It's not really a request, it's just an idea. I would like to know if I have a good idea though. The idea was sort of a ficticious 757/767 twin-jet family that I had thought up awhile back. But the idea was that both the designs would be designed for Mach 0.85 (utilizing more advanced aerodynamic technology), and the wide-body would instead be 2-5-2 instead of 2-3-2. The widebody idea would have a typical twin-class set up for 235-240 mixed-class layout, and a maximum density lay out of 310-330 pax (I guess). To get an adequate T/W (Thrust to Weight) ratio, a MTOGW of 350,000 to 385,000 lbs would be good range of weight to work with, utilizing a CF-6-80 variant, or the JT-9D-7R4H, both under development in the late seventies, both producing 56,000 thrust. The narrowbody idea would consist of a 757-200 aircraft, and a 757-100 like plane with 150 seats (size probably a little longer than an A-320) The concept, like the 757/767 have virtually the same cockpit layout allowing a pilot trained to fly one to fly the other with minimal training. To allow for a Mach 0.85 cruise, the planes would feature supercritical airfoils with sweep-backs of 30-35 degrees, and a better blending of the wing and fuselage. Perhaps both designs could benefit from a 777 style tail. The widebody was to feature a higher sweep than the narrowbody (narrowbody = 30 ish, widebody = 30-35 ish), to allow for lower drag. The airplane design I thought up would probably work best with a split-aileron like the DC-8 or the A-330/-340 with the inboard always operating with the outboard restricted past a certain speed. The concept was to feature virtually full-span slats with a takeoff and a landing setting, and a double-slotted fowler flap to provide increased area. The flap design I'm inspired by the 757's partially using a large forward flap with a blunt nose, and a small rear section. The flap set up would entail a "flaps-1" setting which would cause the flaps to slide back only partially increasing area, a "Flaps 2" setting which features a more full slide-back to increase area, still deflection is minimal. There would obviously be "Flaps 5" and "Flaps 10"-like settings for hot and high take-offs, a run of the mill "Flaps 15" to provide a good fairly short takeoff run and decent climb performance, a "Flaps 20-25" setting for a short-takeoff where getting into the air real fast is the name of the game. And of course a normal landing "Flaps 30" like setting and a short-field heavy landing "Flaps 40" like setting to allow for shorter landing runs. Another idea would be a detent setting that allows for the given flap extention the slats to extend to a lower or a higher setting than normally. Basically you could extend the flaps to 1-deg without extending the slats with the flick of a switch, or you could extend the slats and no flaps. A slight flap extention during cruise with no LED deployment can increase area and allow for improved lift, and high-altitude cruising. Like all modern jetliners pretty much, spoilers would be in front of the flaps. Obviously as many as can safely deploy for braking without adversely affecting airflow over the tail would be used. Also, to provide a nice swift roll-rate, the spoilers can deploy asymmetrically for roll-assist. The narrowbody requiring better short-field performance over cruise would feature a lower-sweep than the widebody. The shortbodied version would feature the most basic wing. The long-body would feature a slight extention to the wing to provide some extra lift and possibly flaperons. Both aircraft however would use basically the same trailing-edge flap set-up (double-slotted fowler flaps) with the long-bodied version featuring an extention to the slats to cover the extra span. Like the wide-body the flap and slat set up would be the same. The narrowbody idea would probably not require a split aileron and a regular outboard set-up would work just fine. The plane would feature a set of flight/ground spoilers like the widebody for symmetric and asymmetric use. Ideas floating around with the idea include -An L-1011 style stabilator with geared elevators -Mid-Air Reverse Capability -Landing Gear that can deploy as high as 320 kts (Hey, some nations don't have that 250 knots below ten thousand rule) like the DC-8's gear -Jointed spoilers (like the 727's jointed tail) to allow more deflection -Wingletshttp://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/discussions/read.php?14,12850,12850#msg-12850Sat, 25 May 2013 05:54:10 +0200 Phorum 5.2.8 http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/discussions/read.php?14,12850,12878#msg-12878 http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/discussions/read.php?14,12850,12878#msg-12878
Delta

]]> Delta2477A GeneralSat, 23 Dec 2006 13:07:56 +0100 http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/discussions/read.php?14,12850,12864#msg-12864 http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/discussions/read.php?14,12850,12864#msg-12864
The ailerons, elevators and rudders were controlled by individual electric pump driven hydraulic-packs. Each pack features a hydraulic reservoir. The problem is that electrical systems tend to be more difficult in terms of reliability than regular hydro-mechanical linkages. Nonetheless from what I read about the VC-10, the system worked pretty well. Maybe it was just well-designed, who knows?
Still, I think an mid-air deployable air-driven generator would be good to provide electrical power on at least one of the lines. This could also be used as a back-up hydraulic system since an ADG can drive a hydraulic pump too for the hydraulic systems.

Well the design I was thinking up could utilize such a system. It worked on the VC-10, and the A-380 supposedly utilizes a similar mechanism.

What do you guys think?]]> Delta2477A GeneralSun, 10 Dec 2006 21:41:19 +0100 http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/discussions/read.php?14,12850,12862#msg-12862 http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/discussions/read.php?14,12850,12862#msg-12862just kidding
8)]]> St Jevic GeneralSat, 09 Dec 2006 10:10:47 +0100 http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/discussions/read.php?14,12850,12859#msg-12859 http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/discussions/read.php?14,12850,12859#msg-12859
Didn't McDonnell Douglas make a DC-XX which was like a 757 like plane design with A-320 like technology? If I recall, the French industry dropped out, although I don't know when or why.

I know Lockheed thought of a Lockheed Bistar, and Douglas thought of a DC-10 Twin. Neither were developed though. And yes, the wider-body concepts are partially based on this design in addition to the 767.

Delta2477A]]> Delta2477A GeneralSat, 02 Dec 2006 18:32:39 +0100 http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/discussions/read.php?14,12850,12857#msg-12857 http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/discussions/read.php?14,12850,12857#msg-12857

> The idea I was using was kind of a ficticious competitor to the
> 757/767, which was conceived in the '70's and entered service
> in the early eighties. Competitors that would have Mach 0.85
> cruising speed, with a 767-counterpart that would rather than
> be 2-3-2, be just as wide as a DC-10 or an L-1011 (Could be
> configured in coach 2-4-2, 3-2-3, 3-3-3, 2-4-3/3-4-2, or
> 3-4-3).

Well, late 1970-s and early 1980-s was when Airbus came up with Airbus 310 and 320 families.

Douglas and Lockheed are both said to have considered dropping the middle engine off their trijets - though neither of them actually did it. Also, given that Douglas? narrowbody was DC-9 with restrictive 5-abreast fuselage and therefore big gap between DC-9 and DC-10 capacities, while Lockheed had no narrowbody jet airliner to complement Tristar, either of them might come up with a family consisting of a widebody twin and a big narrowbody...]]> chornedsnorkack GeneralSat, 02 Dec 2006 12:51:10 +0100 http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/discussions/read.php?14,12850,12855#msg-12855 http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/discussions/read.php?14,12850,12855#msg-12855
Probably with some assistance i could come up with a narrowbody counterpart to the 787. Boeing does plan to replace the 757 and 737 some time in the future you know? However that was not the idea I was coming up with. Maybe, after my first concept, if I can get it moving, I might persue this concept.

The idea I was using was kind of a ficticious competitor to the 757/767, which was conceived in the '70's and entered service in the early eighties. Competitors that would have Mach 0.85 cruising speed, with a 767-counterpart that would rather than be 2-3-2, be just as wide as a DC-10 or an L-1011 (Could be configured in coach 2-4-2, 3-2-3, 3-3-3, 2-4-3/3-4-2, or 3-4-3).]]> Delta2477A GeneralFri, 01 Dec 2006 17:34:21 +0100 http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/discussions/read.php?14,12850,12854#msg-12854 http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/discussions/read.php?14,12850,12854#msg-12854
Could you design a narrowbody version of 787, based on it like 757 is based on 767, having similar cockpit, composite fuselage, bleedless engines, and replacing both 737 and 757?]]> chornedsnorkack GeneralFri, 01 Dec 2006 11:40:59 +0100 http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/discussions/read.php?14,12850,12852#msg-12852 http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/discussions/read.php?14,12850,12852#msg-12852
Basically, the hypothetical plane could be configured how the hypothetical operator hypothetically wanted it.

-Delta2477A]]> Delta2477A GeneralFri, 01 Dec 2006 00:17:10 +0100 http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/discussions/read.php?14,12850,12851#msg-12851 http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/discussions/read.php?14,12850,12851#msg-12851
]]> NcSchu GeneralThu, 30 Nov 2006 21:18:56 +0100 http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/discussions/read.php?14,12850,12850#msg-12850 http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/discussions/read.php?14,12850,12850#msg-12850
The idea was sort of a ficticious 757/767 twin-jet family that I had thought up awhile back. But the idea was that both the designs would be designed for Mach 0.85 (utilizing more advanced aerodynamic technology), and the wide-body would instead be 2-5-2 instead of 2-3-2.

The widebody idea would have a typical twin-class set up for 235-240 mixed-class layout, and a maximum density lay out of 310-330 pax (I guess). To get an adequate T/W (Thrust to Weight) ratio, a MTOGW of 350,000 to 385,000 lbs would be good range of weight to work with, utilizing a CF-6-80 variant, or the JT-9D-7R4H, both under development in the late seventies, both producing 56,000 thrust.

The narrowbody idea would consist of a 757-200 aircraft, and a 757-100 like plane with 150 seats (size probably a little longer than an A-320)

The concept, like the 757/767 have virtually the same cockpit layout allowing a pilot trained to fly one to fly the other with minimal training. To allow for a Mach 0.85 cruise, the planes would feature supercritical airfoils with sweep-backs of 30-35 degrees, and a better blending of the wing and fuselage. Perhaps both designs could benefit from a 777 style tail.

The widebody was to feature a higher sweep than the narrowbody (narrowbody = 30 ish, widebody = 30-35 ish), to allow for lower drag. The airplane design I thought up would probably work best with a split-aileron like the DC-8 or the A-330/-340 with the inboard always operating with the outboard restricted past a certain speed. The concept was to feature virtually full-span slats with a takeoff and a landing setting, and a double-slotted fowler flap to provide increased area. The flap design I'm inspired by the 757's partially using a large forward flap with a blunt nose, and a small rear section. The flap set up would entail a "flaps-1" setting which would cause the flaps to slide back only partially increasing area, a "Flaps 2" setting which features a more full slide-back to increase area, still deflection is minimal. There would obviously be "Flaps 5" and "Flaps 10"-like settings for hot and high take-offs, a run of the mill "Flaps 15" to provide a good fairly short takeoff run and decent climb performance, a "Flaps 20-25" setting for a short-takeoff where getting into the air real fast is the name of the game. And of course a normal landing "Flaps 30" like setting and a short-field heavy landing "Flaps 40" like setting to allow for shorter landing runs. Another idea would be a detent setting that allows for the given flap extention the slats to extend to a lower or a higher setting than normally. Basically you could extend the flaps to 1-deg without extending the slats with the flick of a switch, or you could extend the slats and no flaps. A slight flap extention during cruise with no LED deployment can increase area and allow for improved lift, and high-altitude cruising. Like all modern jetliners pretty much, spoilers would be in front of the flaps. Obviously as many as can safely deploy for braking without adversely affecting airflow over the tail would be used. Also, to provide a nice swift roll-rate, the spoilers can deploy asymmetrically for roll-assist.

The narrowbody requiring better short-field performance over cruise would feature a lower-sweep than the widebody. The shortbodied version would feature the most basic wing. The long-body would feature a slight extention to the wing to provide some extra lift and possibly flaperons. Both aircraft however would use basically the same trailing-edge flap set-up (double-slotted fowler flaps) with the long-bodied version featuring an extention to the slats to cover the extra span. Like the wide-body the flap and slat set up would be the same. The narrowbody idea would probably not require a split aileron and a regular outboard set-up would work just fine. The plane would feature a set of flight/ground spoilers like the widebody for symmetric and asymmetric use.

Ideas floating around with the idea include
-An L-1011 style stabilator with geared elevators
-Mid-Air Reverse Capability
-Landing Gear that can deploy as high as 320 kts (Hey, some nations don't have that 250 knots below ten thousand rule) like the DC-8's gear
-Jointed spoilers (like the 727's jointed tail) to allow more deflection
-Winglets]]> Delta2477A GeneralThu, 30 Nov 2006 05:22:49 +0100