Next from Lionheart Creations; Boeing 797 Blended Wing

[Lionheart]

Hey all,

This is next. This is a freeware (first release) that will be first for FS2004, then later for FSX. This is the flying wing Dreadnaught from Boeing, the 1000 seater 'Blended Wing' Boeing B-797.

Doing it for a friend that doesnt have one for FS9.

Freeware will not have a VC. (arrgh, spit! how can you do that??? ACKK!!!) yes.. bad news, I know. We will have a really nice 2D panel though.

I am already into negotiations with Boeing and about to submit the official license application which will enable me to be an official, legal Boeing flight sim representative. Then I can do a high detail VC, super detailed FSX version, and also make the Boeing Bird of Prey... (I want to make that one bad!)

This flying wing is actually beautiful. With the engines off the top, you see a very sharp design. The front cone looks a bit awkward, like it still has some 'tubeliner' in it, but the rest is awesome.

Note, views are work in progress. Front portholes or windows are crooked. Still mapping it.


BillAttachment 11445Attachment 11446

[N2056]

Very cool!

Good luck on getting official blessing from Boeing. That would be awesome!

[warchild]

does anyone know what the weight of a square foot of composite materil is?? ( about a half inch thick??? )

[Bone]

that's great

[Cag40Navy]

SAWEET! Good luck on the license Bill!

[stormtrooper271]

does anyone know what the weight of a square foot of composite materil is?? ( about a half inch thick??? )

If I remember correctly from the show Factory Made a completed carbon fiber Trek Bike frame weighs 2 or 4 lbs. ( I can't remember which ) So composites don't weigh very much at all

[Lionheart]

Thanks gang.

Pam,

I have no idea, and there are several composite materials out there to choose from. The A-380 uses a dual aluminum set of sheets with a odd core material. Some are carbonfiber skins with honeycomb core, etc. Oddly, the 380 skins looked like a thick sheet of solid material, like plastic or something. Really odd stuff.

Bill

[pilottj]

I seem to recall a fairly good BWB back in the days of FS2000 or 2k2, I can't remember. It is quite a facinating design.

[heywooood]

in 1992 when I was working for America3 (cubed) in the Americas' Cup Challenge here in SD - I had the opportunity to visit an autoclave.

The sailcloth you might remember was referred to as 'cuban fiber' because of our team name and the fact that these were the first non rigid sails made of carbon fiber weave...and the panels of sailcloth had to be baked in the autoclave as part of the process.

At the 'clave I was handed the nose cone of an F-16 - a fairly large fairing when you are holding it - and it weighed about as much as a hard boiled egg.

The carbon fiber sailcloth was innovative because it was so strong and light compared to the materials that were traditionally used prior to our challenge. You could park a buick on the cuban fiber mainsail and lift it with a crane over and over again..and the sail would not tear...also - a rolled and folded mainsail would typically require 12 men to lift and carry it, but the cuban sails could be handled easily by 4 people.

The autoclave was an experience on its own - basically a giant pressure cooker.
you had to lay the sail panels on this 20' long cart - then bag the whole thing - attach the vacuum line and pull all the air out of the bag...then roll it into the 'clave making sure the bag was sealed properly as a failure in the vacuum bag would ruin the panels -

after all was secure and a headcount completed to be sure no one was inadvertently sealed in the autoclave (it had happened before - dude was cooked like a chicken with the meat falling off the bone according to the news article taped to the control panel) the huge round door is closed and latched like a vault and the heat is turned on (450deg for 12 hours if I remember correctly) and the psi dialed up a couple of atmospheres.

Another article taped to the control panel was about an autoclave accident where the operators had failed to notice a stuck valve that was allowing the pressure inside the cavity to continue to rise past the mark it was set to level off at -

well the 6 ton door blew off and landed 3 miles away

fun with technology


Lionheart - I hope to fly your model in FSX someday - the BwB airframe is the next generation of airliners and a natural progression for safe, manned powered flight

[Dave Torkington]

I seem to recall a fairly good BWB back in the days of FS2000 or 2k2, I can't remember. It is quite a facinating design.

Me too, there was a Lufthansa BWB I had long ago that flew ok in 2002 Pro - still available from Fsim.com - just search for BWB. Could you really get an aircraft pack weighing less than 1Mb back then...

[Bjoern]

Attachment 11446

Was your "flat cockpit windows" thread at FSDEev about this model?

Did you do them with "shape merge" now?

In any case, the model looks very smooth.
I won't fly it though....too big for normal airports. :d

[Lionheart]

Was your "flat cockpit windows" thread at FSDEev about this model?

Did you do them with "shape merge" now?

Hey Bjoern,

I ended up mimmicking the prototype Dreamliner B-787 windshields. I loved those and did something really similar. Very exotic looking. I was going to do the flat windows, and when researching the windows of the BWB, I found Dreamliner renderings and in an accidental auto-non-controllable-druel, I decided to opt for the Dreamliner version.

In any case, the model looks very smooth.
I won't fly it though....too big for normal airports. :d

Its the same wingspan as the A-380. :d The track widths of the undercarriage is the only issue so far.



Bill

[b52bob]

[QUOTE=heywooood;437583]

well the 6 ton door blew off and landed 3 miles away

fun with technology
/QUOTE]

A little off topic but funny!

When I worked in the wheel and tire shop at U-Tapao we used a cage to air those big tires up to 750 PSI. The cage was right next to the office door and we often talked about what would happen if one blew.
We had a SSgt in charge that none of us cared for so one night, we put in a outrigger innertube (the only tire on the B-52 with a tube and rather small) in the cage while he was in doing paper work, hooked it up to the air, turned it on, and left. About 20 min later there was this tremendous bang that shook the whole hanger!, we went running to the office (with innocent faces) to find the sgt outside on the door on his hands and knees with wet fatigues, front and back.

Oh, the stupid crap we used to pull when we were young and had no common sense

(If the guilty party happens to be reading this after all those years, it wasn't my idea!)

Bob

[jetstreamsky]

It's highly unlikely that this design would be used as an airliner, perhaps as a cargo transporter, but very few seats having access to a window or even close to a window, passengers would be far too isolated. Combine that with large offsets from the centreline and we have the makings of a new super vomit comet.

[cheezyflier]

mr. bill, you are becoming the "piglet of payware"
you do some peculiar planes, too.

i look forward to this one

[heywooood]

It's highly unlikely that this design would be used as an airliner, perhaps as a cargo transporter, but very few seats having access to a window or even close to a window, passengers would be far too isolated. Combine that with large offsets from the centreline and we have the makings of a new super vomit comet.

in the BwB every seat will be a window seat...with multiple HD views of the outside environments from POV's to the side, rear and front of the aircraft. I'm thinking the forward view - which you do not have currently in any tubeliner - will be the most relaxing and least 'upsetting' to the average passenger.

with a theater like seating arrangement I would expect inflight movies to be an altogether new experience

As Bjorn said - the only real impediment to the BwB movement will be the cost of completely altering the terminals and taxiways to handle the extra wide overall span these planes will have

[clmooring]

The BWB will be a great add-on, but I was wondering where the wt-9 fits in the schedule?

thanks

[Helldiver]

The July issue of Flying Magazine has a nice article about Vincent Burnellis lifting fuselage and the experiments Boeing is having with the Dryden Flight Research Center, X-48, the Blended Wing Body or BWB for short.
It is a 500 pound, 20 foot wing span with three 50 pound thrust model jet engines mounted on the trailing edge, much as Bill has shown here. They've gone through the first phase of 140 flights. Phase two will be two model fanjets moved futher aft, flanked by two verticle fins.
Although the BWB keeps popping up on the Internet as Boeing's next airliner, Boeing is making no such claim. One of the biggest problem is pressurization with a flat ceiling and floors.

[warchild]

they'll just have to have cylindrical compartmentalization of some design for them.. I'm going to be estimating weights on the full scale which is i believe five times larger ( but dont quote me on that ).. Thats why it got complicaterd for me..

[heywooood]

more of an oval shape for the pressurized passenger section...like a very, very wide tube in cross section...with the remainder of the internal wing structure for baggage and fuel

_______________
(________________) rudimentary depiction at best mind you

the top and bottom of the oval would be convex and concave to a degree to help balance the pressure which would also allow for much more headroom and the opportunity to reduce the claustrophobic effect that most tubeliners induce..

[jetstreamsky]

in the BwB every seat will be a window seat...with multiple HD views of the outside environments from POV's to the side, rear and front of the aircraft. I'm thinking the forward view - which you do not have currently in any tubeliner - will be the most relaxing and least 'upsetting' to the average passenger.

with a theater like seating arrangement I would expect inflight movies to be an altogether new experience

As Bjorn said - the only real impediment to the BwB movement will be the cost of completely altering the terminals and taxiways to handle the extra wide overall span these planes will have

Monitors provide only a narrow point of view and do not substitute a real window, exactly why the Apollo capsules had to have a window designed in at the insistence of the crews.

Also the huge number of screens involved carry a significant penalty in weight, not to mention the miles of video cabling and power wiring involved.

None of this overcomes the large vertical movements outer passengers would experience in turns and in turbulence

[Lionheart]

None of this overcomes the large vertical movements outer passengers would experience in turns and in turbulence

Actually they just use one screen, usually the MFD center screen with an option programmed into the face menu for checking views. Cam's also can be made very small and liteweight.

The A-380 has all its views mounted into the center screen on their panels. The tail down top rudder view is pretty cool. If you paruse the panel shots at Airliners.net you will find a few with that view on the center screen.

I agree, a window is better, but when you are strapped into your seat, and the side rear view over your shoulder is blocked by distance and or just not able to be seen, then you are going to need those camera views on a screen. (Just like in FS, lol... basically rotating through all the views enables you to see all the components of the plane, from landing gear to rear engines, etc).

I started the VC (I decided to put one in), and the nose really doesnt allow for a good view. Also, you just do not have enough 'wrap' of the window area for the pilots to use, so I am sure they will have some neat camera view systems if they make these. I was thinking, why not have the seat slide sideways to the far side of the cockpit so they could look out the side window better, but... how would the seat track operate, would your knees hit things, how would you lock the seat, etc, etc. (You know how they have those sideways seat tracks in government installations where they have huge panels to maintain and operate? Something like that would be cool. Then they could keep strapped in and ovoid having to de-buckle to look out and back).

Also, wide screen mode is fully possible. You do not need a narrow view mode 'only' on monitors.


:ernae:


Bill

[Helldiver]

The problem with pressurization that your talking 1000 pounds per square foot. A cylinder can take this by expanding like a balloon. But when you have relatively flat surfaces, it becomes a problem. If BWB ever comes to pass it will be as a refueling tanker or freight carrier that will not require pressurization with the crew in a cylindical crew compartment.
Not a market that has any interest to Boeing.

[Bjoern]

I ended up mimmicking the prototype Dreamliner B-787 windshields. I loved those and did something really similar. Very exotic looking. I was going to do the flat windows, and when researching the windows of the BWB, I found Dreamliner renderings and in an accidental auto-non-controllable-druel, I decided to opt for the Dreamliner version.

Ha! :d

I have to admit that the roundish 7E7 windows look way more suitable for the smooth BWB than any flat windows.
So...a good decision there, Bill. :ernae:

Its the same wingspan as the A-380. :d The track widths of the undercarriage is the only issue so far.

I wonder how this problem can be averted...

Special taxiways on big airports mainly for BWBs?
A narrow track width, but lift jets in the wing tips that prevent the aircraft from tipping over?

The problem with pressurization that your talking 1000 pounds per square foot. A cylinder can take this by expanding like a balloon. But when you have relatively flat surfaces, it becomes a problem. If BWB ever comes to pass it will be as a refueling tanker or freight carrier that will not require pressurization with the crew in a cylindical crew compartment.
Not a market that has any interest to Boeing.

Or you just put reinforcements into the edge areas (made from composite or similar) or take a material flexible enough to survive thousands of pressurization cycles without much effect on its stability and use it as a "bladder".

If the interest and demand is there, I sure Boeing won't say no.

In any case, there's huge potential in new materials and solutions in the aerospace intustry. The hardest part is curing any early stage problem and finding someone willing to pay for the new stuff.
I guess once aircraft like the 787 and A350 have proven themselves in service the airline industry will sre an influx of new concepts and solutions.

Maybe the next generation of airliners will be powered by fuel made from algae...who knows?

[jetstreamsky]

Actually they just use one screen, usually the MFD center screen with an option programmed into the face menu for checking views. Cam's also can be made very small and liteweight.

The A-380 has all its views mounted into the center screen on their panels. The tail down top rudder view is pretty cool. If you paruse the panel shots at Airliners.net you will find a few with that view on the center screen.

I agree, a window is better, but when you are strapped into your seat, and the side rear view over your shoulder is blocked by distance and or just not able to be seen, then you are going to need those camera views on a screen. (Just like in FS, lol... basically rotating through all the views enables you to see all the components of the plane, from landing gear to rear engines, etc).
.....................

Bill

I agree with you Bill for the flight crew to have aircraft views available to them, but I was referring to the proposed idea that every passenger would have multiple screens.