All
← Back to Squawk list
This Bonkers Tri-Wing Jumbo Jet Concept Reduces Fuel Consumption by 70%
Airliners haven’t traditionally been a lightning rod for innovation. Commercial wide-body planes haven’t changed all that much over the last few decades. But amid an industrywide push to reduce carbon emissions, a bonkers new jumbo jet concept is aiming to change that. (robbreport.com) More...
Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Three wings, interesting. The center and aft wings will operate in the disturbed airflow from the wings ahead, so dealing with that plus carefully shaping wing-body fairings will need some detailed design and testing. One thing for sure: all those surfaces will add up to a guaranteed jobs program for the deicing crews!
Now trying to find a window seat that isn't right over the wing is twice as difficult.
3 times. There are 3 wings
6 actually
I like the window seat over the wing. You can watch the landing spoilers extend and you get a peek inside the wing.
I’m struggling to believe that people are actually taking this “concept” seriously. I, too, looked for an April 1st date on the first piece I read about this a few months ago. This is not a viable concept. Period. And these boys from Trussville, Alabama – they don’t know what they don’t know. Their “founder” and “chief engineer” has a degree in chemical engineering with an emphasis on pulp paper studies. Their “operations specialist” and “captain” isn’t actually a pilot, but a retired Navy line officer. Their CEO’s background is as a dietician.
It is unfathomable to think that a group of guys with no aeronautical engineering experience and no meaningful piloting experience know more about heavy jet design than Boeing, Airbus, General Dynamics, Lockheed, McDonald-Douglas, et al, COMBINED.
The sweep and aspect ratio of the wingS are not conducive to Mach 0.9 flight. Three substantially identical wings aligned as depicted cannot be designed to function as intended due to disrupted airflow on the non-front wings during variable operating scenarios. No provisions are apparent for controlling the pitch axis of the aircraft. As depicted, the carry-through sparS would run through the middle of the cabin, inhibiting movement within the cabin.
Let’s compare this concept’s specifications to what is, arguably, the most advanced airliner in service today: The Boeing 787 Dreamliner, which is a composite-heavy aircraft. The 787-8 seats 242 passengers; the SE proposes to seat 264. The 787 has a fuselage that’s 18’-11 x 19’-6; the SE’s is 17’-9 x 18’-1. The 787 is about 30% longer than the SE (and the fuselage is over a foot wider), but the SE carries 9% more passengers?? Are they standing for that 10,000 mile ride?? The 787-8 has an empty weight of 264,500 lbs.; the SE purportedly weighs in at 74,000 lbs. BS! That’s a lighter empty weight than an Airbus 220 series, that seats 100 passengers and has less than one-third the range the SE claims. The 787-8 requires 8,500’ for takeoff, but the SE claims 1,500’ is needed? More BS! An F/A 18 Hornet (without the catapult assist) requires a 5,200’ runway. Laugh now at the thought of a 264 seat airliner taking off, landing, and taking off again in 700’ LESS runway than required for modern fighter jet – in full after-burner – to just takeoff.
There is NOTHING about the concept that is plausible. I will win the lottery – TWICE – before this thing flies.
It is unfathomable to think that a group of guys with no aeronautical engineering experience and no meaningful piloting experience know more about heavy jet design than Boeing, Airbus, General Dynamics, Lockheed, McDonald-Douglas, et al, COMBINED.
The sweep and aspect ratio of the wingS are not conducive to Mach 0.9 flight. Three substantially identical wings aligned as depicted cannot be designed to function as intended due to disrupted airflow on the non-front wings during variable operating scenarios. No provisions are apparent for controlling the pitch axis of the aircraft. As depicted, the carry-through sparS would run through the middle of the cabin, inhibiting movement within the cabin.
Let’s compare this concept’s specifications to what is, arguably, the most advanced airliner in service today: The Boeing 787 Dreamliner, which is a composite-heavy aircraft. The 787-8 seats 242 passengers; the SE proposes to seat 264. The 787 has a fuselage that’s 18’-11 x 19’-6; the SE’s is 17’-9 x 18’-1. The 787 is about 30% longer than the SE (and the fuselage is over a foot wider), but the SE carries 9% more passengers?? Are they standing for that 10,000 mile ride?? The 787-8 has an empty weight of 264,500 lbs.; the SE purportedly weighs in at 74,000 lbs. BS! That’s a lighter empty weight than an Airbus 220 series, that seats 100 passengers and has less than one-third the range the SE claims. The 787-8 requires 8,500’ for takeoff, but the SE claims 1,500’ is needed? More BS! An F/A 18 Hornet (without the catapult assist) requires a 5,200’ runway. Laugh now at the thought of a 264 seat airliner taking off, landing, and taking off again in 700’ LESS runway than required for modern fighter jet – in full after-burner – to just takeoff.
There is NOTHING about the concept that is plausible. I will win the lottery – TWICE – before this thing flies.
