Boeing Model 768 advanced aerodynamics airliner studies

Thanks Hesham. I must say the the work you are doing on the NTRS file is precious.
What's interesting, given the technology of 1981, is that the final algorithm seems to say that by applying these technologies, you can get a 5% fuel savings, at the cost of a 12.3% increase in trip time. One has to wonder, again considering the technology as it existed at the time, how much they would have saved just from slowing down in the cruise and descent portions of the flight profile alone?
This is a fine line to walk for the airlines as slower flight times means that there will be less resources to carry the demand, and hence more capital expenditures in aircraft.

It is always a work of compromise: if if you slow down the ascent and descent profile, you have to adopt a less steep path, and you stay more time over the ears of residents (look at the discussions on the propfan noise...). Otherwise you have to use a different wing, with a ot of lift enhancing things. This will rise weight and complexity, und so weiter. Moreover, on brief routes, a 15 per cent increase in flight time would not change much. Take the all mportant Milan-Rome route. Till the merge of the two main providers there (Alitalia and AirOne) the tabulated flight time was 45 minutes. Now it is 65 minutes (they simply used the worst 20 per cent part of the Gaussian distribution instead of the best 20 per cent). Nothing changed. Alitalia is loosing passengers but on account of the economy and of the high speed train competition, not because they declared a 40 per cent lenghenig of the flight time.


  • 768-869 - General Arrangement.gif
    768-869 - General Arrangement.gif
    80.8 KB · Views: 67
  • 768-868 - General Arrangement.gif
    768-868 - General Arrangement.gif
    84.9 KB · Views: 465
  • 768-865 - General Arrangement.gif
    768-865 - General Arrangement.gif
    128.9 KB · Views: 511
More model 768 in this very big NASA report:
  • Model 768-102 (baseline configuration)
  • Model 768-103 (ACT configuration)

This report documents the first active controls configuration task of the "Integrated Application of Active Controls (IAAC) Technology to Advanced Subsonic Transports"
Project. The performance and economic benefits of a constrained application of Active Controls Technology (ACT) are identified, and the approach to airplane design
is established for subsequent steps leading to the development of a less constrained Final ACT Configuration. The active controls configurations are measured against the
Conventional Baseline Configuration, a state-of-the-art transport selected and defined in a previous task, to determine whether the performance and economic changes
resulting from ACT merit proceeding with the project. The technology established by the Conventional Baseline Configuration was held constant except for the addition of
ACT. The wing, with the same planform, was moved forward on the Initial ACT Configuration to move the loading range aft relative to the wing mean aerodynamic
chord. Wing trailmg-edge surfaces and surface controls also were reconfigured for load alleviation and structural stabilization.


  • 768-103.gif
    27.2 KB · Views: 63
Here is the Boeing Model 768-103,and alternative study.


  • 1.png
    55.3 KB · Views: 40
  • 2.png
    91.4 KB · Views: 54
  • 3.png
    69.6 KB · Views: 50
  • 4.png
    58.8 KB · Views: 53
Top Bottom