are not incentivized to adopt for other reasons.
> But to claim that you can suddenly leapfrog them on cost, efficiency, construction time and other verticals AT THE SAME TIME... sounds like snake oil to me.
Totally. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.
All that said I really hope we can innovate on this front. 70% fuel savings is an insane amount of pollution we can prevent, among other benefits.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
[+] [-] stevehawk|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bradknowles|4 years ago|reply
I don’t see much in the way of material differences here.
[+] [-] qeternity|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChrisGranger|4 years ago|reply
Anyone can throw together a 3D rendering of a jet with extra wings and make all sorts of claims about its performance.
[+] [-] phkahler|4 years ago|reply
By the time you stack up the evolutionary stuff - which is going to happen anyway - the revolutionary part isn't that big a deal. And by the time they overcome the challenges of doing a real design, the industry has evolved and the revolutionary concept fades away.
[+] [-] pbhjpbhj|4 years ago|reply
Seems not as the first image either has the wings/wing tips on upside down or is missing the upward facing winglets. I've seen aircraft with upward, both down- and up-ward, but never just downward facing winglets.
https://calaero.edu/guide-airplane-winglets/
This sort of engine arrangement seems likely to suffer with centre of gravity problems? The side scoops feed the rear engine so the top engine could be occluded by the fuselage?
[+] [-] driverdan|4 years ago|reply
Until they have a real working prototype this isn't that interesting. It seems like they're trying to drum up interest to get funding.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] guardiangod|4 years ago|reply
I'd feel uncomfortable knowing 200k liters of jet fuel are stored above me, no matter how many layers of (self healing) bladders are protecting it.
Irrational, I know.
[+] [-] emidoots|4 years ago|reply
> The pilots attempted to use the cockpit escape rope to climb to the ground, but the first officer was knocked off the rope when the number 2 engine and right wing fuel tanks exploded, triggering a large fireball that consumed much of the fuselage. The captain subsequently leapt from the window without using the rope.
Now, would I prefer to have the fuel above me or below me? Probably above. But in the wings away from the cabin does seem a bit safer.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_120
[+] [-] EricE|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kingsuper20|4 years ago|reply
Seriously, as someone who is not an aerospace designer guy, I would have thought that the turbulence thrown off the front wing would cause problems for the back two (or at least cause them to look radically different).
It's like the flying version of a Tyrrell P34.
[+] [-] gopalv|4 years ago|reply
That is true if it had an actual reduction in total fuel spend over the journey.
This promises a ~70% reduction in rate, which is not the same thing as 70% reduction over distance, unless someone says at the same speed.
For instance, the double-bubble Aurora D8 did get 70% more efficiency out of the aerodynamics but also by cutting the cruise speed from 0.8 mach to 0.72 to make the aero work.
So more efficient per hour, but longer hours of flight which introduces additional spend.
The SUGAR FREEZE did something similar with extra wings under the main wings like a bi-plane, but again with big savings at mach 0.7 and only 10% at mach 0.8. But of course, the real cost shift there was switching the fuel type to something that can be manufactured out of co2+h20 (like pure methane).
[+] [-] manigandham|4 years ago|reply
Reducing fuel usage to that extent based on wing and airframe shape alone seems rather ridiculous.
[+] [-] fulafel|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bch|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GuB-42|4 years ago|reply
First, having the fuel in the wings is the most obvious choice, it stabilizes the plane and reduces strain on the wing spar. It makes the choice of 3 short wings instead of a single, longer one, and yet, as seen on gliders, longer wings are generally more efficient. It is probably necessary in order to make them thin (which is good) and strong enough to support, among other things, the fuel that isn't in the wings. And having the wings one behind the other doesn't look great for aerodynamics, I can easily imagine the wingtip vortex of the front wing hitting the back wing on the way down.
It looks like the kind of thing that can do well in a simulation with very well defined parameters but I don't expect it to pass the real world test (or even just a wind tunnel).
[+] [-] stevehawk|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ta1234567890|4 years ago|reply
So the 70% reduced fuel consumption has not been tested with a built plane on a real flight. Got it.
[+] [-] avereveard|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ravenstine|4 years ago|reply
Call me a cynic, but I've seen innovative new designs for commercial planes since I was a kid, yet here we are nearly 25 years later flying planes that look like they're from the 1950s.
[+] [-] caconym_|4 years ago|reply
That said, making a habit of flying people and things across long distances seems kind of wasteful and inefficient, and if we do stick around I'd expect us to be making the kinds of decisions that would lead to us doing less of it. But I think we will have aircraft as long as we have industrialized society.
[+] [-] firebaze|4 years ago|reply
By the way, I know someone who just inherited a few million dollars and is looking for someone to create an account for her to transfer the money to.
This is bonkers. Sorry for the really snarky remark.
[+] [-] mcphage|4 years ago|reply
The 1950s?! The DC-8's design has been around for at least 75 million years!
[+] [-] m4rtink|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drcoopster|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gloryless|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] altcognito|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sokoloff|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jabbles|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gibolt|4 years ago|reply
Current requirements are pegged at 400 Wh/kg, while current batteries are between 250-280. A major efficiency improvement should put us much closer.
[+] [-] perl4ever|4 years ago|reply
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Caproni_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caproni_Ca.60
[+] [-] avereveard|4 years ago|reply
at 0.9mach wing will be in the low pressure/high turbolence area of the wing ahead, especially with how low swept these are. at least the third one is off axes, but still.
also, these are the same guy of the huge ass v shaped thing.
how long has to pass before we can call them the theranos of aviation?
[+] [-] bladedtoys|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] at_a_remove|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ddoolin|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BitwiseFool|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] citilife|4 years ago|reply
We don't actually know if the final build would even function. This is just a design discussion.