Airbus A380.....

You talk of European advances over the Americans but this is all xenophobic tripe. Remember that Rolls Royce engines power a very large proportion of Boeings products and correct me if I'm wrong but they're British designed and built.

What is healthy, however is the competition provided by Airbus thereby stopping Boeing having a complete monoploy in passenger aircraft.

After seeing the documentaries on how it was build one would find it remarkable that the thing actually is airworthy. But again most of the technology has been reused and the plane size is the difference and of course the design processes/logistics at Airbus (with a lot of countries involved) is really the most remarkable achievement. Even with all the IT systems still a couple of cables were short and some pieces would not fit. They will find plenty of faults and bugs and they will eliminate them for sure. But nothing is bullet proof of course.

The Dreamliner 787 pretty much represents a different strategy/vision by Boeing --bigger is not always better. They are concentrating on very efficient long range performance and low fuel consumption. The only thing that they will do similar to Airbus is the way they design/build it. For the first time they plan to outsource 70-80% of the project Dreamliner and have a "real time" IT systems that will update changes (by the design teams) immediately within the systems that links every company involved.

Having said all that I am very happy with the 777. Don't like change.

Originally Posted by Will

You talk of European advances over the Americans but this is all xenophobic tripe.

Nah, Not xenophobic, just a healthy dose
of realism as to how Yank companies do business.
(After all I do work for one.)

Originally Posted by mave

Saw it today, it did a flypast at the Filton plant in Bristol. Absolutely monstrous, it looked close when it was a few miles away! Surprising quiet as well (I know, it was empty and throttled back, but impressive nontheless

hooray! i think its great - although was a little concerned that in 5 years time I'd have them flying over my house and making a right scream...but if they're no louder than a 777 or something that'll be fine

What's happening about that Delta wing that was in all the papers a little while ago. You know....had the engines placed on top of it so all the noise was directed upwards?

To me that was advanced design.

Aren't delta wings inheritantly unstable, and also can't carry as many passengers?

Originally Posted by Gary Slegg

Aren't delta wings inheritantly unstable, and also can't carry as many passengers?

What about the S-foil configuration...these seem to be more stable from what I have seen...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XW

Errrhhhh.....

It was this that I was talking about

www.cambridge-mit.org/research/sai

Originally Posted by Kevin Slegg

Errrhhhh.....

It was this that I was talking about

www.cambridge-mit.org/research/sai

HAHAHAA Star Wars Deltawings. !!Virage1 slightly off topic

Originally Posted by Kevin Slegg

What's happening about that Delta wing that was in all the papers a little while ago. You know....had the engines placed on top of it so all the noise was directed upwards?

To me that was advanced design.

And also the idea of liftbodies.
i.e. the whole aircraft provides lift, not just the wings.
This leads to massive cargo/fuel/passenger capacity.

N.

Originally Posted by Nev

And also the idea of liftbodies.
i.e. the whole aircraft provides lift, not just the wings.
This leads to massive cargo/fuel/passenger capacity.

N.

Yeah, I think that's what shown on the Cambridge link I posted above. Its all to do with a design for a Silent Aircraft.

the delta wing is quite stable but it would have to fit into the current 80m box for which is the current maximum at most airports so it wouldnt end up being that big

Originally Posted by Gary Slegg

Aren't delta wings inheritantly unstable, and also can't carry as many passengers?

Strictly its a flying wing/ Blended Wing Body aircraft - such as the B2.
Does tend to be unstable, but carries more passengers for a given aircraft weight.

Please somebody correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that most modern aircraft do actually create lift from their fuselages - certainly at some angles of attack.

Also, the B2's instability is largely due to having no vertical stabiliser.

Lack of a vertical stabiliser gives instability in yaw, which can be countered by varying engine thrust from side to side, or by use of spoilers.

The big problem with the B2 I thought was its instability in pitch, due to being so short. A conventional aircraft has a downward force from the tailplane to make it inherently stable in pitch, of course a flying wing can't do that so has constant trim inputs to the elevons from the flight control system.

I suppose the problem wouldn't be quite so severe in the Silent Aircraft as linked above since it has more length, but I guess its still challenging.

I cannot wait to see the A380 TBH. Virgin is even planning to fit a gym inside their 380s.

As I see it, the main reason for not doing flying / Delta wings is engineering commonality. If you look at Comet vs 707 (ignoring the square window episode), the Comet was optimised at one size, with one engine design embedded into the wing. Boeing went for a fuselage design style which allowed for longer or shorter derivatives fairly easily, and took the same approach to the engines by hanging them on the outside where they are relatively easy to redesign for (when they reengined the Nimrod nee Comet with BR710 engines, they needed to completely modify the wingbox as the engine passes through the spars!!). I suspect that with the Delta or blended wing, the cost of designing and certifying derivatives is prohibitive.