Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The AWWA Air Whale, 750 pax in three classes

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by ConcordeBoy View Post
    No one other than you has said anything about "impossible."
    http://www.interglot.com/dictionary/...ranslate/never

    Originally posted by ConcordeBoy View Post
    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.
    The AWWA Air Whale still stands a better chance of flying, than perhaps a Concorde.

    Originally posted by ConcordeBoy View Post
    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.
    Snarky penultimate comment aside - I agree with you on the principle. As Gabriel pointed out, astutely I must state - the A380 has alot going for it, if it were meant to compete against this design. It stands to benefit from the current environment's issues, and with fleet commonality, a proven design, and an existing superiority in its class - if the AWWA Air Whale ever did have to compete - it would be a staggering challenge. However, LUNN does raise a great point - we have to look forward. The A380 will not be around forever, and as we move ahead, more and more often we are faced with greater challenges, and innovative designs will be there to address them.

    Before you continue sharpening your axe, let me remind you that both Airbus and Boeing are currently (and have in the past), researched and developed these ideas as well.

    http://www.boeing.com/stories/videos/vid_03_bwb.html

    Listen to the narration, as it clearly defines why the design is necessary, and from the 'horse's mouth'.

    http://www.airbus.com/innovation/eco...ture-concepts/

    Yet another video.

    Listen, friend, everyone is moving ahead. Get on board.

    Larger, and more fuel efficient. VSTOL is currently the rage, and if you don't believe me, then the F-35, and billions of dollars worth of orders are are hoax.

    Originally posted by ConcordeBoy View Post
    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?
    http://www.ren21.net/REN21Activities...tusReport.aspx

    http://cleantechnica.com/2013/11/07/...-energy-facts/

    The People's Republic of China is the current leader in the development of, and use of renewable resources in the World. The links above are empirically based. Oh, that would make them a, wait for it, FACT.

    Originally posted by ConcordeBoy View Post
    That's a fact, not an opinion.
    Opinion is defined as "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge."

    https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...20of%20opinion
    Case in point;
    Originally posted by ConcordeBoy View Post
    I would argue that we (as an aggregate whole) are getting even more dependent on fossil fuel usage.
    Originally posted by ConcordeBoy View Post
    I'll wait....
    Well, babe - I sure hope that I didn't keep you waiting too long. Sadly, this was the whole point, in essence of what LUNN and I were trying to get across - we can't wait, resting on our laurels too much longer. One day (and it's not a matter of if, but rather, when) we are going to have to get up, and move on.

    Oh, you've got facts - me too, honey...

    But there is only one that you should be concerned with; Fossil fuels are finite, it would be impossible to use them forever. Wait, did I use that correctly?
    Whatever is necessary, is never unwise.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by AA 1818 View Post
      With all due respect, and pardon the pun, Brian is a big boy. How about we let him fight his own battle
      Calm down child, I'm not "fighting" any "battle."
      I'm responding to a ridiculous proposal, on a thread about, well, a ridiculous proposal.

      Ah, so you're saying you don't understand the difference between "not going to happen" versus "cannot happen?"


      Originally posted by AA 1818 View Post
      The AWWA Air Whale still stands a better chance of flying, than perhaps a Concorde.
      True, Concorde's dead as the dodo.

      Not quite sure why you felt the need to state the obvious, though...


      LOL, the BWB... seriously? What are we, stuck in 2002?
      Are you aware that after nearly a quarter century of researching that design from basically every angle, even Boeing engineers still have no clue how they'll actually get it certified for passenger transport? Hmm, of course you are...

      No conceivable layout is in compliance with modern evacuation standards, without wasting massive amounts of available revenue space. So, for about the past decade, they've mostly applied their engineering for it to cargo standard-- only to watch the dedicated freighter market fall out directly from underneath them.

      So yeah Boeing BWB: "Something we won't see flying in revenue service for a lonnnnng time if ever," for $500 Alex.


      Originally posted by AA 1818 View Post
      VSTOL is currently the rage, and if you don't believe me, then the F-35, and billions of dollars worth of orders are are hoax.
      You DO realize that the F-35 is widely regarded as a complete and total piece of crap, and that there are numerous efforts to get the government to pull the plug on it.... do you not?

      Here, since you like videos so much-- hear it for yourself, straight from the mouth of Pierre Sprey, the man who's spearheaded the design of more fighters for the US military than any other person:



      Also, even if every single one ordered is delivered (which is a big "if"), the majority of them will NOT have VSTOL capability, so I'm not sure how that fits your claim of it being "all the rage."

      Originally posted by AA 1818 View Post
      The links above are empirically based. Oh, that would make them a, wait for it, FACT.
      Indeed, but unfortunately for you, those facts have little to do with what I actually requested.

      Granted, I only scanned them... but not one of the graphs you posted appeared to show a "moving away from fossil fuels" or even a comparative assessment, which if you'll recall (or better yet, just scroll up) is what I specifically asked for.

      All they depicted was increased use of renewables-- which is nice, but also doesn't take into account the skyrocketing increase in non-renewables since 2006 as well. An increase in tandem is not equivalent to "moving away."

      Originally posted by AA 1818 View Post
      it would be impossible to use them forever. Wait, did I use that correctly?
      Congrats, you did. But then again, it's impossible to do ANYTHING forever-- so I guess even you couldn't screw that one up. Yay!
      Us, lighting a living horse on fire:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH2_Q3oJPeU

      Check it out!

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by LUNN View Post
        Whats with the rude commen, poor and deluded you must be due to your limited imagination.
        You didn't see my smiley then indicating a tongue in cheek post ?

        I have a very wide imagination but even I know that until we can find an alternative to fossil fuel powered aircraft then VTOL is not going to happen for a 750 seat airliner. Even if we do find a fuel alternative you won't ever see a VTOL airliner designed for the sole reason of a soft landing in an emergency. The costs alone would be prohibitive.

        Sorry, but you're living in cloud cuckoo land if you believe in that concept.
        If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

        Comment


        • #19
          Yes but anything possible in the future its not time prohibited, and it need not be VLA either, since its ramadan I apologise for my earlier comment and deleted another one from here.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by ConcordeBoy View Post
            But then again, it's impossible to do ANYTHING forever...
            When you're right, you're right. I have an established feeling that being right is very important to you, and so in the vein of the comment above - I'll admit, it is impossible to provide facts, a logical argument, and hope that you will see the light. Impossible.

            Oh, and there are things that can be done forever, unless you're going to reveal yourself as God, I'll just agree to disagree.

            Returning back the topic, and intelligent conversation;

            https://www.behance.net/gallery/AWWA...Plane/11891085
            In the take-off maneuver, two of the four engines are in "normal" position to create a maximum thrust (rear engines). When the plane obtain a specific speed with the front's engines at 45 degrees it take-off, with less track distance. The engines could relocate few seconds after and fly like a "regular plane". The maneuver is not a "pure" VTOL.
            Just to clarify - the aircraft will be a VSTOL not a purely VTOL aircraft.

            What's interesting is to consider that they are marketing this as a "Space Tourism Launcher".
            Whatever is necessary, is never unwise.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by AA 1818 View Post
              it is impossible to provide facts, a logical argument
              Well, when you actually achieve either of the above, in a manner relevant to the question presented (which, as already noted, YOU FAILED TO DO, in regard to the issue of "moving away from" fossil fuels).... then by all means, please let me know.

              Here, let's review:
              "All they depicted was increased use of renewables-- which is nice, but also doesn't take into account the skyrocketing increase in non-renewables since 2006 as well. An increase in tandem is not equivalent to "moving away."

              Originally posted by AA 1818 View Post
              Oh, and there are things that can be done forever, unless you're going to reveal yourself as God, I'll just agree to disagree.
              You can disagree all day long, but what you can't do is actually:

              1) name a single one of such "things that can be done forever," nor
              2) show any evidence whatsoever (aside from religious fantasy) for such

              ....particularly considering that neither this planet nor even the Strong-Nuclear force that binds subatomic matter together, will endure "forever."

              Originally posted by AA 1818 View Post
              Just to clarify - the aircraft will be a VSTOL not a purely VTOL aircraft.
              The majority of those aircraft will be no more VSTOL than other fighter in a similar weight class. Inaccurate use of the designation.
              Us, lighting a living horse on fire:
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH2_Q3oJPeU

              Check it out!

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by ConcordeBoy View Post
                You can disagree all day long, but what you can't do is actually:

                1) name a single one of such "things that can be done forever,"
                Be died?

                --- 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


                • #23
                  Originally posted by LUNN View Post
                  Yes but anything possible in the future its not time prohibited, and it need not be VLA either, since its ramadan I apologise for my earlier comment and deleted another one from here.
                  You have my admiration. This must be the worst time of year ever for Ramadan to fall in. Something like 14 hrs fasting between first and evening prayer calls. ?
                  I'd get ratty if I had to go hungry that long.

                  As salaam alaykum.
                  If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Form follows function in commercial aircraft design. Everything is about efficiencies. I see here an inefficient sculptural exercise trying to fly.

                    Why the 'detached' wings for instance? Minimizing the wing chord where you want it most? The wing root is where you generate the most lift. Existing blended-wing designs emphasize this. And why the extravagant integrated engine cowlings? To create turbulent vortices over the tailplane? Why the forward swept (anhedral!!) tailplane? You want to reduce stability in the spiral mode? Fighter jets to this to improve maneuvability. Not a big concern in transport designs. And what is electric-fuel propulsion? Electrically-driven turbofans? Perhaps if the electricity can be statically generated in flight somehow without a large drag penalty via some unimaginable technology but today's high-bypass turbofans generate most of their thrust at altitude from bypass. Future designs, hybrid or not, are likely to have a large a fan as allowable by ground clearance requirements.

                    Gabriel is right. Engines are pylon mounted for easy replacement and to protect critical wing areas from catastrophic engine failure. We've come a long way since the Comet days.

                    As for tilting them, maybe at very low forward speeds but you're going to get into compressor blade stall above a certain AoA. I guess electric-fuel engines produce monumental thrust from the engine core to lift such a heavy aircraft in ground effect despite reducing the forward thrust and therefore diminishing lift.

                    And why the cockpit windows? Are there human pilots? I thought this was the future we are talking about.

                    It's imaginative though. Just not the imagination of a knowledgeable aerospace engineer.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Evan View Post
                      It's imaginative though. Just not the imagination of a knowledgeable aerospace engineer.
                      ^ This
                      Us, lighting a living horse on fire:
                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH2_Q3oJPeU

                      Check it out!

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X