Jump to content
Clark Griswold

Concept aircraft

Recommended Posts

Because... airplanes.

Saw this concept...

Airbus+6+_P500_concept.JPG

...and wondered with the advantages of V-tails for speed/drag, why not in airliners (yet)? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 engines! I thought the new hotness is two engines. I wonder when we'll see the likes of the Boeing Sonic Cruiser?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, polcat said:
4 engines! I thought the new hotness is two engines. I wonder when we'll see the likes of the Boeing Sonic Cruiser?

4 engines are still cool - like this one:

69269f7b-ddc1-4fd1-b343-72cec4d05a9f.Ful

http://m.aviationweek.com/blog/a380-meets-tu-95-regional-widebody

Surprised theres been no suggestion of civilian airliner using the A400's Europrops

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Edited by Clark Griswold
airplane porn added

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Boeing and Airbus are comfortable with their ability to improve upon current designs (737Max, 777X, A330NEO, and A320NEO come to mind). I completely understand fleet commonality and type ratings. It makes sense. Still, we will see a Sonic Cruise-esque aircraft produced en masse? I'm interested to see what A and B come out with next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

think weight penalty first when considering civil aviation designs.

 

look for Boeing blended wing body (aka lifting body design) in the future, *if* they can solve the passenger comfort/safety puzzles first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup - there was an EasyJet (LCC in Europe) who proposed an advanced design a few years ago and wanted to shave a lot of weight off the design and coupled with open rotor engines

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/jun/14/theairlineindustry.business

main-qimg-48849f0c9f45adf525010edf240d2d

BWB is cool but I think the Hybrid wing-body design from NASA for their Cruise Efficient STOL airliner is more feasible, IMO.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-06/future-flight-new-designs-will-end-congestion

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Oh great.... twice the MEL items to break....


I can't see how this possibly seemed like a good idea to anybody on the concept team. The entire point of a space shuttle carrier was external carry. Using two huge volume internal carry cargo planes to make one giant lifting monster with its cargo strapped outside makes little/no sense. Yes they can lift a high gross weight, but so can any other large aircraft with big motors. There's a serious diminishment on returns. It would be like using an empty super tanker to tow a barge.

Thank god the simpler option of the 747 prevailed in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lawman said:

 


Oh great.... twice the MEL items to break....


I can't see how this possibly seemed like a good idea to anybody on the concept team. The entire point of a space shuttle carrier was external carry. Using two huge volume internal carry cargo planes to make one giant lifting monster with its cargo strapped outside makes little/no sense. Yes they can lift a high gross weight, but so can any other large aircraft with big motors. There's a serious diminishment on returns. It would be like using an empty super tanker to tow a barge.

Thank god the simpler option of the 747 prevailed in the end.

 

Single option transport of the entire STS kit and kaboodle?  SRBs, EFT, and orbiter.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Single option transport of the entire STS kit and kaboodle?  SRBs, EFT, and orbiter.  


Except only 1 of those three things ever required specialized transport via air.

Between the SRBs and ET, only 1 was reusable and we already had transport capability for them that wouldn't require another specific extremely expensive 1 off development.

Plus the only place you would launch a shuttle outside Florida would be Vandenburg. Every other movement was recovery back to the Cape where it wouldn't be dragging an ET or SRBs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Lawman said:

 


Except only 1 of those three things ever required specialized transport via air.

Between the SRBs and ET, only 1 was reusable and we already had transport capability for them that wouldn't require another specific extremely expensive 1 off development.

Plus the only place you would launch a shuttle outside Florida would be Vandenburg. Every other movement was recovery back to the Cape where it wouldn't be dragging an ET or SRBs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Not necessarily a good idea, just a likely driver for the concept.

...that never left the drawing board 

But I'm just guessing 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Lawman said:

...the simpler option of the 747 prevailed in the end.

 

13 hours ago, BFM this said:

Not necessarily a good idea, just a likely driver for the concept.

Ditto on both points.  When I saw it, I had to do super thorough research and Google it one more time to see if it was for reals.

What struck me was the width of the contraption, 111' center of fuselage to center of fuselage, probably 140' from one outer truck to the other.  

Doubt it could even turn on the ground when loaded with the STS, whole kit or just the orbiter, but they probably imagined it being loaded on whatever runway the shuttle landed then flying either direct as it probably would hold shit load of gas, probably could be AR'd to keep heading back direct to Florida with no fuel stops.

Lots of possibilities but lots of stuff to go wrong, KISS is usually the best COA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Tuesday, June 06, 2017 at 4:55 AM, Clark Griswold said:

This would be aviation by congressional committee.  It would take the 10 flight engineers three days to agree on TOLD.  Heaven help you if the runway changed.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, FourFans130 said:

This would be aviation by congressional committee.  It would take the 10 flight engineers three days to agree on TOLD.  Heaven help you if the runway changed.

Oh c'mon... TOLD and the Form F would be simple... not... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like I've seen that plane before... or one extremely similar.

Is turkey "borrowing" our tech now too? Or is China leasing it to them.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Duck said:

I feel like I've seen that plane before... or one extremely similar.

Is turkey "borrowing" our tech now too? Or is China leasing it to them.

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Lease with an option to purchase.  30 years of easy installment loans / favors... 

Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery or Form follows function... ultimately the physics / properties of the RAM will drive similar designs...

They had another set of designs just a tad inspired by the F-35 but as they are buying that, I guess they wanted one more geared towards A2A than multi role strike...

tfx7_tr_thumb.jpg?w=645&h=605

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we are laughing at Iran....

What happens when you get way too drunk watching Blue Thunder and get ideas to upgrade your Bell 206.

aVohc7J~1.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×