In recent decades, the first “A” in NASA – “Aeronautics” – has received the short end of the attention and funding stick. At the same time, aeronautics has not exactly leaped forward. Feel free to draw a link, or conclude that “correlation does not equal causation.” Whichever makes you happy.
Still, NASA has been pushing industry a little bit in the last few years for advanced jetliner ideas. Mostly the goal is for low fuel-cost airliners; in order to be more PC, these are being sold more for their supposed environmental friendliness than their lower cost of operation. In any event, the designs have included not only alternate fuel designs (such as hydrogen) but even all-electric jetliners… whopping great battery packs which would be swapped out between flights rather than conventional refueling operations.
Lockheed has been working on this as well as Boeing. While Lockheed hasn’t built an airliner since the L-1011, they’ve retained some interest in SST’s, occasionally cranking out a design for a large passenger jet or a small corporate jet. But the economic collapse and the increased price of oil have pretty much put the kibosh on those plans. But they’ve also produced artwork for subsonic designs. While diagrams and good technical data have so far evaded me, some art is available showing a high efficiency subsonic concept. The future is entirely conventional in appearance, but box wings of high aspect ration have replace the conventional wing and tail. Suspended from the aft wing are turbofan engines of extremely high bypass ratio. The result should be a design with impressive fuel economy.
9 Responses to ““Environmentally Responsible” Lockheed Jetliner”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Intriguing design.
I’d be willing to bet alternate fuels like Hydrogen and Methane are more likely, though.
An electric jetliner would be interesting. Maybe the batteries could have solar cell backups.
> Maybe the batteries could have solar cell backups.
At the airport, maybe, covering thousands of acres. That might be useful. But the entire surface area of a jetliner would be vastly too small to make use of sunlight for propulsion. Look at the solar powered aircraft that have flown… ultralight flimsy contraptions made of film and sticks, barely able to withstand a light breeze. A PV array-coated jetliner might use the solar power to run the entertainment system, that’s about it.
The box wing lives! 🙂
It looks like this design doubles the surface area of the lifting surfaces (wings). Would a box wing design get lift equal to the standard wing design if the box wings stuck out only half as far? I’d think (IAMAE) that four wings with length X would get lift equal to two wings with length 2X.
Note that the wings on this jetliner have unusually high aspect ratios (i.e. they’re “skinny”). High AR wings are more efficient. But high AR wings are also structurally weak, prone to simply snapping off. The “box wing” arrangement allows the aircraft to have two high AR wings joined at the tip, making them much, much more structurally sound. Plus, the vertical surface at the tip serves as a tip-fin, increasing efficiency further.
Example: take a wood or aluminum yard stick. A very “floppy” structure. Now take two and tape ends together, like the box wing. Hold the other ends apart and fix then to another piece of wood or some such (replicating the fuselage). If you mount one yardstick low and the other high – like the box wing – you’ll find that this is a surprisingly rigid structure.
PS: How do I delete one of my own comments?
the problem with this concept, is the same that ruined Boeing’s Sonic Cruiser program. Unlike Europe where a consortium can force every airport to build customized loading and jetway infrastructure to fit a new design, American manufacturers are forced to make sure aircraft fit exactly what’s in place. Airbus’s superjumbo required millions of dollars in retrofit work so passengers could be loaded. the Sonic Cruiser’s unusual wing location would have required less work but was still more than the FAA wanted to mandate be spent. This aircraft would have similar requirements because of where the doors are and where the wing goes.
If EADS or Airbus builds it, consortium allies in government will force every major airport to modify (on taxpayers’ dime) their infrastructure to fit so that Airbus can profit from the design. In America, some blatant acts of crony capitalism are still frowned upon, for the moment.
I remember the AMA tanker with double flying booms on wingtips. Is this ERA bigger?
Seems a lot better drawn.
I’d sure like to see a tanker version of this plane.
Please feature it on the APR!
could any one please tell me which airfoil is better for boxwing example any naca number. And how to find the swift angle of box wing?