Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Muppet planes' on drawing board (Enviro-friendly aircraft get look from Boeing)
Arizona Daily Star - Seattle Times ^ | Dominic Gates

Posted on 06/06/2006 7:13:58 PM PDT by SandRat

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

1 posted on 06/06/2006 7:14:02 PM PDT by SandRat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SandRat

Just reusing designs that have been around a long time.


2 posted on 06/06/2006 7:20:15 PM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dalereed

I feel safe now.


3 posted on 06/06/2006 7:25:58 PM PDT by Luker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dalereed

Wel then, we might as well close the patent office because everything that could possibily be invented has already been invented.............. ;o)


4 posted on 06/06/2006 7:26:14 PM PDT by SW6906 (5 things you can't have too much of: sex, money, firewood, guns and ammunition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: namsman

"Kermit Kruiser"? Is he back in PD now? I thought he went to Field Service.


5 posted on 06/06/2006 7:27:28 PM PDT by SW6906 (5 things you can't have too much of: sex, money, firewood, guns and ammunition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

Ping!


6 posted on 06/06/2006 7:28:00 PM PDT by SW6906 (5 things you can't have too much of: sex, money, firewood, guns and ammunition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandRat; All

i'll be so glad when this "extraodinary popular delusion" -- the cult of environmentalism -- has passed and sanity has returned.


7 posted on 06/06/2006 7:28:10 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand ("....and the sun is eclipsed by the moon!" -- (Pink Floyd). But not for long!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandRat; COEXERJ145; microgood; liberallarry; cmsgop; shaggy eel; RayChuang88; Larry Lucido; ...

If you want on or off my aerospace ping list, please contact me by Freep mail.

8 posted on 06/06/2006 7:29:29 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dalereed

Boeing discovers the folding wing. Grumman invented it for the Navy in the 1930s.


9 posted on 06/06/2006 7:29:42 PM PDT by donmeaker (Burn the UN flag publicly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SandRat

Kermit Kruiser looks like the Sonic Cruiser redone..


10 posted on 06/06/2006 7:29:59 PM PDT by Darksheare ("Oh No! Zombies!" Actually, they aren't. They just haven't had their coffee yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand
This "extraodinary popular delusion"

Funny how people are opposed to any kind of conservation, but content to send money to our Arab "friends" to buy oil.

11 posted on 06/06/2006 7:32:25 PM PDT by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SandRat
What?!?!?


No "Ratso Rizzo Rider"?



How about the Lew Zeland Flying Fish?
12 posted on 06/06/2006 7:32:41 PM PDT by Mr. Jazzy (VPD of LCpl Smoothguy242, USMC, now back at K-Bay! Ooorah!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandRat
Maybe they should have looked to the X-Men for inspiration instead of muppets.


13 posted on 06/06/2006 7:32:43 PM PDT by Names Ash Housewares
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

The Fozzie has a tremendous wetted area in its tail, but still most of the tail would be blanketed by the fuselage at high angle of attacks.

The Kermit cruizer has a canard to screw up the air, so the main wing will have higher drag at cruise. It also can, at high pitchup rates, stall both canard and main wing.


14 posted on 06/06/2006 7:33:30 PM PDT by donmeaker (Burn the UN flag publicly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SandRat; mikrofon; Charles Henrickson
Then there's the "Fozzie."

Kermit: "Bear left."

Fozzie: "Right, frog."

15 posted on 06/06/2006 7:34:49 PM PDT by martin_fierro (Nifty little exchange from The Muppet Movie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandRat
* "Fozzie": Ultra-low fuel burn. The airplane is designed to cruise at a much reduced speed — 500 mph rather than the typical 600-plus mph of current jets. That would add an hour to the typical transcontinental flight.

If they made the plane more comfortable then they might have a winner.

Slightly more space for the same ticket price as the faster planes and they would sell seats.

16 posted on 06/06/2006 7:40:29 PM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (The bottom 60% does 40% of the work, the top 40% does 60% of the work. Just who are the "workers"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandRat

Automobiles, trucks, construction equipment, stationary power generators and motorcycles are all going to be required to have pollution controls within the next 5 years. Why are aircraft exempt?

The fact of the matter is your typical jetliner emits more smog-producing pollutants in one minute of operation that 1,000 modern automobiles will emit in a year. And yet we are beating our brains out making LEVs and ULEVs and SULEVs, while jet aircraft fly overhead, without a care.


17 posted on 06/06/2006 7:42:45 PM PDT by jebeier (RICE '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SW6906

Field Service got outsourced to China so Kermit was surplused.


18 posted on 06/06/2006 7:44:57 PM PDT by phantomworker (And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, will keep your hearts and your minds...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SandRat
The Problem with Fozzie, the UDF is what I will call the B-17 problem.

It sounds like a B-17 when it flies over.

That may have been acceptable in 1944, but in 2006, no way.

UDF's are deader than than dead. They looked so good on paper....

19 posted on 06/06/2006 7:49:30 PM PDT by UNGN (I've been here since '98 but had nothing to say until now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doe Eyes
Funny how people are opposed to any kind of conservation, but content to send money to our Arab "friends" to buy oil.

Me? Are you talking about me?

What wanton presumption you exercise to make such a remark! How would you know what I'm "content" to do?

I'm opposed to the Cult of Environmentalism. I am not opposed to sound economic practice. In fact, it is my profession.

20 posted on 06/06/2006 7:55:16 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand ("....and the sun is eclipsed by the moon!" -- (Pink Floyd). But not for long!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand
I am not opposed to sound economic practice. In fact, it is my profession.

Suppose its cheaper to buy oil from Muslim countries, but the option is spending a more money on domestic solutions that use less oil, but cost more.

Is there any condition that your "sound economic practice" could support this?

21 posted on 06/06/2006 8:00:33 PM PDT by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear
"Fozzie": Ultra-low fuel burn. The airplane is designed to cruise at a much reduced speed — 500 mph rather than the typical 600-plus mph of current jets. That would add an hour to the typical transcontinental flight.

That slower flight time also means that airlines will lose that plane's availability while it's still in the air instead of being turned around for the next flight. Instead of five flights a day the airline may only be able to squeeze in four flights.

When you're paying $100 ~ $150 million for an airliner, you want to make as many flights a day as possible.

22 posted on 06/06/2006 8:29:28 PM PDT by RJL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SW6906

"Wel then, we might as well close the patent office because everything that could possibily be invented has already been invented.............. "

As far as what those designs show there isn't anything there that if they were patented the patents would have expired a long time ago.


23 posted on 06/06/2006 8:33:57 PM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SandRat

Boeing finds Dick Rutan?


24 posted on 06/06/2006 8:35:31 PM PDT by isthisnickcool (What is it about "illegal" you don't understand?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandRat
The "Open Rotor" design is very efficient and has been around for a long time. It's a very well known concept in the aviation industry. When I worked for McDonald Douglas in the late '80's they were trying to develop them for the MD-80 series aircraft. The called it UHB, for Ultra High Bypass.

Most commercial jet engines today are High Bypass variety where 80% or so of the thrust comes from the fan, and not the jet portion of the engine. The UHB was just the next logical progression. Get rid of the fan shroud which is restrictive and is installed only to control noise. But that was the big hang up, however. They are much louder than conventional turbofans, and could not meet the rather strict, in many cases, airport noise ordinances in most communities.

So we continue to pollute more so people who buy houses around airports and still hear the crickets chirp.

Ain't government wonderful?

25 posted on 06/06/2006 8:47:46 PM PDT by Jotmo ("Voon", said the mattress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UNGN

Yes, UDF (Un-Ducted Fan) was another acronym for them as well.


26 posted on 06/06/2006 8:51:40 PM PDT by Jotmo ("Voon", said the mattress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jebeier
The fact of the matter is your typical jetliner emits more smog-producing pollutants in one minute of operation that 1,000 modern automobiles will emit in a year.

Actually, they aren't THAT bad.

The EPA says only 2% of the NOx from mobile sources comes from Aircraft engines. Most of the air going through a turbine engine is just air. Only 8% is products of combustion and only .4% is "pollution". Large Turbofans have a compression ratio higher than a Diesel so there isn't much left to come out but soot and the impurities in the fuel/air, which aren't much.

The "typical jetliner" is also 20 years old. Compare a typical Jetliner to 1,000 or even 100, 20 year old cars and the jetliner is cleaner.

If you had said "particulates", you might have a point as most older jets emit tons of these, but they don't really have much to do with smog. Until the EPA cracked down on Diesels in 1997, trucks and trains emitted tons of this stuff, too. These older planes will go the way of the dinosaur over the next 15-20 years and the particulate problem (if there ever really was one) will go away, with them.

As for efficency, the AVERAGE revenue passenger miles for the US airlines is 44 mpg. I would guess LA traffic averages less than 20 revenue passenger mpg.

27 posted on 06/06/2006 8:56:58 PM PDT by UNGN (I've been here since '98 but had nothing to say until now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: UNGN
I think people forget that the propfan designs from the 1970's and 1980's were eight-bladed units which required fast spin rates for decent thrust from the engine. That had two problems: 1) it generated a lot of noise and 2) there was the danger of what happens if a fan blade breaks.

However, thanks to better gearbox designs since then (which allow the switch to ten-bladed propfans), this will allow for slower fan speeds with far less noise and less danger in case of blade failure. The Fozzie concept could actually work for an airline like Southwest Airlines flying routes under 900 nautical miles in length, where cruise speed performance is less critical. For example, this plane would be perfect for Southwest's intra-California routes and routes between California and Nevada/Arizona; another place such a plane would be useful is intra-Texas routes.

28 posted on 06/06/2006 8:58:46 PM PDT by RayChuang88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: dalereed
Exactly, there is nothing new in any of these designs. They have never been used on commercial aircraft for a reason.

Example: Delta wings SUCK at low speed. Current commercial wing design is a compromise between straight wing (excellent lift, high drag, and poor high speed performance), and a fully swept, or delta wing (low drag, great high speed performance, lousy low speed performance requiring much higher take-off and landing speed)

29 posted on 06/06/2006 9:05:23 PM PDT by Jotmo ("Voon", said the mattress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RayChuang88

Now you mixing Turbo-Prop (With gear box), with Turbo-Fan's (No gearbox) The "Open Rotor" UHB, or UDF is a derivative of the Turbo-Fan. No Gearbox involved.


30 posted on 06/06/2006 9:12:44 PM PDT by Jotmo ("Voon", said the mattress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SW6906

It certainly is an inappropriate name for a "quiet" design.


31 posted on 06/06/2006 9:16:21 PM PDT by namsman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SandRat
Obviously a technological advance.

Soon, we'll be seeing things like composting toilets.


32 posted on 06/06/2006 9:18:41 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RayChuang88
8, 10, 12 or 24 blades, a 450 mph prop plane is still going to be LOUD compared to a Turbofan.

If you spin the prop slower, the plane is going to go slower, which is unacceptable.

As Jesse says, Keep hope alive.

Me, being a realist, know that the UDF is dead. To prove my point, here is the the GE UDF test bed aircraft crashed for a movie prop. No Air and Space Museum for it. After the first flight, everyone pretty much knew it had no future.

I personally think it sounds cool (and if there were only a couple of them, I wouldn't mind), but it aint 1944 anymore.

33 posted on 06/06/2006 9:23:07 PM PDT by UNGN (I've been here since '98 but had nothing to say until now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SandRat

34 posted on 06/06/2006 9:23:38 PM PDT by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UNGN
If you spin the prop slower, the plane is going to go slower, which is unacceptable.

One of the reasons why the ATR-42/72 turboprop airliners switched from four-blade propeller units to six-blade propeller units was the very fact this allows for slower fan blade speeds for the same thrust output, which 1) reduces noise quite a bit and 2) reduces fuel burn due to slower speed of the engine during flight. Why do you think Lockheed did the same thing with the C-130J, the current model of the famous Hercules cargo transport?

Hence the reason why the switch from eight-blade to ten-blade propfans. With more blades, this allows for slower blade spin speeds with all the benefits I mentioned above.

35 posted on 06/06/2006 9:45:29 PM PDT by RayChuang88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SandRat
the optimum design is the Honeydew with a pair of canard winglets in the front just below the cockpit and move the jet engines to a little lower to blend on the body.

The Fozzie is a total joke of a design.

36 posted on 06/06/2006 9:57:25 PM PDT by prophetic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RayChuang88
Those are 350 mph turboprops. We are talking about 450 mph UDF's. The Tip speeds on the UDF are Mach 1+ by design.

Apples and Oranges.

If you put on more blades and spun the prop slower, you may be quieter, but you also aren't going 450 mph anymore.

37 posted on 06/06/2006 10:26:08 PM PDT by UNGN (I've been here since '98 but had nothing to say until now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: SandRat

but where is the Animal design?

ANIMAL!


38 posted on 06/06/2006 10:47:09 PM PDT by Big Guy and Rusty 99 ("Conspiracy theories are the products of feeble minds." - A. Horvet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandRat

39 posted on 06/06/2006 10:52:35 PM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

Nice designs, but I hate the Muppet names.


40 posted on 06/07/2006 3:05:51 AM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: UNGN

You keep on talking about twenty year old cars in order to compare them with twenty year old airplanes. But the fact of the matter is most cars on the road are five years old or less, so it really doesn't make a lot of sense to talk about the state of the art, circa 1985.

In any case, I was not talking about the automobiles of 20 years ago. I was talking about the mobile sources of 10 years from now. In 10 years, everything with a tailpipe is going to be regulated except aircraft. This is going to make aircraft emmissions really stand out as the last remaining area for improvement.

Eventually pollution controls are going to come down the pike for aircraft. What form they will take is anybody's guess at this point. I really don't see how conventional pollution controls can be applied to modern jet aircraft engines. Some other form of propulsion may become necessary.


41 posted on 06/07/2006 3:06:22 AM PDT by jebeier (RICE '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SandRat

So, where's the Animal? or the Miss Piggy? how bout the Great Gonzo, or the Dr. Floyd Pepper?


42 posted on 06/07/2006 3:12:22 AM PDT by ovrtaxt (My donation to the GOP went here instead: http://www.minutemanhq.com/hq/index.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doe Eyes
Is there any condition that your "sound economic practice" could support this?

sound economics is a bit more thoughtful than just "what's cheapeast today." Perhaps that's how you'd make decisions if it were your responsibility, and that's why you think everyone else would do so, too.

mercifully, there are checks and balance on folly.

43 posted on 06/07/2006 4:40:44 AM PDT by the invisib1e hand ("....and the sun is eclipsed by the moon!" -- (Pink Floyd). But not for long!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: dalereed
Just reusing designs that have been around a long time.

Sometimes old ideas need a re-look since new technology can make them work. The basic idea of the B2's shape is very old.

44 posted on 06/07/2006 6:42:08 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
The Kermit cruizer has a canard to screw up the air, so the main wing will have higher drag at cruise.

I like the Kermit because it reminds me of this:

It also can, at high pitchup rates, stall both canard and main wing.

I thought one of the main advantages of the forward-swept wing was that it was hard to stall the wing tips.

45 posted on 06/07/2006 6:51:16 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Jotmo
So we continue to pollute more so people who buy houses around airports and still hear the crickets chirp.

I understand the sentiment. I know of one airport in the middle of a suburb where 100% of the homes surrounding it were built years after the airport was established.

OTOH, less noise is always good. Maybe Boeing should talk to the Navy to see how they get their screws so quiet. Water, air, it's all just fluid dynamics.

46 posted on 06/07/2006 6:56:12 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SandRat

Will they biodegrade at 40000 feet?


47 posted on 06/07/2006 7:09:28 AM PDT by sheik yerbouty ( Make America and the world a jihad free zone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand; Doe Eyes
What wanton presumption you exercise to make such a remark! How would you know what I'm "content" to do?

Perhaps Doe Eyes, like I, merely took your statement at face value, and came to the obvious conclusion.....

However, if you'd care to modify your comment into something with actual intellectual content, I'd be happy to revise my opinion.

48 posted on 06/07/2006 7:29:34 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
I would say rather that you interpreted my remarks according very limited, colloquial definitions of the terms.

I believe that half the burden of clear communication belongs to the hearer. Somewhere along the line someone apparently convinced you two that "sound economic principles" were defined by apparent immediate price advantage only (arbitrage), completely devoid of accountability to moral ramifications. And that may be what passes these days for "economics." But it is not a true definition.

49 posted on 06/07/2006 12:12:33 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand ("....and the sun is eclipsed by the moon!" -- (Pink Floyd). But not for long!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Maybe Boeing should talk to the Navy to see how they get their screws so quiet. Water, air, it's all just fluid dynamics.

If you're content with a plane that goes less than 20 knots, you can make it as quiet as you like.


50 posted on 06/07/2006 12:19:38 PM PDT by SlowBoat407 (Truth is the new lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson