Stratolaunch wing completed
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stratolaunch wing completed
Worlds largest aircraft, the Vulcan Aerospace Stratolaunch has completed the wing construction.
With a wingspan of 385 feet (117 m), the six-engine plane will be larger than Howard Hughes’ 1947 H-4 Hercules, known as the “Spruce Goose,” and the Antonov An-225, a Soviet-era cargo plane originally built to transport the Buran space shuttle that is currently the world’s largest aircraft.
With a wingspan of 385 feet (117 m), the six-engine plane will be larger than Howard Hughes’ 1947 H-4 Hercules, known as the “Spruce Goose,” and the Antonov An-225, a Soviet-era cargo plane originally built to transport the Buran space shuttle that is currently the world’s largest aircraft.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Esher, Surrey
Posts: 466
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 67
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I the only one who thinks it doesn't make sense to haul two fuselage sections up in the air?
Why not an assymetric design with a bigger tail, or an aerodynamic skeletonised boom to support a second tail?
If you want to get an edge on the competition, you need a new and radical design, not just a bigger conventional aircraft.
Why not an assymetric design with a bigger tail, or an aerodynamic skeletonised boom to support a second tail?
If you want to get an edge on the competition, you need a new and radical design, not just a bigger conventional aircraft.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing concept decades ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_RC-1
goes on
The Boeing RC-1, short for "Resource Carrier 1", was a design for an enormous cargo aircraft intended to haul oil and minerals out of the northern reaches of Alaska and Canada where ice-free ports were not available. It was optimized for short-haul missions only, carrying cargo to locations for loading onto ships, trains or pipelines. Depending on the role, the design was nicknamed "Brute Lifter" or "Flying Pipeline".
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hadlow
Age: 60
Posts: 597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Resident insomniac
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 79
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I presume that the payload is 'dropped' before it is ignited - otherwise the carrier would experience 'instability'.
I'm just not clear on why there is any mystery here. Air-drop launches as as old as the Bell X-1 and X-15:
http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraf...ket-launch.jpg
http://www.sierrafoot.org/x-15/launch_large.jpg
and as new as SpaceShip2:
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...u_3094236a.png
Seriously....it saves a lot of parasite weight and drag if your payload vehicle doesn't have to punch through the densest ~35000 feet of atmosphere all by itself.
http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraf...ket-launch.jpg
http://www.sierrafoot.org/x-15/launch_large.jpg
and as new as SpaceShip2:
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...u_3094236a.png
Seriously....it saves a lot of parasite weight and drag if your payload vehicle doesn't have to punch through the densest ~35000 feet of atmosphere all by itself.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G0ULI, the fuselages probably house enormous landing gear, and a second fuselage is probably needed because an asymmetric design (preferably for the reason you mentioned) can't deal with the weight of the fuelled rocket on the ground. I'm only guessing, but those things are damned heavy, so it fits.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I asked what the weekly Antonov An-225 flight was out of IAD was for and told that it carried American cigarettes to Russia. Have no idea what they brought in.
So it has a future in its afterlife.
So it has a future in its afterlife.
Last edited by bloom; 22nd Jun 2016 at 18:39.
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Nice
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes the air-launch system does reduce the weight of the launcher.
The Spacex launcher takes 1:10 to get to 10km (30,000 ft), at a speed of 1400 kph. This from a first stage launch terminating at 2:40, at 66 km and 8,400 kph. So without getting bogged down in complex calculations, the air launch system is saving about half the fuel load and weight of the first stage booster.
And while that is a saving, I am with others here on thinking those two huge empty fuselages are a waste of time and weight. A couple of torpedo fuselages would do, with the wing raised above on a pylon, T21-style. (This thing does not need the super efficiency of an airliner, it is only circling the field). And join up the tail surfaces too, for a much stronger rigidity-box. Oh, and why the great length of those (empty) forward fuselages? You could chop the forward section in half, perhaps adding some ballast to compensate. And having done so, you could then reduce the size of the tail surfaces - saving tonnes of weight and making the thing look more elegant. The old saying is 'if it looks right', and this just does not look right.
But the big problem of this air launch system, is you get stuck at a certain maximum payload capacity. With SpaceX, Musk can just strap on multiple boosters, and double or treble the payload. (Athough a formation booster re-land would be interesting to watch...)
Design consultancy services are available at great cost, at [email protected]
The Slingsby T21 wing pylon.
The Spacex launcher takes 1:10 to get to 10km (30,000 ft), at a speed of 1400 kph. This from a first stage launch terminating at 2:40, at 66 km and 8,400 kph. So without getting bogged down in complex calculations, the air launch system is saving about half the fuel load and weight of the first stage booster.
And while that is a saving, I am with others here on thinking those two huge empty fuselages are a waste of time and weight. A couple of torpedo fuselages would do, with the wing raised above on a pylon, T21-style. (This thing does not need the super efficiency of an airliner, it is only circling the field). And join up the tail surfaces too, for a much stronger rigidity-box. Oh, and why the great length of those (empty) forward fuselages? You could chop the forward section in half, perhaps adding some ballast to compensate. And having done so, you could then reduce the size of the tail surfaces - saving tonnes of weight and making the thing look more elegant. The old saying is 'if it looks right', and this just does not look right.
But the big problem of this air launch system, is you get stuck at a certain maximum payload capacity. With SpaceX, Musk can just strap on multiple boosters, and double or treble the payload. (Athough a formation booster re-land would be interesting to watch...)
Design consultancy services are available at great cost, at [email protected]
The Slingsby T21 wing pylon.
Last edited by tatelyle; 22nd Jun 2016 at 20:24.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This Stratolaunch concept does provide some advantages vs conventional launchers. It is less sensitive to local weather conditions. The rocket can be returned if the launch gets scrubbed. The launch can be performed at any location/direction the aircraft is able to fly at. And the aircraft can be re-used for dozens of flights.
SpaceX was originally the company that was to supply the launcher. But they backed out. Then there were issues with their replacement launcher from Orbital. They still have lots of issues to resolve, but I think they have the resources to see the program through. Ultimately, this will be a better approach than that of SpaceX.
SpaceX was originally the company that was to supply the launcher. But they backed out. Then there were issues with their replacement launcher from Orbital. They still have lots of issues to resolve, but I think they have the resources to see the program through. Ultimately, this will be a better approach than that of SpaceX.
Tatelyle, the wiki page for the project reveals some reasons for the design being as it is. They're taking a lot of hardware from two 747s, especially the landing gear, so that will have a lot of bearing on the fuselage design. Linking the stabilisers looks like a good idea at first, but the effect of the payload on the flow over a joined stab might be interesting, maybe more so as it departs. If the drop goes a bit awry it at least gives a chance of avoiding it hitting something too.
