737 KILLER? - Boeing’s Upcoming X-66A
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 окт 2024
- Boeing is working diligently to find a design suitable for its next aircraft, but what will that be? Does the X-66A or TTBW stand a chance with so much funding present or is it something else? Today I explore the X-66A, recent developments and what is next
🔔 Subscribe to GlobeTrotting: bit.ly/Subscri...
🖥️ Visit our website: djsaviation.net
CONNECT WITH US
🐦 Twitter: / djsaviation
👥 Facebook: / djsaviation
💬 Discord: / discord
💻 Patreon: / djsaviation
BUSINESS ENQUIRIES
📧 Email: contactdjsaviation@gmail.com
CHECK OUT THE PODCAST
🎙️ Spotify: bit.ly/DjsAvia...
🎙️ Apple: bit.ly/DjsPodc...
SUBMIT VIDEO IDEAS
✍️ Form - bit.ly/SubmitV...
===============================
ℹ️ MORE INFORMATION ℹ️
creativecommon...
Licensed under CC-BY-SA 2.0
-
-
-
-
-
Video written by
🎵 OUTRO TRACK 🎵
Krys Talk - Fly Away [NCS Release]
Music provided by NoCopyrightSounds.
• Krys Talk - Fly Away |...
Free Download / Stream ncs.io/flyaway
#aviation #news #flight #aircraft #avgeek #airplane #airlines #airport #planespotting #airbus #boeing
![The Rocket Plane That Broke The Sound Barrier | Bell X-1 [Aircraft Overview #51]](/img/1.gif)
The future looks a lot like the past
realest thing i’ve heard all year… i’m not joking. This isn’t just true for The X-66, but for most new things.
Looks like a super modern Antonov An-72 to me lol, long low sweep high mounted wings, T-Tail, unconventional for a passenger plane indeed
@@elliottsmith8268and arvo RJ’s and bae 146s especially if they did develop the twin variant could also talk about the dorniers I think the reason is because cost has become the determining factor of what the characteristics of an aircraft will be. It’s cheaper to develop an airframe built to handle extremes. It’s cheaper to fly slower. With most flights anyway in the 0-4hour range you’re spending most of your time in the airport waiting so i think now we have more reasonable solutions to our problems
Like the saying goes, "The more things change, the more they remain the same."
Looks like the Dornier 328JET with long, thin wings and a stretched fuselage.
I don't believe that Boeing is doing nothing but wait for new tech to arrive. This narrow body segment of the market is the biggest and has the most potential for profit. I think that Boeing is working very hard on this and making every effort to keep it all secret. I bet they have a well hidden design and research section like the famous Lockheed Skunk Works and will come up with something amazing.
I agree but let's not forget that when the 707 first came out airlines complained that it wasn't as wide as the DC8 so they made the 707 wider to compete but they kept the original line going side by side with the narrowed KC 135 for year's then they just took the 707 fuselage and made the 727 and 737 that was a long time ago I think they have had enough time to make the 737 as wide or wider than the 320
The development of successors to the 737 and A320 is probably the most fascinating contest in the industry. This category of aircraft is where the big money is, it's also where new competitors are trying to get a share of the pie, and both A and B hold their cards close to their chest. I must say though that this X66A may not look elegant or pretty, but it's certainly intriguing from a passenger point of view. With its high wing configuration, there would be a clear, unobstructed view from every window seat.
Looks like bigger version of ATR to me 😂
It's a scary realization that by mid-2030, the 737 MAX line will be nearing or entering the their 20's...
Is it just me or does this look like a small C-141 Starlifter with braced wings?
Someone helping design this project from nasa told me for the prototype they will be using the fuselage and tail section of the MD90 to save costs
Seriously like why use a 60 year old design on a plane that is due to fly in the 2030s? Can they just design the fuselage somewhat like the 787 or the a220.
@@teeg036no no no. This is a demonstrator.
The tech tested on this airplane will be put on a clean sheet design. It’s like when they test a new engine on a 747, they don’t plan on re-engining the 747 they are just testing a new engine. Same here.
They aren’t going to design a whole new plane to test the wing, they are going to modify an existing airliner, test the wing concept, and if it works, apply it to a clean sheet. They aren’t going to start rolling out MD-90s with new wings for the airlines. That is not the plan.
(It’s only for the prototype)
Boeing needs to go through this project if they want to survive as a company. At the very least, the unique design would make them look much more innovative, versus the 787 or A350, which look more like refinements on existing designs, even if they did incorporate many new technologies.
Also, they need to get rid of all those McDonnell-Douglas executives that they picked up.....but that's more based on fact than opinion.
Back in 2005 I was working on a advance design program for a A320 replacement. Airlines were not interested if the efficiency wasnot substancially improved. There were efforts to use light weight materials and find more efficient ways to assemble the aircraft at a faster pace for high rates production. But that was about it, if this new design offers what is promising, airliners will buy it for sure.
...I question the engines at eye level with the cabin, not just for noise concerns but should a fan disk shred or blades detach.
My other concern is the effect the weight of fuel would have on those thin long wings.
I've had the notion that B is working on something new regardless of what they want us to think. We'll just have to wait to see what it is.
If I'm not mistaken, Airbus is banking on the GFM rise engine. They probably gonna fit them on the NEO since they are tall enough to accommodate the large open rotor engine.
Entry into service was projected to be in mid 2030s and 20% reduction in fuel burn compared to the current engines.
The final project would be very cheap compared to a brand new next gen aircraft. Airbus gonna pump this aircraft until their hydrogen evo project mature enough to be launched.
Wanna hear a Boeing joke?
Nevermind... won't take off!
This is fairly typical. A early prototype test aircraft that is sort of boched together.
Its not a working airliner, it will miss a lot of parts, and it would not be possible to make it one.
The lessons learned will be carried over to a new concept that in will be worked out to a prototype that later will be worked out to a production aircraft.
This will take time, and the production aircraft will probobly look very different. They will find stuff that didn´t work, and also stuff that could work better, that need changing
I love this development. The only thing that concerns me is the the longer wingspan and how airports and airlines would accommodate it.
The wingspan probably looks a lot wider than it actually is because of the narrow chord, but they could also leverage the folding-wingtip technology from the 777X if needed.
They gonna use the folded wingtips like the one they use on B777X.
The wing is longer, but not that much compared to B737.
I can't imagine a high mounted elevator because of the deep stall characteristics that came with the MD80 but it looks interesting.
That was more about when the wing stalls the stabilisers and control surfaces have no air flowing over so no control
I’m guessing they would have a learned from previous experiences
That can be countered
The wings look so thin and long I feel like it's going to break at anytime.
@@teeg036 looks have no relevance in strength. A thin strip of carbon fiber is not the same as a thin strip of fiberglass.
Another paper plane from Boeing.😂
High wing means more room for under-wing very-high-bypass turbofans… obviously.
that plane looks like a concept from 1996 but i like the idea and i hope to fly on it soon
In this wing design, the engine exhaust washes over the truss. Would that result in extra lift?
Airbus has also announced a new generation plane to replace the A320 by 2035 or something. Apparently it will have the "semi-aeroelastic hinged wing-tips" on which Airbus have been working for years now (check out the AlbatrossOne demonstrator plane). Not sure if the Airbus's future airplane will be less efficient than this one proposed by Boeing (since Boeing's design seems much more complex and optimized). But it's expected to have the CFM RISE engines, which would make it a LOT more efficient. But of course, such engines could be attached on Boeing's plane too so...we can't really know which one will ultimately be the most efficient.
Excellent report, viewers should know that Airbus has three different concepts of what they call ZeroE hydrogen-powered aircraft, including a +/-100 pax high wing turbo prop as well as a futuristic turbofan blended wing fuselage. So the race is on. To be fair to Boeing, I clearly recall them having a display of similar future concepts at the Paris Air Show in 2001. So nothing new about all of this - though I'd like to hear more discussion of why the 717/MD-90 was chosen for the X-66a test plane role, and as well how NASA came to have a lead PR role in all of this (as well as a comprehensive breakdown of the financial roles Boeing & partners are providing). As other commenters have said on this thread, there is nothing new about any of this - if we could teleport Bill Boeing here from the 1930's he could talk endlessly about why this high wing makes sense. The tech challenge will be, as always, to make Boeing's plane better (in every respect) than the ones the other guys come up with in Toulouse, São Paulo or Shanghai. I'm both hopeful yet skeptical - skeptical because of what Boeing has become in the Chicago HQ era.
So typical, for years Boeing has g=been given their technology from NASA. I do hope this aircraft could come to life and sunset the Crash and Burn 737 MAX which is 30 years or more over due.
The X-66A Is Basically a Twin Otter but with Jet engines, longer wings, longer fuselage, and more seats.
So basically, it's a new aircraft. I could just say that the 747 is the 707 but with longer wings, newer engines, longer fuselage, has a hump and has more seats...
The X-66A Is Basically a Cessna 172 but with 2 jet engines on the wings, longer wings, longer fuselage, retractable undercarriage, and more seats.
The X-66A is basically a PA18 Cub...........
It's basically a Hondajet with high mounted wings, and low mounted engines....
@@MPVC1 The Cessna 172 is basically a Wright Flyer with hinged control surfaces, a rear-mounted elevator, an enclosed cabin, wheeled landing gear, and one fewer wing and propeller,
Boeing sitting on the sidelines will not have a good effect on them, they're blind to decay, decay inside and outside their own. It's one of the biggest issues with large corporations. They're very much unable to feel their extremities and dependent on a leadership that's no longer able to commune with the lower part. CEOs of today are pathetic by comparison to those of even a couple of decades ago, let alone when Boeing got started.
2035 at the earliest for Boeing according to Calhoun the CEO, There will br an A350Neo and an A220-500 before then.
I don't see a risk for the larger wing span, they can do foldable wings.The B777 has foldable wing tips for this reason.
Why has this ugly looking aircraft type been development for so long ? Why does it require struts, isn't that going back almost 100 years ? It is not an attractive aircraft.
Further refinement of the wing & tube especially if it requires reconfiguring gates and runways is a loser. Blended wing will get more butts in seats and work within current gates and runways configurations. Stop playing around with wing and tube.
The demonstrator used is an MD-80 Fuselage, this is just for developmental progress. The research done through this will power a clean sheet design. Wish them the best of luck
Does Boeing still have the competence to design a new type?
Now that is a good question
It's a joint research with NASA. The people at NASA for sure have the capability to do that.
I think this could be a good aircraft but, they should make it into a regional airplane that could compete with the atr-72 and Dash-8
WZ-7 already uses TTBW, but it's a drone so don't know if it counts as the first~
Could Boeing add wings to the 66A that fold like new 777 to manage the tight airport’s parking?
Dime to a dollar this airplane will not be used for commercial service....it'll end up in the miltary
Not a 737 KILLER but a likely 737 SUCCESSOR.
This how you funnel government subsidies 😂😂😂
That’s an ugly little plane
Aesthetically it looks horrible, almost like a blast from the past.
I heard they are gonna use the fuselage of the dc-9
Don't you mean A320 series killer?
If that’s the future of flight ✈️ take me back please 🙏
Goodbye 737 and airbus A320 A319
Just a smart ploy to legally subsidize Boeing
Exactly, they might even use the money to pay dividends to their shareholders.
Well...if Airbus can play the subsidy game, why not Boeing? And before you say Boeing is already subsidized by govenrment military contracts, so is Airbus. Airbus' commercial aircraft division is also heavily and directly subsidized by the EU. So there you have it.
Yes, will the WTO say about this
Boeing is done. What idiots stopping the 797 when they did.
this is where all the budget in safety and design went!
Bro what is that
More US subsidies for Boeing
This video offers nothing lol
Its easier to work with off the self technology...... Boeing is using a Douglas fuselage... not impresive.... Boeing is lanking creativity and langing in the commercial aircraft industry
Boeing and Airbus are waiting to see what net zero means to air transport. The electric airliner that politicians talk about is a pipe dream. Batteries, even in the future, in the quantity to lift 100 tonnes of airliner to 30,000 feet and propel it 1000km will represent most (all?) of the weight of the aircraft. And unlike fuel that can be burned off, the aircraft will land as heavy as it departed. And be driven by propellers. The future of air travel is in alternative fuels that have no emissions, such as hydrogen, or are net zero, such as specially grown biofuels. Either way, these fuels will be vastly more expensive than Jet A, so greatly reducing fuel burn will be the dominant design aim. High aspect wings do that by reducing drag and increasing lift. The downside is greater structural weight, complexity and bending. The truss/strut resolves those issues albeit with a drag penalty. What is old is new again and I urge viewers to look at the 1950s designs from Hurel-Dubois. My expectation is by 2050 air travel will be where it was in the 1950s, something only the middle class could afford. Mass air travel will end with Jet A.
The X-66A looks old already...can't Boeing go with hawk-like peak like the Embraer and larger Airbuses.
Boeing would still be in first place, from a market share perspective, if they had not mucked up the 737 MAX build. Time will tell if they can return to the market leader but Airbus will be difficult to displace now that they have the lead.
The upper part of the wing kinda reminds Russian Il-76 🤷♂️
Meanwhile, Airbus is working on hydrogen power. Next 10 years will be ground breaking
A major advantage for the 737 is the ability to check the engines without ladders or lifts.
It’s very ugly
Wonder if B737M/Airbus A-320 families is thinking about this.
I wouldn't call it killer, I'd call it replacement. It is time for B to build a replacement jetliner.
The fuselage being used for testing is not that of the 737...but the MD-80. Or...the same size as the Bombardier/Airbus A220. To me, this validates the business case for the A220. However, the A220 was a clean sheet design, which means Boeing must do the same to achieve the desired efficiency. Boeing cannot just produce MD-80s with a new wing. It will be interesting because by the time Boeing is ready to produce a plane with a 3x2 size fuselage... over 1000 A220s will be in the air.
I highly doubt Boeing will use the MD90 fuselage, for the same reason why they won't restart 757 production. They discontinued the design a long time ago, and it's not worth it restarting production of an old design that has been discontinued a long time ago.
They're probably just using an old fuselage on an early prototype to save development costs.
@@h8GW ... the new wing design being tested will be longer and thousands of gates around the world are built to size for the 737/A320 wing span. To get a wing span that fits the current gate size, the fuselage must be smaller, thus the use of the MD-80. If they use a 737 fuselage the wing span needed with the new design would require thousands of gates to be rebuilt.
Of course not. If the new wing design is proved to be efficient and viable commercially, they'll have to go back to drawing board to make a clean design featuring the new wing before pushing it into production.
This is a pipe dream. None of the new fangled designs will ever come to market.
Dash 8 with jets
As they say, there is usually more than one side to an argument.
On one hand, while it may seem sensible to wait for the next technology, you risk retaining something ever more difficult to sell in the meantime at best, and impossible at worst.
There is also the dilemma about what to do if the technology you have been waiting for arrives, but there is something potentially even better in the pipeline?
This will only help the competition, and as we are already seeing in the case of the A321neo and its longer range variants, airlines have bought the Airbus because their 757s are reaching the end of their economical service life and Boeing has nothing suitable available, and no firm date when one is likely to be.
As a consequence, they have then gone on to purchase more Airbus aircraft, for which a suitable Boeing is available when normally they would have remained with Boeing without question.
Take a worst-case scenario for Boeing.
Within the next 5 years, Airbus has an A320 neo+ to market.
Even if it only achieved a modest 5-10% efficiency improvement over the neo (to reduce development costs and break-even point), it would make life more difficult for the MAX which is now at the end of the line development wise thanks in the main to the additional regulatory requirements as a result of the MAX scandal.
Boeing would be unlikely to be able to respond until the 737 replacement launched.
But that needs money, and the now less competitive MAX may not only be selling fewer units but may also need to be sold at a significant discount to even get those fewer sales.
Meanwhile, because Airbus is effectively spending as little as possible to produce something which makes the MAX less competitive, they can still afford to develop something which at least matches the Boeing 737 replacement as well as getting it to market at a similar time.
Of course, these are just musings about what could happen. But any one of them could have a disproportionate effect if Boeing is unable to announce something the market has confidence with.
And I am not so sure that the market has the kind of confidence required to wait on Boeing. I bet there are a few disappointed airlines who had long-term plans based around the NMA, which was on and off so much, that the airlines have in some cases gone elsewhere, possibly not likely to even consider returning in the short to medium term.
Could you describe what you mean by a "A320neo+" ? Something that Airbus could do that Boeing can't just easily do?
@BPiperDude I just made a name up to represent a raft of possibe, or even minor improvements to give modest improvements to the Airbus.
In no way was it based on anything factual, just hypothetical.
As to whether Boeing could also make similar improvements, technically, yes, but because of regulatory changes, Boeing may be forced to update far more to the latest standards (which the A320 series aleady meets)
They needed special dispensation to not have to carry out those improvements for the already in development MAX7 and 10, something unlikely to be granted again.
Not a case of can't, but more a case of way too expensive to do. If you remember, Boeing stated that if the additional changes to the MAX10 had been insisted upon (because they passed the cut-off date), that would have put those models into jepordy.
@@neilpickup237 Gotcha. Thought you might have heard something I hadn't. If it happens quick then you are absolutely right. Boeing would have a serious problem.
A bit of a correction though. The waiver for the MAX7 and MAX10 wasn't quite a waiver but a time frame exception. Part of the deal was that Boeing still has to do those changes but they have to be developed 2 years after the final MAX series is certified. So those changes will need to be made through all 4 variants of the plane but will start to be rolled into per-existing planes over a period of time.
Also one thing I've always heard is that they constantly talk about how Boeing isn't going to produce a new plane any time soon. The funny thing is why I'm hearing this constantly I've NOT heard that Airbus IS developing a new plane. Yet no one mentions that. Right now the A320 is a bit more efficient than the 737 but not be much maybe 1-3%. so I'm not seeing a reason for Airbus to do any changes. New planes even re-engined small increments are billions of dollars.
@BPiperDude I know what you mean by retrofitting changes, but the killer change, which they are not required to fit, is the crew alerting system.
As for which is better, statistics can be manipulated, but in reality, how you use the aircraft can make a difference, too. Manufacturers and fanboys typically use the most favourable metrics.
Take a non-contentious example of the A320ceo v A320neo. We all think we know just how much an improvement the neo is over the ceo. However, I was told by someone who worked for Lufthansa (who operate both) that on some of their shortest routes, the ceo burns less fuel for the journey - simply because the length of time it is in the far more efficient cruise phase is insufficient to recover the additional fuel required to amongst other things, get those heavier engines aloft.
No doubt, if I had been talking to someone from an airline that operates both the NG and the MAX, they might have had a similar story to tell.
I would not be surprised if Airbus makes further tweaks to the A321xlr to recover at least some of the reduction in range as a result of the safety improvements now required for the extra fuel tanks.
This could theoretically become part of a hypothetical A320+ range, I suggested.
DJ would baggage handling be more difficult ?
They should go with an oval body and make it a wide body and get double aisles and additional seats.
Do we know what Airbus is currently working on, aside from finalising the A321 XLR?
A new thinner but longer wing actually🙂. And one that can be folded. They launched a new design center in the UK for this.
A220
@@BPiperDude But is it associated with an actual aircraft project?
@@Dan_the_Great_ The A220 is already in service.
I think they have a couple of concept project. I can’t remember the details, but one might be a blended wing and the other is a turboprop, I think? They’re also working on hydrogen fuel technology.
boeing should just focus on their widebodies at this point!
Very interesting about what innovations/redesigns are looked at for replacements for current airliners in service. Across this side of the globe, Airbus have the dominance, on first glance, but I have no preference personally as I just want to get there quickly and in comfort
Just a fancy Boeing 717. Nothing exciting about that. Folding wings adds undesired complexity to a simple operation like southwest.
Well then the future is going to suck as Airbus is doing a folded wing design too for their next generation wing.
It looks ugly
The extra drag will be a issue. If they make the wings thin, where does the fuel go. Its BS
This looks like a diversion to me?(!)
Nope better not be more like a Dash 8 jet powered.
Plane design needs a paradigm shift, not this weird wing to add another 5%-10% efficiency. Electric supersonic quiet jet that Elon Musk was talking about, for example.
This however won't be done by Boeing. NMA should have been done, demand is there and Airbus already said its best solution is A321XLR, which isn't ideal. 737MAX made Boeing scared of investment. Boeing is finished as a company.
Boeing is far from finished. As incompetent as they have been, they are simply too big to fail. The industry is also booming and there's very little competition. Now that we are looking at 7-8 years to get an A320neo after the mammoth indian order a 737 is looking a lot more desireable. It's list price is also less than a 320.
In terms of this Electric supersonic quiet jet you're talking about its not going to happen. Something like that would take decades of R&D and another decade of certification. Not feasable considering the position Boeing is in.
Airbus is designing this exact type of wing as well. I guess they are a finished company too.
Just build the got damn 797
Have there been any updates on the Flying V concept aircraft that KLM are studying?
No updates. There are so many issues with the Flying V I don't think I'd see anything coming of it. From a Safety point of view it's kind of un-workable that I can see. half the escape exists would be facing the other part of the aircraft which might also be on fire or trying to exit people. Wing span is going in the complete opposite direction as you would have a larger wings span vs the tube configuration meaning it fits into less gates. The extra skin area means more drag on a person by person basis than a double decked single tube.
I'd love to be proved wrong though as it seems like a cool idea. I think I'd rather do a blended wing configuration as the vertigo inside a split tubed "V" wing would be a bit extreme. I haven't heard anything that can overcome the aforementioned issues so if anything I'd look again in 10 years before any real development would happen.
Wait, watch, and learn
It’s also interesting to see how we can use the technology to reduce fuel burn in any means possible.
What is efficiency improvement
They need a fold wing
Sincerely, by the time Boeing would be able to get this plane to hit the market Airbus would have so much advantage over Boeing that they probably could develop their own version of it and put it to merket before Boeing could start production.
You realise that the new certication rules , that Boeing are facing will also need to followed by airbus too?
@@mmm0404no matter what Boeing decides to do, if they make it public, Airbus can respond before Boeing gets anything done. They're gonna have to play in the shadows as long as they can and keep their plans confidential until they have something very solid already close to production
@@themindset3329 yea , that on paper. Anyway doesn't matter who responds first , Boeing will now be able to match whatever airbus comes up with 1v1 and will not have the limitations of a 737 airframe.... Meaning the advantage airbus has now , will no longer be there at such a time
Airbus hasn’t even started looking at the next cycle. Boeing is already on the move
Awesome info
Ok but why does it look so ugly 💀
How is it ugly-
It's not ugly...
@@wiktorjaciow9815yes it is, very much so 😂
Total nonsense.
It will never get off the drawing board.
@@shuttle_aero9399 that weird thing connecting the bottom of the fuselage to the wing
The Trusses must create extra drag?
Certainly, but also more lift. Might save fuel at the expense of speed. Who knows
dub
Some items missing in this report.
1. X plane designation are done by the US Air Force to designate experimental planes. Sometimes they do it sometimes they don't. It is not done by NASA itself. Don't know but don't think any money is involved in the designation by itself. More prestige. The NASA money and the X-66A designations are separate.
2. The X-66A is currently involving Delta/American/United/Southwest and Alaska Airlines to get there input on what is needed for this plane to be used as in their networks. So yes it is being developed with the mindset of using this as the 797 so to speak. I don't think it will have the name 797 but just using it for now.
3. Airbus is designing almost this exact type of wing and has been doing so from the mid 2010s. They haven't mentioned a truss but have mentioned super long, high aspect, narrow wings. So both duopoly air frame designers are on similar paths. In other words super long, super thing, high aspect ratio wings "are" the future of.
NASA's press release doesn't mention any airline involvement.
Only Boeing is getting "input" from airlines. Furthermore Boeing is involved as far as "build, test & fly"
@@soccerguy2433 Boeing is the "Design, build, test & fly". When I mention the X-66A I'm kind of meaning the program not necessarily the plane. And why both you and me said input from the other airlines I have a feeling it will be more than that. All the news articles I'm seeing are saying "collaborating". That usually involves a bit more. It means that Boeing would share some very limited design and performance aspects with the airlines and get their feedback which causes them to tweek something and then ask the Airlines again what they think of the update. This usually happens in pre-launch or early stage after launch things. I remember the back and forth that the A350 went through with the airlines early in the programs. This doesn't usually happen on a pure research airplane such as the X-48, X-57 or X-59. In fact as far as X planes this is the first time I've heard of it.
The plane is a NASA design and engineering project. Boeing will do the assembly. Not a Boeing project.
With wing struts like this, imagine the # collisions with ground vehicles
This can potentially become the upgrade for 737 maxes as it looks like very capable to be next gen human killing machine. I will definitely fly airbus any day as boring aircrafts are made for profit and not for safety & comfort.
A dumb comment though
@@Samguy55 nothing if we look at your posted video
honestly, it looks like a step backwards towards those prop planes, ATR or De Havilland with a bit of the Cessna truss support. Big wings like a glider does? looks unstable and more points of potential failure at the where the upper wing and the lower wing joint together, future accident waiting to happen there. also the engines are so high
Looks have nothing to do with actual engineering you know.
Total joke. More studies no meat.
cool...