This Is the Airliner of the Future—According to Northrop Grumman
53 replies, posted
[release]
[IMG]http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/01/17/ERA%20Airliner%20560.jpg[/IMG]NASA two years ago challenged three aircraft makers -- Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman -- to design a next-generation airliner. Boeing's and Lockheed's designs have been[URL="http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/nasa-reveals-three-visions-for-a-future-airliner-351965/"][B]revealed before[/B][/URL]. Northrop's concept finally was unveiled last week at the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics Sciences Meeting in Nashville.
It's the first airliner optimized for radar cross section! (Well, that's one way for airlines to get around slot restrictions at LHR.)
Seriously, NASA originally planned to analyze all three concepts and select a single design to build a 737-sized subscale test vehicle. That programme is now on hold due to funding cutbacks.
But Northrop is unlikely to walk away from the concept forever. Company officials emailed us another another image showing a concept for a next-generation military airlifter based on the same technology. In two decades, the USAF will likely need to start replacing the Lockheed Martin C-5A fleet. It's a requirement already being eyed by Boeing with the subscale [URL="http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/research/X-48B/index.html"][B]X-48 blended wing body[/B][/URL], and by Lockheed with the [URL="http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/09/images-lockheeds-stealth-c-130.html"][B]Speed Agile[/B][/URL] concept. It's now clear that Northrop plans to compete for the contract, if it ever comes.
[IMG]http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/01/17/ERA%20Cargo%20Aircraft%20560.jpg[/IMG][/release]
[URL]http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/01/pictures-northrop-adapts-b-2s.html[/URL]
Interesting
I wonder if flying wings will really ever catch on for mass production, they require A TON of computer assistance to maintain proper balance and such. Way more shit can go wrong.
It looks like a triangle.
I don't trust triangles.
Aw come on, the [url=http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/nasa-reveals-three-visions-for-a-future-airliner-351965/]other proposed designs[/url] are all cool and unique and modern, and this is pretty much a B-2 Spirit that carries more people.
Cool as flying wings are, I don't think so.
[QUOTE=ice445;34271276]I wonder if flying wings will really ever catch on for mass production, they require A TON of computer assistance to maintain proper balance and such. Way more shit can go wrong.[/QUOTE]
Aerodynamically it looks pretty good, catches the wind well, saves money fuel wise, stays balanced. It also looks safer to crash land. But I don't know why I think so, but I just feel like it won't ever be made.
[QUOTE=CertainDOOM;34271311]Cool as flying wings are, I don't think so.[/QUOTE]
Ehh actually whatever works and is an improvement over current 747-style airliners should be adopted.
But I think people like to have windows on their planes.
[quote]
It's the first airliner optimized for radar cross section! (Well, that's one way for airlines to get around slot restrictions at LHR.)[/quote]
:v:
[QUOTE=mac338;34271335]But I think people like to have windows on their planes.[/QUOTE]
I think my mother would actually get on a plane if she couldn't look out.
[QUOTE=mac338;34271335]But I think people like to have windows on their planes.[/QUOTE]
Shit wait there's no windows? Fuck that shit
... But again I calm myself down and remind myself that whatever is more efficient...
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;34271325]Ehh actually whatever works and is an improvement over current 747-style airliners should be adopted.[/QUOTE]
I just can't see them being suited to anything outside of military service.
There are other designs similar to this that feature windows, fear not!
Why would you want windows anyway, there's no way you'll see over those wings
[QUOTE=Ignhelper;34271224][release]
[IMG]http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/01/17/ERA%20Airliner%20560.jpg[/IMG]NASA two years ago challenged three aircraft makers -- Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman -- to design a next-generation airliner. Boeing's and Lockheed's designs have been[URL="http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/nasa-reveals-three-visions-for-a-future-airliner-351965/"][B]revealed before[/B][/URL]. Northrop's concept finally was unveiled last week at the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics Sciences Meeting in Nashville.
It's the first airliner optimized for radar cross section! (Well, that's one way for airlines to get around slot restrictions at LHR.)
Seriously, NASA originally planned to analyze all three concepts and select a single design to build a 737-sized subscale test vehicle. That programme is now on hold due to funding cutbacks.
But Northrop is unlikely to walk away from the concept forever. Company officials emailed us another another image showing a concept for a next-generation military airlifter based on the same technology. In two decades, the USAF will likely need to start replacing the Lockheed Martin C-5A fleet. It's a requirement already being eyed by Boeing with the subscale [URL="http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/research/X-48B/index.html"][B]X-48 blended wing body[/B][/URL], and by Lockheed with the [URL="http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/09/images-lockheeds-stealth-c-130.html"][B]Speed Agile[/B][/URL] concept. It's now clear that Northrop plans to compete for the contract, if it ever comes.
[IMG]http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/01/17/ERA%20Cargo%20Aircraft%20560.jpg[/IMG][/release]
[URL]http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/01/pictures-northrop-adapts-b-2s.html[/URL]
Interesting[/QUOTE]
Judging by the size of the cockpit there, this plane would be larger than the AN 225.. By quite a bit
How safe are these compared to "conventional" aroplanes, how much more do they cost to run, are the more efficent, how many people can go on one plane, how much to make per plane, are the practical?
[QUOTE=mac338;34271321]Aerodynamically it looks pretty good, catches the wind well, saves money fuel wise, stays balanced. It also looks safer to crash land. But I don't know why I think so, but I just feel like it won't ever be made.[/QUOTE]
Flying wings are about as aerodynamic as a brick. Look up the YB-49 and why it sucked. If it was not for the computers in the B-2 bomber, it would be an absolute pain in the ass to fly.
if that's the future then I should find another line of work. Those flying wings are cool looking but awful
Those thing would be hogs at an airport runway. it looks so wide.
[QUOTE=Whomobile;34272333]Those thing would be hogs at an airport runway. it looks so wide.[/QUOTE]
Launch them sideways and you could put like 40 of them on a runway!
[QUOTE=Zeke129;34272414]Launch them sideways and you could put like 40 of them on a runway![/QUOTE]
It's a shame you cant generate lift by doing that.
Attach SRB's to them and take them off vertically. You could put like 400 of them on a runway!
I like Airbus' design idea the most imo:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5K1ZDs-li0[/media]
[QUOTE=GoldenDargon;34272467]I like Airbus' design idea the most imo:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5K1ZDs-li0[/media][/QUOTE]
Fraid we'll get warp drive far before anything like that.
In other news, the head of this NASA bid contract now owns his own Northrop Grumman jet
[editline]18th January 2012[/editline]
I mean I'm sorry but I'd like to see them try to land this on a shitty dirt airstrip in wartime
airlift capability my ass
[QUOTE=GoldenDargon;34272467]I like Airbus' design idea the most imo:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5K1ZDs-li0[/media][/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRqIgCjp0pE[/media]
To stealthily drop passengers off behind unintended state lines.
[i]Soon to be a [b]success[/b]![/i]
[editline]18th January 2012[/editline]
[i]Oh wait[/i], with NASA?
Might I add unintended solar systems.
[i]Soon to be [b]horrific[/b]![/i]
No, the airliner of the future is the same airliner we have today. Just older.
My main concern is how they're going to fit a significant amount of people on those things. Modern jets are shaped the way they are to transport as many people as fast as possible using as little fuel as possible, and while this will do two and three just fine, I can't see where they're gonna fit 300 passengers onboard.
I like the design though.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;34271304]Aw come on, the [url=http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/nasa-reveals-three-visions-for-a-future-airliner-351965/]other proposed designs[/url] are all cool and unique and modern, and this is pretty much a B-2 Spirit that carries more people.[/QUOTE]
So? Sometimes it's better to stay a bit more current than it is to go bonkers with something that looks modern. Pushing envelopes is nice and all, but I don't want to be riding on some crazy modern design when a simple, proven flying wing would work just fine. Flying wings have been around since World War Two, and today we have the computers it takes to keep them in the air reliably. So why not try to apply them to passenger service?
[img]http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getasset.aspx?itemid=37797[/img]
That thing just screams "Because fuck physics".
Why are people talking about the flying wing like it doesn't exist? Have you ever heard of the stealth bomber?
Huh, I thought Northrop Grumman focused mainly on security and defense tech these past years. Surprising that they even bothered with this.
[editline]18th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=faze;34273830]Why are people talking about the flying wing like it doesn't exist? Have you ever heard of the stealth bomber?[/QUOTE]
yeah there are only 20 in active service right now, and in 08 one of them crashed. definitely a good idea for a civilian airliner.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.