Merged The New Largest Plane in the world

Octavo said:
Likely fuel and onboard equipment to monitor and manage the rocket ignition and deployment. I'm guessing the wheels are that big to distribute the weight properly. Also probably helps with clearance for the rocket.

If something goes wrong with the deployment, I would imagine that the plane needs to be able to land safely while still carrying the rocket loaded.
Click to expand...

They would need some room for fuel yes. I would expect they would use solid fuel rockets. If so then there is not much to monitor. If they used liquid fuel then there would be heaps to monitor which may not be able to be done on an aircraft.


The Great Zaganza said:
If it can do that it would be a huge selling point for especially hard to replace payloads.
Click to expand...
One of the biggest risks of a rocket launch is the first few seconds after launch. So I agree with this. Though if the rocket explodes shortly after launch then goodbye aircraft.
 
rjh01 said:
They would need some room for fuel yes. I would expect they would use solid fuel rockets. If so then there is not much to monitor. If they used liquid fuel then there would be heaps to monitor which may not be able to be done on an aircraft.
Click to expand...

If would have assumed liquid/hypergolic perhaps for throttling and engine restarts for final orbit tuning. Solids don't give you much flexibility once you light the match...
 
Octavo said:
If would have assumed liquid/hypergolic perhaps for throttling and engine restarts for final orbit tuning. Solids don't give you much flexibility once you light the match...
Click to expand...

From Wikipedia:
The vehicle consists of three solid propellant stages and an optional monopropellant fourth stage.
Click to expand...

That's the current rocket. Larger ones that come later will probably also be solids except for the last stage.
 
3point14 said:
Although...

(Is it bad form to quote oneself?)

It is the first 500Ms (Not Km/s as I totally mistyped above) Whish is a bucketload of fuel compared to the last 500Km/s


So it's going to need a less powerful engine designed for flight in a more limited range of pressure?
Click to expand...
Aye, the rocket nozzle can be optimised for vacuum, this gives a higher Isp.
 
theprestige said:
Wouldn't it be hilarious if they made it twice as big as it needs to be by accident, because they're idiots?
Click to expand...


Or...

StonehengeSpinalTap_8B9BBD6B-BFBE-8D12-CF11211541ECFB3D.jpg



Speaking of Spinal Tap, I watched a video at a news site yesterday and when I adjusted the volume, it went from zero to ELEVEN! Whooaaa
 
Trebuchet said:
ETA: I'm dying to see a flight deck picture. I worked on 747 mechanical cockpit controls for 20+ years. Among other things.
Click to expand...

And here it is. Except they had to go stick Mike Pence in it!

I've been wondering how much 747 stuff they might reuse in there. The answer is "not much". Wheel/Column, Seats, a few avionics modules. The brown stuff in the picture.
 
Trebuchet said:
And here it is. Except they had to go stick Mike Pence in it!

I've been wondering how much 747 stuff they might reuse in there. The answer is "not much". Wheel/Column, Seats, a few avionics modules. The brown stuff in the picture.
Click to expand...

Pence looks like a star struck kid in that photo. A bloated old star struck kid, but still.
 
I'm now wishing I could see what's under the floor. Lots of claptrap in the 747 and other Boeings, most of which I was responsible for at one time or another.

The donor 747's are (mostly) not fly-by-wire airplanes. Using those mechanical systems on this airplane would be difficult. But developing a whole new FBW system is hyper-expensive. Especially for a one-off.
 
Trebuchet said:
I'm now wishing I could see what's under the floor. Lots of claptrap in the 747 and other Boeings, most of which I was responsible for at one time or another.

The donor 747's are (mostly) not fly-by-wire airplanes. Using those mechanical systems on this airplane would be difficult. But developing a whole new FBW system is hyper-expensive. Especially for a one-off.
Click to expand...



This is an early piece on it:

http://aviationweek.com/awin/allen-places-big-bet-air-launches

All that says is:

"two used 747-400s that will be cannibalized for engines, avionics, flight deck, landing gear and other proven systems"




Why would it be more difficult to use the 747 mechanical systems on this plane? Sheer size? Or things just in the wrong place?
 
Well, we've seen the flight deck and there's not much 747 there. I thought perhaps the displays would be used, but they aren't. That makes sense. It was probably easier and cheaper to get some off-the-shelf LCD panels and new software and computers for them.

The mechanical systems would get very difficult, I think. You've got two complete empennages. The 747 has control cables running all the way back to its tail for rudder and elevator controls. The Roc would have to somehow split that up with one side running through the center wing. Just the added friction would be a huge problem.

I do see that they've got split rudders, upper and lower, just like the 747. They MAY be using the 747 actuators and somehow adding electrical control instead of the mechanical. It could be that they are using the autopilot actuation to implement FBW. You might not be able to certify that for an airliner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom