"Silent jet" will make airports quieter, prove dangerous to Superman

In a breakthrough that's being touted as a potentially crushing blow to the noise-canceling headphone industry, researchers at MIT and Cambridge University have designed a unique passenger jet that reportedly sounds no louder than a washing machine from outside the confines of an airport. The so-called Silent Aircraft Initiative -- which began in November 2003 -- culminates today with the unveiling of a concept plane which is roughly the size of a Boeing 767, but takes its design cues from stealth military jets like the B-2 bomber, in that its fuselage has been "squished" to create an all-lifting body. Besides re-imagining the shape of traditional jumbo jets, the 40-person team also moved the engines from under the wings into the body of the plane itself, allowing them to take in air from the top of the wing and minimize the noise heard by people on the ground. The quieter design could result in airports being constructed much closer to residential areas, meaning that passengers would be able to start their two-hour wait at the security checkpoint that much more quickly. While specific noise-dampening elements of the airplane will probably be implemented into passenger jets in the near future, the SAI researchers believe we won't see the concept itself in flight until sometime around 2030 -- a little too late, in our opinion, as we're pretty sure that teleportation will completely obviate the need for air travel long before then.

[Via Reuters, illustration courtesy of CNET]

[Digitalosh @ Nov 6th 2006 3:40PM]

That was TOTALLY uncalled for. Im sure you werent being entirely serious, but its rather hurtful to the middle eastern community. They put up with enough garbage as it is, can we leave out the racism on a friendly tech-related board PLEASE.

[EBG @ Nov 6th 2006 6:29PM]

Are you joking? I sure hope so.

[Wyatt_Z @ Nov 6th 2006 12:53PM]

What's the difference in decibels?

[rems @ Nov 6th 2006 2:24PM]

a normal plane produces about 140 DB

[pagercam @ Nov 6th 2006 12:54PM]

I've heard washing macines louder than jets so this may not be that much of an advance.

[Menhir @ Nov 6th 2006 12:56PM]

"..meaning that passengers would be able to start their two-hour wait at the security checkpoint that much more quickly."

LOL! Couldn't have put it better myself!

[pagercam @ Nov 6th 2006 1:01PM]

Anything moving a 140+ MPH and multiple jet engines can't be "silent"

[Dave @ Nov 6th 2006 1:05PM]

I saw them developing this when i had a look around the aerospace end engineering department at cambridge university earlier this year, when the bloke showing us around said that they "were just putting the finishing touches on."

[donjeske @ Nov 6th 2006 1:09PM]

I think Boeing has evaluated this type of design before. They dropped it for commercial aviation because with this design, you get far fewer windows per passenger. (Think 3-4-4-4-3 seating instead if 3-4-3 seating). For cargo and for military transport, that wouldn't be a problem though.

[Dan @ Nov 6th 2006 2:12PM]

To get around the lack of windows issue, airlines should just mount a video camera and feed the image to screens in each seat or to common viewing screens. The view would be better and everyone could enjoy the "advantages" of a window seat. From a technology and cost standpoint it's feasible today.

[Cory @ Nov 7th 2006 1:15PM]

A bigger problem than windows is the difficulty of evacuating a multiple-aisle aircraft. In current wide-body aircraft, passengers sitting in the middle only have to cross one aisle to get to an exit. Evacuating a 4-aisle plane in the mandated 60 seconds is nearly impossible with just side doors as exits.

[tennis guy @ Nov 6th 2006 1:13PM]

.
I'm no aeronautics engineer, but it seems to me that this thing will still have gas being ejected out the rear at supersonic speed. How exactly is that being silenced?
.
.

[Richard Gordon-Williams @ Nov 6th 2006 4:01PM]

Passenger planes do not fly at supersonic speeds and i doubt this one will so the air being ejected out through the engines will not be supersonic

[tennis guy @ Nov 6th 2006 1:16PM]

.
"you get far fewer windows per passenger. "

So you put a video screen at each seat with selectable outside views.
.
.

[EdZ @ Nov 6th 2006 1:20PM]

It's about damn time they got the Blended Wing Body off the ground.

Pun oh so intended.

[Warren @ Nov 6th 2006 1:20PM]

I study engineering here at Cambridge Uni, and I walk past the guys that are working on this every morning.. One of the guys working on the project supervised my first-year studies last year... The people working on this are fab and trust me... what they're doing is pretty neat!

Check it out here! -->
http://www.cambridge-mit.org/research/sai

[wako @ Nov 6th 2006 1:21PM]

silent jet airplane? i doubt it...

[Jeff @ Nov 6th 2006 1:27PM]

There's nothing new about blended wing body designs, and the benefits have been obvious for decades. The difference here is that the manufacturers that would have to be involved actually took part in designing this, so this is a bit more practical than the paper designs we've seen in the past. But it still would need many, many modifications to pass safety certifications, and there are obvious problems like requiring wider runways for this sort of design. Also, BWB's are only really practical to replace larger aircraft, since you'd end up with a bigger fuselage/more weight (and therefore lower efficiency) trying to do this kind of design on a smaller aircraft.

Still, I think we'll see a BWB plane flying commercially someday. 2030 seems optimistic, though - planes usually fly 20-30 years before retirement so they're assuming that the *next* replacement most airlines are going to buy for the 777's, 787's and larger that they're buying right now will be a BWB. That doesn't really seem likely.

[Nobuyuki Idei @ Nov 7th 2006 12:55PM]

Competition. What would a new airline buy?

[Colin @ Nov 6th 2006 1:44PM]

Actually, you joke about the noise canceling headphones. But in an interview with someone involved with the project I heard on the BBC this morning, they reported that the aims of the project weren't to reduce cabin noise at all. And that it may even be noisier in the cabin. The interview posed the obvious question: why bother, then? To which the individual responded that consumers CHOOSE to fly but no one CHOOSES to live near an airport... (They don't?)

[Jason @ Nov 6th 2006 3:29PM]

Airports are normally built in poor parts of town due to depressed land values and the simple fact that poor people can't hire lawyers.

So, no, most people don't say "Hooray I'll live next to the airport", it's either the only place they can live or the airport is built next to where they have lived.

[andy @ Nov 6th 2006 1:45PM]

The funny part is that this design goes back to WWII. They had a prop version that could take off vertically into a 25mph headwind. The problem was that the yaw control was terrible, but computers have solved that issue. This should also have fuel savings and a higher top speed.

Modern Marvels is the best show ever.

[Revrant2394 @ Nov 6th 2006 1:46PM]

What in the blue hell? What's with all the Smacktard "pf sileent jets" comments? There are some rather silent jets out there, they're used by the military, Wake the hell up.

[Edward @ Nov 6th 2006 1:52PM]

interesting. but as far as we live in Earth, you can't reduce those big noise dramatically. well, if you live in Moon, or Mars, maybe it is possible because there is no air move we can hear.

[apeguero @ Nov 6th 2006 1:56PM]

What about radar signature? Will this thing appear the size of a very small aircraft or a large bird? This thing looks like it has a very small radar cross section. I guess not using radar absorbing materials would solve that. Also, perhaps the actual use of the aircraft's own radar would also make it visible in the ground controllers radar. Just curious. Also, aren't we most of us supposed to be pretty much dead by global warming 20 years before this plane gets off the ground? 2010 according to our former VP Al G. They better put hydro landing gear on this thing if they expect to use it in the year 2030 :)

[Dan @ Nov 6th 2006 1:59PM]

The folks here saying 'It can't be done' are playing into an old pattern.
It was similarly said of trains, horseless carriages, etc. They're not making them silent. They're making them much quieter. We should at least applaud the effort.
Unless you're well and fully studied on every single possible way that sound might be attenuated, you're full of gas. What if they took the common opposite-phase wave cancellation method (that works well) and did it for their engines, each engine with it's own computer to hear and cancel? Too far fetched? Think further.

[Christian @ Nov 6th 2006 2:11PM]

They have to release this ASAP. By that time we should have warp cores in the making.

[Bob @ Nov 6th 2006 2:48PM]

Why does everyone care so much about the damn windows. I for one prefer the aisle seat. I like having the extra leg room on the one side (as well as the arm rest all to myself). I am a big guy, and if I am on the end then people are not inconvienced when I have to go to the bathroom.

Bob L.

I fly about 200,000 miles a year so take this for what its worth.

(What are you going to see out of the window at 40,000ft? The view is only good for the first and last 5 minutes of the flight.)

[Variblex @ Nov 6th 2006 2:52PM]

hmm...elminating the need for air travel?...


I just hope i can still skydive.

_________________________________________

really what the heck isup with the not put into use till 2030 - really wasn't no info in the blog about being overly expensive - just hate to see technology sit around til someone feels like they have to use it

[Ken @ Nov 6th 2006 3:10PM]

If you've ever been at an airshow with a B2 fly-by, you'd know for sure that silent jet aircraft are possible.

[Jerry @ Nov 6th 2006 3:12PM]

Boeing's Phantom Works are also working on a blended wing design, and are about to start testing some large scale models.

"The prototypes were produced to explore and validate the structural, aerodynamic and operational advantages of the BWB concept and were designated X-48B by the U.S. Air Force based on its interest in the design's potential as a future military aircraft. The X-48B's three turbojet engines will allow the 500-pound, composite-skinned, 21-foot wingspan prototype to fly up to 120 knots and 10,000 feet in altitude during flight testing."

http://www.gizmag.com/go/6419/

Check out the nifty pictures.

[doug @ Nov 6th 2006 6:33PM]

seriously??? take a look at the ILS approach to SFO runway 28R... it passes over woodside (home of steve jobs), menlo park (median home price of over $800K and home to more lawyers per capita than any other zip code in the country), atherton (perrenially one of the 5 most expensive zip codes in the country), and every other expensive community up the peninsula... in fact, i'd be careful insulting thee people (especially atherton), they will probably send their lawyers after you... or worse yet... RELEASE THE HOUNDS!!!

[Lee Gibson @ Nov 6th 2006 5:29PM]

Supersonic jets don't have supersonic exhausts, either. As a matter of fact, supersonic combustion is at the forefront of modern aeronautical research. Ever heard of a "SCramjet"? That's a "Supersonic Combusting ramjet".

[Jason @ Nov 6th 2006 4:11PM]

Why would I need teleportation when I don't need my body in 2030?

[jeffinToronto @ Nov 6th 2006 4:19PM]

This is kind of a nothing story. So they are working on trying to make jets more quiet? They have been doing this since jets were flying. Funny thing is that peak sound levels come from the engines at take-off and G.E. (correct me if I'm wrong) is the largest engine manufacturer and isn't even in this consortium. Don't get me wrong, the pursuit is noble, but I'm not sure what the press coverage is for.

[doug @ Nov 6th 2006 6:33PM]

The idea is not new, and I'm surprised Boeing is looking at this from a passenger transit standpoint (not surprising for cargo or aerial refueling tho)... all of the lifting body concepts (BWB, oblique flying wing, etc) assume a larger degree of chordwise laminar flow. the problem here is that passenger aircraft REQUIRE things that the other types don't; because of life preference of humans to breathe comfotably, cabins are pressurized... and because the FAA has this pesky insistence on people living throough minor incidents such as electrical shorts, there are these things called emergency exits that have to be pretty close to the passengers intended to use them (and cannot require stairs of ladders). each of these holes in the cabin require pressure seals. each of these, in turn, churn up the air and transition the flow over the wing to turbulent... which in turn blows the whole economic case for a BWB passenger transport... it simply becomes a more expensive aircraft to buy, with the same fuel costs, higher maintenance costs (those engines under the wing are pretty easy to service) that is quiet. At some point, public pressure may instigate regulations that ONLY this type of technology will meet, but until then, or until they figure out that transparent aluminum stuff from star trek, the airlines will not buy these. Don't even get me started on the relative noise of aircraft and freeways in urban areas!

[kowalski @ Nov 6th 2006 11:53PM]

uhh... is it REALLY that loud ot warrant paying billions of dollars to ro replace all the current jets at airports?
if you just have few loud jets around, even if the rest is silent, its still gonna be loud...

[Tobject @ Nov 7th 2006 2:54AM]

Looks like there is a swimming pool on board and place for couple tennis courts :-)

P.S. My Fisher & Paykel washer sounds like NASA conducting Shuttle tests in my laundry room. And I'm not kidding! ;-)

[Tobject @ Nov 7th 2006 3:06AM]

Video
http://cdn.streamcdn.com/cdn.asp?c_id=cmi&mt=cmi&fn=Takeoff.wmv

More pix
http://silentaircraft.org/sax40/

[Correcting a Lie @ Nov 7th 2006 4:59PM]

Yes it can be completely silent. The author of this article failed to discribe the technology for what it really is. It's know as an "air-breather" or an air-breathing-engine.

What type of jets do you think constantly repair the 3,300 NSA and CIA satellites in space? Did you think it was the ancient "firecracker-controlled-gun-powdered-nasa-spaceship", that zips up to space and back for hours completely undetected?

Check out on satellitewatch.com there is one satellite the NSA tried to keep secret from congress, it costs 2.4 Trillion dollars (yes 1-satellite) and is 8 foot, by 8 foot wide. What could be that expensive, and automatically cloaks itself (you can't see it from a telescope, because it changes color based on position in the sky)....

The NSA has been using air-breathing jets for years to go into space, work on satellites. I know you think I'm just some CRAZY GUY. But I know plenty of people who have worked there over the last 20 years that have literally flown over the surface of the moon, in what's dubbed a TR3 (no ancient history at the NSA, but never have they acknowledged the existence)

It kinda sucks because NASA is still shooting rockets into space, it sets back humanity to have such great technologies that only get used by spy agencies.