Bonkers Tri-Wing Jumbo Jet Concept Reduces Fuel Consumption by 70%

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

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.

[beaglelady]

@Dale

There is a slight possibility that 70% more efficiency might reduce the fuel load a little.

'Ya think?  

[still_learning]

@Dale

There is a slight possibility that 70% more efficiency might reduce the fuel load a little.

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.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@still_learning

@Dale

There is a slight possibility that 70% more efficiency might reduce the fuel load a little.

We have no idea.

Seriously? More efficiency does not equate to the need for less fuel and subsequently lighter fuel loading?

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@still_learning

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.

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.

[fmiddel]

@Klax

What a magnificently absurd claim. Where’s the Cray model? Who’s going to build the $10 bn prototype?

Maybe start with a $5,000 model in a wind tunnel?

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

Scale? . . .

[fmiddel]

@Klax

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.

Boeing 747 | Design effort

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

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.