Various American civilian aircraft designs

Supersonic transport is nice, but any *real* man knows the only way to get there is exoatmospherically. Rockwell designed a monster to do just that.
 

Attachments

  • BGV.GIF
    BGV.GIF
    45.2 KB · Views: 683
Flug-Revue Dec 1974

NASA Langley Supercritical Wing design
NASA Langley Hydrogen powered design
 

Attachments

  • NASA_Langley_Supercrit.jpg
    NASA_Langley_Supercrit.jpg
    18 KB · Views: 418
  • NASA_Langley_Hydrogen.jpg
    NASA_Langley_Hydrogen.jpg
    11.9 KB · Views: 361
1). High-payload twin-fuselage concept, were explored in the Langley Supersonic Cruise Research Program.
2). A 1981 conceptual Boeing design for a supersonic business jet.
 

Attachments

  • langley SCRP twinfuselage.jpg
    langley SCRP twinfuselage.jpg
    144.2 KB · Views: 424
  • Boeing1981SSBJ.jpg
    Boeing1981SSBJ.jpg
    103.4 KB · Views: 335
elmayerle said:
That FSW Learjet was strictly a PR item. I was working next door to the AD group when they drew it up. To the best of my knowledge, it was truly a 'what if' effort.

Too bad it was mere rhetoric...pretty cool design though and in some ways resembling the Gulfstream Peregrine. I think i will try scan it.

pometablava said:
I thought the twin C-5 was proposed as an Space Suttle carrier and the C-5 Model 500 was a civil cargo C-5. But I knew nothing about C-5 airliner versions. Anybody can give confirmation?

I think the caption said something about large passenger seating capacity so i may have assume an airliner. The twin C-5 depicted had only a cockpit on the port side and was painted in NASA white and blue.
 
Hi,

anther airliner aircraft,please see;
http://aeronautics.arc.nasa.gov/assets/pdf/AIAA-2003-6856.pdf
 

Attachments

  • untitled.JPG
    untitled.JPG
    10.5 KB · Views: 227
Hi,

please see;
http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1981/1981%20-%201959.html?search=hawker%20HS.135%20aircraft
 

Attachments

  • untitled.JPG
    untitled.JPG
    34.7 KB · Views: 284
Hi,

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/2003/2003%20-%201939.html?search=fuel%20cell-powered%20aircraft
 

Attachments

  • Airliner 3.JPG
    Airliner 3.JPG
    21.3 KB · Views: 150
  • Airliner 2.JPG
    Airliner 2.JPG
    7.2 KB · Views: 1,764
  • Airliner 1.JPG
    Airliner 1.JPG
    61.4 KB · Views: 230
Hi,

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19850002694_1985002694.pdf
 

Attachments

  • transport 1.JPG
    transport 1.JPG
    26.4 KB · Views: 116
  • transport 2.JPG
    transport 2.JPG
    21.6 KB · Views: 107
  • transport 3.JPG
    transport 3.JPG
    22.1 KB · Views: 96
  • transport 4.JPG
    transport 4.JPG
    21.9 KB · Views: 100
Hi,

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/graham-warwick/2007/11/nasas-long-look-into-the-futur.html
 

Attachments

  • N%2B2%20supersonic.jpg
    N%2B2%20supersonic.jpg
    14.1 KB · Views: 209
Hi,

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050199730_2005202115.pdf
 

Attachments

  • airliner.JPG
    airliner.JPG
    14.6 KB · Views: 110
Hi,

the Boeing and Lockheed Martin future SST.
http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/nra_awardees_10_06_08_d.htm
http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/nra_awardees_10_06_08_b.htm
 

Attachments

  • nra_awardees_3generations_sm.jpg
    nra_awardees_3generations_sm.jpg
    35.1 KB · Views: 851
  • nra_awardees_supersonic_commercial_sm.jpg
    nra_awardees_supersonic_commercial_sm.jpg
    50.5 KB · Views: 854
blackkite said:
Yes! Lockheed design has engines over the wing. I think sonic boom from main wing leading edge and from tail wing leading edge interfere and reduce sonic boom. Engine location of SAI's QSBJ is little strange. Engine nacelles under the wing generate larger sonic boom.

It's interesting that you bring up the SAI QSBJ when discussing the proposed Lockheed design, because supposedly the SAI QSBJ was infact designed by Lockheed, at least according to SAI's own website.
 
Hi,

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19850011669_1985011669.pdf
 

Attachments

  • 1.JPG
    1.JPG
    25.9 KB · Views: 102
  • 2.JPG
    2.JPG
    22.1 KB · Views: 93
Hi,

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20010028473_2001038933.pdf
 

Attachments

  • twin fuslage Model-747.JPG
    twin fuslage Model-747.JPG
    26.3 KB · Views: 144
  • high capacity.JPG
    high capacity.JPG
    35.2 KB · Views: 165
hesham said:
Hi,

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20010028473_2001038933.pdf

Where would the engines go on something like this? With such a thick root chord, would the temptation be to embed the engines, using a boundary layer suction inlet, and perhaps even a partial blown flap exhaust? Or would the simple solution be just hanging the nacelles off the rear stabilizer? Or doing an S bend inlet engine embedded in the twin tails like a tristar?
 
The CESTOL airliner;
http://www.esaero.com/customers.htm
 

Attachments

  • NASA-4.jpg
    NASA-4.jpg
    30.6 KB · Views: 1,493
  • NASA-2.jpg
    NASA-2.jpg
    30.9 KB · Views: 1,498
The AIAA advanced designs of 1975.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1975/1975%20-%200624.html?search=atomic%20powered%20aircraft
 

Attachments

  • 1.JPG
    1.JPG
    12.7 KB · Views: 157
  • 2.JPG
    2.JPG
    9.4 KB · Views: 64
Hi,

here is the Williams FSW business jet aircraft;

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19890001501_1989001501.pdf
 

Attachments

  • 1.JPG
    1.JPG
    25.6 KB · Views: 58
Hi,

also from NASA.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19980055126_1998119193.pdf
 

Attachments

  • 7.JPG
    7.JPG
    28 KB · Views: 80
  • 6.JPG
    6.JPG
    23.4 KB · Views: 74
  • 5.JPG
    5.JPG
    35.7 KB · Views: 102
  • 4.JPG
    4.JPG
    33.4 KB · Views: 115
  • 3.JPG
    3.JPG
    22.6 KB · Views: 120
  • 2.JPG
    2.JPG
    38.7 KB · Views: 189
  • 1.JPG
    1.JPG
    22.1 KB · Views: 127
Hi,

here is some turboprop installations for airliner aircraft.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870016608_1987016608.pdf
 

Attachments

  • 1.JPG
    1.JPG
    37.6 KB · Views: 110
Hi,

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19780019103_1978019103.pdf
 

Attachments

  • 1.JPG
    1.JPG
    62.8 KB · Views: 85
  • 2.JPG
    2.JPG
    35.1 KB · Views: 77
Hi,

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19980055126_1998119193.pdf
 

Attachments

  • 5.JPG
    5.JPG
    18.1 KB · Views: 97
  • 4.JPG
    4.JPG
    29.8 KB · Views: 86
  • 3.JPG
    3.JPG
    20.3 KB · Views: 86
  • 2.JPG
    2.JPG
    25.9 KB · Views: 64
  • 1.JPG
    1.JPG
    35.1 KB · Views: 70
Hi,

A very strange airliner for the future,it will be with Separate Superconducting
Generators, Motors.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19890016637_1989016637.pdf
 

Attachments

  • 1.JPG
    1.JPG
    34.1 KB · Views: 98
Hi,

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19880014364_1988014364.pdf
 

Attachments

  • civil.JPG
    civil.JPG
    36.7 KB · Views: 85
Imagine the forces generated on the passengers in the outboard compartments when one of these flying-wing or blended-wing designs banked or turned. I wonder what the designers had planned to compensate for this? :p

Terry (Caravellarella)
 

Attachments

  • 214e5a3c-5127-4a3d-9300-885d7ab7bb80.Full.jpg
    214e5a3c-5127-4a3d-9300-885d7ab7bb80.Full.jpg
    34.4 KB · Views: 142
  • b4013e5d-09a3-446f-a0c8-cfb62b424efb.Full.jpg
    b4013e5d-09a3-446f-a0c8-cfb62b424efb.Full.jpg
    241.4 KB · Views: 116
  • 90bf7b8d-7e6f-45cf-9d88-42c66181709a.Full.jpg
    90bf7b8d-7e6f-45cf-9d88-42c66181709a.Full.jpg
    22.1 KB · Views: 70
The bottom aircraft is a beaut. The construction on the rear of the fuselage looks familiar though I have no idea what it is. Has something similar been posted on this forum before? Is it a single massive turbofan?
 
A beauty?!? Surely it's all a matter of taste, but frankly to me it's the middle design I find superb...
 
Hi,

http://books.google.com.eg/books?id=bJlZ4mKf1EkC&pg=PA89&dq=burnelli&lr=&cd=2#v=onepage&q=burnelli&f=true
 

Attachments

  • twin-fuselage.JPG
    twin-fuselage.JPG
    32.2 KB · Views: 210
Hi,

http://books.google.com.eg/books?id=AcYXHIg_P3cC&pg=PA60&dq=SUPERSONIC+BOMBER&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=100&as_brr=3&cd=8#v=onepage&q=SUPERSONIC%20BOMBER&f=true
 

Attachments

  • 1.JPG
    1.JPG
    39.4 KB · Views: 271
hesham said:
Hi,

also from NASA.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19980055126_1998119193.pdf

Also from NASA report;
 

Attachments

  • 5.JPG
    5.JPG
    18.7 KB · Views: 58
  • 4.JPG
    4.JPG
    17.4 KB · Views: 45
  • 3.JPG
    3.JPG
    16 KB · Views: 143
  • 2.JPG
    2.JPG
    16.7 KB · Views: 151
  • 1.JPG
    1.JPG
    20.1 KB · Views: 150
Maybe finally we're going to see some change in civil aircraft?

Personally, I'd love to see the Boeing concept in the real world.
 

Attachments

  • aviation_week.png
    aviation_week.png
    1.3 MB · Views: 212
McDonnell Douglas Span-Distributed Loading Aircraft (spanloader) concepts circa 1976 as part of the Span-Distributed Loading Aircraft Studies commissioned by the NASA Langley Research Center.

Also includes McDonnell Douglas Hybrid Seaplane concept.

Source:
Technical and Economic Assessment of Span-Distributed Loading Cargo Aircraft Concepts , McDonnell Douglas Corporation, Douglas Aircraft Company, January 1976.


Summary:
The objective of the study documented in this report is to enumerate and quantify the benefits of span distributed loading concepts as applied to future commercial air cargo operations. A two phased program is used to perform this assessment. The first phase consists of selected parametric studies to define significant configuration, performance and economic trends. The second phase consists of more detailed engineering design analysis and economic evaluations to define the technical and economic feasibility of a selected spanloader design. A conventional all-cargo aircraft of comparable technology and size is used as a comparator system.

The investigations of this report generally substantiate the technical feasibility of the spanloader concept with no new major technology efforts required to implement the system. However, certain high pay-off technologies such as winglets, airfoil design, and advanced structural materials and manufacturing techniques need refinement and definition prior to application. In addition, further structural design analysis could establish the techniques and criteria necessary to fully capitalize upon the high degree of structural commonality and simplicity inherent in the spanloader concept.

The most economical spanloader configuration indicated by the studies is a 40 degree swept wing design with twin outboard mounted empennages. This configuration showed approximately 13 percent lower direct operating cost than the conventional aircraft. Additional configuration optimization items could increase this value to about 15 percent.

The lift-to-drag ratios (L/D) of the typical moderate aspect ratio (4 to 5) spanloader configurations using large effective winglets can be as high as 21. This is considerably greater than today's jet aircraft but slightly less than an advanced high aspect ratio conventional aircraft. These high L/D values result from the substantial increase in effective aspect ratio resulting from the use of winglets, the high flight Reynolds number with the attendant reduction in skin friction coefficient, and the use of negative static stability margins with the resulting reductions in tail size and trim drag.

The weight empty-to-gross weight ratio of the spanloader can be as low as .26 compared to .32 for the advanced conventional aircraft. This improvement is anticipated from the distributed span loading feature of the concept. The unit weight of the spanloader wing, in fact, is approximately half that of the conventional wing. The impact of these considerations on aircraft procurement cost is a potential price reduction of 15 to 20 percent compared to the conventional aircraft.

The spanloader offers a rapid load and off load capability because of its multi-channel arrangement and the loadability from both wing tips. A potential operational problem exists, however, relative to the compatibility of the spanloader with existing facilities because of the large wing span (approximately 300 feet) and the large gear tread (approximately 200 feet).

The payoffs and incentives using the spanloader concept as a basis for a 1990 all-cargo dedicated air freight system are sufficient to warrant further study and detailed analysis in specific areas. These areas of additional study are identified in the report.

URL:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19760021137_1976021137.pdf
 

Attachments

  • md01.jpg
    md01.jpg
    147.8 KB · Views: 147
  • md02.JPG
    md02.JPG
    106.6 KB · Views: 135
  • MD03.jpg
    MD03.jpg
    91.5 KB · Views: 141
  • md04.jpg
    md04.jpg
    74.6 KB · Views: 70
  • md05.JPG
    md05.JPG
    116.8 KB · Views: 99

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom