NASA has a plan to "skip a generation" of passenger aircraft design to fight climate change:
After more than 50 years in production, the final 747 is taking to the skies.
Boeing delivered the last 747 ever built to Atlas Air on Tuesday. Aviation enthusiast John Travolta was there and said the plane was the "most well-thought-out and safest aircraft ever built." Richard Branson said "farewell to a wonderful beast" in a Reuters interview, bemoaning the high fuel costs for transatlantic flights on the jumbo jet. Airlines had a similar attitude, as slowing 747 sales reflected higher demand for smaller, more fuel-efficient planes. In fact, sustainability is on Boeing's mind as well.
[...] Unlike cars, you can't simply bolt a battery onto a plane and make it electric. (Making an electric vehicle is more complicated than that, but you get the point.) Improvements to airplanes happen in small increments over the course of decades. Typically, a single-digit reduction in an aircraft's fuel consumption would be meaningful. Boeing says the innovations in the new truss-braced wing concept will amount to a 30 percent reduction. That's exactly the kind of leap NASA wanted to get out of the Sustainable Flight Demonstrator project, which Boeing won.
The big idea behind the transonic truss-braced wing concept is an update to the aircraft configuration, or the plane's architecture. Unlike the low-wing design that dominates the commercial aircraft configuration today, the new Boeing design has wings that stretch over the top of the plane's tubular body. This reduces drag, but it also allows for a wider variety of propulsion systems, from bigger jet engines to exposed propellers. It's also fast. The "transonic" part of the concept's name refers to its ability to fly just shy of the speed of sound, or around 600 miles per hour.
[...] "Lighter-weight materials, better aerodynamics, better propulsion systems, more direct operations," Cobleigh said, "you need all of those together to squeeze as much efficiency out as we can, to make the biggest impact."
Because, again, it's really hard to make airplanes more efficient. And aircraft configuration is just one piece of the puzzle. More efficient propulsion systems and cleaner jet fuel are the other two moving parts that need to fit together. [...]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Kell on Monday February 06, @05:56AM (29 children)
The problem with the aviation industry is that it's hella conservative. 10 years ago famed MIT aeronautics luminary Mark Drela (ok, fine, he's famous if you're in aero circles, natch) set out a design concept for NASA that offered similar aerodynamic improvements called the "double-bubble", which made 30% fuel savings by exploiting surface confirmation techniques, podded engines and integrated lifting body technology. In the time since then, not a single one of those techniques has been used by any airline manufacturer anyway - despite the analytically proven fuel and operational benefits. Why? Because aircraft aren't just a technology product: they are the end point of an entire engineering apparatus optimised to build aircraft in a certain way, to a certain tolerance, at a certain rate to optimise the financial performance of the company building them. Radically retooling to change the way the assembly design operates (not just the design itself, but the structure of fabrication) is expensive: the last time it was done was the incremental piecemeal progression towards CF fuselages, which was first pioneered for combat aircraft. Now, it's possible that the strutted wing will be easier to integrate into the existing tube-and-wing-spar construction process, but I wouldn't hold your breath. The modern airliner is homeomorphic to the Boeing 367-80.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06, @07:29AM (16 children)
Not sure about the "double-bubble" specifically, but a radically different shape of aircraft doesn't only mean changes to how the aircraft is manufactured (this is a relatively easy to solve problem), it also could mean substantial changes to how they are operated, possibly to the extent of requiring entirely new airports to be built for them (a much harder to solve problem).
For an example of how considerations like this can affect a real-world aircraft design, just take a look at the absurdly complex-looking folding wings on the 777X, which is pretty much just so the plane will be able to use all the same taxiways and parking spots that the older 777s can.
This is probably one of the reasons why we don't see anything like a flying wing type aircraft in commercial aviation, but we do see them in military applications. Just imagine trying to move a jet bridge up to something shaped like an oversized B2 bomber.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PiMuNu on Monday February 06, @08:50AM (13 children)
It's also worth adding that significant retooling has not just cost implications, but also implications for reliability/safety. A single mistake can kill people (and send the manufacturers bankrupt).
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday February 06, @02:29PM (12 children)
It's risk, risk is well characterized for the current designs therefore they can "tighten the window" on cost estimates. New designs lack the data for tight risk characterization, therefore they estimate costs on the high side to mitigate.
Consider also: when the current designs were being rolled out, the cost to an airline for accidentally killing a passenger was around $10,000. Life isn't so cheap anymore.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday February 06, @03:45PM (11 children)
Right exactly that. It is one of those things where (ironically) a large outfit like Boeing or Airbus can't afford to take the risk, whereas a small disruptive outfit absolutely can.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday February 06, @04:42PM (10 children)
Yeah, except a "small disruptive" company that can field even a 737 competitor needs 10s of Billions of backing if they're going to strike out into seriously new territory and not just reuse all the same things that Boeing and Airbus do.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday February 06, @09:48PM (9 children)
Like a Tesla or SpaceX?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday February 06, @10:28PM (8 children)
That's the general idea... got any more Musks in your back pocket? He's stretched a little thin ATM.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 07, @03:12AM (7 children)
8 billion of them technically. Tens of billions of capital doesn't grow on trees, but it's something we already have as well. My take is that the real obstacles are political - a combination of regulatory obstacles and government subsidy.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 07, @04:16AM
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday February 07, @02:01PM (5 children)
Technically only a handful of those 8B have Musk level resources to direct as they choose, and even though there may be ~250 out there with 10 Billion or more in net worth, the vast majority of them fall in the pucker up and hold on tight to 90+% of that money until they die category.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 07, @02:15PM (4 children)
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday February 07, @03:43PM (3 children)
Yep, we'll all have hundreds of thousands of employees, any day now.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday February 09, @01:50AM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday February 09, @02:39AM (1 child)
Indeed. Now, are you paying yours a living wage?
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 0, Redundant) by khallow on Thursday February 09, @05:54AM
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday February 06, @01:53PM
>Just imagine trying to move a jet bridge up to something shaped like an oversized B2 bomber.
Initially, they can dock at the ends of the concourses, much as the biggest jets do now anyway.
If they prove cost efficient enough, you could run little automated buses on scissor lifts out to the jets on the open tarmac, just have to provide fuel and other services out there.
What is harder to imagine is every step of the supply chain giving up their secure income and bonuses in exchange for a costly and potentially risky retooling.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by driverless on Tuesday February 07, @04:50AM
And how it's certified, and pilot training. Look at the 737 MAX debacle for a case study on where this leads.
Given that Boeing is involved in both of those, I think this would make it even less likely to go ahead because no-one will want to stick their neck out more than a few mm.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday February 06, @03:06PM (3 children)
What does aircraft design have to do with drugstores in Florida? Let me illustrate:
Like the airline industry, drug stores in Florida have a well developed business model - meaning: they can predict with a fair degree of accuracy when construction of a new drug store will be profitable. Even though this model is well developed, it still has a certain margin for error when moving into new areas, apparently due to this the financiers usually demand a greater than 2x safety margin before starting construction. What this means is: when venturing a drug store into new territory, they wait until the projections say there will be enough business in that location to support two stores before they construct the first one. They usually get these predictions right, providing a nice safe ROI for their financiers, but... also, it means that once they have constructed a new drug store where there were none before, their competitor will sit in the parking lot, count people walking in and out of the store, and with this additional data in hand they can safely predict whether building another drug store across the street will also be profitable. Due to the typical safety margins demanded, there almost always is enough business to support the 2nd store, so the 2nd store is also built, both making an acceptable ROI to the investors. It's silly, but readily observable all over Florida, especially in areas developed since the 1990s. (I understand from a friend in Grand Junction Colorado, it's not like this out there...)
So, even with 30% improvement in fuel costs, what's the risk? Unlike drug stores, there's a whole chain of decision makers who will have to sign on for the additional risk of a new aircraft design. It was much the same in the auto industry with the piston engine until very recently. Your brave "job creator" overlords really are a bunch of chicken-shits when it comes to risking their fortunes on anything as trivial as a 30% reduction in fuel consumption. Their lesser wanna-be fortune hoarders won't even risk a few hundred thousand on construction of a new drug store until they have a huge safety margin on that investment.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Monday February 06, @06:28PM (1 child)
Nooo!!! "Trickle-down economics" doesn't work? Ronald Reagan is rolling over in his grave.
</sarcasm>
Sarcasm aside, it's not just chickens, but many of the wealthy but have no fire / drive / inspiration. Many invest in various mutual funds, VC funds, etc., but again, it's not usually someone with inspiration and drive in the particular market.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday February 06, @08:56PM
IMO the "magic" of .com in the late 1990s was that it inspired the rich to get off their asses and invest in something. Then, of course, every two bit day trader mortgaged their house, cars, clothing, etc. and went "all in" after 'em, but they pale in comparison to the investor we were chasing in his yacht in the South Pacific - that one guy controls more investment capital than all the day traders in Delaware.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday February 07, @01:58PM
In other words, risk taking isn't sufficiently rewarded. This is one of the fruits of a society that stamps out risk wherever it appears.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by mcgrew on Monday February 06, @03:25PM (3 children)
The problem with the aviation industry is that it's hella conservative.
That's a feature, not a bug. A bug is like that airplane that two of crashed six months apart a couple of years ago. No, I WANT a conservative design in ANY transportation I use. I don't want any hot shot bleeding edge technology when the blood is spurting from my arteries, which is what you get with a dangerous machine built recklessly.
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 2, Informative) by RS3 on Monday February 06, @06:35PM (1 child)
I assume you're referring to the Boeing 737MAX with MCAS. The irony is that in a way, they were trying to make the plane simpler and safer with the MCAS system / software. Obviously was a very slipshod effort, including the lack of FAA's deep involvement, testing, design review, and test and performance data review (meaning, there were many reported problems with MCAS before the first crash and (far too) little was done.)
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07, @05:43AM
I doubt he was. He said conservative. So he couldn't have been referring to a design with no redundancies for critical systems: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/a-lack-of-redundancies-on-737-max-system-has-baffled-even-those-who-worked-on-the-jet/ [seattletimes.com]
(Score: 2) by Kell on Monday February 06, @11:07PM
It's a fair comment, but the problem of conservatism I refer to here is not one cause by focus on safety; aircraft manufacturers know how to build safe planes, including experimental ones (even if Boeing showed that they sometimes ignore best practice to make a buck). The problem of conservatism is one about money invested in processes and plants at the cost of changes that can benefit operators and ultimately passengers. I'm confident that adding a wingspar to an airframe will not compromise safety (source: all the other aircraft with wingspars), and I'm confident that lifting body designs are also very safe (source: all the other aircraft with lifting bodies) - these approaches have been used since the 60s and even earlier. While I agree that we should ensure our aircraft manufacturers are conservative around safety, we should also expect them to appropriately adapt to and adopt new technology. Otherwise, we accept technological stagnation under the mantle of "proven safety".
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Monday February 06, @07:38PM
Not really, just look what happened with those upgraded 737 max planes that crashed due to changes in the location of the engines, the software to make it work and a lack of training.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Tuesday February 07, @03:42AM (2 children)
It sounds like you know a bit about planes, or maybe someone else knows the answer to this: golf balls have the little dimples that somehow make them more aerodynamic. Would that work for large aircraft? At least maybe on leading edges?
(Score: 3, Informative) by RS3 on Tuesday February 07, @03:49AM (1 child)
Yeah, sorry, nevermind. Quick web search reveals the dimples cause a a thin layer of turbulence which being somewhat uniform, helps the ball go straighter. Additionally the backspin on the ball helps loft it more, so you end up with longer trajectory. But the dimples actually cause drag, and some windtunnel tests show they could cause a 30% drag on an aircraft. No good.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07, @05:55AM
Maybe try these instead:
https://physicsworld.com/a/shark-inspired-aerofoil-improves-lift-and-reduces-drag/ [physicsworld.com]
https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/sharks-rays/biomimicry-shark-denticles [si.edu]
See also:
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996SPIE.2779...83F/abstract [harvard.edu]
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997RSPSA.453.2229C/abstract [harvard.edu]
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/swordfish-secrete-oil-may-let-them-swim-faster-180959723/ [smithsonianmag.com] (e.g. emit air to "lubricate" airflow or modify boundary layer).
(Score: 1) by shrewdsheep on Monday February 06, @11:39AM (1 child)
That's all fine and dandy, except, you also need an MCAS.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Kell on Monday February 06, @12:34PM
MCAS has made at least two impacts so far...
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Monday February 06, @03:13PM (2 children)
On the contrary: just like cars, you can bolt a battery onto a plane and make it an extremely crappy electric plane. And just like cars, good electric planes will be designed from the ground up to be electric.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday February 06, @06:04PM (1 child)
>And just like cars, good electric planes will be designed from the ground up to be electric.
Depends on what you call a "good" car... cost no object, sure... I can open a catalog today and put together a 1000V battery roller-skate, independent motors for all 4 wheels, etc. and come up with a $150K+ electric beast with performance and range unmatched by anything with a 50 liter petrol tank or smaller.
On the other hand, if your definition of a "good" car includes "affordable" - just sticking a battery pack and a smallish motor into an existing layout is going to make the affordable electric vehicles for the next many years.
Of course, the elephant on the tarmac is: electric planes are super easy to make too heavy to fly.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 08, @03:31AM
The other elephant is that most electric planes based on current tech will be propeller based and the cruising speeds for these are lower than the cruising speed for jets:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fastest_propeller-driven_aircraft [wikipedia.org]
And what's the range at 700kph?
Does the transonic stuff mentioned in the article really apply to electric prop aircraft or to those powered by jet engines?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ElizabethGreene on Monday February 06, @03:44PM (2 children)
The 640 Billion dollar question is "Does the retirement of Dennis Muilenburg and the reorg mean the company's culture has shifted enough that we can trust them to make safe aircraft again?"
I don't have sufficient evidence to answer that.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RS3 on Monday February 06, @06:42PM (1 child)
From what I've read of the MAX / MCAS crashes, FAA is largely to blame. I don't get the feeling they really tested the MCAS system very well. Real-world flight test is great, but you need to test the system throughout the ranges of inputs and conditions, not just some normal ideal everything working nominally conditions.
As I mentioned above, many pilots reported, and FDR (Flight Data Recorder) data showed some severe behavior by MCAS, but little was done by Boeing or FAA.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 08, @03:35AM
How is the FAA largely to blame? If Boeing's plane crashes due to bad design ( https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/a-lack-of-redundancies-on-737-max-system-has-baffled-even-those-who-worked-on-the-jet/ [seattletimes.com] ) then Boeing is mostly to be blamed it doesn't matter even if the FAA doesn't test it at all.
If a kitchen produces crap unsafe food the kitchen is to be blamed even if no 3rd party food critic/regulator ever eats/test the food and tells them it's crap.
How much did Boeing pay you to shill for them anyway?