Bullet plane revealed

Skybird · 08-28-20, 04:46 PM

https://edition.cnn.com/travel/artic...ane/index.html

Just by the looks: I don't like it. Looks like a plane with obesity problems. By the economy numbers, I like it. The question however is: how safe is it? How does it glide in case of engines failure? No gliding, no boarding, I say. And the wings simply look - suspicious.

stork100 · 08-29-20, 03:33 AM

My thoughts/observations:

I think it looks overall like quite a sensibly designed airframe. The fuselage looks very good aerodynamically for an aircraft designed for subsonic speeds. The optimum subsonic shape is in fact a water droplet in free fall, which is quite fat. Increased weight, but also increased cabin space!

The traditional horizontal and vertical tail plus the ventral fin (largely preventing prop strikes in this case) is a very sensible approach: thank heavens they haven't opted for any silly fashionable flying wing or canard designs. The wings do look a bit small but similar to a UAV or glider. Nice, efficient high aspect ratio. And lift/drag ratios are generally improving in aircraft design all the time, so I'd think it would have quite an excellent glide for an aircraft of its type. Only the numbers can tell for sure though. The polyhedral wingtips are useful, but also a bit of a trendy fashion thing in my opinion. I think they actually work a bit better inverted but then you can have ground clearance issues.

The main thing I'm sceptical about is the diesel engine pusher arrangement. I'd prefer a more conventional design. Put the prop at the front and save the diesels for trucks, tractors, tanks, trains and subs.

And seeing that they're leaning so heavily towards efficiency, the question is what are they sacrificing in order to attain it? Because everything is always a compromise in aircraft design. How will it compare with competing aircraft that are less efficient but perhaps more practical and capable in other areas? As we move through the 21st Century we're generally seeing the aviation industry in decline, so it will be interesting to see how commercially successful this machine will be, if at all.

For comparison - A successful aircraft, built for an entirely different purpose, with some similar design features - Lockheed U-2:

Jimbuna · 08-29-20, 04:17 AM

^ I concur

Skybird · 08-30-20, 10:49 AM

No, I stick to my taste. By looks, its fat and ugly.

Like a swallow that had a bottle of corn sirup per day for the past six months.

Jimbuna · 08-30-20, 02:04 PM

Not a problem...to each their own

ET2SN · 08-30-20, 11:07 PM

One of the original bullet planes:

https://www.historynet.com/bell-x-1-...ange-beast.htm

As I recall, the X-1 was modeled after the shape of the business end of a 50 cal machine gun round.

There was also a (sorta) recent Italian twin engine turbo prop biz plane called (I think?) the Avanti. Same basic fuse shape with two pusher engines and a canard wing up front.

Platapus · 08-31-20, 06:20 AM

I wonder what the ground clearance is for that prop? I wonder what precautions are in place to prevent over rotation on take-off?

Pretty cool design. I wonder how well it will scale up.

Gerald · 08-31-20, 09:29 AM

Looks like a modern Gulfstream.

08-28-20, 04:46 PM	#1
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,615 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Bullet plane revealed https://edition.cnn.com/travel/artic...ane/index.html Just by the looks: I don't like it. Looks like a plane with obesity problems. By the economy numbers, I like it. The question however is: how safe is it? How does it glide in case of engines failure? No gliding, no boarding, I say. And the wings simply look - suspicious. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

08-29-20, 04:17 AM	#3
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 190,506 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	^ I concur __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!!

08-30-20, 10:49 AM	#4
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,615 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	No, I stick to my taste. By looks, its fat and ugly. Like a swallow that had a bottle of corn sirup per day for the past six months. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

08-30-20, 02:04 PM	#5
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 190,506 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	Not a problem...to each their own __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!!

08-31-20, 06:20 AM	#7
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,362 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	I wonder what the ground clearance is for that prop? I wonder what precautions are in place to prevent over rotation on take-off? Pretty cool design. I wonder how well it will scale up. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

08-29-20, 03:33 AM	#2
stork100 Weps Join Date: Sep 2017 Location: Australia Posts: 371 Downloads: 92 Uploads: 0	My thoughts/observations: I think it looks overall like quite a sensibly designed airframe. The fuselage looks very good aerodynamically for an aircraft designed for subsonic speeds. The optimum subsonic shape is in fact a water droplet in free fall, which is quite fat. Increased weight, but also increased cabin space! The traditional horizontal and vertical tail plus the ventral fin (largely preventing prop strikes in this case) is a very sensible approach: thank heavens they haven't opted for any silly fashionable flying wing or canard designs. The wings do look a bit small but similar to a UAV or glider. Nice, efficient high aspect ratio. And lift/drag ratios are generally improving in aircraft design all the time, so I'd think it would have quite an excellent glide for an aircraft of its type. Only the numbers can tell for sure though. The polyhedral wingtips are useful, but also a bit of a trendy fashion thing in my opinion. I think they actually work a bit better inverted but then you can have ground clearance issues. The main thing I'm sceptical about is the diesel engine pusher arrangement. I'd prefer a more conventional design. Put the prop at the front and save the diesels for trucks, tractors, tanks, trains and subs. And seeing that they're leaning so heavily towards efficiency, the question is what are they sacrificing in order to attain it? Because everything is always a compromise in aircraft design. How will it compare with competing aircraft that are less efficient but perhaps more practical and capable in other areas? As we move through the 21st Century we're generally seeing the aviation industry in decline, so it will be interesting to see how commercially successful this machine will be, if at all. For comparison - A successful aircraft, built for an entirely different purpose, with some similar design features - Lockheed U-2:

08-30-20, 11:07 PM	#6
ET2SN Ocean Warrior Join Date: Oct 2017 Posts: 2,652 Downloads: 60 Uploads: 0	One of the original bullet planes: https://www.historynet.com/bell-x-1-...ange-beast.htm As I recall, the X-1 was modeled after the shape of the business end of a 50 cal machine gun round. There was also a (sorta) recent Italian twin engine turbo prop biz plane called (I think?) the Avanti. Same basic fuse shape with two pusher engines and a canard wing up front.

08-31-20, 09:29 AM	#8
Gerald SUBSIM Newsman Join Date: May 2008 Location: Close to sea Posts: 24,254 Downloads: 553 Uploads: 0	Looks like a modern Gulfstream. __________________ Nothing in life is to be feard,it is only to be understood. Marie Curie