HawaiiO

Boeing's patent for a double decked jet.

http://www.seattlepi.com/business/bo...#photo-3214254

USA_flyer

Looks like a Stratocruiser but with jet engines instead of props.

And it's a dopey design, apparently rather than revenue generating seats between the wings, they're going to put lounges, rest areas and play areas.

This won't see the light of day in that configuration.

florin

Isn't the A380 a double decked jet? Did Boeing file this patent to attack Airbus for their A380?

piper28

Doesn't look like this would be the reason. The patent seems to be for placing the wings in the middle of the fuselage vertically, so there's nothing there that can be used to go after Airbus with that. I wonder how the patent would hold up given the existence of mid-wing aircraft already (although admittedly, none of them double-deck passenger jets, but I wonder if that's sufficient for it to be different enough for a patent).

zoobtoob

With the flight deck upstairs, it really visually stretches the nose vertically into a 747-esque shape.

Certainly not as elegant as a 747, but it prevents the "flying forehead" look that is the A380.

EDIT: Just clicked through to FlightGlobal and it certainly is just a full length stretch of a 747; which is why it looks like one.

FN-GM

2 engines not 4, would be a big plus over the A380 if it goes into production.

Yaatri

Mid-wing design is not a new concept. Something else has to be the basis of patent.

Yaatri

Didn't Boeing claim that there was no future for large aircraft such as the double decker A380. Instead, Boeing claimed smaller aircraft like Boeing 787 was the wave of the future?
I always thought it was Boeing's "sour grapes" response.

tonywestsider

Quote from the article:
"The wing would actually pass through the cabin's lower level, as shown in the images above, with passages between the fore and aft sections and spaces that could be used for such facilities as galleys, rest areas, lavatories, a lounge, a play area and storage."

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/mount-raini...#ixzz21EyRVbY1

Back in history, Boeing has done this before on a more rudimentary level with their first modern airliner, the Boeing 247. This was an all metal plane, built with a wing spar that crossed in the floor of the middle of the cabin, where passengers had to walk over to get from the rear of the cabin to the front.

N830MH

I don't think gonna like that. I don't like it at all. It's look different. It's not look exactly same as 747 or A380. There is no way to built new double decker.

acunningham

Patents last 20 years. Will Airbus be looking to replace the A380 design in the next 20 years? Are any of the other aircraft manufacturers likely to want to produce an aircraft of this size in the next 20 years? I strongly suspect the answer to both questions is no. In that case, it's not clear what the point of this patent is.

Yaatri

That it's a mid wing design, and nothing else, cannot be the basis of a patent. There has to be some other feature for the patent claim. If not, I don;t see how it is patentable.

I would like to know what the claim is in the patent.

ralfp

Except that the patent also covers "open rotor" engines (propfan). Perhaps you mean jet vs. reciprocating engines?

The article links to the patent itself, which has the list of claims.

Yaatri

I must have missed list of claims. The claims would have to be about something else other than location of the wings.
On the other hand, the U.S. patent office has a history of ridiculous patents, for drugs developed from plants that have been used for thousands of years in other cultures for the same purpose.

Jack Napier

Boeing only patented in the US (there are no foreign filings), which should be enough as the US are a market lage enough and the patent protects production and sales.

For a simple reading of a patent, concentrate on the "independent claims" which are the ones not refering to other claims ("the airplane of claim #"). So the important claims are 1, 10 and 20. All other claims relate directely or indirectely to those.

Claim 1 describes "at least one engine mounted...", it doesn't say which kind of engine, so every kind of airplane engine is possible as long as it is one or more.

Claim 1 protects a one deck airplane with the wing mounted at the level of said first deck + mechanical specifications

Claim 10 protects a two deck airplane ("a first longitudinally extending payload carrying deck and a second longitudinally extending payload carrying deck stacked above the first deck") with "the wing passing transversely through the first deck and dividing the first deck into fore and aft sections"

Claim 20 protects a "multi-deck airplane...including at least a lower cargo deck, , a longitudinally extending mid-level passenger deck above the cargo deck, and a longitudinally extending upper passenger deck above the mid-level deck" with "a mid-level wing attached to the fuselage and passing through the mid-level deck".

So claim 20 would relate to any plane like the A380, IF it had a mid-level wing. I think there are (easy?) workarounds, but the mechanics might be quite good.

If you read the summary, it's mainly to place much larger, more energy efficient engines to the AC, as with a low decker configuration ground clearance is an issue.


Summary and download original document