Could this be the 737 Replacement?
 

Boeing was granted a patent in March of this year for what appears similar to the Sonic Cruiser in structure but closer to the 737 in size.

Could this be the 797? Boeing Granted Bizarre Patent

Airplane configuration - Google Patents

Boeing also filed a patent on a guppy looking 737 size replacement the end of last year seen here:

Could this be Boeing's 797? - Seattle News - MyNorthwest.com

Both airplanes are twin isle.

OK, can anyone explain why this post was "moved" ?

I put it right back in the Delta RFP thread. It could be relevant.

The design makes a lot of sense, but would be a runway hog.

Looks like a wider version of the Stark-jet with relocated engines...

http://netbattles.com/iron_man/ironman_stark_jet.jpg

Please don't laugh, but is the above aircraft (owned by Tony Stark) airworthy? It just doesn't appear to have enough "rudder." Still, I thought it was so cool in the movie!

Negative.

I want to say it was a writeoff -400 from the desert...but that may well be another frame I'm thinking of. I've never seen the film, so I'm sure someone more knowledgable has the history on the frame.

I fly them, I don't design them. But on the Boeing patent, the wings are angled forward..... How does this work at high speed? What is the advantage/disadvantage?

Didn't seem that forward sweep was popular for a fighter.

Grumman X-29 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or business jet -

HFB-320 Hansa Jet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Significant aerodynamic advantages IIRC, but presumably totally unstable in flight... it would require a fly-by-wire system making many adjustments each second to keep it from tumbling. Many modern fighters are also inherently unstable.

Aerodynamics
 

(I'm sure Cubdriver will jump in and fine-tune anything I may have clouded). ;)

Actually, it doesn't have to be aerodynamically unstable...this could be done with conventional controls, but probably won't.

1. Conventional aft-swept wings have a span-wise flow, which means the air doesn't go straight back with the freesteam..it goes outboard a little. This causes a local increase in angle of attack, the farther it goes, and makes the tips of the wing stall first. It is the reason most swept-wing jets have aerodynamic twist or "washout," where the chord of the airfoil goes more nose-down as you move outboard.

Since the flow goes outboard, vortices are stronger. Vortices are a loss of high-energy air, and a source of drag.

With forward-sweep, the spanwise flow goes inboard. That high-energy air is trapped under the wingroot or fuselage, and does useful lift....which reduces drag, and therefore, power required, and therefore, cost of operation.

2. Canards are lifting surfaces, as opposed to conventional horizontal surfaces. A conventional tail puts a downforce on the aircraft, which increases the total load the wing must lift....more cost of operation.

The big disadvantages of FSW:

1. Since spanwise flow is at the rear-most part of the wing, and local increase in AOA happens there, it will stall root-first. Since this is the aftmost part of the wing, a stall causes a nose-up pitch...generally the opposite of what you want.

2. FS Wings are aero-elastically unstable. That is, bending loads from lift and drag want to bend the wing backwards and upward....which causes an increase in AOA unless the wing is hugely stiff and strong. The X-29 used a carbon composite wing to address this issue. In the end, the manufacturers apparently felt that not enough performance was gained in a fighter for the weight penalty that had to be paid.

Disadvantage of canards:

The adavantage of the canard is it reduces the amount of load on the wing, instead of adding to it like a horizontal stabilizer.

I read a discussion of the Sonic Cruiser where airline reps wondered how airport gates would have to be configured for the jet bridge to clear the canard, or insure that a malfunctioning jet bridge (gee, that's never happened), or clumsy/barely trained operator (hmmmm) doesn't damage the aircraft.

Interesting point.

It is an intriguing design. I see it as trying to reduce drag and thereby reduce fuel cost. The article said it would make it quiet...I doubt it, at least for passengers. Not much different than a 727 or DC/MD. The vertical fins might make a difference for noise footprint on the ground, though.

The canard can prevent this by stalling and pitching down before the wing reaches a critical AOA, as in the Rutan designs.

Yes, but...
 

Tom:

True, Rutan avoids an aft-wing stall by purposely limiting the amount of "up" lift the canard can generate. This does prevent an aft-wing stall, but also limits the aft-wing from generating anything close to CL-max. This means you need even more wing, or more flaps, to get a reasonable approach or takeoff speed. More wing or more flaps equals more complexity and more weight, which equals more cost. (Both to acquire and to operate). Minor consideration on a homebuilt; more on an airliner.

If the canard (or foreplane) can be made to have a huge range of motion, an aft-wing stall with this configuration could be made recoverable by making the canard lift go to zero, or even a negative value, which would drive the nose (and AOA) down. On all supersonic fighters that I can think of there is an all-moving stabilator (instead of a horizontal stab and elevator), to achieve the required control moment-arms with the large center of lift-ranges generated from approach speed through supersonic flight.

All-moving slabs haven't been used on airliners because, I believe in part, they are more responsive, and would make for a rougher ride in an airliner. This same characteristic makes them perfectly applicable to fighters, where rapid g-onset (and pulling to CL max) is often a necessity.

Rick mentioned fly-by-wire. You don't have to make it that way (as above), but to get maximum benefit from a FSW jet with a canard, you would probably want to. A FBW system would make an all-moving canard stabilator easy to adopt without sacrificing ride quality.

It seems Boeing would make a mistake by introducing a platform to transport category that is "unstable" by design. Airbus avoided doing this with the fbw on the 320 and for good reason.

I also think the canards would be a problem in ground handling.

Maybe a flying saucer is relevant for Delta in the future, but for now, this is merely hangar talk.

Besides, any new airliner from Boeing / Airbus will be used by more than just Delta, or US airlines, for that matter.

When there is a concrete plane for Delta to buy, and Boeing and Delta are ready, willing and able.... then you have a story about Delta.

UAL T38 Phlyer,

Thanks for the explanation. I was curious about the lack of interest in scaling up canard designs for larger aircraft. For transport aircraft, static instability may offer unneeded advantages at the price of unwanted problems.