Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Page / 6
Link Posted: 6/1/2017 8:50:33 PM EDT
[#1]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
As I recall, one had a tire shred itself on takeoff and damage the plane enough to cause a crash shortly after takeoff.  The decision was then made to retire them, but that was a decision that had been coming for some time, due to an aging fleet and not really being a money maker.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:


I thought a bunch of people died on Concorde's and they stopped flying them...
As I recall, one had a tire shred itself on takeoff and damage the plane enough to cause a crash shortly after takeoff.  The decision was then made to retire them, but that was a decision that had been coming for some time, due to an aging fleet and not really being a money maker.
The tire failed after running over FOD on takeoff roll. A chunk of tire struck the wing skin with enough force to cause a massive fuel leak.

The FOD was a piece from a shitty repair on a DC10's thrust reverser.
Link Posted: 6/1/2017 8:53:12 PM EDT
[#2]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
lol at that plane, looks ready to break. If you think that's safe, go research American Airlines 587
View Quote
You mean where the pilot broke the stabilizer off because he didn't know how to respond to turbulence properly? Newsflash, all planes can be made to disintegrate in mid-air when they are flown outside their design parameters.
Link Posted: 6/1/2017 8:58:54 PM EDT
[#3]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
lol at that plane, looks ready to break. If you think that's safe, go research American Airlines 587
View Quote
Yes, good point. I suppose the Stratolaunch could break apart if the pilot attempts to fly aerobatics in it.

You've convinced me. This plane is destined to crash.
Link Posted: 6/1/2017 8:59:15 PM EDT
[#4]
Link Posted: 6/1/2017 9:05:44 PM EDT
[#5]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
lol at that plane, looks ready to break. If you think that's safe, go research American Airlines 587
View Quote
What's your point?  That since extreme and repeated control inputs by a pilot destroyed an Airbus 300, that the Stratolaunch is susceptible to the same grievous pilot error?  Or are you saying that there is something inherently wrong with twin-fuselage designs? Give us 50 - 100 words on twin-fuselage instability, and throw in a couple of cites to show your work.  At the very least, give us the wing loading of an Airbus 300 vs. the Stratolaunch.
Link Posted: 6/1/2017 9:06:19 PM EDT
[#6]
http://www.stratolaunch.com

Is the official website of the aircraft

Hot linking is messing up on me
Link Posted: 6/1/2017 9:11:26 PM EDT
[#7]
There's a thread going on over in r/aviation about this, I thought I'd pop over there since I wanted to know about the tail section design. A poster claims to have been a subcontractor on part of the wing section and I asked him about the unjoined design:

"One of the early concepts of the aircraft had a joined horizontal stab. I'm actually not sure why they discarded that idea. Probably something to do with weight/rigidity/flex when dropping payload."

So who knows the final answer, but it's not like they didn't duly consider this.
Link Posted: 6/1/2017 9:14:00 PM EDT
[#8]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
that does not look structurally sound...
View Quote
It sure as hell doesn't.  Tie the rear elevators together like a P-38 and it might help a little.
Link Posted: 6/1/2017 9:19:59 PM EDT
[#9]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
that does not look structurally sound...
View Quote
No shit. Looks like a self Destructor the least they could have done was put the tail as one piece. Crazy ass s***
Link Posted: 6/1/2017 9:24:24 PM EDT
[#10]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I bet that it works great until the tails decide to go in different directions.
View Quote
To my untrained eye it sure looks like that would happen.
Seems to me if you connected the horizontal stabilizers together with one "wing" it would stiffen the whole thing up and allow you to build the front wing much lighter.

Which side do you fly it from?
Link Posted: 6/1/2017 9:32:34 PM EDT
[#11]
I've met Burt numerous times and have been to Scaled a few times as well. Burt is prolific, I'll give him that. And, some of his vehicles were pretty ingenious. But not all of them. In fact, he has had a few stinkers just like everybody else. Anyone remember the Beech Starship? Burt's bunch did the "pre-production prototype" for Beech. Problem was, it wasn't a pre-production prototype. It was just something that looked kinda like what they wanted on the outside. The company had to completely re-engineer the entire vehicle from scratch so that it could be certified and produced on a production line rather than a custom shop. Same thing happened with the prototype of the T-46 that Rutan built.

Speaking of airworthy, how many Rutan designed vehicles have been certified? None that I'm aware of (but I'd be happy to be proven wrong). There is a HUGE difference between a one-off experimental prototype that <might> work or might not and an actual airworthy, certifiable aircraft ready for production (and the carriage of people). Scaled is willing to take risks since they only do prototypes and seldom more than one or two.

The concept of using a carrier plane to act as the "first stage" of an orbital rocket is a sound one, if technically challenging. I'm not convinced this particular vehicle will do that job.
Link Posted: 6/1/2017 9:37:09 PM EDT
[#12]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
that does not look structurally sound...
View Quote
+1
The torque on that inner wing segment in turbulence????
Link Posted: 6/1/2017 9:37:58 PM EDT
[#13]
Link Posted: 6/1/2017 9:40:00 PM EDT
[#14]
I've flown uglier...

I would have no problem flying that Bitch if the pay was right!
Link Posted: 6/1/2017 9:43:12 PM EDT
[#15]
Link Posted: 6/1/2017 9:44:09 PM EDT
[#16]
The Windows Vista of airplanes!
Link Posted: 6/1/2017 9:47:34 PM EDT
[#17]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I've met Burt numerous times and have been to Scaled a few times as well. Burt is prolific, I'll give him that. And, some of his vehicles were pretty ingenious. But not all of them. In fact, he has had a few stinkers just like everybody else. Anyone remember the Beech Starship? Burt's bunch did the "pre-production prototype" for Beech. Problem was, it wasn't a pre-production prototype. It was just something that looked kinda like what they wanted on the outside. The company had to completely re-engineer the entire vehicle from scratch so that it could be certified and produced on a production line rather than a custom shop. Same thing happened with the prototype of the T-46 that Rutan built.
View Quote


Beech wanted an 85% scale proof-of-concept. It was never supposed to be anywhere near a production model. And Scaled built the thing in 9 months, what a failure...

Beech screwed the pooch on the Starship, not Scaled.

ETA: I just looked up the T-46 as I wasn't familiar with it. Not even remotely the same situation as Fairchild themselves wanted a 62% scale testbed, built by Ames, with Scaled subcontracted to build the structure, systems and do the flight testing. They won the trainer competition, and then it was canceled.
Link Posted: 6/1/2017 9:51:39 PM EDT
[#18]
Awesome! Love innovation, risk, new things & projects that while not necessarily profitable you learn something while doing something unique
Link Posted: 6/1/2017 10:12:43 PM EDT
[#19]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
And the Germans had an exemplary record with their dirigibles until the Hindenburg disaster.t
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:


Lots of B747 parts in that aircraft, apparently 2 were scavenged for the engines, undercarriage, avionics and a bunch of other stuff.
Not a new concept either, just take a look at Scaled Composites White Knight.
Since Scaled Composites are the folks that actually built this thing, well, you know.  Rutan's folks have been building dual fuselage aircraft for decades.
And the Germans had an exemplary record with their dirigibles until the Hindenburg disaster.t
For the love of god, what does the Hindenburg disaster have to do with a modern heavy-lift transport?  The German dirigible design was very stable. Surprisingly durable. Conventional wisdom says a bag full of hydrogen gas should be pretty easy to set aflame or "pop" leading to the Zeppelin's demise. But Zeppelin combat experience proved a little different. They were very hard to ignite.   Commercial Zeppelins were not abandoned because they were not safe, back in their time. Travel by Zeppelin or Blimp is very inefficient and costly.  Finally, the only large sources of helium was in the United States, and the U.S. wasn't selling any helium to the Germans.  
Exchange the hydrogen for helium, and the last refuge of your argument fails.
Link Posted: 6/1/2017 10:13:40 PM EDT
[#20]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Orbital Science Corp has been wheezing the idea along for decades, but it's never proven to be particularly clever.  This just doubles down on a poor business model.  It's not the measly velocity that matters, it's the significant altitude and percent of atmosphere that doesn't have to be penetrated.
View Quote
Don't rockets and other space travel vehicles use something like half of their fuel payload before escaping above Earth atmosphere?
So this method of ferrying the second vehicle to the upper atmosphere would allow more "cargo" or payload to be put out there, in place of all of the fuel load not needed.
Seems pretty solid, but kind of lacking in ingenuity. The aircraft itself does look impressive, to appear so spindly yet carry huge loads.
Link Posted: 6/1/2017 10:21:38 PM EDT
[#21]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


I think even if this isn't cheaper than what Space X is building it is going to have a useful place because of the extreme flexibility in the launch window and the variety of orbits it can quickly enter for rendezvous. This delivers a capability that governments would really want and need, or anyone who needs to intercept something in orbit on the order of hours and days rather than weeks.
View Quote
That's an interesting take on it, and I think has merit; however, it was not built for the military's use to launch weapons. It might turn into a "meh, we'll buy a couple for the Air Force" project if it isn't a commercial success. However that success will be measured.
Link Posted: 6/2/2017 4:10:12 AM EDT
[#22]
I guess no one here has read about active flight controls.  Sensors in the airframe measure stresses and g loads and make minute corrections on individual control surfaces to keep everything in line.  All fly by wire.
Link Posted: 6/2/2017 4:28:41 AM EDT
[#23]
This fucking thread man.
Link Posted: 6/2/2017 4:35:43 AM EDT
[#24]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
That's the stupidest thing I've seen today
View Quote
I'm 100 percent certain this is not an accurate statement.
Link Posted: 6/2/2017 4:37:31 AM EDT
[#25]
I really don't see that thing doing anything other than breaking the fuck up on its maiden flight
(And killing everyone crewing it).

Link Posted: 6/2/2017 5:51:58 AM EDT
[#26]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


You mean where the pilot broke the stabilizer off because he didn't know how to respond to turbulence properly? Newsflash, all planes can be made to disintegrate in mid-air when they are flown outside their design parameters.
View Quote
I like how you make it sound obvious, in a jerk kind of way, but the airline flight training actually trained the pilot to do those aggressive maneuvers.
Link Posted: 6/2/2017 7:02:03 PM EDT
[#27]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I guess no one here has read about active flight controls.  Sensors in the airframe measure stresses and g loads and make minute corrections on individual control surfaces to keep everything in line.  All fly by wire.
View Quote
Proving that it is structurally unsound. 

It requires active intervention to keep it from being twisted apart. 
Link Posted: 6/2/2017 7:17:07 PM EDT
[#28]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Not an aeronautical engineer but that shit don't look right to me.

ETA: Why is it that the cockpit/nose sections of those planes look familiar?
Almost like they were scabbed off another airframe or something.
View Quote
Per Wikipedia:

To cut development costs, many of the aircraft systems have been adopted from the Boeing 747-400, including the engines, avionics, flight deck, landing gear and other systems. Two former United Airlines Boeing 747-400 aircraft (Serial numbers 28715 & 28716) were acquired and taken to the Mojave Air & Space Port for cannibalization.[9][19]

You would think they would leave the radome cover.
Link Posted: 6/2/2017 7:18:43 PM EDT
[#29]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
that's an odd bird.

If they whole goal was to launch a rocket from the plane, why not strap it to the top, carrying it all the way up there, and then go inverted and drop the rocket to take off?
View Quote
Big airplanes don't go inverted on purpose very often.
Link Posted: 6/2/2017 7:22:48 PM EDT
[#30]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
1) everyone is acting like the center wing section is providing no lift.

2) Twin Mustang
View Quote
3) ...had a common horizontal stabilizer ...

Link Posted: 6/2/2017 7:44:38 PM EDT
[#31]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Proving that it is structurally unsound. 

It requires active intervention to keep it from being twisted apart. 
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
I guess no one here has read about active flight controls.  Sensors in the airframe measure stresses and g loads and make minute corrections on individual control surfaces to keep everything in line.  All fly by wire.
Proving that it is structurally unsound. 

It requires active intervention to keep it from being twisted apart. 
Did you ever hear the saying, "Any idiot can build a bridge that stands, but it takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands.”
Link Posted: 6/2/2017 7:53:05 PM EDT
[#32]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I hope SpaceX doesn't put them out of business before this thing can fly.
View Quote
Very different target markets.
Link Posted: 6/2/2017 8:00:37 PM EDT
[#33]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Who is Paul Allen? Woody Allen's little brother?
View Quote
I'm sure you are trying to be sarcastic.
Link Posted: 6/2/2017 8:11:27 PM EDT
[#34]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Why do I feel like steering that thing is going to be like Siamese twins fighting over a blowjob?
View Quote


Can't breathe....

Link Posted: 6/2/2017 8:13:56 PM EDT
[#35]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Did you ever hear the saying, "Any idiot can build a bridge that stands, but it takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands.”
View Quote
The Tacoma Narrows bridge stood.  Until the wind picked up.  Active aerodynamics might of saved it.
Link Posted: 6/2/2017 8:14:31 PM EDT
[#36]
Super cool.  

To all the skeptics- make a better design, get funding, and get it made or shut the fuck up.
Link Posted: 6/2/2017 8:45:23 PM EDT
[#37]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
that does not look structurally sound...
View Quote
they need to hook the tail together
its going to break in half .
and spin in circles
Link Posted: 6/3/2017 5:06:06 AM EDT
[#38]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
View Quote
I can picture the two German pilots fighting for control of that middle engine.

Left pilot: "It's mine!"
Right pilot: "Nine! Mine!"
Left pilot: "Nine, dumkoff! Mine!"
Right pilot: "Switszer! Mine!"
Link Posted: 6/3/2017 6:16:40 AM EDT
[#39]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
load that sucker with 4 to 8 mother of all bombs and then when it drops the bombs it does so in a synchronized manner so that each bomb precisely follows the path of the one before for the grandady of all bunker penetraters.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Think of the Vulcan machine gun that could fit in the middle
load that sucker with 4 to 8 mother of all bombs and then when it drops the bombs it does so in a synchronized manner so that each bomb precisely follows the path of the one before for the grandady of all bunker penetraters.
That's what I was thinking, but with 275 2,000 lb. JDAMs all targeted on one laser designator and then drop the bombs in 0.5 second intervals at the same bunker.

That would be awesome to watch.

It could carry the weight of 25 MOABs.
Link Posted: 6/3/2017 6:18:32 AM EDT
[#40]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Why carry a bunch of 2,000lb bombs when you can load a single weapon with 550,000lbs of AFX-757 for a half-kiloton yield?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
That plane has fantastic thigh gap.

Also, how many 2,000 pound bombs could it carry?
Why carry a bunch of 2,000lb bombs when you can load a single weapon with 550,000lbs of AFX-757 for a half-kiloton yield?
Cost?
Link Posted: 6/3/2017 6:31:04 AM EDT
[#42]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
As I recall, one had a tire shred itself on takeoff and damage the plane enough to cause a crash shortly after takeoff.  The decision was then made to retire them, but that was a decision that had been coming for some time, due to an aging fleet and not really being a money maker.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:


I thought a bunch of people died on Concorde's and they stopped flying them...
As I recall, one had a tire shred itself on takeoff and damage the plane enough to cause a crash shortly after takeoff.  The decision was then made to retire them, but that was a decision that had been coming for some time, due to an aging fleet and not really being a money maker.
They had a history of problems including rudder disintegration in mid-flight and almost 60 tire explosions on takeoff, at least one causing fuel tank penetration, engine damage and the loss of two of the hydraulic systems at Dulles in 1979. Also an exact preview of Air France Flight 4590 in 2000.
Link Posted: 6/3/2017 2:36:55 PM EDT
[#43]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

+1
The torque on that inner wing segment in turbulence????
View Quote
in at least 3 axis of motion ....
Link Posted: 6/3/2017 2:53:37 PM EDT
[#44]
Newish rocket...
New airborne launch platform...

What could go wrong?

Link Posted: 6/3/2017 3:57:19 PM EDT
[#45]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I guess no one here has read about active flight controls.  Sensors in the airframe measure stresses and g loads and make minute corrections on individual control surfaces to keep everything in line.  All fly by wire.
View Quote
G loads?  The Arfcom Air Force designer believe that G-loads must be connected with G-strings. 

Link Posted: 6/8/2017 6:11:54 PM EDT
[#46]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
For the love of god, what does the Hindenburg disaster have to do with a modern heavy-lift transport?  The German dirigible design was very stable. Surprisingly durable. Conventional wisdom says a bag full of hydrogen gas should be pretty easy to set aflame or "pop" leading to the Zeppelin's demise. But Zeppelin combat experience proved a little different. They were very hard to ignite.   Commercial Zeppelins were not abandoned because they were not safe, back in their time. Travel by Zeppelin or Blimp is very inefficient and costly.  Finally, the only large sources of helium was in the United States, and the U.S. wasn't selling any helium to the Germans.  
Exchange the hydrogen for helium, and the last refuge of your argument fails.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:


Lots of B747 parts in that aircraft, apparently 2 were scavenged for the engines, undercarriage, avionics and a bunch of other stuff.
Not a new concept either, just take a look at Scaled Composites White Knight.
Since Scaled Composites are the folks that actually built this thing, well, you know.  Rutan's folks have been building dual fuselage aircraft for decades.
And the Germans had an exemplary record with their dirigibles until the Hindenburg disaster.t
For the love of god, what does the Hindenburg disaster have to do with a modern heavy-lift transport?  The German dirigible design was very stable. Surprisingly durable. Conventional wisdom says a bag full of hydrogen gas should be pretty easy to set aflame or "pop" leading to the Zeppelin's demise. But Zeppelin combat experience proved a little different. They were very hard to ignite.   Commercial Zeppelins were not abandoned because they were not safe, back in their time. Travel by Zeppelin or Blimp is very inefficient and costly.  Finally, the only large sources of helium was in the United States, and the U.S. wasn't selling any helium to the Germans.  
Exchange the hydrogen for helium, and the last refuge of your argument fails.
And it might help to not make the skin out of highly-flammable gun cotton, also.

Link Posted: 6/8/2017 6:17:09 PM EDT
[#47]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


The Concorde stopped flying because it was a money loser after the World Bank and International Monetary Fund banned their employees from booking Concorde flights.
View Quote
And BA refused to sell theirs to Branson. He was going to fly them at a loss.
Link Posted: 6/8/2017 6:18:24 PM EDT
[#48]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


You mean where the pilot broke the stabilizer off because he didn't know how to respond to turbulence properly? Newsflash, all planes can be made to disintegrate in mid-air when they are flown outside their design parameters.
View Quote
He responded the way the FAA and his airline told him to respond, because what pilots had been taught for years was incorrect regarding aircraft certification criteria.
Link Posted: 6/8/2017 10:19:28 PM EDT
[#49]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
And it might help to not make the skin out of highly-flammable gun cotton, also.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

And the Germans had an exemplary record with their dirigibles until the Hindenburg disaster.
For the love of god, what does the Hindenburg disaster have to do with a modern heavy-lift transport?  The German dirigible design was very stable. Surprisingly durable. Conventional wisdom says a bag full of hydrogen gas should be pretty easy to set aflame or "pop" leading to the Zeppelin's demise. But Zeppelin combat experience proved a little different. They were very hard to ignite.   Commercial Zeppelins were not abandoned because they were not safe, back in their time. Travel by Zeppelin or Blimp is very inefficient and costly.  Finally, the only large sources of helium was in the United States, and the U.S. wasn't selling any helium to the Germans.  
Exchange the hydrogen for helium, and the last refuge of your argument fails.
And it might help to not make the skin out of highly-flammable gun cotton, also.

Hindenburg Myth 3: “The Hindenburg’s outer cover was highly flammable”

This is the generalized version of the “rocket fuel” and “thermite” myths. Certain hydrogen advocates have tried to argue that the Hindenburg’s covering was so highly flammable that it was the covering — and not the hydrogen — which was the primary factor in the ship’s rapid destruction. In fact, the Hindenburg’s covering, while certainly combustible, was not especially flammable and actually burned quite slowly.  Many sections of the covering burned only when exposed to the direct heat of burning hydrogen (as seen in the films and photographs of the disaster) and large areas of the covering never burned at all, indicating that the covering could not have been highly flammable.

Historical evidence exists that Hindenburg’s covering was made of cotton canvas doped with a solution of cellulose acetate butyrate, to which aluminum powder (and in some places iron oxide) had been added.  Canvas doped with cellulose acetate butyrate is combustible but nonflammable; in other words, it will burn if held in a flame, but tends to self-extinguish when removed from heat.  [See, The Hindenburg Fire: Hydrogen or Incendiary Paint?, A. J. Dessler, D. E. Overs, and W. H. Appleby, “Dessler/Overs/Appleby,”]
Link Posted: 6/9/2017 10:18:54 AM EDT
[#50]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Proving that it is structurally unsound. 

It requires active intervention to keep it from being twisted apart. 
View Quote
Uhhh.... So all flying wing aircraft and modern fighters are disasters in waiting?
Page / 6
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top