7 ms·
Airbus patents aircraft cabins shaped like doughnuts
- mwc 12y agoInteresting from the FT [1]: Airbus said although the design was worthwhile enough to protect with a patent — like about 6,000 other ideas its engineers devise every year — it was not an immediate prospect for shuttling passengers from Heathrow to JFK. “This is not something that’s currently under active development,” Airbus said. [1] http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ba80c518-6492-11e4-b219-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=published_links%2Frss%2Fhome_uk%2Ffeed%2F%2Fproduct#axzz3JGVAqlXi http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ba80c518-6492-11e4-b219-00144...
- caoilte 12y agoMake patents 100x more expensive and see if they still think that.
- thisjepisje 12y agoWhat problem would that solve?
- ripberge 12y agoPeople patenting ideas they have no serious intention of ever building. The maximum effort they'll make is stopping someone else from doing it.
- takeda 12y agoMuch better idea would be something similar to trademark: "If you don't defend it you lose it". Similarly, if you're not utilizing it, then you probably don't need it.
- techdragon 12y agoThis is why patents are "short". To offset the monopoly. It's why you hear pharmaceutical companies whine patents are strong enough, they need them longer. Automobile makers, aeroplane makers, ship builders, and "industrial" companies that make machinery and equipment rarely complain, they are pretty much ok with their duration, they might like them a little shorter but could take it or leave it. And on the other end if the spectrum we have software companies who are forced into the game because of consumer electronics companies (for whom perhaps something between 5-10 years would be best) taking patents on "features" they wanted to make as software... And the software companies pretty much want 0-5 years because this stuff is a all mostly math, or irrelevant, or under better protection by copyright, etc. Patent limits were devised as a one size fits all solution not taking any of this diversity into account.
- javert 12y agoYeah, we definitely don't want Airbus to come up with new ideas. Fuck those guys.
- whacker 12y agoit will create a market where only the rich can get patents - precisely the opposite of what I presume you hope to achieve.
- toomuchtodo 12y agoKeep patent costs the same, but reduce their lifetime to 5 years.
- philwelch 12y agoOne surprising thing I learned is that large companies like to mass-produce patents, even ones they have no intention of ever implementing or suing over. Why? Because they provide a MAD defense against patent suits. If Boeing ever sued Airbus for violating patents, Airbus could countersue and, odds are, each company is violating some patent of the other. Also, if each company has 10,000 patents applying to aerospace, it's going to take each company's legal team a lot of time to sort through them and figure out which ones they can countersue over. Time = money; a patent attorney's time especially so. So coming up with as many patents as possible makes it expensive (often prohibitively so) to sue over patents. Your natural reaction might be to think this is an outrageous waste of people's time, and you'd be right. But if you don't do it, your competitors will and you will be vulnerable to patent suits that, because of how this works, are essentially impossible for you to avoid making yourself vulnerable to.
- damon_c 12y agoWill there be windows in the doughnut hole?
- mwc 12y agoIt looks like 2 exit doors. On that note, how would this affect the all important question of how to most efficiently board an aircraft?
- Gravityloss 12y agoMy bet is that airplanes will look just the same in 2070 as they did in 1970...
- k-mcgrady 12y agoThe only thing that needs to change imo is space. If you got an extra ft width on the seat and an extra 2-3 ft between each row the increase in comfort would significantly improve the experience. I'm not a big guy or a very tall guy (6ft1in) but space is my one complaint about air travel. I can deal with all the other BS but being uncomfortable with practically no way of improving it when on a flight longer than a couple of hours is so frustrating. Edit: Obviously this is from the perspective of a passenger. Planes could become more energy efficient, faster etc. etc.
- saryant 12y agoIt exists: first and business class. In fact, domestic first class fares in the US have been really cheap lately, often just a $100-200 premium over coach.
- themartorana 12y agoOnly? That's a lot of cash, man. At least for me it is. And that "only" is a 25-50% premium. That's another night in a hotel, or slightly nicer meals, or an extra drink, or... I wish I could flippantly toss around a few hundred bucks without a second thought. One day, maybe.
- prawn 12y agoIf they offered the same space for economy seats, the prices would be higher. This way you can make the judgement for yourself.
- themartorana 12y agoSeriously? I had plenty of space before about a decade of whittling away space in coach without whittling away at the price (plus removing meals, adding bag fees, and so on). I've had a choice for decades. Coach used to be a half-way pleasant one. Now it's steerage, and the passengers treated as such. Well, most airlines. I'm partial to Southwest, for a number of reasons - one being I don't have to sit with my legs spread to accommodate the seat in front of me (6' tall).
- jbinto 12y agoAirbus. That makes a lot more sense. I initially read that as Airbnb.
- marak830 12y agoMe too haha, insufficient coffee -.-
- davidw 12y ago> AIRCRAFT INCLUDING A PASSENGER CABIN EXTENDING AROUND A SPACE DEFINED OUTSIDE THE CABIN AND INSIDE THE AIRCRAFT So then they're not deck chairs on top of the plane? I'm not much up on plane design, but where exactly is "outside the cabin, but inside the aircraft" ?
- peteretep 12y agoThe passenger cabin extends around a space. That space is located outside of the passenger cabin, but inside the aircraft.
- jws 12y agoA brief scan suggests they are engulfing an unpressurized section of airplane volume since unpressurized sections don't weigh as much.
- jpatokal 12y agoRead the friendly headline: it's a doughnut-shaped plane, meaning there's a hole ("outside the cabin") in the middle ("inside the aircraft").
- gameshot911 12y agoI imagine it'd be uncomfortable to be seated at an angle askew to the takeoff/landing vector.
- ChuckMcM 12y agoThis, if you've ever ridden in the jump seats of a jet and felt your head and guts go sideways during climb out it is very disconcerting. You know that feeling that the jet it tilting way up when your sitting forward? You get the tilt is really sideways when you are sitting sideways. I expect you get used to it but it no doubt makes those seats hard to sell.
- stefan_kendall3 12y agoThe seats of a plane are never sold uniform price, I guess except on southwest. I'd take the side seats to save money, and others would as well. I also sit behind the engine when it's cheaper.
- louthy 12y agoThis happens in business class on many airlines (long haul). I've never felt it to be a problem at all.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- jschwartzi 12y agoSeating that's displaced far from the centerline of the aircraft would also be less comfortable during banked turns. The sensation of falling or rising would be greater the farther you are from the centerline because you're moving through a larger displacement around the axis, and also at a higher rate. Incidentally this style of aircraft looks really wide and flat.
- jpatokal 12y agoAny aeronautical engineers around who could give us the TL;DR of just why it's a good idea to have a hole in the middle? To a layman (me) it would seem seriously destabilizing to have a hole that's perpendicular to the direction of flight, esp. since a delta wing seems to pull off more or less the same shape without the hole.
- mwc 12y agoNot an aeronautical engineer, but understand that the cylindrical shape used in today's aircraft design is very good at containing the stresses of a pressurised cabin. However, the design does mean significant pressure stress on the front and rear of the cylinder. This must be managed with extensive (heavy) structures. A doughnut design, in theory at least, solves for this by removing "the ends" of the cylinder.
- delinka 12y agoLayman here. Looks to me like the outside of the aircraft would remain solid, while these 'doughnut walls' would be strictly internal to help with airframe strength.
- rnbrady 12y agoAnother layman here. In claim 1 it refers to "a space outside the structure" which to me implies this is literally a hold right through the aircraft. EDIT: I think I'm wrong here, the structure refers just to the cabin.
- dalke 12y agoFigure 2 shows it without the aerodynamic envelope. Figure 8 shows the cross section. There are hatches on the bottom which open up for loading and unloading. These can be used for stiffening, but don't need to withstand pressure so can be weaker. In paragraph 0085, this interior unpressurized space can be used for luggage or freight. Or (paragraph 0094) to store the spiral staircase.
- NickNameNick 12y ago
- SchizoDuckie 12y agoAm I the only one here wondering why the layout of an airplane interior be something patentable?
- xpda 12y agoIt should not be patentable, but, unfortunately, the bar is very low at the moment.
- cscurmudgeon 12y agoThe silly aircraft engineers and their obvious physics. /s
- delinka 12y agoIt's not "layout of an airplane interior" but "a way to strengthen aircraft of a certain shape." Something like this is patentable because it apparently wasn't obvious and seems to be a good improvement.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- josaka 12y agoNeat idea. Minor correction: This is a published patent application, not a patent. According to USPTO records, it published last month, but examination has not begun.
- hcarvalhoalves 12y agoSpaceplane? This doughnut creates a neat lifting body design.