The Jets of the Future

Very cool, however if you want to increase the economy of the craft itself, leave the propulsion source on the ground. Without the need for those large fuel tanks you can install parachutes in the wings or something. :D

why is hydrogen still not considered

I bet with the heavy batteries on the 'Sugar Volt' the airline industry would have to limit baggage weights. Say goodbye to bringing along 85 pounds of cameras, etc. And if your obese they will charge extra!

Is anyone else disappointed that the most advanced plane we can think up will include propellers?

"Is anyone else disappointed that the most advanced plane we can think up will include propellers?"

No, props are far more efficient than jets. In fact the so-called "turbofans" are just props in a duct - "Ducted Fans". The only disadvantage is props must fly slower to keep the blade tips subsonic.

"why is hydrogen still not considered"

H2 has excellent energy per pound but very poor energy per cubic foot. There's just not enough room inside an airframe for hydrogen to be useful as a fuel.

If you want peak efficiency, use large, slow turning propellers on a sailplane-like airframe with long, thin wings. It won't be fast but it will use the minimum fuel.

Most likely, the near to medium term solution for the airlines will be a combination of biofuel mixed with petroleum based fuel plus incremental improvements in airframe and powerplant efficiencies. And yes, expect luggage, personal or otherwise, to cost you.

GregN913,
You may have a good point in a way. If we could leave the fuel on the ground, it would help with efficency. Perhaps in the future they will beam the energy from the ground to the plane to keep it flying...

I think this article is a pretty interesting read. As they develop better wings and propellors for planes, this may off shoots to better wind turbine windmills for energy development.

.............................
Science sees no further than what it can sense, i.e. facts.
Religion sees beyond the senses, i.e. faith.
Open your mind and see!

Switching to GPS (instead of RADAR), building planes from composites (like the 787) and powering them with geared turbofan engines (like the PW1000G), can make planes lighter, quieter and more fuel efficient.

The extra baggage charges are stupid. The airlines should charge a fee based on something real and measurable: weight. Say you get 275lbs at the "normal" rate and you weigh 200lbs. You get 75lbs for all the junk you want to take with you. If you weigh 300lbs then you pay for the extra 25lbs worth of fuel you used.

It reminds me of the salad bar in some places.

See Simple

The faster the airlines get the better off we'll be. I can't stand to be on airplanes any longer. At double the speed we'd be off the plane in half the time. The airlines treat us like dirt and pack us in like dead fish.
Imagine charging for peanuts!
That said, I would like to see work on some of these ideas go forward especially a new SST.

The easiest way to produce Hydrogen nowadays is by a process that uses natural gas(recalling from memory, though fallible), which, you know, misses the point. But maybe porshe meant fuels cells? For the plane with propellers. Nice designs
---------------------------------------------
I like nonsense, it wakes up the brain cells.

The boxwing design is just an extreme negative-stagger biplane. All aircraft produce lift by displacing air downward by a simple momentum exchange. This produces induced drag which can be reduced somewhat by suppressing the wingtip trailing vortices. I would have to see old-fashioned wind tunnel results to confirm their 20% drag-reduction claim.

The SUGAR design is a rehash of French Hurel-Dubois designs flown fifty or sixty years ago. Another way to reduce induced drag is to increase wing aspect ratio. Wing-fold mechanisms add weight which is bad news for commercial aircraft designers. Propellers are required because they're using electric motors for power. Propellers are less efficient than fans because the blades trail tip vortices that suck up energy. Putting the prop in a duct suppresses the trailing vortices and makes the system more efficient. The increase in thrust offsets the added weight of of the duct in the overall design equation.

These designs look impressive and will most likely be produced as proof of concept models. However, mass production appears doubtful. There have been conceptual designs with very high L/D ratios, and with very high bypass ratio engines. There have been some unconventional designs also. Remember the X-29, the around-the-world-nonstop aircraft, the car/aircraft convertible,and the human powered aircraft. They are not practical. Not yet any way. Thanks.

UMMMM.... a turbofan is not just a prop in a duct. A turbofan is a jet engine that draws air in with fans instead of a turbine and air speed like a turbojet, or air speed alone like a scramjet.

"UMMMM.... a turbofan is not just a prop in a duct. A turbofan is a jet engine that draws air in with fans instead of a turbine and air speed like a turbojet, or air speed alone like a scramjet."

I think you're confused about what a turbine is. The turbine is the rotor in the rear of the engine which drives the compressor (and fan or prop depending on the engine type). Turbojets, turbofans and turboprops all have turbines (hence the "turbo").

A turbofan is just a turbojet engine with a fan which directs a large portion of the air around the turbojet core. A turboprop does essentially the exact same thing, but with a much higher bypass ratio and with a non-ducted propeller.

I made design sketches for light aircraft very similar to the box-wing decades ago. of course, I never actually built one.

As solar power cells become more efficient, could we possibly add a layer on the sun-facing sides of the aircraft- almost all fly well above the cloud cover. This could help to collect additional energy to charge batteries that help power internal components etc... any thoughts? Has anything like that been attempted?

Sad to see that there is no genius thinking in these designs.
Using "wings" is a outdated idea.

MUCH more efficient is to work on disc-shaped flying transportation, that can use space more efficiently and can take off and land vertically. (eg. take a hint from our more advanced friends ...ufos).

Wings get smaller and lighter the further away from the airplane, so why not use air pressure to telescope/unfurl wings outward, to dramatic distances, while holding their shape? Negative air pressure to pull them back or just a reel? Wings half a mile long might be had that way. Indeed, a wing extension device could utilize old airframes.
Add solar energy receptive materials to run auxiliary or cruising motors.

I'm sorry in advance. I have 1000X's normal I.Q.

"Sad to see that there is no genius thinking in these designs.
Using "wings" is a outdated idea.

MUCH more efficient is to work on disc-shaped flying transportation, that can use space more efficiently and can take off and land vertically. (eg. take a hint from our more advanced friends ...ufos)."

I doubt we will see any plane designs of that nature any time soon. Why? Because it takes money to redesign an airport to accommodate a "special" type of plane. We might see them in the private sector but i doubt in the public sector where everything is about money and mass producing efficiently to make more money. If we didn't have to worry about money...now that would be interesting.

With the new Air Lithium Ion Battery technology maybe an All electric plane is in the future

Well, call me old but isn't this just the Lear fan jet that was supposed to be built in Ireland?

Use Hydrogen and Helium in a hybrid lift system. (It's called and airship.)

Use Hydrogen and diesel for propulsion.

Cross the Atlantic on less fuel than a 747 typically uses to taxi for takeoff.

A large,nuclear hovercraft could cross the ocean carbon free.Electric trains would go overland carbon free.If the trip takes 5 times longer a lot of people would travel less.

@vanwoec, I am aware that a turbune is basically the same thing as a fan, except in the number, size, and layout of the blades. the point however, was that a turbofan is not in fact just a fan in a sheath. it is a jet because of the stream of hot gas used to create thrust vs the prop itself. that was directed at bidlan's post further up.

i was mistaken in that last. a turbine is used to drive the fan, in order to feed more air to the gas being burned.. like a turbo charger in a car engine. it is not a difference in the size or number of blades, though usually they do have far smaller far fewer blades for turbines. my original point however still stands as it is not a propeller in a tube.

@sem electric trains carbon free? even if you provide all of the electricity by solar panels, those solar panels use wires and other metal and materials which are heated and manufactured, in large part by burning coal... which is not carbon free

@celestial-7 do you have any idea how inefficient vertical takeoff and landing is? and while a disc may use space more efficiently, there are very few control surfaces involved as well as tossing people around and increasing air sickness by vast numbers every time the craft turns.. not to mention the aerodynamic shortcomings..

With regard to the "leave the fuel on the ground" comment: Agreed - as in, let's spend some effort on improving our rail system. Increased efficiency in aircraft design is grand, but defying gravity while at the same time traveling at near (or beyond) supersonic speeds is still an extremely fuel intensive (even allowing for passenger MPG) means of travel when compared to moving people on ground-based rails while fighting little drag. Yes, speed - we're addicted to it, and flight will always have the upper hand over rail in that regard (though not necessarily the upper hand over travel time and hassle, though again, that will take some effort on our part to improve the rail system). Fossil fuel scarcity is coming, no matter how much we pretend it isn't and how much we cross our fingers that something will come along to replace it before the defecation starts truly hitting the ventilation. If we slow down and change our travel habits gradually, starting now, rather than suddenly, when faced with no choice, the transition will be a lot less painful and shocking.

@themisanthrope

Although I am a pilot and aviation enthusiast, I tend to agree with you. Trains are the way to go. I particularly like the Evacuated Tube Transport (ETT) concept. Imagine a maglev train moving inside a vacuum tube (it is not pneumatic). The train is super efficient because there is no friction (air or wheel). Once the train is up to speed, it can coast all the way to its destination. You could even re-capture some of that energy when you slow the train down at the destination. It can be much faster than air travel. The train can go as fast as you engineer it to go (4,000 mph possible). Finally, since the train is pushed forward by the track itself, there is no need for train cars to be attached to an engine or even each other. Thus the cars can be a big or as small as you would like. So you could use a smaller car to go direct to your final destination without having to switch trains or follow a per-determined schedule.

Of course the down side is the huge initial cost of developing and building the ETT network. We have the tech, the only thing we lack is the will.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McpWcn-1RZU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGlh6mN68WA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=92dK_yxaKvk

The future truly shows us where evolution of aircraft will be going. It will be an interesting few years!

Regarding GregN913's comment about about leaving the fuel on the ground, how feasible would it be to have a rail-gun launch system similar to the one the US Navy is purportedly planning to use on its aircraft carriers?

Would an airport-based launch system - I assume that airports would require more than one, perhaps paid for in part or in full by the airlines - be practical to assist aircraft to flight? Or would it just be cost prohibitive?

Could we actually protect an electronic system as complex as a maglev as things are now? See? The highspeed trains cost a whole lot more than just the train. With planes, infrastructure is there, improving any time we pay to upgrade, but always having been there to start with. You are doubling the DOT budget, after you get your new crackproof wondersystem computer grid up and running, just to prove feasability and just cause to continue the project. By now, the President that favors it is maybe gone? See how this is going? And that's if they started it today. That's the reality of what we are talking here, before one foot of vacuum tube or track is laid.

It looks like we are in for a train system overhaul that is going to take thirty years and cost three hundred times what it should because of it. Think I'm a pessimist? And in the air, we will likely be a bit better off than we are now in thirty years when the current cycle of major plane builds are retiring. And no, that really isn't saying much, is it? The rich just won't be flying with the mortals anymore, and our infrastructure should be in tatters from the massive overload because of all the rich people in all their planes. And the working class will be expected to pick up the bill for that too, just as this last massive expansion under Bush. Sometimes I think I'd have to climb a very long way to get to pessimist.

Dude, I remember reading this a while back (although I have forgotten where) that to increase a planes efficiency, it would be a smart idea to expand the fuselage into the wings. Such airplanes would be much larger than those we find today!

Why not use a nuclear plane!!!
consider this aeronautic engineers...also, we can use hydrogen

ohh guys have u heard about the BOEING’s aircraft for 2045?
i think i've read about it here.
http://airsoc.com/articles/view/id/4f6c6dd7c6f8fafd05000004/futurescope-boeing-s-aircraft-for-2045-sugar-freeze-it?ev=10&evp=tl

Simplest way to improve airliner efficiency without any new technology is to change the way airlines do business so that airliner capacity is used to the maximum. That might take a different approach to doing business of course.

A more extreme but workable approach would be to separate the functions of lift, propulsion and accommodation more than is presently done. Unpowered modular passenger capsules could be loaded at various locations remote from the airport, transported to the airport using existing technology the way freight is transferred between rail, ship and road, and attached to wing/engine modules close to the airstrip, with a galley unit already staffed with stewards/hostesses.

Noting that freight containers are about the right size for such a concept, passenger capsules could be made the same size, eliminating the need for separate freight aircraft. They could then be integrated with the existing freight distribution system taking advantage of its local delivery capability and improving its utilization. No taxiing for miles, shorter line-ups, no wasted hours when there’s a technical fault with the aircraft, stay in the capsule during inter-city to international flight transfers allowing vast and noisy international airports to be located further from urban areas, there’s no end to its potential.

Are we ready for all that? I don’t know, but recent material and power source developments may have brought this once-unattainable dream within our reach. A nice aspect of this, apart from the fact that much of the required infrastructure is already in place, is that it could be introduced in parallel with the existing air transport system just the way new aircraft designs are. Problem is, it would require standardization which requires aircraft manufacturers worldwide to agree to something, but that’s already been achieved in the freight business.

I think that the box wing aircraft design may look iffy but it minimizes drag and torque due to the strain of the wind against a wing that sticks out, but this has the wing connected in two place and the rear connection replaces aft horizontal stabilizers

red alert! red alert! red alert! red alert! FLYINGLAZERS INCOMING!! Have a nice day :)(BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

One day recently at a local airport I saw this radical looking airplane. It was a canard with turboprop pushers and and a t-tail. The body was totally streamlined. Curious, I went home and did an internet search. When I looked up business jets I came up with Learjets, Bombariers, and a whole raft other links but now what I was looking. So I refined my search to business turboprops and the first link was to a company called Piaggio. I opened it up and there was my plane. It is called an Avanti and the design is about thirty years old. They had difficulty making sales because the design was so radical at the time.
Ferarri recently bought into the company and they have come out with an improved model called the Avanti II.
Every surface on the plane is a lifting surface, including the body. They claim a 30% improvement in efficiecy over a conventional aircraft.