Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The AWWA Air Whale, 750 pax in three classes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The AWWA Air Whale, 750 pax in three classes

    Forgive me if this has been discussed before, but I figured this concept was worth posting about.... mostly for the obvious issues with it that even amateurs like me can spot.

    https://www.behance.net/gallery/AWWA...Plane/11891085

    The TRUE whale. Discuss.
    Us, lighting a living horse on fire:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH2_Q3oJPeU

    Check it out!

  • #2
    I loved it, I guess - I fell for the marketing. Looks great - and a little alien. If it does get to production, I hope that they don't shave away the 'alien' natures of the design. Loosing those small accents on the 787 kinda hurt from an aesthetic value. I miss those days of new designs and fascinating new combos. However, I then scrolled down to the comments. Hurrah for humanity? They tore the thing apart. Intelligently. Now, I feel the same way - it's quite futuristic, no? The technological advances necessary would make this aircraft not possible for at least two or three more decades. Feasible then? Sure? Maybe.

    We didn't get the Sonic Cruiser. I don't think that we'll get this. Sadly - boringly and sparingly forward we go. Haha, safely and slowly.
    Whatever is necessary, is never unwise.

    Comment


    • #3
      That landing gear setup would never work... and also, this design seems to leave a lot of dead space, as the airlines can't conceivably go beyond a 3-5-3 seating configuration, barring some radically new layout.
      Us, lighting a living horse on fire:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH2_Q3oJPeU

      Check it out!

      Comment


      • #4
        3-5-5-5-3?

        Didn't some famous designer once say "airplanes that look good fly good"? If that's the case, that plane will never fly.
        Be alert! America needs more lerts.

        Eric Law

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by elaw View Post
          3-5-5-5-3?
          Can't work, at least in the USA... FAA will not allow you to have more than two seats between yourself and a window or aisle.

          Same for Europe.

          You can try to have more than two aisles, but then it makes it unlikely to evac the number of people serviced, within 90 seconds, from only half the exits.
          Us, lighting a living horse on fire:
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH2_Q3oJPeU

          Check it out!

          Comment


          • #6
            I think vertical take off and landing aircraft are needed to do away with runways and allow them to land anywhere in emergencies.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by LUNN View Post
              I think vertical take off and landing aircraft are needed to do away with runways and allow them to land anywhere in emergencies.
              One shouldn't say "never" in the plane business..... but this is about as close to NEVER as one can get, in terms of commercial aviation.

              Why? Because VSTOL equipment only helps you during the 30seconds or so that you're taking off or landing.... otherwise, it's pure deadweight on 8, 10, 12, or 16hr+ longhauls.

              And let's not even talk about how ridiculous the requirement in energy would be to get a 400ton+ widebody off of the ground vertically, versus the 13-16ton fighter jets who use it today.

              No way. So long as we're using fossil fuels to power aircraft, the tradeoff isn't there, at all.
              Us, lighting a living horse on fire:
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH2_Q3oJPeU

              Check it out!

              Comment


              • #8
                I looked hard for a smiley in LUNN's post to indicate a possible tongue-in-cheek comment.
                Upon not finding one I have to assume that the poor deluded soul means what he says !!
                If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by LUNN View Post
                  I think vertical take off and landing aircraft are needed to do away with runways and allow them to land anywhere in emergencies.
                  These airCRAFT exist and are called helicopters, and are much more expensive to buy and operate, slower, noisy and contaminating than airPLANES that can take similar payloads to a similar distance.

                  --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                  --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by ConcordeBoy View Post
                    One shouldn't say "never" in the plane business..... but this is about as close to NEVER as one can get, in terms of commercial aviation.

                    No way. So long as we're using fossil fuels to power aircraft, the tradeoff isn't there, at all.
                    Once, we thought that regular flight (as we know it today), was impossible. Daily, despite the extraction industry's powerful lobbying, we are moving further and further away from fossil fuels. The time is coming, and I can't wait to see it.

                    Advances are being made;
                    http://www.solarimpulse.com/

                    ...and with them will come new solutions.

                    When we first invisioned airports, this is what we thought of;
                    http://grahamfoundation.org/grantees...&mode=overview

                    I don't agree with LUNN, but I can understand that he is thinking ahead, to a future in which some of the common issues and realities that we face now will be irrelevant.
                    Whatever is necessary, is never unwise.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The problem that I see with this "sky whale" is not related to accepting innovation and the future.

                      New materials? Sure.
                      New energy sources? Why not?.
                      New engine technologies? I'm sure.

                      Now, can anybody please explain me the advantages of this configuration?
                      - The shape of the fuselage.
                      - The "blended wings" that is mentioned in the text or the "detached wings" seen in the images.
                      - The engines integrated in the wing.
                      - The 2+2 engines config.
                      - The 45 rotating engines.

                      I can imagine that, as long as the planes remain subsonic, all the future technologies in materials, fuels, engines and systems will be applied to a conventional plane. More years have passed since the early pax jets than from the Wright Flyer to the first jets, and while planes changed a lot form the Wright Flyer to, say, the 707, current jets still look a lot like a 707. There is a good reason why the basic configuration of the jet airplanes remained grossly unchanged since the early ones (or since the DC-3 for the matter):

                      - A long wing is the most efficient way to make lift. Anything else that makes lift (like the fuselage) will incur in an induced drag greater than what an additional piece of the existing wing would.
                      - A round fuselage (or a combination or round lobes) is the most efficient way to carry payload in a pressurized vessel. Leaving the sphere aside, which has obvious practical constrains, any shape other than a cylinder will increase the weight and hence reduce the payload or range of the plane.
                      - Engines must receive free, undisturbed airflow, must be accessible for maintenance, must be designed with future upgrades in mind (look the constrains the Boeing has with the 737), and must take into account the survival of the plane in case of a catastrophic fire or damage.

                      A 750 pax plane with state-of-the-art technologies applied? Sure. It will look like a 380 or 777.

                      I mean, come on, we don't need to wait that long.
                      In fact, the A380 cabin is certified for 853 pax and 20 crew (in an all economic class config). So the 750 figure of this whale is not jaw dropping at all. I know, in 3 classes, and the 380 normally takes 300+ fewer passengers than its certified limit in 3 classes. But remember that this is the first version of the 380 and the plane was designed from the beginning with longer fuselages versions in mind. And in my opinion, a 3-class 750 pax A380 will be more efficient than this sky whale.

                      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
                        I looked hard for a smiley in LUNN's post to indicate a possible tongue-in-cheek comment.
                        Upon not finding one I have to assume that the poor deluded soul means what he says !!
                        Whats with the rude commen, poor and deluded you must be due to your limited imagination.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by LUNN View Post
                          Whats with the rude commen, poor and deluded you must be due to your limited imagination.
                          You can imagine all day long, but for the reasons given, that's about as far as those proposals of yours would go, any time soon. Or even not-so-soon.
                          Us, lighting a living horse on fire:
                          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH2_Q3oJPeU

                          Check it out!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by AA 1818 View Post
                            Once, we thought that regular flight (as we know it today), was impossible.
                            No one other than you has said anything about "impossible."

                            It's the exact same issue that supersonic pax travel faces-- it's not impossible at all, we could do/build it today, if we wanted. But we won't.

                            And that's because (as was actually said) the economic tradeoff isn't there, with anything resembling the energy sources available today or even in the most remotely-foreseeable future.

                            That's a fact, not an opinion.

                            Originally posted by AA 1818 View Post
                            Daily, despite the extraction industry's powerful lobbying, we are moving further and further away from fossil fuels.
                            I see no substantiation whatsoever for that statement. In fact, considering the rise of the PRC and south Asian middle classes, I would argue that we (as an aggregate whole) are getting even more dependent on fossil fuel usage.

                            So perhaps you can quantify it with something more empirical than a few token examples? I'll wait....
                            Us, lighting a living horse on fire:
                            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH2_Q3oJPeU

                            Check it out!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by ConcordeBoy View Post
                              You can imagine all day long, but for the reasons given, that's about as far as those proposals of yours would go, any time soon. Or even not-so-soon.
                              Thanks BRIAN.

                              With all due respect, and pardon the pun, Brian is a big boy. How about we let him fight his own battle...
                              Whatever is necessary, is never unwise.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X