NASA's New Airliner Experiment To Make Flying Less Expensive

[@buttersPbutters]

Jets are evolving to look more like propellers. Monoplanes are evolving to look more like biplanes. Very retrofuturistic!

[@Skinflaps_Meatslapper]

The Bellanca Airbus is making a comeback lol

[@StevePemberton2]

And in the next evolution they're going to replace the trusses with wires.

[@dylanhayden8825]

Simpsons predicted it.

[@skywatcher2025]

Let's check in with the local bicycle repair shop owners and see what they think

[@dakotahrickard]

And for the vast majority of air passengers that don't actually need to be there at top speed, isn't that old standby, the airship an even more efficient option for future/past consideration?

[@robertkb64]

“Control surfaces that can curve instead of just fold” It’ll be nice to see 120 year old technology return. The Wright Brothers original patent on the first aircraft included wing warping as the control mechanism. Nice to see that come back.

[@A-Gornergrat-A]

Except that speeds are times higher.

[@jessepollard7132]

it has been back sinc the X15 showed it would work better at supersonic speeds.

[@dougpeaslee6928]

There was a program to look at this using a modified F-111 back in the '80's (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics-Boeing_AFTI/F-111A_Aardvark)

[@FarmerDrew]

My farm is a mile from the cliffs where they saw the birds soaring and got the idea. I am currently cleaning and widening the trail to the site so that more people can see the same thing that they saw.

[@l_..l.l.__l..l8833]

@@FarmerDrew that's nice

[@leflavius_nl5370]

Another neat thing about the extremely high mounted wings, they allow for HUGE diameter engines, which seems to be the way we're going, if CFM doesn't turn out to be that great after all.

[@bluemountain4181]

Though on this design won't the engine size be limited by the strut? If the engine gets too big the strut will be in the exhaust

[@kirkbrauer8915]

I think the current engines in development are unducted fans, kinda like turboprops, so the fans will be in front of the wing.

[@oldfrend]

surprised scott doesn't mention this. i know part of the reason for the 737max's MCAS difficulties was that they kept trying to fit larger and larger engines underneath its wings and it kept messing with the center of gravity of the plane. but the larger engines were more efficient.

[@VIctorAbicalil]

​@@oldfrend it's got nothing to do with center of gravity. The issue with the 737 is that it is a 60 year old design that was originally equipped with small diameter, low-bypass engines, and sat pretty low to the ground to facilitate handling in airports without much infrastructure. Due to the structural design around the landing gear area, there is a limit to how much they could raise the plane, and the CFM LEAP engines would not fit under the wing as usual. Thus, they had to mount the engines higher and more forward. The issue with this is that the engine nacelles gerate lift at high angles of attack, and in the case of the 737 max a more pronounced pitch-up tendency because of how forward the engines are mounted. To counteract this, they installed the MCAS system that would automatically pitch down the aircraft in such circumstances, to make it behave exactly like the older 737 models. This would be fine if MCAS had a decent implementation with sufficient redundancies. However, to justify such redundancies, MCAS would need to be classified as a flight critical system and require additional pilot training when transitioning from older 737s to the MAX (disclaimer: I'm not 100% sure on this part). The increased costs of pilot training would be a signifint disadvantage to the MAX, and so Boeing didn't do it. IIRC, the plane would also fly fine without MCAS, but then would require additional pilot training due to the different handling characteristics.

[@mattbrody3565]

@@bluemountain4181 not really. Most of the size of an airliner's jet engine is from the fan. With engines getting bigger, the goal is to have high bypass ratios- the actual jet turbine engine stays small and the fan grows larger. It'd be pretty easy to build the strut around the engine, even if it cuts through behind the fan. Should be fine.

[@gove4103]

The other big advantage of the high wing that wasn't mentioned is that you can more easily put bigger bypass fans on the engines. Boeing has already hit the wall with fan size on the 737.

[@f.u.m.o.5669]

You mean hit the *ground.*

[@beenaplumber8379]

One of the graphics also pointed out ditching. Engines that hang under the wings can scoop up water during a ditching, causing the plane to cartwheel or break up. Obviously Sully showed a low-wing plane can be ditched safely, but before then no one thought it could be done.

[@Bone8444312]

если самолет с верхним расположением крыла приземлиться на воду, то он утонет прямо по самые крылья... :-)

[@beenaplumber8379]

@@Bone8444312 An aircraft that breaks up will sink immediately and cause drowning and instant traumatic death and injury. I've never heard that high wing aircraft have a higher drowning risk, but I guess that makes sense. (I don't know how you would open the cabin doors for escape.) My question is whether that drowning risk outweighs the risk of traumatic death. That hijacked Ethiopian plane broke up, and a lot of people died from both trauma and drowning.

[@diegobob3306]

Maybe it would be fun, or at the very least informative, to do a video one day about all the aeronautical innovations developed by NASA that eventually led to practical improvements for not only our military aircraft but passenger planes as well. I'm aware of a couple examples, but I'm guessing you know of many more

[@christianellegaard7120]

Great idea. Maybe as a collaboration with Vintage Space.

[@brettcoster4781]

And it would necessarily need to cover NASA's predecessor, NACA (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics) which provided airfoils for the likes of the Mustang (P-51) etc.

[@JCisHere778]

How about a full history of aerodynamics? From Prandtl and Glauert to Joukowsky, to Kelly and Nasa's modern achievements ...

[@dougball328]

Retired NASA Langley engineer Joe Chambers has put together a couple of books on this very subject. They are NASA publications.

[@conodigrom]

@@brettcoster4781 "which provided airfoils to basically everyone"

[@richb313]

Thanks Scott for keeping us informed about this aspect of aviation research and development.

[@Drmcclung]

You mean de-devlopment lol

[@iz5772]

Idk why I read it twice as Tom scott

[@tulsatrash]

It's good to see more coverage of NASA's work in aeronautics.

[@pommiebears]

I think so too. I’m not American, but if my taxes were going into it, I’d be pleased to know they’re working on these types of engineering projects as well as the space industry. Makes sense, and everyone can get something out of it in the future, etc.

[@Justowner]

@@pommiebears I am an American, and NASA is probably my favorite agency. They have done a LOT of work in making flying things safer and better. And even those fools who dont like civil help spending and only military spending would probably benefit from knowing NASA is part of reason our military planes are so good.

[@spartandown4524]

@@Justowner I'd argue Nasa is almost the sole reason our aircraft are so good. All that research and extra funding granted to companies like Lockheed Martin who produce aircraft like the f-35 just out does most other agencies.

[@seanm8030]

Yep. NACA type activities is a good use of money.

[@HxTurtle]

yeah, it's also the representative of the first, 'A' after all

[@ericrawson2909]

I have always marvelled at how wings can be so strong, given their long thin shape. The thumbnail, once seen, is a brilliant solution that I never would have thought of. I guess you can get themore stiffness and strength with a lot less structural weight.

[@simonmultiverse6349]

1:58 "It's a high aspect wing." No, NO, *NOOO* !!! It's a high-aspect *RATIO* wing ... don't forget the word *RATIO* !! Aspect ratio = (wingspan)/(chord) and "chord" is the front-to-back dimension of the wing. This gives wing area as (wingspan) x (chord) LOW ASPECT RATIO means wingspan is small with large chord (also makes it more manouevrable and strong) HIGH ASPECT RATIO means wingspan is large with short chord (also makes it more efficient, less drag, but less strong)

[@cannaroe1213]

This is the last time I ever drive a Tesla! You call those ecologically grown donuts? This makes no sense.

[@oliverwilson11]

@@simonmultiverse6349 Hush. Your num is low aspect

[@Eduardo_Espinoza]

Simon Multiverse +1 Rantio 🤭

[@vincentanguoni8938]

@@iridium8341 wow! You are a glass is half empty guy!!! How's that working out???

[@eclogite]

High aspect wings like this are exactly how modern racing sailboats go so fast. Excited to see how this turns out

[@Apollo-Computers]

I used to have a hunter 29.5 ft racing sloop and it was so much fun. Kinda miss that sailboat.

[@philgiglio7922]

Hydrofoils on the America's cup boats are another example...25 knot speed in a 20 knot wind

[@tsparks4133]

Wonder if they could goo 5 hoondred myles?

[@Eduardo_Espinoza]

Is that another reason why wind mills kinda have that same shape? 🤔

[@eclogite]

@@Eduardo_Espinoza pretty much, yeah

[@lewisvanatta639]

Your comments about the DeHaviland Beaver brought back a good memory: in about 1994, my wife and I took a two-week vacation in northern Minnesota; we arranged a fly-in and paddle-out canoe trip. The outfitters set us up with a local pilot flying....a DeHaviland Beaver, and sure enough, he strapped our rented canoe to the aircraft's floats and did a fine job of flying us to our put-in lake. Good times!

[@williamarnold9744]

Beavers and the bigger Otters are both wonderful old airplanes, basically flying pickup trucks.

[@keargee]

Was that into Boundary Waters?

[@lewisvanatta639]

@@keargee We flew into Quetico Provinical Park, were dropped off, and canoed back into the Boundary Waters over the space of about 2 weeks.

[@longreach207]

👍 #77!

[@keargee]

@@lewisvanatta639 I am planning a trip this fall. To enter boundary waters crossing into Quantico and spending most my time there, before coming back.

[@mattke5etc]

And even better example would be the RQ-4B global hawk. it's got about 130 ft wingspan and is only 45 ft long nose to tip. It also flies at 60,000 ft with the engine at idle.

[@confuseatronica]

and that thing looks so small when you see it without people nearby for scale- it looks like a small bizjet until you see some dude walking under it.

[@legodragonxp]

And on the other side, this kind of wing is already being used on the China’s High-Flying WZ-7 Drone

[@sarmadchaudhry6006]

At that point we should probably mention AeroVironment's Hawk30 and Sunglider flying wings.

[@aspuzling]

Wow. I wonder how high it can fly when they turn the engines on.

[@bindingcurve]

Perfect design for cargo and passengers.

[@DriveCarToBar]

One big benefit to mounting the wings that high on the fuselage is the new unducted fan (propfan) engines being developed by CFM will fit without hitting the ground or the fuselage. The props are rather large and getting enough clearance is kind of a challenge on current aircraft like the 737 or A320. So much so that when Pratt and Whitney was testing their version a few decades ago, they used the MD-80 because it's engines were mounted higher and at the back of the aircraft.

[@DoubleMonoLR]

But seemingly a significant part of the reason for the engines being low is to make maintenance easier, this design seems like it would be considerably more difficult for maintenance. Personally I'd be interested to see how the struts cope with turbulence etc, it seems potentially a bit iffy making a rigid triangle for wings that normally flex. I guess the outer portion of the wings dampens turbulence etc, but it seems like the strutted portion would be much more difficult than the equivalent used on much smaller, slower planes.

[@DriveCarToBar]

@@DoubleMonoLR they did say the wings are supposed to be considerably longer, even requiring a folding section to fit current gates at airports.

[@georgemay3665]

@@DoubleMonoLR I agree at what point does efficiency overtake safety and maintenance costs...maybe it already happened at Boeing for one of those...cough maybe too large a diameter engine on 737 cough...

[@Nullpersona]

Without the housing, what prevents a broken giant blade from being thrown through the fuselage?

[@DriveCarToBar]

@@Nullpersona armor on the fuselage.

[@stephenfestus9268]

If you recall the high ratio aspect wing was used exclusively on the B-24 and was called the Davis Airfoil. It allowed a higher speed and a greater angle of attack during flight. It is interesting how older technology is making a comeback.

[@philgiglio7922]

Davis wing was my first thought also

[@anthonywilson4873]

Just made same comment then read your earlier one snap.

[@tedking6790]

The concept was always sound, materials technology just had to catch up

[@snapon666]

The Russians and Ukraine have been using them on commercial airliners and heavy freight planes for many years

[@Eduardo_Espinoza]

Interesting they didn't used that space for bombs, so good point! 😊

[@user-vp1sc7tt4m]

Scott's last comment about the early 707 getting 45 miles per gallon versus 125 miles per gallon for the 787 really hit home. As he eluded to, keeping competitive will require continual research and testing of new tech and new ideas , some very radical!

[@SolarReaper]

I'm sure efficiency has gone up substantially, but I wonder how much of that increase comes just from cramming so many more passengers into the same sized plane?

[@lekhakaananta5864]

@@SolarReaper Cramming is easy, low-hanging-fruit, so you should expect that evolution to happen quick. So I'm not sure if it has gotten more crammed in recent years, it feels like they probably hit the plateau decades ago. And it's not a bad thing IMO. If you want less crammed seats there's always first class. In a hypothetical airline that has roomy seats in "economy" class, that "economy" would only be nominal and not actually cheap. Crammed economy class allows poor people to still fly, which is better than putting flying totally out of their reach.

[@kajithatotherguy4408]

@@SolarReaper Is that per passenger gallon? I really have no idea how much fuel jet airliners use.

[@c182SkylaneRG]

"alluded". "Elude" means "to avoid". :) But he's right: fuel economy has improved dramatically over the past 100 years. I'm surprised it's that high, though, given what it is for cars. Airplanes aren't known for their low fuel consumption so much as for their speed. I always thought that was the tradeoff. You're putting 8,000 gallons in a plane that's going 3,000 miles, not the other way around. EDIT: he DID say "Passenger miles per gallon". That makes WAY more sense.

[@matthewmcintosh4925]

@@SolarReaper scientific peer review is no longer concerned your I'm sure. Newton was sure he could transmute lead into gold. I'm sure the earth appears flat when I look at my toes but I know my dlsr camera proves me wrong by taking a photo after the sun is below the horizon. I'm at about 2 tb. Just on sunsets. Seriously I'll stick to scientific evidence not the nigerian prince.

[@r0thrux]

When I first arrived at my aviation support Army assignment in Germany we had several Beavers flying out of that airport, which was also the Stuttgart commercial airport serving jet airliners. When you heard the noise of a Beaver taking off, it looked almost like it was hovering. I asked one of the old hands about a story I had heard - "Is it true that their takeoff speed is the same as their cruising speed?" He replied, "Some of them aren't that fast". 🙂

[@gregparrott]

"Some of them aren't that fast" Good one!

[@Dugglesthemuddled]

From the DHC-2 wikipedia page: "In response, almost without exception, these pilots specified their desire for tremendous extra power and STOL performance, in a design that could be easily fitted with wheels, skis or floats. When de Havilland engineers noted this would result in poor cruise performance, one pilot replied, "You only have to be faster than a dog sled to be a winner""

[@Kenny-yl9pc]

@@gags730 There are no flying beavers nor kangaroos!!! But yes they parachute, very gracefully I might add!

[@davecorley5514]

So, Beavers have MASSIVELY powerful engines for high angle of climb during takeoff. But at highest efficiency cruise speed (lowest fuel cost) the engine power must be dramatically cut back by the pilot. Everything about the Beaver is optimized for high angle of climb. It happens that this optimization also allows for a hefty carrying capacity. Once at cruise, the pilot can choose to either get there fast or get there cheap. Pilots are usually employees. So, get there fast dominates operations.

[@waynemanning3262]

@@Kenny-yl9pcso how do I have thousands of hours flying beavers?

[@As_A________Commenter]

The daily operational downside of such a design is the existing airport infrastructure. Many taxiways are limited by aircraft wingspan, and the existing gate in terminals as well. This would require more spacing and less aircraft on gate at the same time. Even the new version of the 777 required that the elongated wing fold up to fit in existing gate spaces. The technology is very interesting and perhaps airports will be adapted to it in the future. Edit: As I’m typing this comment Scott talks about exactly the same thing haha

[@milescoleman910]

I was living Denver when DIA was built and they kept saying it was designed for ‘the next generation of aircraft’ because of its location wayyy out of town on loads of empty land. Everyone assumed it meant low orbit airliners or something. Maybe it just meant really really big wings. Lol

[@chrisamies2141]

Yes, a 777-size aircraft would have a 140-metre span if the proportions were the same as the Hurel-Dubois design.

[@circleinforthecube5170]

also airport expansion requires large scale demolition of neighborhoods, adding a human cost

[@LeonardoDaVinci01]

Drones are a great example of high aspect ratio wings and their benefits. My DIY drone has high aspect wings and flies phenomenally well at high altitudes

[@wagnerrp]

High altitudes like 400ft? Homemade drones are little more than a great example of square-cube scaling.

[@spottedcrow1126]

Note that everyone here is not in America and my be able to fly at 10’s of thousands of feet in elevation. Even my normal fpv drone can break the 400ft mark in less then a second at full power.

[@gonun69]

@@spottedcrow1126 400ft in less than a second? Sure, if you fire it out of a cannon maybe. Your drone would need to accelerate at something like 25 g to go that high in a second and reach a speed of around 560 mph. I'd love to see that on video.

[@yodaiam1000]

@@gonun69 25G is possible. You can certainly find/build drones that will take less than 2 seconds to get to 400ft. Some RC gliders will go over 500km/hr even in a pretty sharp turn. What is possible is pretty amazing now. The off-shelf-drones and RC planes generally pale in comparison to what people are building. I am just waiting for RC planes to break the sound barrier.

[@andrewdoesyt7787]

@@spottedcrow1126 Everyone here is on a remote island somewhere in the Indian Ocean.

[@WasatchWind]

I'm glad to hear that Scott knows what the first A in NASA stands for.

[@NanoBurger]

And, of course, the "N" stands for nowledge.

[@BobGeogeo]

Why wouldn't he?

[@High_Alpha]

It's rather sad that an elected official from TEXAS of all places doesn't know. Houston, we've had a problem! Just goes to show where politics is at, being aligned with your extremist base is more important than actual facts.

[@jonathan_60503]

On your electric plane digression -- Harbour Air (operators of the pictured Beavers) does a bunch of short routes around British Columbia with their floatplanes; in addition to doing half hour tourist flights over the Vancouver area (let them experience a floatplane and see the sights). It looks like at least half their scheduled routes are 35 minutes or less. An hour of so of electric operation is probably perfect for them -- use the quieter, and hopefully lower maintenance, electric ones for sightseeing and short hops and reserve their gas powered ones for their longer routes.

[@thelastspot]

I got to see this very plane in person last summer. It was a guest at the BC Aviation Museum open house. It had only a had few test flights at that point. An engineering blueprint of where the engine is mounted is painted on the nose. Looks pretty cool up close.

[@johnjaffe6107]

I have seen some articles and opinions that suggest Hydrogen Electric power systems could be the future solution to alternative fuels for aviation.

[@jonathan_60503]

​@@johnjaffe6107 Possibly, though the power density of hydrogen storage isn't great either. Still, I wouldn't be surprised to see some form of battery or fuel-cell electric planes in the short haul segments replacing many turboprops, and long haul going to bio-jetfuel in their gas turbines.

[@jonathan_60503]

Hmm, I wonder if regs would allow the cruise safety margin of a battery powered plane to be met by an onboard fuel powered APU generator. (and whether that'd be lighter than all the extra batteries). I'm envisioning that in normal flight ops you'd be 100% battery, but if forced by an emergency to stay aloft longer you'd fire up the generator and burn your power dense fuel to run your electric propulsion.

[@dilutioncreation1317]

How many flights per day are the planes doing though? When I visited it seemed like they were rotating very quickly.

[@ellieinspace]

My astronomy teacher used to say “as it turns out” a lot too while he was teaching You are so conversational and fun to listen to!

[@titter3648]

Reinventing the good old box-wing. Also the reason for the winglets is because a high aspect wing that achieves the same will not fit in the gates at the airports.

[@NickCombs]

That and to make use of the vortex pressures around the wing tip.

[@danisyx5804]

next it will be bi-planes and sail power 🤷‍♀🤷‍♀

[@MyOtherCarIsAPlane]

@@NickCombs A longer wing with a blended winglet is the most efficient - see the 777X. Winglets are a compromise that gets you most of the gain for less wingspan (or no complicated/heavy folding mechanism).

[@patreekotime4578]

I was actually wondering the whole time how this compares to box wing designs.

[@chmeee9562]

A possible solution would be part of the wings folding up, like aircraft do for aircraft carriers

[@durka-durka-bakalakadaka]

3:27 Fun fact, this is the very first 737 ever produced. It was the testbed that Boeing used to qualify the 737 for production. It now resides at the Museum of Flight at Boeing Field here in Seattle.

[@lockheedx33]

It was also used by NASA as a testbed for the HSCT concept. There’s a second, blind cockpit inside that was used to land the plane by looking through external infrared cameras.

[@pauledhlund4350]

Guiseppi Bellanca was on to this design concept for its efficiency and load carrying capabilities in the 1920’s and 1930’s. The Bellanca Pacemaker series was a popular load hauler and bush plane. I guess he was on the right track all those years ago.

[@JFrazer4303]

Bellanca CF took that to sort of an extreme, with almost a "sesquiplane" arrangement. I'm trying to think of another recent high-wing plane that did that with very broad "struts".

[@capitalpm71]

Thanks for covering this Scott! This is a super interesting topic, and I'd love to hear more perspectives on it. If I remember right, one of the reasons they dropped the blended wing body concept was more aligned with human factors issues than technical limitations. Basically, imagine sitting in a movie theater knowing that theater is flying at close to the speed of sound at 35,000 feet, and you're nowhere near an exit sign. Apparently that thought freaked passengers out enough during evaluations to tank much of the work as untenable to actually use for a real world airline.

[@MalikCarr]

A tube shape of a regular fuselage is something that makes sense to people. The BWB is an inherently efficient design but I don't really see how humans are going to effectively navigate something like that under present circumstances - the movie theater comparison was a good one.

[@TheJustinJ]

Blended Wing Body is far to heavy as a pressurized cabin. A tube is much more efficient. And a flying wing has a small center of gravity range. Which is not viable for passenger/transport aircraft.

[@jerseyterry6951]

We're flying slower and slower, and turbulence is coming back as an issue due to lower altitudes. Blended wing design is more air worthy they tubular, and exits will always be jammed no matter what. We are sadly going backward in air travel. Under the false directive of fuel crisis and fake green tech. Very disappointing developments in designs all together

[@occhamite]

As I understand it, the real advantage of putting fuel tanks in aircraft wings is that the wings are then weighed down at exactly the time when the aircraft is heaviest - i.e. carrying a full load of heavy fuel. Thus, weight savings can be had owing to the fact that flexure of the wing is reduced when it has to generate the most lift, and so, a lighter structure can be implemented.

[@jonathanj8303]

That and it does save having to find space for the fuel elsewhere.

[@alexdrockhound9497]

it also helps with keeping the plane's weight centered over the wings. A plane with too much weight frontward or rearward is unstable. Shifting cargo in planes has caused crashes before.

[@wills.5762]

@@alexdrockhound9497 The center of mass is almost always rear of the wings though, as fuel burns the CoM moves forward. The horizontal stabilizer generates lift too, so the center of lift is also slightly rear of the wings.

[@Tacticaviator7]

@@wills.5762Behind wing roots sure but not behind all of the wing, that would be unstable like crazy.

[@nunyabidness3075]

Yeah, putting fuel in the fuse usually means adding pumps and taking risks on balance and pilot error.

[@wiredforstereo]

Also seems like a great platform for super high bypass geared turbofans or the new prop fans or whatever they're called, having a high wing like that.

[@juanpecan7089]

Good call.

[@youbecha64]

The McDonnell Douglass MD-80 and MD-90 series airliners were very successful around the world...growing out of the DC-9. When Boeing merged with MD, they had two similar airliners...they dropped the MD series and kept the 737. For a while Boeing supported producing the 717 a slightly shrunk MD-80.

[@SamiltonAdventures]

Always wondered where the 717 came from. I always assumed it was a mini 727, with 2 engines… but to look at the windshields I thought ‘nope’ 😂. Maybe this current Boeing project will spawn a mini version, to truly replace the 717. From what I understand: the 737 Max 7 is the smallest airliner that Boeing will be mass producing within the next 10 years. Maybe a large ‘regional’ jet, alongside an ‘NMA or 797’, would be what Boeing needs to complete it’s market dominance.

[@c182SkylaneRG]

@@SamiltonAdventures They're going to have a hell of a time competing with Bombardier and Embraer. Bombardier has a large market share in the regional market, and when I had a short-ranged flight that included both Bombardier and Embraer in the same trip, I was ASTOUNDED at how quiet the Embraer was. Made me never want to fly on anything else.

[@coredog64]

The 717 was a new name for the MD-95.

[@singleproppilot]

Boeing has of course, made their mistakes with the 737 lately, but thank heaven they killed off the DC-9/MD-80/717 series. Ever flown in one? It’s like being swallowed by a vacuum cleaner. And I won’t even get in to the many ways that their systems are just weird and unfriendly to maintenance and pilots. Everything Douglas produced at their Long Beach factory has been made obsolete, and for good reason.

[@c182SkylaneRG]

@@singleproppilot Only been in one, once, and I thought the noise was just because we were in the tail section, directly between the engines. I always figured it was quieter up front. Never heard stories about maintenance, though I thought pilots liked them?

[@mjg4211]

Agree with you about the minivan. When I first tried it I was surprised why people are driving them slowly creating the soccer mom stereotype 😂 I used to “fly” my minivan on the road

[@GreenBlueWalkthrough]

Anythhing that tows have insane toque hince why bodtailed semi truck racing s a thing.

[@benharmon9575]

Loved the quick bit about minivans being sleeper cars! They 100% are, often have V6 engines, even!

[@alfnoakes392]

An old Porsche engine will fit in an old VW van ... David Crosby had such a set-up when he was a young dude.

[@theharper1]

Another thing which immediately came to mind was the wing and fuselage design of the Celera which was entirely based around laminar flow. The Celera wings are very thin, like this concept, though not as long.

[@krzysztofprzybylski2750]

Thanks for an amazing video! I would love to hear more about cutting edge fuel tech that attempts to make flying more environmentally friendly!

[@manuwilson4695]

You and Marcus House are the best. Certainly the most technically sane. Forget the rest, especially when it comes to technical detail and explanations. 🙏👍

[@theharper1]

You mentioned gliders but I'm surprised that you didn't mention the wings of pelagic birds like the Albatross which are able to cover vast distances with little effort.

[@davecorley5514]

But, in all aircraft (birds, gliders and powered airplanes), optimum fuel efficiency is achieved at the (cruise) velocity, which happens to be close to the velocity at highest Lift to Drag ratio. Therefore, longer, low-aspect wings with winglets increase lift at a lower increase of drag, causing a higher L / D ratio. The penalty is that this point of optimum L / D ratio is at a lower velocity. Albatross and gliders fly really slow during “normal” operations. In the case of albatross and gliders, neither has access to excess energy by using fuel. The only excess energy available to gliders is external - thermal updrafts in the atmosphere. Excess energy available to albatross is the same external thermal updrafts and the potential chemical energy stored in fat cells and transformed through mitochondria to kinetic energy in their muscles - these birds can resort to flapping their wings for awhile until their mitochondria are no longer able to yield enough energy to maintain altitude.

[@theharper1]

@@davecorley5514 interesting response, thanks! I'm not sure that it's necessary to talk about mitochondria. Yes, mitochondria are the power sources of cells but in animals they receive more energy in the form of carbohydrates from the bloodstream which come from the animal eating or breaking down fats. Albatross and most pelagic birds use energy borrowed from the wind combined with ground effect most of the time rather than thermals like a glider. I was mainly talking about the aspect ratio of the wings of an Albatross which have the longest wingspans of birds, as well as the shape of the wingtips. The NASA design also seems to be using laminar flow, so the wings are very thin, just as sailplane wings tend to be thin.

[@afoxwithahat7846]

For all intents and purposes, no bird would survive transsonic flights, they're just not made for it. The design has likely been computer optimized where they test different ratios on separate instances and keep refining the ones with better results. Kind of an evolution of it's own. We have to bring "God's creations" as inspiration for everything whenever someone does something, don't we?

[@loftsatsympaticodotc]

@@davecorley5514 Yeah, my mitochondria start to have no energy either... about mid-afternoon.

[@Martin-se3ij]

I've never ridden on an Albatross and am wondering how long it would take to cross the Atlantic. And what about luggage?

[@mikebridges20]

Great video as always! I remember the Experimental Aircraft Association, in 1982, started initiatives towards eliminating 100LL (at that point using automotive fuels in 80 octane aircraft engines). 40 years later the FAA declares success!!!

[@russellthorburn9297]

The immediate issue I thought about as soon as I saw the design has to do with airports being able to accommodate the extra long span. Airports, for example, needed to make special accomodations for the the An-225. At at least one very large airport, I forget which one, the only place it could park was the area of the airport designated for de-icing aircraft.

[@KMCA779]

I've heard radio traffic about aircraft taking out light posts with their wings. I think this will get adopted very slowly. But hey, I'm the guy saying that hybrid vehicles will still be kicking in the 2050's (even if I do hope they're hydrogen-electric rather than gas/diesel)

[@uploadJ]

@@KMCA779 By 2050? Look for wide-spread use of the Hydrino (taking electron in the Hydrogen atom to a lower level and releasing 200x that of simple combustion) by then ...

[@ZealothPL]

It simply won't happen

[@russellthorburn9297]

@@uploadJ 27 years is actually very little time for airports to fundamentally change their layout.

[@uploadJ]

@@russellthorburn9297 re: " for airports to fundamentally change their layout." I wrote about a new energy source (vis-a-vis electric airplanes), and you're on about 'airport layouts'. Okay. I think though that those are two different things? Que?

[@douglashaussler4238]

I'm proud to have been part of the team that won the contract.

[@mabbasi_of]

This is the wings design I was going for as I was planning to make our fixed-wing platform drone. And now I see it here. I take it as a compliment :) Really, exactly this. A long wing with this type of support that it functions for lift as well, just as another wing. My concept includes another solution as well, which I will keep for myself for now. If you don't know, I worked on building a monitoring fixed-wind drone before and I worked in the aerospace industry as well.

[@sizanogreen9900]

1:56 is that a *wild OSAKA* I spot there on the computer screen!?! (0_0)

[@Forest_Fifer]

0:50 for those that don't know, Ronny Jackson is a US Congressman from Texas of all places who doesn't know what the letters of NASA stand for. He's also the guy who claimed Trump was in excellent health with "incredible genes" and "might live to be 200" while acting as the White House physician in 2018.

[@TheOneWhoMightBe]

Makes sense that a Texan Rep is against anything that increases fuel efficiency, apart from not knowing what 'NASA' stands for or anything else.

[@jeroenk3570]

Please don't tell him that NASA does environmental research too.

[@oriolguerrero1702]

Hi Scott, as a materials engineering student in Madrid's UPM we overlap severely with the Aeronautics branch and some of our labs and projects funded by Airbus are right now wind tunnel modelling of this such airfoils (dont know if it will come to terms though as many of these projects end up being scraped). In particular our department is working on additive manufactured (3D printing) alloys for the hollow trusses and stress, fatigue and freeze testing them. I guess since i dont have the full details that they want to pump fuel through the truss to the engines but sadly airplane engineering is just outside my reach so i dont know. Just to say that if even Airbus is looking into this there must be some merit to the idea of this design.

[@fensoxx]

That was a great video Scott thanks. More of the aeronautics mixed with the space is totally A-OK here.

[@RobertSababady]

"hope that Boeing doesn't screw it up".....Scott the eternal optimist!

[@Edax_Royeaux]

The first Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress was a disaster.

[@johnhavens8199]

This is very exciting stuff. Combining these new airframe designs with the very latest in ultra high bypass engines, unducted fans, may be a huge step forward for aviation.

[@Nphen]

I came down to the comments to say much the same. It seems as if a new engine type is coming, it should be combined with this new wing type for a whole new plane. Yet Boeing says they won't even get out the drawing board until after 2030. They should be testing unducted fans together with transonic truss and have it worked out by 2027 or so. That's halfway to a new plane right there. If they get aggressive they could have a new plane certified by 2032. Their current timeline would be lucky to have a new plane by 2037.

[@aidenwilliams5487]

Holy smokes! I just got recommended this guy after years and years of not watching. I used to be addicted to his Kerbal space program series. Very cool to see him talking about his aerospace interests still.

[@dallasC822]

Electric beaver is awesome. I had no idea someone made a conversion. Also love the idea of strut high wing airlines if it’s feasible to carry fuel enough fuel for domestic flights

[@Soordhin]

Even extremely small savings in fuel are worth it for airlines. I work for a fairly small airline, we have only around 300 aircraft (all A320 family ones). And for example we use single engine taxi out, so we start only one engine initially for taxying to the runway and start the second one later on, which needs us to use our judgement to make sure it gets its 3 minutes of required warmup time before we can use take off power. Single engine taxi out saves on average 40kgs of fuel per flight. Doesn't sound much. But if you consider we have around 1.500 departures per day, every day of the year and we can use single engine taxi out on roughly 70% of our departures (sometimes it can't be used, like in low visibility operations, operations on contaminated surfaces and when the taxi time is too short), that is 15.330.000 kgs of fuel saved, or 15.330 metric tons and that in turn saves around $15,775 million per year. Of course that is only one of the many measures we use to use less fuel, and in the end it is just a tiny amount of fuel saved, not a whole percentage point at all, so the roughly 2 to 4% that a winglet (sharklet for us) saves is use, and even more so the 15% that replacing a CEO with a NEO aircraft does. So getting 10% basically free savings with a different wing design is absolutely worth it. But from my point of view it will still have to fit into the standard airport spaces, which means maximum 36m of wingspan at the gate for a narrow body airplane, so basically everything up to 240 seats per cabin (max certified for the A321 is 244 seats, 737 MAX 10 230 seats). Which will quite likely require some clever mechanical engineering.

[@filanfyretracker]

I admit I do not think of 300 vehicles as a small transport company, but I have to remember firms like Delta have a few thousand. But you are right in that a little goes a long way, UPS avoids left turns as much as possible because of time spent idling waiting to turn. Mythbusters tested this and found it only saved a handful of gallons a trip but even they concluded when you put that across nearly 100,000 package cars(what UPS calls their delivery vans) a few gallons of diesel is now several thousand gallons of diesel saved per day.

[@zx6rjet]

I like this aviation line of programming. Especially the cutting edge, electric, new stuff, efficiency approach.

[@n0us.]

Love the Saturn V stand in the back. I made that same one and it was a massive pain in the ass but 100% worth it. I had to snip *every single one* of the red straws that go diagonal all the way up and hammer down the baseplates. Yay off-brand lego!

[@davefear11]

Thank you for subtly throwing Ronnie Jackson under the bus. I would bet the he never knew what the first "A" meant in NASA. People like him are just against the progress of anything they don't understand.

[@scottmanley]

Technically he threw himself under the bus.

[@b33thr33kay]

Under the... Airbus? 😎

[@davefear11]

@@scottmanley true

[@davefear11]

@@b33thr33kay Nice 👍

[@Forest_Fifer]

He got absolutely reamed on twitter.

[@holgerspielmann1073]

Another place where electric planes might work could be island shuttles - e.g. between the islands of Hawaii, in the Caribbean, or the North Sea islands of the Netherlands or Germany. These flights take only 10 to 20 minutes, so it looks viable for electric planes. BTW, to locate these spots, look where there are still piston engine planes are used instead of turboprops, as these are cheaper on very short routes 😁

[@dougball328]

Look at Harbour Air . . .

[@plcflame]

Even small to medium planes flying between capitals maybe would work. Instead of driving like 6h, you could fly in about 30 minutes

[@peterolsen3797]

@@plcflame Oh yes 30-minute flights, but let's see pre-flight, weather check, post flight inspection/log, find a ride as your car is back at the take-off point, ah NO! just as fast. I have been there and no it isn't faster by a large amount. How figure in purchase price, 110LL fuel, insurance, tie down monthly costs, NO flying is FUN but not faster. A trivia point, of the 300 million liters of kerosene made each year one half is used by the commercial airlines, (no emissions there), and the remainder is used by the third world countries to light their homes at night and to cook. Google it.

[@jessetheunending9357]

But how would you get an electric plane, with a 1ish hour battery life, to dinner of these remote isolated places?

[@KingFinnch]

@@jessetheunending9357 the same way you get short distance prop planes there now, you ship them over.

[@MichaelMarrero]

I can't get enough of these videos. Do you have any plans on doing something on the CMT Rise engine?

[@Tsudico]

Mentour Now! released a video quite recently on the CMT Rise and its history titled "Revolutionizing Flight! The Amazing Potential of the CFM RISE Engine."

[@MichaelMarrero]

@@Tsudico Yeah, I watched that one. Very informative video.

[@AdiosomatikA]

Brilliant breakdown THANK YOU SCOTT!!! Making my brain think!!!

[@DiverJames]

Another aspect of pure electric (battery) aircraft is the limitation in mission profile. Unlike a fuel-powered aircraft, the empty weight includes 100% of the battery too. So your load profile can’t be modified to suit a target range/mission. Not so much a problem for GA aircraft but absolutely a problem for transport-category aircraft. You need the ability to tailor your fuel load for the mission; a short hop, means low fuel and high payload and visa versa. Batteries don’t allow the same flexibility; your payload is always fixed which is a hard way to make money.

[@jasondoe2596]

Interesting. Perhaps modular batteries could be used? If you need to go farther, load more battery modules.

[@GuntherRommel]

Batteries can be removable. Ideally, you'd be able to move them around like ballast to redistribute weight, negating the need for actual ballast.

[@DiverJames]

@@GuntherRommel true. There is potentially some limited scope for mission flexibility. However, in transport-category aircraft, if battery is the sole power source your landing maximum landing weight (MLW) becomes your maximum take off weight (MTOW) too. In liquid-fuelled aircraft the MTOW is significantly higher than MLW which further limits the comparative practicality of battery-only power sources. I think, like EVs, there will be specific use-cases for battery powered aircraft, but it wont be large, long-range or transport-category aircraft.

[@DiverJames]

@@jasondoe2596 yes, that’s indeed possible. Except every battery added reduces payload and you need to carry that weight for the entire flight. As liquid fuels burn, the aircraft becomes lighter and thus requires less power to maintain a constant speed/altitude. Alternatively, as weight is reduced during flight, you can fly higher/faster for the same power (which is exactly what modern airliners do). Batteries can’t do this which limits mission flexibility.

[@w8stral]

Well no. Would go with palletized batteries. Due to energy required during charging, would have to have palletized batteries be loaded anyways. Or a combination is far more likely. A base battery + palletized batteries. Of course we currently have no battery tech able to meet requirements so who cares.

[@llamatronian101]

Harbour Air flies a lot of short hops. The Vancouver Airport, Vancouver City, and Victoria triangle is ideal for electric aircraft in a way that almost nowhere else is.

[@StinkPickle4000]

If you only do one hop! Harbour Air does 300 flights a day, which is why their electric plane isn't running on one of their routes.

[@llamatronian101]

@@StinkPickle4000 true, new charging infrastructure will be needed. The combination of high voltage and seawater will be a challenge.

[@keenheat3335]

saw a similar truss wing design research papper in 2010 during university time. I vaguely remember additional drag from the truss support outweight the drag reduction from increase aspect ratio. The lift generate by the truss wing also cannbalize the lift on the main wing, so it's very difficult for a truss wing design to have better lift/drag performance over traditional design. Unless composite material advance enough in the last ten years making the truss structure smaller, it's probably not worth it.

[@stevemc01]

Cessnas: “Hey, I’ve seen this one before! This is a classic!” 747: “What do you mean you’ve seen this before? It’s brand new.”

[@AnotherDuck]

They stole it from Fortnite.

[@watashiandroid8314]

MJ/kg is specific energy, MJ/L is energy density. Love seeing aeronautics being experimented on. The "aeronautics outside of existing databases" (paraphrasing) text box gave me a very large grin and a giddy feeling 😀

[@fred0123x]

Scott - saw the pic of the flying wing design in today's video - you might be interested in this... very much like your comment about the time for the FAA to certify unleaded fuel... Over 20 years ago I was doing computer language training for Boeing in Seattle and during the week saw the model they had of their version of the flying wing airliner. I asked one of the VPs there about it and he said they were abandoning the idea not due to any design or mechanical or production issues, but because the FAA told them it would never get approved for commercial use. He said the FAA has a requirement that all passenger aircraft must be able to de-plane all passengers in 90 seconds or less in an emergency, and the huge distance in the flying wing from the center seats to the exterior doors means they can't make it big enough to fly profitably and meet that emergency requirement. So no flying wing for us - it's often the safety issues that prevent otherwise "good" ideas from being realized. Jim

[@freeculture]

I still see the concept viable for cargo. Disregarding the evacuation part, if you sit away from the center, you are not going to like it as even the tiniest angle change is amplified. Of course there is also the fact that you can't have windows, But hey, packages don't need any of those...

[@WarrenLacefield]

I wonder about the implications of that 90 second rule for SpaceX considering plans to use StarShip as a passenger hyperliner from one Earth port to another? Or for military personnel transports, etc. Airlock, cargo, or passenger egress doors may add weak spots in fuselages (e.g., SpaceX welding over Starlink ports for initial test flights). Wonder if the Human Lunar Lander astronauts would be require the capability to de-ship in 90 sec too.

[@rpavlik1]

Cargo folks seem to be perfectly happy picking up second hand passenger jets, though. It would surprise me if there was enough market demand to make an entire category/design of plane that was cargo-only. (A flying wing, not just a cargo variant of a passenger rated jet)

[@RobTheSquire]

On KSP i've been doing planes like these for a few years to help keep my crafts together from take off to possible crash landing.

[@agentdouble0five]

The bald spot gleaming on his head always makes me smile, thank you Scott for the fantastic video, and the J.J. Abrams lense flare! :P

[@chaotickreg7024]

0:47 This image in particular is giving me nostalgia. I grew up in the 2000s and vividly recall seeing renderings like this of airplanes either historical, experimental, or fictional but all in this like watercolor aesthetic and I don't know where to find it again. I remember dual cockpit planes, seaplanes, three wing planes like a Star Wars Y-Wing, asymmetric experiments, stuff like that. I'm not sure if I saw these in books or if it was on an artist's website back then. Does anyone know what I'm talking about? I forgot I liked dramatic depictions of aircraft so mich.

[@0utdoorsman]

Reminds me of a Popular Mechanics issue from way back in the 90's.

[@gabrielnoronha2759]

I remember seeing stuff like that in sci-fi magazines. I remember one very well with a city full of flying cars like the uber drone taxi, but with various colorful designs soaring through the skyscrapers

[@chaotickreg7024]

@@gabrielnoronha2759 Your comment reminded me of the Stephen Biesty cross section art books, but those aren't what I was remembering either. I can't remember what specific magazine or artist was making the distinct style I am remembering. It wasn't Popular Mechanics for me. But a lot of them are close, this seems to be a healthy genre for experimentation.

[@robinseibel7540]

This aircraft coupled with a version of the CFM Rise engine could be even more interesting. CFM is targeting a 20% improvement in fuel efficiency over the most efficient high bypass turbofans in use today. I think it's set for its first flight in the next two years or so.

[@GonzoDonzo]

Ive been hearing about it again so i imagine they fixed the noise issue with the cfm rise?

[@robinseibel7540]

@@GonzoDonzo, Mentour Pilot has a video on the CFM Rise, the noise issue is not really an issue anymore.

[@arpeltier]

Exactly what I was thinking too!

[@billh2294]

I wonder what design would be the best with a first principles approach rather than trying to limit the cost of a total redesign. Seems the limited cost approach only works for the short term and longterm cost is almost always higher.

[@Automatic-Diaphragm]

flying wing is the answer

[@aitorbleda8267]

@@Automatic-Diaphragm Not for.passangers... banks would be a roller coaster.

[@ms-fk6eb]

@@aitorbleda8267 have they ever cared about passenger comfort? 💀

[@craigsowers8456]

Greetings from an LM Aero retired Engineer. Great video and yeah, "Fueled Wings" don't hold much but there are also valid other benefits to them ... the Block Zero thru 30 F-16s I helped build (all over the World) were thin, sheet metal Wings that were "fuel cells" and provided 20% of capacity yet gave "Ballast" handling characteristics that made it, to this day, one of the best "Dog Fighters" in the World. Very simple construction ... fuel coating with FMS-1044 beaded sealant. Same could be done on Boeings thin, long Wing design ... every bit of fuel counts as you know. Further to your coverage of "Green Energy" propulsion, be advised that in 1956, Carswell AFB had a B-36 Peacemaker take off ... with a live Nuclear powerplant on-board to test "Electric Flight". Never really "Got off the Ground" (pun intended) but if you look around now in other Energy inventions, you'll find they are making "micro-sized" Nuclear powerplants ... size of your minivan's engine. Very little "fuel" involved and do not "explode" like a bomb ... now think what could be done in "Electric Flight" if you had one of those on-board. WOW It will be an very interesting future in Aviation IMHO.

[@Spectre_22]

The Focke Wulf Ta152 high altitude German fighter from late world war 2, also had this long and thin wing design.

[@kellyj1464]

I love how you go into these subjects in such detail, Scott!

[@freddiecrumb77]

I love the way you explain and break things down. It's like hearing it directly from my best friend. Keep up the good work

[@oeliamoya9796]

This is the best channel for all things flying and space news

[@Lawman212]

Thanks so much for the video. I'd be curious to know how they anticipate the extra long wings to fit in current airports.

[@redtails]

If it was about "green", it'd be much easier to optimize aeroplanes to cruise at lower speeds, but then you'd have less passengers per plane per month so it ends up costing more

[@kanukistani2984]

Due to bernoulis equation, the pressure under the wing is greater than that on top of the wing. Hence lift. At the wing tips, the higher pressure air on the bottom wants to rotate around the wing tip to fill in the lower pressure area on top. This gives you two vortices, one on each wing tip which are called induced drag since they scale proportionally with lift. Longer thinner wings give you less wingtip length per total lift, reducing these votices. The winglets work by inducing vortices themselves - which are in the opposite rotational direction of the ones off of the wingtips partially cancelling them out (reducing drag).

[@SomeRandomDevOpsGuy]

Great stuff, small correction though. It's not "due to" but rather "modeled by" Bernoulli's equation

[@DrWhom]

@@SomeRandomDevOpsGuy pressure difference happens but lift is the reaction to pushing air out of the way; and that you get just from aoa and thrust. otherwise planes could not fly inverted!

[@Anvilshock]

"pressure differential, hence lift" - momentum exchange, cough, cough

[@josephmagana6235]

@@DrWhom Two ways of describing the same thing. How do you push air out of the way? A difference in pressure.

[@westtex3675]

Kinda cool to have those massive engines up at window-level. It will be interesting to see the developments.

[@stormycatmink]

PB-Y Catalina had a similar truss wing and was considerably more efficient (especially in a payload and range vs weight) than its counterparts. However, it couldn't go that fast. It had a longer chord (lower aspect). Not sure it was just a limit of the engine power or that the shape of the wing made going faster remove the advantages of the wing shape.

[@cowboybob7093]

Parasol wing - This note isn't meant to detract from your informative comment.

[@andrewashmore8000]

Gorgeous aeroplane the catalina.

[@davecrupel2817]

Shape of the wing is what limits its speed. Its not a swept wing. And, as you said, it has a high aspect ratio. That means its a, in laymans terms, very tall wing. Very large aerodynamic cross section. To put it another way, A modern fighter jet's wing is like a knife when you have the edge facing into the wind. A PBY's wing is when you turn that knife 90⁰ and have a whole side of the blade facing into the wind. _Much_ more drag. Much more _lift as well,_ granted. But at the tradeoff of speed.

[@Royalwaffles]

I don't think the wing was the only limiting factor in speed.... careful reminder it has pontoons and the hull is shaped Like a BOAT lol

[@Vespuchian]

I was thinking a better comparison was the Bellanca Aircruiser or 77-140, particularly the latter as it was a twin-engine design. Both had wing braces that were also airfoils, greatly increasing the types' efficiency.

[@intercommerce]

Combine this with the CFM Rise engine, should make an amazing difference!

[@PauloMartins81]

Those high wings also increase the clearance to install very efficient high bypass engines, perhaps even a cfm open fan design?

[@bencusb]

thats what I was wondering about because those engines seem way too small

[@Docsimple]

Nice book collection. I love "The Algebraist".

[@FarrellMcGovern]

Harbour Air in Vancouver BC is working on the Electric Beaver...keep you snickers to yourself! But most of Harbour Air's flights are around 20 minutes, shuttle flights, basically. And if they can eliminate the use of ICE powered planes replacing them with electric, thatwill be a huge saving for them both in the cost area, and in the carbon reduction areas.

[@lunaticbz3594]

But what if the Electric Beaver overheats and gets Beaver fever. I know that's not the obvious joke here, but its where my mind went.

[@FarrellMcGovern]

@@lunaticbz3594 LOL! Being Canadian, it could have been a Justin Beaver...

[@larsmurdochkalsta8808]

I've been wondering about something like this for years. I'm almost surprised it didn't happen just as a natural consequence of high bypass engines. Cuz this system would allow you to run much higher bypass. That said, I don't know if we've reached the limits of how much bypass can be had

[@WinterCharmVT]

There's definitely more room for high bypass turbofan development... but the simpler / easier solution was larger landing gear.

[@larsmurdochkalsta8808]

@@WinterCharmVT oh yeah, definitely an easier solution, but we all saw the 737 Max

[@raideurng2508]

Meanwhile they are also helping to develop concepts for supersonic transports like the X-59. I remember when people were skeeved out by the idea of eliminating bleed air in airliners. Aircraft and the infrastructure are so damn expensive, taking risks of any sort can bankrupt airlines very quickly and completely.

[@levelrod]

I always enjoy your videos and learn not one, but several things every single time. Thank you!

[@phizc]

Another nice thing is that with the high wings you can have larger engines. Larger high bypass engines are more efficient ¹, but you can only make them so big until they'd drag on the ground. ¹ though as they get bigger the weight also increases, especially the nacelle.

[@victorgigante5374]

You wouldn't have to have that weird dent in the cowling like on the newer 737s.

[@caughtnyfish6073]

If airliners are to have these high up very long wings, what happens if the pilot has to do a “Sully” and land in the river. Where are the passengers going to stand?

[@Mentaculus42]

I think that there is an acronym for that ETOPS ⇔ Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim

[@Aethelgeat]

Yes, that was my thought as well. The exits will soon be submerged. They can stand on top of the fuselage and wing, but they have to get up there from lower exits.

[@TheStig_TG]

Emergency landings of B-24's into the ocean in WW2 show you have like 10 minuets to get out because of the high center of gravity

[@GSImproved90]

I'd be curious to see how the pressure and friction would be where the truss meets the wing underneath.

[@mitcho04]

We talking about sheer and torque?

[@davidaugustofc2574]

It depends on how well built it its, realistically if the truss generates zero lift at that area drag should be minimum, so the design part is easy.

[@mitcho04]

@@davidaugustofc2574 that would make sense for 2D air, but air in the Z axis will create significant drag in a slipstream.

[@davidaugustofc2574]

@@mitcho04 Taking a lesson from F1, the wing supports do cause a loss of performance when attached to the bottom of the wing (where the low pressure is) so they try to attach it to the top. In the example they're already attaching it in the high pressure zone, so the loss in performance shouldn't be great. Plus Nasa and Boeing said they're developing this to reduce drag, so in theory it works?

[@mitcho04]

@@davidaugustofc2574 it’s low pressure above the wing, where the air moves fastest. That’s what generates lift.

[@Kefoo_]

-- *_Thank you, Scott Manley!_*

[@AthanImmortal]

Fascinating stuff, Scott. Particularly enjoy your new insights as a pilot yourself.

[@wewillrockyou1986]

The mechanism that makes higher aspect ratio wings more efficient is basically the same as the one that makes higher bypass ratio jet engines more efficient. You are moving more air at a slower speed to get the same force, while the energy imparted on the air is proportional to (1/2)mv^2 so it takes less energy to accelerate that air due to the lower speed component.

[@doccls]

No. High aspect ratio wings are more efficient due to the reduction of induced drag.

[@Nurhaal]

It's drag reduction. In this case, it's reducing the parasitic drag, which is the drag induced by the viscosity of the fluid traveling over the OML of the wing surface. Longer, thinner high aspect wings present less area of travel where the fluid must move over the surface area, thus the 'stickyness' of the air at the boundary layer on the wings 'skin' has less time to build up friction, or 'drag'. The problem with these wings is flutter. Especially with the needed sweep, you still have vortices that are induced, and the wing itself is a static structure, so its sweep is only optimized for a specific cruise speed. This isn't a problem for commercial aircraft as much since your flight pattern is so rigid, but this is why you don't see this on militarily high performance aircraft much with the exception of aircraft which their designed role is specific loiter time and or altitude ceiling. The threat of flutter and wing twist caused by the vortices and Trans sonic/super sonic shock impacting the wing is a huge problem, and that's likely what NASA spent most of their time optimizing with Boeing. And not to diss one of my Fav youtubers here but Scott should well know that this knowledge and design has been around for many decades. The only reason it's being looked at now is because it's NASA, IE it's being subsidized by government money that the companies don't have to spend. Why should they spend it when they can slowly pressure the government to waste the money for them - so Scott's position here is no different that an idiot politician who critiques this, because NASA is notoriously slow and horrible at spending money on research. This has been proven for decades. It doesn't mean I don't like NASA, I still revere the agency whole heartedly - but take it from ex NASA mathematicians and engineers - the Agency is largely a massive money pit and grift. It contributes very little over the span of time it usually takes to look at a topic. Government spending on research is usually very inefficient. Usually. Not all the time, but usually.

[@billhosko7723]

​@@Nurhaal Bingo... plus these basic questions cannot be satisfied with this fantasy: Wings too long for airports, folding them then, place for fuel, - some say on fuselage... first crash, people are surrounded by fire, engines mounted higher - first catastrophic failure passengers and fuselage (plane thus) destroyed by shrapnel...

[@billhosko7723]

@@Nurhaal BRAVO! Massive misuse of public dollars.

[@shadowOrgon]

Hey Scott, could you do a video about the X-48 concept in comparison to the wing tech described in this video? would love to see how all these ideas stack against (or with) each other. Have always heard the X-48 design would have been amazing for the airline industry but seems to have stalled and not gone anywhere..

[@WilliamDeVey]

"I really hope Boeing doesn't screw this up!" Boeing: Hold my beer!

[@simonm1447]

Lol

[@simonm1447]

It wouldn't surprise me if they would just put such a wing on top of a 737 fuselage and try sell it for another 50 years

[@jshepard152]

@@simonm1447 The 737 max exists precisely because they didn't want to make such radical changes to the 737 platform. If you have to do all that, you start from scratch.

[@simonm1447]

@@jshepard152 it's an experimental platform, while the Max just uses a proven concept with more efficient engines. They had to introduce the Max since Airbus was first with the Neo, which would have given the Neo a 20 % fuel advantage over the NG. This new concept may be the narrow body airliner of the 2030s, but a lot of research has to be done yet to prove this. Meanwhile Airbus is developing a new carbon fiber wing for the 321, with a much higher aspect ratio and folding wing tips. It will fly on test aircraft soon.

[@mikespencer237]

Always a nice job Scott! Your comment that "Boeing better not screw this up", with that being said what hasn't Boeing screwed up lately?

[@dmolldude]

Exactly. Boeing’s management has already said they are not interested in any new plane designs until engines get some largely more efficient.

[@mpk6664]

Would love to see some of the VS aircraft with turbo props. Can't wait to see where this concept goes.

[@PeregrineBF]

Or better yet a CFM RISE (as that gets developed): an open-fan turbofan with a variable pitch rotor fan and a variable pitch stator, which is hoped to get up to 20% lower CO2 emissions (mostly due to improved fuel efficiency) while still being able to maintain Mach 0.8+ cruising speeds.

[@King_Dusty_Of_Pookytopia]

I always thought biwing-ish kind of wing(s) would be used first for cargo aircraft and then onto ultra heavy lift bombers. Like something similar to a biwing B-52 with nearly double weapons load.

[@Tkkalas]

Do you think that what would normally be “contained” engine failures with shrapnel exiting the outlet and the inlet of the engine pose a greater risk due to the what appears to be new positioning of the engines? They seem closer to the cabin while also being more centered in the aircraft instead of lower in the nasa renders. Maybe it only appears closer due to the larger wings. Bottom line do you think there will have to be changes to engine design or engine positioning in order to meet FAA guidelines on contained engine failure due to design of the new engine positioning potentially putting the cabin at a higher risk of outlet and inlet shrapnel.

[@robertjones1729]

Really great video Scott. So.. did you do race off comparisons between minivans before getting the Honda?? I really enjpy the concept and look forward to seeing what happens. The thing that is very disturbing to me is my own "CRINDGE" when you say Boeing is doing it. I used to have confidence and respect in that company, From what I've seen with SLS and Orion and few other major manufactureing issues it looks like no one really knows what is going on oveer there. It kinda looks like a Clown Car show over there and they WERE the leaders.. At least their aim is good enough to shoot themselves in the foot!

[@ThomasHaberkorn]

Would be cool if they also include an unducted fan engine

[@geesehoward700]

yeah im surprised they havent opted for the CFM RISE

[@simonr7097]

Maybe I missed it, but where do they plan on storing the fuel if not in the wings? This seems to be the biggest obstacle against those designs.

[@GreenBlueWalkthrough]

You can store it in the pylons and fuselage in the walls but it seems they arre just going with giving it more wing.

[@billhosko7723]

@@GreenBlueWalkthrough Longer wings won't work in most airports, folding them on-ground = folding fuel in the wings? Fuel surrounding passengers?... first crash would make great optics.

[@Robbie_Prz]

Great video! Also, where did you find the animated footage around 6:10? In the research part.

[@re-engineeringme9758]

Admittedly it is a pretty cool design. I'd like to know what materials will be used and how they're going to make those wings.

[@brucewelty7684]

Using a LOT of petrol. Kinda like the current DIEING crop of wind turbines.

[@CTCTraining1]

Hmm, after the changes airports needed to cope with the Airbus A380, I’m sure they are looking forward with glee to accommodating new extra wide planes. Thx Scott, keep up the great work 👍😀

[@jamesfrankiewicz5768]

With that truss structure, they could probably get away with folding a good portion of the outer wing section (similar to naval aviation).

[@spdaltid]

Scott, first time viewing your channel. Entertaining and informative. Subscribed. You mentioned winglets: what I have found interesting is that the generational aircraft I've flown; B744, A330/340 all had winglets, which I understood gave better specific range on longer flights. [Hence the JAL/ANA -400 domestic versions sans winglets]. Then I flew the 748[F] and 777ER. Newer aircraft, no winglets. If I also look at the X, B787 vs A350, what am I missing?

[@Johnny_Socko]

Those aircraft that you mentioned have "raked wingtips", which is basically an evolutionary offshoot of traditional winglets. The Wiki article gives a good summation of their advantages in certain applications: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingtip_device#Raked_wingtip

[@Rafmeistr]

I believe the likes of the A350 and B787 have something called a "blended wing" where the winglet is blended into the shape of the wing itself. So, they do have winglets, they just look like extensions on the wings, and presumably (why would they do it otherwise?) a blended shape improves aerodynamic efficiency/reduces induced drag more than a simple "tack on" winglet. these new planes had winglets designed into the wing in the design stage, hence their shape, while on older planes the winglets were added after the initial design phase of the aircraft (747, 737, A320 etc were all designed relatively long ago, along with their associated wing shape). this is my best educated guess

[@xGatoDelFuegox]

Winglets, in reality, only offer marginal benefits. What is more effective than a winglet, in all cases, is simply making the wing longer. Winglets were an upgrade to old designs but now newer wing designs with just a longer span are more efficient

[@randysmith6493]

Makes sense, the 172 hold the longest flight record nonstop, of over two months in the air.