New Flying-V prototype plane took maiden flight and may be 20% more fuel efficient

[freebeard]

From first-principles engineering, they've found the Prandtl-D wing www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/programs_projects/PRANDTL/index.html

Wikipedia

The Smithsonian specifically requested the aircraft because of its innovative proverse-yaw design.[9]

New Wing Design Exponentially Increases Total Aircraft ...
https://technology-afrc.ndc.nasa.gov › featurestory › prandtl-wing-design
Proverse yaw—yawing in the same direction as a turn—would optimize aircraft performance. Initial results from flight experiments at Armstrong demonstrated that this wing design unequivocally established proverse yaw. This wing design further reduces drag due to lift at the same time.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Yeah, but increased O2 concentration at lower pressure presents less fire hazard. Not sure exactly how that works out. Maybe at 40k ft, you'd need 100% O2. Not even sure if that is a viable solution.

Too complex though because adjusting the O2 concentration down as the plane descends is probably a bigger issue than simply pressurizing the cabin.

Still, air freight is going to become more and more important in an increasingly industrialized and global economy. Seems the low hanging fruit of improving efficiency would be a flying wing with a non-pressurized cargo hold.

...seems like most engineering problems would be solvable if carbon nanotubes were easy to implement.

1% over normal atmospheric oxygen is considered enriched and is a fire hazard. It appears to be considered as dangerous as lower explosive limit for flammable gases.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

1% over normal atmospheric oxygen is considered enriched and is a fire hazard. It appears to be considered as dangerous as lower explosive limit for flammable gases.

1% over as in a 5% increase in concentration, or 1% as in 1% increase in concentration? That still doesn't address density in any way.

[JSH]

Flying existing aircraft in a V formation like geese also saves fuel.

"over 5%" in this case for the following plane with only 1 plane in front

https://twitter.com/i/status/1458100108143300619

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

1% over as in a 5% increase in concentration, or 1% as in 1% increase in concentration? That still doesn't address density in any way.

Density appears to irrelevant as far as industrial safety.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Density appears to irrelevant as far as industrial safety.

Makes sense, because industrial settings typically take place within 90% of normal atmospheric pressure. Small differences in pressure can be ignored if safety margins are wide enough.

[Piotrsko]

Originally Posted by JSH

Flying existing aircraft in a V formation like geese also saves fuel.

"over 5%" in this case for the following plane with only 1 plane in front

https://twitter.com/i/status/1458100108143300619

How do they space it for IFR regulations in Conus? Less than 3 miles or 1000ft altitude seperation gets the controller snitched on, possible written warning and all sorts of red blinkey lights. You can do whatever you want in the middle of the Atlantic, however.

There's also the idea that 600 people want to go to the same place

[JSH]

Originally Posted by Piotrsko

How do they space it for IFR regulations in Conus? Less than 3 miles or 1000ft altitude seperation gets the controller snitched on, possible written warning and all sorts of red blinkey lights. You can do whatever you want in the middle of the Atlantic, however.

This demonstration flight was done with French and Canadian air traffic control. Yes, the planes are flying much closer together (3 km instead of 55 km over the ocean). Vertical separation is the same at 1,000 ft. It also requires equipment in the planes to help them fly in tandem. That seems more doable than changing out the entire airline fleet when planes fly for decades.

Originally Posted by Piotrsko

There's also the idea that 600 people want to go to the same place

Way more than 600 people fly the same routes at a time - just on different airlines. Looking at Newark to London you have United and British Airways flights that take off and land 5 minutes apart. That is just two cities and two airlines. The idea is you would have rendezvous areas in the ocean where flight from various cities could pair up.

Airbus calls their program Fello'fly and they hope to have it operational in 2025.

[redpoint5]

All I know is that I'll be quite disappointed if I'm still getting onto conventional aircraft 20 years from now. I'll also be disappointed if there isn't a new supersonic offering.

[Piotrsko]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

All I know is that I'll be quite disappointed if I'm still getting onto conventional aircraft 20 years from now. I'll also be disappointed if there isn't a new supersonic offering.

You're going to be disappointed. Power generation might be different/improved, size might be different, but it'll still look like a plane.

Unless they modify engines significantly, supersonic is horribly draggy. Ever notice airspeeds between places has stayed the same in the last 20 years? 60% thrust saves a ton of fuel for a small speed decrease

Hmmm United and BA cooperating on a route to join up. Delta and Lufthansa... boggles my mind