Airbus 'Bird Of Prey' concept airliner

[Weaver]

Nope, this is not the product of some 14-year-old CGI artist sitting in their bedroom, this is a 'real' concept plane that's really by Airbus:

https://www.skiesmag.com/press-releases/airbus-unveils-bird-of-prey-conceptual-airliner/

My immediate observation is that, whilst it might be true that birds don't have vertical tail fins, they don't suffer from the failure of one of four widely-space engines either...

Having said that, by all means tunnel-test it. Birds do, after all, 'work', there might be something to be learned from it, and advances in structures and materials mean that things that were unbuildable 20 years ago might now be possible.

[PR19_Kit]

I suppose they had to dream up SOMEthing  to use up all those spare A-400 props.................. 

[NARSES2]

But isn't the vertical fin replaced by those wing tip "feathers" or whatever they are called ? Plus the tailplanes look to have quite an upward cant.

Rear end reminds me of things you see on some aircraft dating back to the early days of flight, and most of those never flew either 

[zenrat]

Control by wing warping?

[Weaver]

But isn't the vertical fin replaced by those wing tip "feathers" or whatever they are called ? Plus the tailplanes look to have quite an upward cant.

Rear end reminds me of things you see on some aircraft dating back to the early days of flight, and most of those never flew either 

Well if the wing-tip 'feathers' are designed to work like the same feathers on birds, then they arn't vertical all the time, so can't be relied on for yaw control.

The tailplanes seem to be 'feathers' of a similar kind so presumably the same argument would apply.

On a related note, I've always thought it odd that there hasn't been an airliner with a V-tail. V-tails generally save weight, which matters a lot to airlines, and it's not as if they need extreme maneuverability. it's possible that the yaw condition with an engine out on configurations with widely-spaced engines has restricted it's use, but you'd imagine that wouldn't apply with fuselage-mounted engines.

[jcf]

On a related note, I've always thought it odd that there hasn't been an airliner with a V-tail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_Model_34

http://www.airwar.ru/enc/craft/bch34.html

[Weaver]

Cheers Jon! 

There was a rather pretty proposal by Avro to the same requirement that eventually resulted in the DH.121 Trident. Called the Avro 740, it had a V-tail and three podded engines at the rear:







Picture sources:

http://theaviationanorak.blogspot.com/2012/03/avro-740.html

https://www.flickr.com/photos/_infiniteplanes/27237260402/

https://hiveminer.com/flickr_hvmnd.cgi?method=GET&sorting=Interestingness&originput=avro,avroheritagemuseum&search_domain=Tags&photo_type=250&noform=t&page=2&sort=Interestingness&tag_mode=all&search_type=Tags&photo_number=50&textinput=avro,avroheritagemuseum

[zenrat]

I think airlines tend to be conservative and would consider a vee tail design as being a bit daring.

Having said that the vee-tail three engine Avro is gorgeous.

[Weaver]

I think airlines tend to be conservative and would consider a vee tail design as being a bit daring.

Having said that the vee-tail three engine Avro is gorgeous.

Not just airlines, but passengers too: "I'm not getting on a plane that's missing a bit!!!" 

I once had to explain to my girlfriend's cousin, who was fine flying to South Africa on a potentially 30-year old Boeing 747, that the ATR-72 that she then had to transfer to to get to Botswana, and which she was flatly refusing to get on, wasn't a rickety left-over from World War II just because it had propellers. Much baby-talk along the lines of "you can't judge a car's engine by looking at it's wheels can you?" and "a turboprop's just a nice, modern 'jet' engine with a prop on the front" later, she was won over and agreed to gather her courage and get on the thing. Then they changed their plans and ended up not needing to anyway...

[NARSES2]

Having said that the vee-tail three engine Avro is gorgeous.

It is isn't it 

Not just airlines, but passengers too: "I'm not getting on a plane that's missing a bit!!!" 

Very much so, passenger's innate conservatism is probably the main reason behind what appears to be the airline's.

[jcf]

The supposed weight savings of a V-tail is questionable as NASA research has shown that in
order to be properly effective the surfaces need to be at least 1.5 times greater in size than
conventional stabilizers, creating loads that affect fuselage strength, and thus structure weight,
also the rear fuselage needs to be longer to create the necessary moment arm. It ends up being
pretty much a wash in terms of weight, as to drag, V-tail Bonanzas have slightly less drag than
their later conventional tail siblings, yet for the same horsepower the latter are slightly faster.
Make of that what you will.

Pelican tails ala F-23, Global Hawk etc. are evidently a different thing altogether with their own
set of unique features.

[jcf]

The Saunders-Roe P.192 was another concept with a V-tail:
https://yuripasholok.livejournal.com/5942180.html

[PR19_Kit]

The Saunders-Roe P.192 was another concept with a V-tail:

What a pity they never got to build the P.192, it would have been VERY impressive! 

[Weaver]

Another pic of the 740. I've played with the settings on this one to bring out a bit more detail ( the first one I put up is blown out beyond recovery):

Avro 740 4 - Copy by Harold Smith, on Flickr

[PR19_Kit]

A really smart looking aeroplane, definitely one of the 'I wish they'd have built that' list. 

Any ideas what the bulges are on the front end of the engines? I've not seen that before anywhere.