There are good reasons why conventional aircraft have their engines on separate pods. They get clean airflow, whereas in the Silent design a wing/body stall would also disrupt air intake to the engines giving a sudden loss in thrust just when you need it most. Not to mention the extra difficulty of maintenance and inspection. And the fact that chunks of ice separating from the body fly right into the turbine.
I could live without windows. Have a few cameras connected to the LCD screens in the seats. Should save a lot of weight and drag.
Exactly. Even nowadays how many people have window seat on a widebody? some 20-25%. AVOD and external cameras can do wonders, I really like setup on Emirates.
Other problems are solvable too (aircraft is not meant to accumulate ice, you know ;) and airlines will buy anyway if fuel savings are that good in real life.
I suspect it'd still be a tough sell for aircraft manufacturers - especially for long range flights. I do 14-16 hour flights frequently and although I might not be seated next to a window knowing that they're there is sort of nice when I get up to stretch legs. Otherwise you're asking people get into basically a cave for that period of time which might be claustrophobic to even those who don't normally get claustrophobic.
Another issue might be the amount of sea sickness you might encounter given that at least having a horizon line that people can focus on helps. On the other hand... on a 14-16 hour flight if I save 50% or in the case of this like 20% to have windows versus not having windows even when not seated next to one, I might suck it up.
As a frequent traveller, I much prefer to get an aisle seat anyway.
I like the existence of the windows - which I can still sort of see on the aisles but hate sitting at the window because of the need to step over people to get to either the washrooms or the overhead compartment. It's especially important on those long overseas flights...
The Boeing low-noise concept seems to already incorporate the same basic ideas: engines on top, to deflect noise away from the ground, and redesigned wings (presumably for a steeper final approach).
I'd love to see how a floor-plan like this works in practice: http://www.aviationexplorer.com/pics/future_airliners6.jpg Seems like the airlines and airport authorities would need to come-up with some better queueing/loading processes.
Would this really be an issue? In my experience the biggest hold up is people in the aisles putting their bags in the overhead lockers and edging into their seats while you're trying to get past to your seat. In the image you linked to the although there are more aisles each is shorter so there would be fewer people in front of you blocking your aisle.
Then again, you could kind of guess this was doomed to failure for commercial passenger use: no windows. I doubt we'll see more than incremental improvements in aircraft design for another decade, especially not from Europe; everyone loved the look of the Concord but it never made money. Too bad, because quieter aircraft are a Good Thing.
quote from the article: "NASA has not consulted the airlines to gauge their interest in the hybrid wing/body (HWB) - its generic term for the BWB. Instead its research is driven by internal studies that indicate the unconventional configuration is the only way to meet the aggressive environmental targets it has set for "N+2 generation" aircraft to be available around 2020."
1. no windows. Did they account for the extra drag once the windows get added?
2. A very wide-body plane like that, is problematic. You are going to have very wide rows (like 12-16 abreast), and the people that are in the rear-sides, will experience very unpleasant "roller coaster" effects when the plane does sharp turns, as they are so far from the central axis.
I could live without windows. Have a few cameras connected to the LCD screens in the seats. Should save a lot of weight and drag.