There is a slight possibility that 70% more efficiency might reduce the fuel load a little. And I don’t think anyone is suggesting that your local airfield become an international hub with jumbo jets, freight and customs.
We have no idea. The article title seems to refer to the engine, though most of the article speaks of the concept aircraft and aerodynamics. There isn’t much said about how the engine works or achieves this. Just that “there jewel is a 70% fuel reductions”. which again, isn’t the airplane, it is the engine.
A hydrogen engine (which are also in development) has 0 emissions.
Seriously? More efficiency does not equate to the need for less fuel and subsequently lighter fuel loading?
Boy, you really do need to read it again before making pronouncements about it… The gain in the efficiency is due to the wings and the fuselage’s lightweight monocoque carbon fiber construction. Not having to store fuel in the wings allows them to be much thinner, shorter and aerodynamic, I would suspect, in addition to the third set adding to the lift. There is nothing much said about the engines except that there’s two of them. There are nice pictures if the reading becomes too much.
Maybe start with a $5,000 model in a wind tunnel?
Scale? . . .
Well, you start with a smaller scale and then work your way up as you evaluate, correct, adjust, etc. Nobody starts with a multi-billion dollar prototype. I mean, maybe Howard Hughes, but he’s dead, and before he died he stored his piss in bottles in his room. So…yeah, nobody starts with multi-billion dollar prototypes.
The 747 was a massive undertaking and gamble for Boeing. It could have made or broken the company. They didn’t start with a full-size prototype. The suggestion is almost ludicrous.
For something so radical I can imagine a full size mockup in a giant wind tunnel after a Cray simulation before you can begin to justify a 70% fuel saving.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.