SE aeronautics claims tri-wing aircraft could revolutionize commercial aviation

https://www.designboom.com/technology/tri-wing-aircraft-concept-se-aeronautics-revolutionize-commercial-aviation-07-29-2021/

by pseudolus • 5 years ago

19 17 5 years ago

designboom.com

baybal2• 5 years ago

It will be flying very slow

58x14• 5 years ago

This comment on the article from 'Ted' says everything:

"I’m highly skeptical. Drag is already very low on modern jetliners. You’re not going to achieve 70% fuel reduction without a miraculous improvement in engine efficiency. A “once-through” air supply system would be inherently less efficient than current recirculating systems. No fuel in the wing? Then fuel weight is not distributed and the wing must be stronger.. thus heavier. I would love to be wrong about this, but with the information given, this design looks like vaporware."

dathinab• 5 years ago

Drag is already very low on modern jetliners.

It's so low that they have to add a bit of drag in the right place to prevent stalling (the small fins on top of wings).

No fuel in the wing? Then fuel weight is not distributed and the wing must be stronger.. thus heavier.

It's also less secure in cases of emergencies, as far as I know.

I forgot why but I think there where also some really good reasons (beside closeness to fuel) why turbines are now mostly below the wings.

Aslo wouldn't building 3 wings more expensive even if they are smaller?

And then I have very little experience with aero dynamics, but my intuition tells me that there are some tricky parts around the (forget name: movable parts at the back of wings) and additional failure cases as you now (likely??) have to have 3 sets off them on each side.

albertopv• 5 years ago

Engines are under the wings for easier maintenance, in case of pumps failure gravity could push some fuel to engines. Also, the farther engines are from the tail, the better, for safety reason in case of engine failure. And there are other reasons for sure, I'm no expert

jillesvangurp• 5 years ago

I wouldn't be so dismissive. I'm sure they ran some simulations on this.

With 3 sets of wings, the plane would have much more flexibility with the center of gravity. With two wings this needs to be where the wings are. This is why fuel is put in the wings in such configurations. It's a good design if you only have two wings. With 6 of them and the engines mounted on the back, you can play around a bit with different weight distribution.

I'm guessing that using fuel bladders on top of the roof would allow for flexible placement anywhere between the first and last set of wings. Also, you can pump fuel around as well to change the weight distribution (and possibly even trim the airplane's pitch).

Drag of modern planes is quite optimized for their current designs. However putting the fuel in the wings and mounting the engines on them probably adds a fair bit of drag regardless. Also such wings have to be bigger and stronger. I've had a window seat next to the wings of an A380; they are massive. So, I can see how changing that configuration that could eliminate some drag. And using modern composite materials without seams is also going to help with both weight and drag. Less weight means more fuel savings. If it adds up to 70-80% will be interesting. IMHO the real issue is going to be getting rid of kerosene as a fuel. Synthesized fuels like hydrogen or methane could potentially be a lot more sustainable.

mcguire• 5 years ago

Fuel in the fuselage reduces usable interior space, meaning the fuselage has to be bigger for the same cargo capacity. As do the beams for multiple wings. Multiple wings along the fuselage put the after wings in the disturbed airflow from the forward wings.

Many of the advantages they list would also apply to conventional designs, including fully-composite construction. The only advantage of multiple wings I can see is that the horizontal stabilizers on most planes generate downforce, which a multiple wing system could avoid. On the other hand, canard designs also avoid that and it seems the gains aren't so important as to get them adopted.

eurasiantiger2• 5 years ago

Looking at the pictures on their site, this is almost certainly a scam and all the people are false identities.

https://www.seaeronautics.com/about-us

Their address is in a residential area, and the lot there (Mathews Manor) seems to be cursorily chosen.

9997 OLD SPRINGVILLE RD, TRUSSVILLE, AL

jabbernotty• 5 years ago

Their address is in a residential area, and the lot there (Mathews Manor) seems to be cursorily chosen.

Actually, two of their team have the last name Mathews.

eurasiantiger2• 5 years ago

Yes, the address is clearly chosen to lend credibility, as if the ”owners” were already well off, in no need of making someone else part with their money…

colejohnson66• 5 years ago

It won’t work even if it were real. https://youtu.be/TMCgZXGkCCg

ncmncm2• 5 years ago

The remaining mystery is the whole point of the charade. How do the perps stand to profit? Is this an Oklahoma state-government management failure?

frickinLasers• 5 years ago

Placing fuel bladders overhead seems like a terrible idea for a passenger jet in the event of a crash landing.

chaimanmeow• 5 years ago

probably pretty rare. i went on so many flights; never crashed once.

I'd like to see a dual (twin) fuselage version of this.

SonicScrub• 5 years ago

Looking at this brings back memories of my Aerospace Engineering Undergraduate capstone project. We were tasked with putting together a conceptual design of an airliner-type aircraft. Inevitably some of the projects end up going for "innovative" configuration born out of lack of experience and understanding for WHY the tube+wing design has completely dominated the airliner market since the 1940s. The feedback from industry experts ends up being a great learning experience, which is why it makes for an excellent school project. Not sure about a viable engineering company though....

Few things:

the patent-pending ‘SE200′ concept features a lightweight tri-wing layout to enhance lift over drag

Weird statement. Generating lift is the extremely easy. You don't need 3 wings to do this. Doing so while minimizing drag as much as possible is what's hard, as more lift results in more drag. Looking at all that extra wing surface tells me the parasite drag is going way up. You'd be much better off placing that same surface to extend the wing length, which would reduce tip vorticity drag.

Also having three-wings in a horizontal line like this is going to dramatically reduce the effectiveness of the rear wings. Wings produce downwash in the airstream that negatively impacts performance of any surface downstream. This is why canard designs have to be designed VERY carefully. So right away the "will minimize drag" claim is pure fantasy.

Fuel is stored on top of the fuselage in self-sealing bladders, and not in the wings.

This really reminds me of something an undergraduate would put in their capstone project borne out of their lack of knowledge. Fuel stored in the wing is a good thing, as it alleviates bending stress due to lift and helps dampen aero-elastic phenomena. Also, this way the fuel mass (which changes during flight) doesn't significantly move the center of gravity, thus changing the stability and control characteristics of the aircraft, and not creating more trim drag.

Just a first pass analysis to distract me from work. I hope some more people here can pick this apart more. With a bit more time, I'd like to examine the stall characteristics on this vehicle (which I imagine are just atrocious) .

LeifCarrotson• 5 years ago

It's kind of like a redesign of an old tool like a pipe wrench: the castings make that tool look like something from the 1800s that could be improved with CNC machining and rubber overmoulding, but when you actually try to ask why it is the way it is every feature has a good reason.

Someone looked at the drag on an airliner and thought "sailplanes have thin wings for low drag, airliners have thick wings for fuel storage and have high drag, we'll just put a few thinner wings and revolutionize the industry! Oh, and I hate stale, recycled cabin air, and the pandemic showed how bad that can be, so let's not do that. We'll build it in one piece, like a plastic injection molded part, instead of a bunch of riveting, and save more money that way too."

They took Chesterton's fence and threw it in the woodchipper...

nradov• 5 years ago

Airlines want engines mounted below the wings in order to make maintenance faster and cheaper. There's a reason that no modern airliners have an engine mounted on top of the rear fuselage like the DC-10 had.

ncmncm2• 5 years ago

There are real opportunities for airliners designed to take advantage of new developments. This one, though, is the opposite of a successful approach.

The new developments are:

1. Aerogel thermal insulation, enabling airborne tankage of liquified hydrogen, LH2.

2. LH2 to be synthesized on-site at airports using electrical power delivered by regional high-voltage DC transmission lines, and later by low-voltage underground superconducting transmission lines.

3. Cheap, abundant, intermittent renewable power, to be banked as LH2 during price minima at mid-day from solar, and at night from wind.

4. Direct, fuel-cell conversion of LH2 to power lightweight electrically-driven turbines.

Fully exploiting the opportunity will need whole new airframes to accommodate much larger but lightweight LH2 tankage that would not fit in current wings; and enabling advance investment in airport infrastructure to synthesize, store, and deliver LH2 to aircraft, starting at certain high-traffic intercontinental airports, to support the new fueling model.

The efficiency gains available, and reduction of CO2 delivered directly to the stratosphere, are enough to justify the massive upheaval. But the current blinkered economic structure of air transport mean it cannot happen without active, international government support.

Fortunately, the cost structure may be made transparent enough to leave little scope for the legalized corruption that plagues typical big infrastructure projects.

Intermediate rollout stages are plausible, such as conversion of existing turbojets to burn hydrogen; and of existing airframes to carry LH2 in under-wing tanks alongside engines.

SE aeronautics claims tri-wing aircraft could revolutionize commercial aviation

Related Stories