I can imagine, one day an orange sized nuclear reactor is going to be the heart of a plane. And only two fans will be the source of the thrust on the wings. No fuel, no weight....
They tried it with the X-6 (a modified B-36 bomber with a nuclear reactor installed on board) -- don't you think there was a good reason why they never built a second one?
nice for a press conference, but how exactly are you driving the jet engines with electricity, and how much extra fuel are you burning to drag up the extra weight of the batteries
Should make a Liquid Hydrogen Jet engine Aircraft. You already did a liquid hydrogen prop plane with your phantom eye, only makes sense to up the game with larger aircraft.
Awesome! As an airline pilot I would love to fly this thing... I'd love to see newer and more efficient ways to get a plane off the ground... I think this would be a great supplement to the dirtier, less fuel efficient regional aircraft we fly today... Don't get me wrong, this would definitely not be a long range plane, not in its strut's design, but it would definitely be great for the domestic hops emb145, crj200 & 900 makes with a ton less noise and fuel... Keep it up Boeing!
Been a fan since NASA put it up on their website a few years back. Was any further development done on SUGAR Ray too? I know it wasn't selected for the final concept, but still a great idea.
Great concept - braces to the wing makes me imagine on how long the wings are going to be. Plus the presence of braces for wings makes me think that lesser amount of fuel will be used in the wing tanks if at all there will be any, because one of the loads the cantilever of the wing has to address is weight of the fuel carried which obviously is going to be altered by this design. The CFRs specifically part 25 are going to be a challenge in proving the SUGAR as well - but that is a challenge.
Wait two questions, 1. Why not onboard generater(burn Hydrogen) and/or solar panners on top? It is always sunny above FL300! 2. I thougt FAA stated that commercial airplane have to be low wing in order to float when emergency landing on water.
What about the increased weight for battery cells? What about the energy required to generate the electricity to charge the batteries in the first place?
ya good idea needs to be built to fly. Sounds crazy, but have you seen the video on the gravity plane? I do think it would work well, given the right design.
Don't worry about folding wings US Navy done it since 1930's. F/A-18 E/F use folding wings too. But folding wings will be heavier than normal wings, as well as swept wing.
Steve jobs is unique !! the reason why i mentioned here because those simulations on those computers are the taught of his and he changed the world interacting to computers we miss him a lot :'( miss u steve ..
I have been looking at a modified 747 for quite some time. I would like to see the 2 inboard engines being slightly oversized, and the outboard engines, able to run hybrid, meaning that during take off, they run fully on jet fuel, but at cruise, the inboard engines generate power, to spin the outboard engines on electric power alone. I do see that there would be a little bit of a drop in speed, but a Hybrid 747 would be better than a 787, in fuel savings. Have you looked at a Hybrid 747 ??
i agree their there to reinforce....that albatross type of wingspan, i think it might suffer in overall speed of the flight comparing to conventional comm air-crafts
Cool, but one small problem with the name. Aerodyne is a trademark of Kenworth Truck Company, so it wouldn't be too good to have a Washington State company suing the other Washington State company.
They are pretty much right about electric air crafts. 15 years back electric cars were a joke but it is happening today. More people are slowly adopting electric cars by the year. Along with advancements in green power generation, they start to become a real option. Similarly electric air crafts were a dream 5 years ago and yet Cessna is developing GA electric air craft with 30 mins of air time. Nasa + Google's electric aircraft competition proved they can be efficient. Matter of time.
so nice!!! i hope i can spot and maybe work on it in a few years!!! ;) it looks so nice!!! i just can't imagine how the engines can create enough power with electricity to get a plane in the air???
I would have thought that the high aspect ratio wing would be negated by the use of struts? I also thought that Rutan proved that to be efficient, it was better to use a canard layout, make ALL the wings lift and proportion the aspect ratios between them. Charging batteries at an airport terminal would not be viable, the aircraft should have roll off-roll on pre-charged packs, even if they are sections of the wings.
best new concept out there but one day i hope they could incorporate the use of solar energy and wind power. their in the best field to be working with both uses of technology to do it and possibly cut all emissions.
Why don't you guys incorporate solar panels into the top of the wings? Above the clouds it's nothing but sun, and you could cover the panels with plexi or something light to keep the airflow steady. That would reduce or eliminate the need for big heavy batteries. Another not so radical idea, I think, would be to have turbofans for takeoff and high power situations, but turboprops with pusher propellers on the rear of the wing to reduce drag and for use in cruise flight and taxiing that use less fuel and are quieter than the turbofans.
Solar panels are a non-starter -- they're inefficient, plus they'll degrade quickly from friction heating (just so you know, the wings of a passenger jet get hot enough during cruise flight that you could literally fry an egg on them!) Now the hybrid turbofan/turboprop, on the other hand, is a pretty good idea -- in fact, it's been tried (remember the UnDucted Fans, anyone?) and found to save quite a bit of fuel. Maybe it's time to revive that idea?
I think you're talking about the batteries being non starter. When hot, batteries do lose charge VERY quickly, but solar panels last just fine in texas, arizona, new mexico, etc. They're designed to be in direct sunlight and heat. But yeah the turbofan/prop hybrid would be pretty cool. Very safe too.
In the 1980's when I worked at Boeing Aerospace Boeing was seriously developing carbon composite technology, with a goal of building a next generation passenger jet completely differently than the aluminum alloy technology. They were looking ahead 20-30 years to keep ahead of another powerful and incredibility capable aerospace firm Air Bus and its military counterpart EADS. I remember people saying it would never work, what do they say today about the 787 I wonder.
Great idea, ambitious timeframe. I'm a bit wary/skeptical on how reliable folding wings will be, but if anyone can get it right, it's the engineers at Boeing.
solar power can not generate enough power for a large commercial airliner. solar power as of now can only power single cockpit aircraft such as the solar impulse.
The area of design focus needs to be in Ultra high capacity capacitors and the correct Hybrid combination of gas turbine on Bio Fuel to Electrical Generators using KERS technology, currently utilized by current F-1 GP race cars. This along with ultra strong and lighter weight advanced composites will get an aircraft of 80 to 100 passengers across the US or 2,900 NM non-stop in 7 to 7.5 hours...try driving a car or taking a train, for example between LAX - JFK in that amount of time!
An electric prop plane makes a lot of sense. it would be a lot quieter than a jet.much safer without jet fuel. a lot less weight with out heavy jet engines and fuel. and and electric engine is less complicated than a jet engine and thus less prone to failure.
+Dennis Kitainik I propose an idea how about we go back to let's say 1950s now now hear me out we use A. four prop engines which will be more than enough thrust and B. Make them electric motors combined with turbo fan recharge systems and solar panels on wings and fuselage it will make for a efficient airliner that may or may not need to be recharged after initial charging of battery packs
why are the fuselage of the aircraft always cylidrical... why not more ovoid triangular, where it increases passenger room and adds to lift as the fusalage is more in the shape of a wing...
+Dennis Kitainik couldn't have said it better, it's the same reason why windows in airliners are oval not square... Square would blow from the week spots in the corners, and the same would happen to fuselages....
Boeing will define the future of air transport and gain the goodwill of the world once they accelerate the development of the aircraft. If Boeing's leadership can follow just a little bit of Elon Musk's passion and commitment, there will be no competition.
Impractical. Would need to install a catapult at ever airport the airline would visit. Much cheaper and more efficient to install jet capabilities on board aircraft, even if only used on takeoff.
2 matching support angle wing braces could b added under the high tail, housing to smaller jet fans. This gives u 3 modes, big fans, small fans, & hybrid fight. I help to soften the transition between 1 & the other. Allows u to hve just enough power for efficient flight at all demand levels & still hve redundancy factor of small engine if big boy gets taken out by bird or fire.
+James Merkel This clunker ALREADY has more than enough form drag from the wing struts -- let's not add even more! Not to mention that there's NO conceivable use for the small fans!
So it seems this would only work if the aspect ratio is sufficiently high. This will be the other connecting piece to the puzzle, fabricating wings that have a high aspect ratio with lower mass and have favorable aeroelastic characteristics.
Dennis Kitainik The Volt is not a jumbo jet. Second, conferences and periodicals on aeroelasticity all point to moving to higher AR wings and structural optimization with composites. Sorry, but this is my field of research.
Interesting to compare this extended wing design to hybrid body wing designs for aerodynamic efficiency. The gas turbines could be decoupled as the electric motors take over at cruising altitude. Gas turbine efficiency might well decrease at higher altitudes while that of electric motors be unaffected.
...and don't forget the shelved 7J7 "Food Processor" counter rotating carbon fan blade project back in the late 80's!!! Those engines would have to be retrofitted to older DC-9 or MD-80 type aircraft as I cannot see those blades whirling that close to the runway at TO power!
I don't care if we can get airplanes to run off electricity and exceed the lifetime, range, cargo capacity, and performance of fueled airplanes. If electricity is still provided to charge those batteries via oil refineries and coal, I'm not necessarily a supporter of the idea. But we will definitely see where the future will bring us :)
If you have some nice music and pictures of grass and someone talking with a nice tone everything seems good. They could say anything and we would still like what they're saying...
lol, you can make electricity with some wood and a river or some wind, so yes, it doesn't need to have emissions. Though we obviously use metals and other chemicals to create our green power, which obviously does create some pollution, but it is a tiny fraction of what we produce with combustable engines/power plants.
Pretty cool! The number 3 most fossil fuel burner is planes and I believe that once we set up renewable grid energy that planes could 100% fun of electric power.
Untrue. Thinner planform gives much less surface area for drag. Struts possibly also aerofoils, provides additional lift. Compensates for reduced wing area with minimal resistance.
Also untrue - It is not the smaller surface area of slender wings that yield lower drag (total wing area might actually be the same with larger span and shorter chord). It is the induced drag that is lower in those wings, not surface drag.
corisco tupi Induced drag mostly comes into play at LOW speeds -- at higher speeds, it's the FORM drag that's more important. And at jetliner speeds, wave drag comes into play as well -- and guess what, at those speeds these Caravan-style struts would create much more of both than the slim wings can ever hope to offset!
Dennis Kitainik I know, Dennis. But at altitude, CL is usually high - airliners operate with a small margin between stall and compressibility. High-speed flight at altitude is not the same as high-speed flight a lower altitudes. With high CL, induced drag is again a factor, even at high true airspeed.
oliver driggs Because gliders are SLOW -- what we need is a FAST aircraft (at least 500 knots at cruising altitude like today's passenger jets), even if this burns more fuel!
Hopefully, Boeing will come up with a more attractive design when they look to put an aircraft like this into production. If I were shown a picture of this plane with no other accompanying materials, I would guess that it is some kind of Airbus prototype. In the past, Boeing has always maintained a significant edge in design aesthetics. This design really does not do that at all. Think 377, Dash 80, or 747; not A380 or A319.
Excuse me while i go and download a SUGAR volt for FSX.
Cool! Would a lighting strike recharge it?
That would be cool, but the charge of lightning wouldn't be able to charge it because the batteries needs certain volts, watts, etc.
Bill Nowlin that's a challenge Boeing. Make that exist
It would send you back to 1985..
i miss the Concord
I hope this goes into production. People need to fly and we need to do it more efficiently like this.
a team of great people, can't wait for the concept to come into reality. well done people
Kopano Mokhalodi Never gonna happen -- don't hold your breath!
I would love to have an opportunity to work on one of these in years to come.. Amazing!
WOW, hope for the future and what a magnificent group of people. HATS OFF!
I can imagine, one day an orange sized nuclear reactor is going to be the heart of a plane. And only two fans will be the source of the thrust on the wings. No fuel, no weight....
They tried it with the X-6 (a modified B-36 bomber with a nuclear reactor installed on board) -- don't you think there was a good reason why they never built a second one?
nice for a press conference, but how exactly are you driving the jet engines with electricity, and how much extra fuel are you burning to drag up the extra weight of the batteries
Should make a Liquid Hydrogen Jet engine Aircraft. You already did a liquid hydrogen prop plane with your phantom eye, only makes sense to up the game with larger aircraft.
Imagine electric powered engines,it would be so quiet...
+brandon calderon Doesn't matter if it's quiet -- how FAST will it be???
Awesome! As an airline pilot I would love to fly this thing... I'd love to see newer and more efficient ways to get a plane off the ground... I think this would be a great supplement to the dirtier, less fuel efficient regional aircraft we fly today... Don't get me wrong, this would definitely not be a long range plane, not in its strut's design, but it would definitely be great for the domestic hops emb145, crj200 & 900 makes with a ton less noise and fuel... Keep it up Boeing!
Just don't catch on fire...
Been a fan since NASA put it up on their website a few years back.
Was any further development done on SUGAR Ray too? I know it wasn't selected for the final concept, but still a great idea.
I assume you didn't watch the video before posting that comment...
Great concept - braces to the wing makes me imagine on how long the wings are going to be. Plus the presence of braces for wings makes me think that lesser amount of fuel will be used in the wing tanks if at all there will be any, because one of the loads the cantilever of the wing has to address is weight of the fuel carried which obviously is going to be altered by this design. The CFRs specifically part 25 are going to be a challenge in proving the SUGAR as well - but that is a challenge.
Wait two questions,
1. Why not onboard generater(burn Hydrogen) and/or solar panners on top? It is always sunny above FL300!
2. I thougt FAA stated that commercial airplane have to be low wing in order to float when emergency landing on water.
what about the extra weight from the batteries? i doubt this will be economical
Does it consume the same amount of power while parked for a turn or overnight as a non-electric plane?
What about the increased weight for battery cells? What about the energy required to generate the electricity to charge the batteries in the first place?
ya good idea needs to be built to fly.
Sounds crazy, but have you seen the video on the gravity plane? I do think it would work well, given the right design.
Don't worry about folding wings US Navy done it since 1930's. F/A-18 E/F use folding wings too. But folding wings will be heavier than normal wings, as well as swept wing.
Steve jobs is unique !! the reason why i mentioned here because those simulations on those computers are the taught of his and he changed the world interacting to computers we miss him a lot :'( miss u steve ..
humm how big the battery can last and how long it can be fly i think 2 to 3k nci miles .
I have been looking at a modified 747 for quite some time. I would like to see the 2 inboard engines being slightly oversized, and the outboard engines, able to run hybrid, meaning that during take off, they run fully on jet fuel, but at cruise, the inboard engines generate power, to spin the outboard engines on electric power alone. I do see that there would be a little bit of a drop in speed, but a Hybrid 747 would be better than a 787, in fuel savings. Have you looked at a Hybrid 747 ??
This is why I love Boeing
i agree their there to reinforce....that albatross type of wingspan, i think it might suffer in overall speed of the flight comparing to conventional comm air-crafts
the nose and cockpit configuration is the same with the a380 0:06
Cool, but one small problem with the name.
Aerodyne is a trademark of Kenworth Truck Company, so it wouldn't be too good to have a Washington State company suing the other Washington State company.
Was thinking about this the other day, cool idea
how fast could it go, because i dont want to be stuck in long flights if its as fast as a slandered turbo prop.
Will this be a long or short ranged aircraft?
+SupertMinecraft It will be a ground vehicle!
hope i live to see this thing go into production
They are pretty much right about electric air crafts. 15 years back electric cars were a joke but it is happening today. More people are slowly adopting electric cars by the year. Along with advancements in green power generation, they start to become a real option.
Similarly electric air crafts were a dream 5 years ago and yet Cessna is developing GA electric air craft with 30 mins of air time. Nasa + Google's electric aircraft competition proved they can be efficient. Matter of time.
so nice!!! i hope i can spot and maybe work on it in a few years!!! ;) it looks so nice!!!
i just can't imagine how the engines can create enough power with electricity to get a plane in the air???
I would have thought that the high aspect ratio wing would be negated by the use of struts?
I also thought that Rutan proved that to be efficient, it was better to use a canard layout, make ALL the wings lift and proportion the aspect ratios between them.
Charging batteries at an airport terminal would not be viable, the aircraft should have roll off-roll on pre-charged packs, even if they are sections of the wings.
Solar freaking airplane
Their is also fuel cells Raytheon has developed a solid oxide fuel sell that can run on JP-8 fuel for the army.
best new concept out there but one day i hope they could incorporate the use of solar energy and wind power. their in the best field to be working with both uses of technology to do it and possibly cut all emissions.
Sugar Volt....Hybird Eletric now this is Technology defining the Future of commerical Air transportation.
Why don't you guys incorporate solar panels into the top of the wings? Above the clouds it's nothing but sun, and you could cover the panels with plexi or something light to keep the airflow steady. That would reduce or eliminate the need for big heavy batteries. Another not so radical idea, I think, would be to have turbofans for takeoff and high power situations, but turboprops with pusher propellers on the rear of the wing to reduce drag and for use in cruise flight and taxiing that use less fuel and are quieter than the turbofans.
Solar panels are a non-starter -- they're inefficient, plus they'll degrade quickly from friction heating (just so you know, the wings of a passenger jet get hot enough during cruise flight that you could literally fry an egg on them!) Now the hybrid turbofan/turboprop, on the other hand, is a pretty good idea -- in fact, it's been tried (remember the UnDucted Fans, anyone?) and found to save quite a bit of fuel. Maybe it's time to revive that idea?
I think you're talking about the batteries being non starter. When hot, batteries do lose charge VERY quickly, but solar panels last just fine in texas, arizona, new mexico, etc. They're designed to be in direct sunlight and heat. But yeah the turbofan/prop hybrid would be pretty cool. Very safe too.
Dennis Kitainik Wings at altitude do not get hot. Why do you think fuel gets cold and leading edges ice up.
xxtwr1 What about aerodynamic heating from friction? Or is it only an issue at Mach 1+?
Is the landing gear retractable
Of course... It would not be nearly efficient if it wasn't....
+codzomz With these ugly-ass bracing struts, it won't matter if the gear is retractable -- there will be a HUGE amount of parasite drag all the same!
Nice concept... It's a blessed action of ecological awarness.
Godspeed
Interesting concept !
So slick. EMDrive will be nice.
In the 1980's when I worked at Boeing Aerospace Boeing was seriously developing carbon composite technology, with a goal of building a next generation passenger jet completely differently than the aluminum alloy technology. They were looking ahead 20-30 years to keep ahead of another powerful and incredibility capable aerospace firm Air Bus and its military counterpart EADS. I remember people saying it would never work, what do they say today about the 787 I wonder.
Fold able wings?? I don't know about that one.
Damn good idea. I've been asking for years why anybody wouldn't want to do this.
Great idea, ambitious timeframe. I'm a bit wary/skeptical on how reliable folding wings will be, but if anyone can get it right, it's the engineers at Boeing.
I soo wish to work on this project one day.... Was my first gcse DT idea... !
solar power can not generate enough power for a large commercial airliner. solar power as of now can only power single cockpit aircraft such as the solar impulse.
The focus was on having an electric motor I suggested this obviously. The 28 inch model would run a jetliner.
10/10 would buy
Who's UAV was caught on the threat radar at Nellis in 1994-95,morphing technology,what a slick aircraft,somebody out their knows who's it was ?
Someday ill work on something like that...hopefully...
Great initiative...
The area of design focus needs to be in Ultra high capacity capacitors and the correct Hybrid combination of gas turbine on Bio Fuel to Electrical Generators using KERS technology, currently utilized by current F-1 GP race cars. This along with ultra strong and lighter weight advanced composites will get an aircraft of 80 to 100 passengers across the US or 2,900 NM non-stop in 7 to 7.5 hours...try driving a car or taking a train, for example between LAX - JFK in that amount of time!
An electric prop plane makes a lot of sense. it would be a lot quieter than a jet.much safer without jet fuel. a lot less weight with out heavy jet engines and fuel. and and electric engine is less complicated than a jet engine and thus less prone to failure.
desiguy55 For a LIGHT aircraft, electric propulsion might be feasible -- for a big liner like this one, no way!
+Dennis Kitainik I propose an idea how about we go back to let's say 1950s now now hear me out we use A. four prop engines which will be more than enough thrust and B. Make them electric motors combined with turbo fan recharge systems and solar panels on wings and fuselage it will make for a efficient airliner that may or may not need to be recharged after initial charging of battery packs
why are the fuselage of the aircraft always cylidrical... why not more ovoid triangular, where it increases passenger room and adds to lift as the fusalage is more in the shape of a wing...
Mark Turner Because it has to be pressurized -- and a triangular fuselage can't stand the pressure!
+Dennis Kitainik couldn't have said it better, it's the same reason why windows in airliners are oval not square... Square would blow from the week spots in the corners, and the same would happen to fuselages....
+codzomz The first jetliner, the Comet 1, actually had square windows -- anyone remember how it turned out?
Boeing will define the future of air transport and gain the goodwill of the world once they accelerate the development of the aircraft. If Boeing's leadership can follow just a little bit of Elon Musk's passion and commitment, there will be no competition.
I think his/her point is that it should be called "Green", it should be called "Greener".
What about catapults to get into the air?
Impractical. Would need to install a catapult at ever airport the airline would visit. Much cheaper and more efficient to install jet capabilities on board aircraft, even if only used on takeoff.
*laugh
Stella Aduras Don't be so optimistic -- the jet engines will actually be in use ALL the time from takeoff to landing!
I would rather do for a teleporter. That right there is the future of travel.
CATIA for Boeing's CAD, nice!
2 matching support angle wing braces could b added under the high tail, housing to smaller jet fans. This gives u 3 modes, big fans, small fans, & hybrid fight. I help to soften the transition between 1 & the other. Allows u to hve just enough power for efficient flight at all demand levels & still hve redundancy factor of small engine if big boy gets taken out by bird or fire.
+James Merkel This clunker ALREADY has more than enough form drag from the wing struts -- let's not add even more! Not to mention that there's NO conceivable use for the small fans!
So it seems this would only work if the aspect ratio is sufficiently high. This will be the other connecting piece to the puzzle, fabricating wings that have a high aspect ratio with lower mass and have favorable aeroelastic characteristics.
Not gonna happen -- such high-aspect ratio wings just don't have the structural strength to hold up a jumbo jet and stay in one piece!
Dennis Kitainik The Volt is not a jumbo jet. Second, conferences and periodicals on aeroelasticity all point to moving to higher AR wings and structural optimization with composites. Sorry, but this is my field of research.
mangudiaforce The U-2 (Lockheed, not Polikarpov) was a much smaller a/c than this one -- so the aeroelastic stress is much less.
That is a really nice plane... But considering the size, they should make it a prop-jet
Fortunate to have this as a project at uni. current/projected battery technology really cannot compete with hydrocarbon fuel commercially.
Interesting to compare this extended wing design to hybrid body wing designs for aerodynamic efficiency. The gas turbines could be decoupled as the electric motors take over at cruising altitude. Gas turbine efficiency might well decrease at higher altitudes while that of electric motors be unaffected.
and then came the 787, 748, 777X, and 737MAX...
Ive got more ideas/inventions that work too so yeah. you wanna talk let me know.
They could add durable solar panels to keep the aircraft up longer.
...and don't forget the shelved 7J7 "Food Processor" counter rotating carbon fan blade project back in the late 80's!!! Those engines would have to be retrofitted to older DC-9 or MD-80 type aircraft as I cannot see those blades whirling that close to the runway at TO power!
I don't care if we can get airplanes to run off electricity and exceed the lifetime, range, cargo capacity, and performance of fueled airplanes. If electricity is still provided to charge those batteries via oil refineries and coal, I'm not necessarily a supporter of the idea. But we will definitely see where the future will bring us :)
If you have some nice music and pictures of grass and someone talking with a nice tone everything seems good. They could say anything and we would still like what they're saying...
Nice concept, but unfortunately I think it will never be in mass-production.
lol, you can make electricity with some wood and a river or some wind, so yes, it doesn't need to have emissions.
Though we obviously use metals and other chemicals to create our green power, which obviously does create some pollution, but it is a tiny fraction of what we produce with combustable engines/power plants.
Sweet!
I LOVE YOU BOEING
This looks good, but 2030? I don't see something like this replacing the 737 quite that soon.
Pretty cool! The number 3 most fossil fuel burner is planes and I believe that once we set up renewable grid energy that planes could 100% fun of electric power.
Long, high aspect-ratio wings... with struts. Drag-wise, not incredibly more efficient.
Untrue. Thinner planform gives much less surface area for drag. Struts possibly also aerofoils, provides additional lift. Compensates for reduced wing area with minimal resistance.
Also untrue - It is not the smaller surface area of slender wings that yield lower drag (total wing area might actually be the same with larger span and shorter chord). It is the induced drag that is lower in those wings, not surface drag.
Oh, true, true.
corisco tupi Induced drag mostly comes into play at LOW speeds -- at higher speeds, it's the FORM drag that's more important. And at jetliner speeds, wave drag comes into play as well -- and guess what, at those speeds these Caravan-style struts would create much more of both than the slim wings can ever hope to offset!
Dennis Kitainik I know, Dennis. But at altitude, CL is usually high - airliners operate with a small margin between stall and compressibility. High-speed flight at altitude is not the same as high-speed flight a lower altitudes. With high CL, induced drag is again a factor, even at high true airspeed.
thumbs up!!! for sure
Why can't boeing incorporate the idea of a glider with a plane that uses both electricity and a little bit of fuel.
oliver driggs Because gliders are SLOW -- what we need is a FAST aircraft (at least 500 knots at cruising altitude like today's passenger jets), even if this burns more fuel!
+l Mr. Pivotgamer l If you were a real pilot, like I am, you would know 500 kts is the cruising speed of the majority of todays Airliners.
вот добавить запятых и можно было бы понять
Yes, yes, so much yes.
someone, Big told:
"ugly planes flies bad..."
anyway, good luck with new venture !
*Salute*
great ideas!
+Lee Stewart (Pianist and Singer) Won't work!
why do we need to wait until 2030 or 2050?! cant wait so long!
Very cool!
Hopefully, Boeing will come up with a more attractive design when they look to put an aircraft like this into production. If I were shown a picture of this plane with no other accompanying materials, I would guess that it is some kind of Airbus prototype. In the past, Boeing has always maintained a significant edge in design aesthetics. This design really does not do that at all. Think 377, Dash 80, or 747; not A380 or A319.
NOVEDOSO EL SISTEMA SUGAR VOLT BOEING ELETRIC
Sooo a flying Prius
PHE-NO-ME-NAL!
.
I bet that such aircraft will come earlier than they said.
Airbus only dislike it cos they cant DESIGN SOMETHING LIKE THIS FROM SCRATCH! for themselves, they have to make a response to Boeing models
Great! All the best!
warf ,you need shields cabin.
Quick question could we make a 100% electric powered airliner using props call me old fashioned but couldn't work
Couldn't it work sorry
+jaysen lawrence No at this stage its basically impossible. But maybe sometime in the future.
Awesome idea... I think still that Airbus will come with a better idea and will be able to do this faster than Boeing.
No Idea...