Bucking Bar

The 757 would still be around if it sold well. It was, and is, probably the best & most flexible airplane, ever made for its mission.

Boeing made the 737NG 80% as good as the 757 at a sales price approximately 50% less. The 737NG killed the 757 ... although the anything with even roughly similar performance it the -700 and it is not nearly as efficient on a CASM basis.

The 757 was designed for the first fuel crises and failed to sell as well as it could have due to the fall off in jet A prices after its introduction. It is these perfect airplane for our current times, but it is getting old.

Bucking Bar

Some goofy Mod moved this off the major page, despite the fact it is a "major" jet design and very, VERY, interesting. In fact, it is the only thing that makes sense with Boeing talking about a double aisle jet with the approximate capacity of a 737.

The thing about Canards is that they tend to be runway hogs. Can't put big flaps on the back with without over powering the front wing. The aggressive Delta tells me the front wing is not efficient at slow speeds. Many 737-700 customers buy the airplane for it's ability to get in and out of fields that require excellent runway performance. If curious, read about the experience with the Beech Starship.

Airplane configuration - Google Patents

Credit Poster Jack Bauer

Hey Mods, what gives? Remember, page hits are what keeps this site in business.

Jack Bauer

Thanks Bar. I would say this pertains to Major airline replacement (737 size replacement is pretty pertinent to Major/Legacy airline pilots). I think the mods are trying to show they are consistant in deleting "unworthy" material to show they aren't targeting DPA threads

Jack Bauer

Interesting analysis. What do you think about the other proposed airfame?

Sniper

The patent seems to reserve the right to use a straight, forward swept, or reverse swept canard, as well as one that is fixed, with trailing edge or leading edge devices, or one that has up to 90% rotation. The pictorial rendering of the 'aggressive delta' is merely a representation, not a limitation of the patent or the potential future design of the canard.

If you look at the right side of page 27 of the patent (starting @ line 51), you see that Boeing actually addresses this issue, and suggests that the use of canards "may provide greater regional airport/short runway performance that may otherwise require a much greater equivalent span to achieve the same performance."

The patent application brings up lots of issues one wouldn't think of in future civil aircraft design. The lower noise profile of an upper-wing mounted engine is addressed, naturally, but the benefits of a reduced heat signature are too. Sight-lines that prohibit passengers from viewing any potential rotor blades are also addressed. An interesting read, for sure.

Jabberwock

American picking up more 737's.

gloopy

Impossible because no airline can afford the debt. Instead they must all pay guaranteed long term payments (plus profits and fees) to third party placeholders so as to fool the idiots in the market into thinking they are procuring debt free long term financed aircraft.

KC10 FATboy

This new design scares me. The engines are too close together. A catastrophic failure of one could easily damage or cause catastrophic damage to the second engine -- loss of all thrust situation. Also, the engines are next to the rudder ... same scenario. Sioux city ...

gloopy

Maybe it has better contaiment. An engine will produce a finite amount of power/energy/torque/etc so they should be able to design suficient containment. The engines aren't any closer than any other "t-tail" plane, and the thin aluminum hull in between offers little buffer. Even most 2 engine wing mounted jets don't have that much distance between them, without the thin aluminum hull buffer. I doubt a few feet of air will do a whole lot.

IOW it can be properly designed for. Will they is the question.

80ktsClamp

Remember the AA engine runup a little while ago where it had a rotor burst and the shrapnel got tossed to the other engine? yikes.

Pinnacle had an even scarier mx failure a year and a half or so ago, but you won't hear about it since it happened at the gate. The hydraulic 3B pump blew up, and due to its location it destroyed not only the 3 system, but 1 and 2 as well. Oh... and also the fuel lines to the engines. Brilliant design, Canadair. They would have been left with no engines, no hydraulics, and no manual reversion.