32andBelow
Posts: 3033
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: Paul Allen's Stratolaunch Biggest Plane Ever

Thu Jun 01, 2017 4:21 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
It's an impressive aircraft. Looks a bit fragile in the center part, but I'm sure these engineers know what they're doing. I believe it's using 747 avionics and systems. If you look at the nose section of each part, it's got 747 windows. They'll put a rocket between the two fuselage parts and launch it at high altitude. I'm sure they'll deliver both civilian and military rockets, just like SpaceX.

This thread belongs in the Miltiary and Space forums, maybe a moderator could move it?

Why it's a plane, not a space ship, and it's certainly not a military plane.
 
jetblueguy22
Posts: 2777
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:26 am

Re: Paul Allen's Stratolaunch Biggest Plane Ever

Thu Jun 01, 2017 4:38 pm

Wow I didn't think this project would actually get anywhere. Very cool
Look at sweatpants guy. This is a 90 million dollar aircraft, not a Tallahassee strip club
 
Passedv1
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:40 am

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Thu Jun 01, 2017 5:15 pm

What was the business case for airplanes prior to the Wright Flier? Did anyone at the time invision the global network of today or was it just faster mail service?
 
XLA2008
Posts: 291
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 8:53 pm

Re: Paul Allen's Stratolaunch Biggest Plane Ever

Thu Jun 01, 2017 5:23 pm

I don't understand what the point of this aircraft is at all.... running 6 engines, how is that more economical that running two separate aircraft with twin engines or a single aircraft with quad? Also two cockpits on each fuselage, how on earth do you coordinate with that? And fly an aircraft like that? This seems like a total waste of money
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24421
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Thu Jun 01, 2017 5:27 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
The center portion of the aircraft looks very fragile, but I'm sure they know what they're doing. It's Scaled Composites' design after all. Will be very interesting to follow this project forward. Do they have a customer yet?


Stratolaunch Systems is the customer. The airframe was developed for their satellite launch business.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 14241
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Thu Jun 01, 2017 5:50 pm

BobbyPSP wrote:
Is there really a need for two flight decks? I could see one being more of an observation role.

Thoughts?

One is used. The other is empty and unpressurized. Maybe ballast added to match the active one?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
semiless
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 11:20 am

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Thu Jun 01, 2017 7:21 pm

Thought that I read somewhere that it only has a operating range of 1500nm or thereabout when a rocket stage is added is cargo.
Thought I had the source somewhere but I believe it was dutch so I got to find a english one.

Add to this that the stratolauncher is probably only capable of taking of from the biggest of runways. That said, I don't even know if the width of the wheel base fits on any runway. And if it does, it has to land very, very precisely on the centerline without crosswinds or crabbing because those wheels have absolutely no space.
So that means you can only launch if from a few airstrips I would guess, and clear or light wheather which is rather limiting.
But I don't have all the facts, few people do ofcourse as this is a new project. But I would love how they're going to tackle this issue. But I'm sure it is already thought out one way or another, otherwise they wouldn't have build it.
 
semiless
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 11:20 am

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Thu Jun 01, 2017 7:50 pm

Oh and to answer above questions. It has 2 fuselages because it is intended to carry jettisonable heavy cargo like rocket stages to 40.000 feet. The only way to carry the weight and volume of such a cargo is by attaching it in the center. Like Virgin galactics spaceship two. Attaching it in the center is the only real way to jettison it safely. And you can't do that with 1 fuselage.
As for navigating with 2 cockpits. I think only 1 is a active cockpit. They also land harriers in tight spots. So to overcome the situational awareness of sitting on the far left/right of the aircraft involves training and more training and possible instrument changes and whatnot. But I don't see how that would be impossible to pilot.
 
Flighty
Posts: 8688
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Thu Jun 01, 2017 8:06 pm

Yeah elsewhere I read that only 1 fuselage will be pressurized. Whether the other side has ballast or systems is a question.

To fly it in the sky seems doable from one side. However, takeoff and landing would need to rely on a video monitor from a camera that is on the aircraft's centerline, just my armchair thought. Seems possible.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 741
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Thu Jun 01, 2017 8:11 pm

Stitch wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:
The center portion of the aircraft looks very fragile, but I'm sure they know what they're doing. It's Scaled Composites' design after all. Will be very interesting to follow this project forward. Do they have a customer yet?


Stratolaunch Systems is the customer. The airframe was developed for their satellite launch business.


I think he was asking if there's a customer for the launch services yet, rather than somebody planning to operate the aircraft.

Orbital Sciences is planning to retire the L1011 they use to carry their small Pegasus rocket and partner with Stratolaunch, rather than maintain their own aircraft solely for a small handful of launches. That can't reasonably be the sole plan for this carrier aircraft, however.

As far as I know, they don't have any customers for a rocket sized for this aircraft...or even have the rocket itself. They originally planned to contract with SpaceX, but SpaceX backed out of the partnership after looking at what it would take to adapt their rockets to air launching (I suspect there were cost-share disagreements, too). Then they contracted with Orbital to develop a new rocket, but apparently weren't happy with the performance it would have achieved. I lost track of the planned launch vehicle after that, and Allen seems to have gotten quiet about that part of the business plan.

I'm sure something is in work, but it seems like Allen doesn't want to release details any more until he's sure the plan isn't going to change again.

Passedv1 wrote:
What was the business case for airplanes prior to the Wright Flier? Did anyone at the time invision the global network of today or was it just faster mail service?


That's not a very apt comparison. They were creating a market for the first time. Stratolaunch needs to break into an already crowded launch market.

In either case though, the project is funded out of somebody's spare spending cash. Neither one strictly needs a viable business case. If Allen never makes a penny of net profit on this venture, I suspect he'll still be too busy enjoying the novelty of owning the world's largest aircraft and the challenge of trying to compete with Musk and Bezos to waste time crying about it.
 
Slcpilot
Posts: 594
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 3:32 am

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Fri Jun 02, 2017 3:42 am

From another forum I frequent. Nobody really has a good answer so far! I challenge Anet to come up with the real purpose!

Cheers! SLCPilot

"For the life of me I can't figure out what the four large yellow fairings are attached to the side of the fuselages under the wings. The fittings to mount them seems substantial so it seems they will be mounted during flight. They almost seem like speedbrakes."Image
I don't like to be fueled by anger, I don't like to be fooled by lust...
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 741
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Fri Jun 02, 2017 7:27 am

Slcpilot wrote:
"For the life of me I can't figure out what the four large yellow fairings are attached to the side of the fuselages under the wings. The fittings to mount them seems substantial so it seems they will be mounted during flight. They almost seem like speedbrakes."


I'm sticking with what I said over there. They are not flight hardware. They are most likely tooling fittings for supporting the aircraft off of its landing gear and/or holding it rigidly during the assembly process.

You can see a bunch of similar fittings on a less complete aircraft here:
http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_g ... ll_out.jpg
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Topic Author
Posts: 2660
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Fri Jun 02, 2017 10:08 am

Another picture showing the MLG, well, half of it:

Image
Source: http://www.stratolaunch.com/gallery.html
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 1542
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Fri Jun 02, 2017 12:50 pm

Slcpilot wrote:
From another forum I frequent. Nobody really has a good answer so far! I challenge Anet to come up with the real purpose!

Cheers! SLCPilot

"For the life of me I can't figure out what the four large yellow fairings are attached to the side of the fuselages under the wings. The fittings to mount them seems substantial so it seems they will be mounted during flight. They almost seem like speedbrakes."Image


It's a jack point. I'm sure it will be removed when the aircraft is done.Image
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2285
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Fri Jun 02, 2017 1:21 pm

iamlucky13 wrote:
I'm sticking with what I said over there. They are not flight hardware.


:thumbsup: Industry practice is to paint all tooling and jigs, temporary fixture/hardware yellow.

semiless wrote:
The only way to carry the weight and volume of such a cargo is by attaching it in the center.


Yes just imagine the CG shift when the payloads drops off. This problems have been around for a long time with large bombers.

ikramerica wrote:
Maybe ballast added to match the active one?


It only makes sense if most of the "ballast" was fuel anything else would make me think less of the design team.

XLA2008 wrote:
I don't understand what the point of this aircraft is at all.... running 6 engines


I get your thinking, but the smaller engines were the only ones they can get their hands on at a reasonable price. All the large GE engines are being used by the 777's.. Also, it is important to note that they are salvaging the system from the two 747's. The engines match the systems and does not need new software for controls.

QuarkFly wrote:
1. Air launch-to-orbit rockets look good on paper due to 1st stage booster weight reduction -- but in practice are too awkward to economically operate.


Awkward, perhaps, until you work out the kinks.

There are several benefits that this concept has over the two vertical launch system.

One is the type of fuel that is used get the system off the ground. You are much safer using jet fuel to get to 40K ft than using LOX. From there, solid fuel can take over. Both of these fuel type require less infrastructure to store and transport.

The other is you are not limited by launch site. There are probably more 12,000ft run ways than there are space launch facilities.

Finally, if you are to abort, you jettison the rocket. From there, you can separate the booster from the payload. The payload parachute to the ground, the plane return to the landing strip, the booster is detonated. You lose less hardware.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
neutrino
Posts: 1213
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 5:33 pm

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Fri Jun 02, 2017 2:36 pm

According to the render in this pic posted a year ago by the OP, the port fuselage's nose is quiet different from that of the starboard's. So what's the reason for the change?
Make economic use of the otherwise discarded nose of the second 747 and save a few dollars on designing and fabricating a new nose?
Image
Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
 
tapairbus370
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Fri Jun 02, 2017 2:41 pm

Hello,

Anyone wants to try to guess when will it fly?

More, will it have to do all the ground tests that normaly comercial planes do? Or this is different?


Well, I throw the first (and almost totaly blind) stone: It will fly in...... the end of 2018/ beggining 2019.
 
User avatar
neutrino
Posts: 1213
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 5:33 pm

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Fri Jun 02, 2017 3:11 pm

Flighty wrote:
Yeah elsewhere I read that only 1 fuselage will be pressurized. Whether the other side has ballast or systems is a question.
To fly it in the sky seems doable from one side. However, takeoff and landing would need to rely on a video monitor from a camera that is on the aircraft's centerline, just my armchair thought. Seems possible.

To be clearer, only the operational cockpit is pressurized. The fuselages are NOT pressurized, can never be because of the shape.
A pressure vessel - especially with the Roc's 40,000 ft ceiling - wouldn't work with flat body plates.

And yes, you're right about flying from one side being doable. Its been done before though on much smaller planes.
There are some previous aircraft with twin fuselages flown from one of them.
An example is the P-82 Twin Mustang; with later models having only one pilot in the port cockpit and a radar operator in the starboard.
Even in the earlier models with both cockpits manned by pilots, its to accord the flight crew some rests as they alternately switch off control of the aircraft on marathon endurance flights.
And on takeoffs/landings, only one pilot is at the controls, with the other effectively a passenger.

Also, down at Terra-firma, except for the McLaren F1 sportscar and maybe one or two others (can't recall exactly), almost all road-legal vehicles have the driver displaced off center, so humans can easily drive/fly in an offset position.
For the Roc's flyboys, its just more extreme but nothing additional training and practice couldn't take care of.
Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
 
Stratolaunchfan
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 5:45 pm

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Fri Jun 02, 2017 6:07 pm

this plane is absolutely incredible. Can't wait for video of it flying! Does video already exist?
Plane Bro #2
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Topic Author
Posts: 2660
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Sat Jun 03, 2017 8:19 am

Stratolaunchfan wrote:
this plane is absolutely incredible. Can't wait for video of it flying! Does video already exist?

You mean from the roll out? Yes: http://m.bild.de/video/clip/flugzeuge/g ... obile.html

for example, I am sure there are others on YouTube.
 
Slcpilot
Posts: 594
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 3:32 am

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Sat Jun 03, 2017 12:32 pm

JetBuddy,

Thank you very much for providing definitive proof of what the yellow fixtures do! It took time to find the picture and post it!

Bikerthai,

Thank you for the further explanations.


And a follow-up question since you're both so good! What are the two large blisters on the onboard side of both fuselages? Again, not terribly aerodynamic and very curious. My guess is they are almost certainly payload related. Any chance they are photo stations for drop documentation?

What would be a tiny, inconsequential blister on a normal aircraft is a fitting you could almost stand in on this one!

Cheers!

SLCPilot
I don't like to be fueled by anger, I don't like to be fooled by lust...
 
Balaguru
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 11:09 am

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Sat Jun 03, 2017 3:08 pm

So looks like 2 engines and 2 sets of MLG from the 2 united 747-400s are spares. Nevertheless, a question .... why are the 2 nose gear sets set so far back from the flight decks? Could it have anything to do with turning circle or balance on the round with the ATK Rocket mounted in the center?
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Topic Author
Posts: 2660
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Sat Jun 03, 2017 3:20 pm

Another question: from the gallery http://www.stratolaunch.com/gallery.html it looks as if they pulled her out of the hangar with two tractors (sorry, right now I cannot post the relevant picture, it's no. 5 in the gallery). How do you synchronize such a manoeuvre?
 
WIederling
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:18 am

Passedv1 wrote:
What was the business case for airplanes prior to the Wright Flier? Did anyone at the time envision the global network of today or was it just faster mail service?


At the time airships looked to be more capable. thus the first airline DELAG "drove" airships. But the ideas existed. ( shipping lines looked to expand there early on.)

Obviously limited capabilities made light goods more attractive to start with.
When capable airframes like the Junkers F13 were available expansion into network oriented passenger transport was fast.
That imho indicates that interest and vision existed before actual availability.

( US seems to have been lagging at the time. A big boost coming from surplus warplanes (smalish fighters) after WWI.)
Murphy is an optimist
 
zanl188
Posts: 3513
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Sun Jun 04, 2017 3:24 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
It's a jack point. I'm sure it will be removed when the aircraft is done.Image


I suspect its use is dual purpose. Jack point and ballast.
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
 
zanl188
Posts: 3513
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Sun Jun 04, 2017 3:30 pm

N14AZ wrote:
Another question: from the gallery http://www.stratolaunch.com/gallery.html it looks as if they pulled her out of the hangar with two tractors (sorry, right now I cannot post the relevant picture, it's no. 5 in the gallery). How do you synchronize such a manoeuvre?


Very carefully. One tug is lead (I'll guess the green one) and both operators (plus wing walkers & brake rider) are likely in radio communication. Towbars are likely fused to break before the aircraft - so no worries of damaging the aircraft. When everybody's ready lead operator says "lets go" and it rolls out dead slow.

Beats designing and building the massive towbar that would be needed for single tug operation.
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
 
zanl188
Posts: 3513
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Sun Jun 04, 2017 3:38 pm

Balaguru wrote:
So looks like 2 engines and 2 sets of MLG from the 2 united 747-400s are spares. Nevertheless, a question .... why are the 2 nose gear sets set so far back from the flight decks? Could it have anything to do with turning circle or balance on the round with the ATK Rocket mounted in the center?


Limiting wheel base is critical to reducing turning radius. Just going to have train the pilots to taxi this aircraft very carefully - perhaps with airframe mounted cameras or spotters on the ground. No big deal - it's not going to be flying pax schedules out of JFK.

IMHO those main landing gears look like 747 body gear to me. Regardless all 6 of them appear to be the same. So I'm going to suggest at least 2 of them came from somewhere other than the United 747s. The wing and body gears on the 747 being rather different. 747 body gear can pivot to reduce tire scrub - I'm guessing a needed capability for this aircraft due to odd landing gear geometry.

Here's a pix of a 747-8 landing gear set to illustrate difference between wing and body gear. Wing gear on the outside both right and left.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/200 ... blog_last3

In any case it's going to be interesting to watch this aircraft taxi. Lots of things going on...
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 9093
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Mon Jun 05, 2017 12:13 am

tapairbus370 wrote:
Hello,

Anyone wants to try to guess when will it fly?

More, will it have to do all the ground tests that normally comercial planes do? Or this is different?


It is different, it's an experimental aircraft and will stay that way. There isn't even a prototype or additional frame to do stress tests, cycling tests etc.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Topic Author
Posts: 2660
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Tue Jun 06, 2017 11:50 am

@ zanl188: thanks for your explanations.

Some more pics that I haven't seen before:

Image
Source: http://www.rp-online.de/panorama/auslan ... -1.6858904

Image
Nice title... ;-) Source: http://abc7.com/technology/stratolaunch ... r/2059612/
 
RetiredWeasel
Posts: 488
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 8:16 pm

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Tue Jun 06, 2017 3:11 pm

BobbyPSP wrote:
Is there really a need for two flight decks? I could see one being more of an observation role.

Thoughts?


I read in some article that only the right flight deck will be manned. The left one will house flight data gear....but I can't find the article now. However it does seem a bit odd that the windows will remain if there is no human sitting in the left former cockpit. Edit: Oops just read where somebody else addressed this question.
Last edited by RetiredWeasel on Tue Jun 06, 2017 3:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
ITMercure
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 11:49 am

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Tue Jun 06, 2017 3:21 pm

RetiredWeasel wrote:
BobbyPSP wrote:
Is there really a need for two flight decks? I could see one being more of an observation role.

Thoughts?


I read in some article that only the right flight deck will be manned. The left one will house flight data gear....but I can't find the article now. However it does seem a bit odd that the windows will remain if their is no human sitting in the left former cockpit.



Well, it saves a lot on engineering and tooling to have only one type of nose. Plus it's good for balance and the second 747 nose was available from the get go.
 
Stratolaunchfan
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 5:45 pm

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Wed Jun 07, 2017 1:15 pm

Thank you!
Plane Bro #2
 
Stratolaunchfan
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 5:45 pm

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Wed Jun 07, 2017 1:17 pm

Can't find any of it in flight. Just the roll out shot. I will wait patiently.
Plane Bro #2
 
HaveBlue
Posts: 2120
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:01 pm

Re: Paul Allen's Stratolaunch Biggest Plane Ever

Thu Jun 08, 2017 4:51 am

cosyr wrote:
http://time.com/4800318/stratolaunch/

but it certainly doesn't have the volume of the Hercules or AN-225.


The 'Hercules' or C-130 is not even large by any measure compared to most big aircraft overall. An aircraft not even 100' long, with just over a 40,000lb payload and a max take off weight LESS than that of the fastest plane ever made, the SR-71... the Blackbird had a heavier take off weight. It always kills me when people talk like the C-130 is a big plane, the CH-53 Sea Stallion is nearly the same size and as far as 'big' aircraft the C-130 isn't even in contention.

To the topic at hand, I'm a huge fan of weird, crazy, out of the box aircraft and of the biggest planes, so I am super elated that this endeavor is coming to fruition and will be following its progress closely and desperately hoping that all goes well!
Here Here for Severe Clear!
 
User avatar
neutrino
Posts: 1213
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 5:33 pm

Re: Paul Allen's Stratolaunch Biggest Plane Ever

Thu Jun 08, 2017 10:35 am

HaveBlue wrote:
cosyr wrote:
http://time.com/4800318/stratolaunch/

but it certainly doesn't have the volume of the Hercules or AN-225.


The 'Hercules' or C-130 is not even large by any measure compared to most big aircraft overall. An aircraft not even 100' long, with just over a 40,000lb payload and a max take off weight LESS than that of the fastest plane ever made, the SR-71... the Blackbird had a heavier take off weight. It always kills me when people talk like the C-130 is a big plane, the CH-53 Sea Stallion is nearly the same size and as far as 'big' aircraft the C-130 isn't even in contention.

To the topic at hand, I'm a huge fan of weird, crazy, out of the box aircraft and of the biggest planes, so I am super elated that this endeavor is coming to fruition and will be following its progress closely and desperately hoping that all goes well!

I suppose he's referring to the Hughes H-4 Hercules flying boat aka the Spruce Goose. Until the Stratolaunch Roc get into the air in 2019, its still the world's largest aircraft ever flown; in terms of widest wingspan. There's more than one aircraft named Hercules, you know!

edited to add image (it was the absolute largest at the time it was built):
Image

PS. It always kills me when people jumped to wrong conclusions.
Pardon me for paraphrasing you. I couldn't resist. :smile:
Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
 
User avatar
neutrino
Posts: 1213
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 5:33 pm

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Thu Jun 08, 2017 11:22 am

Just found this (Roc actually look tiny overall compared to the other four behemoths in the illustration:
Image

.....and the page in which it appeared in February 2015:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... plane.html
Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2285
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Thu Jun 08, 2017 1:44 pm

Slcpilot wrote:
And a follow-up question since you're both so good! What are the two large blisters on the onboard side of both fuselages?


If you are referring to the two large circles aft of the cockpit, my guess would be an observation window (to keep an eye on the payload).

Why on both fuselage?

Answer:
ITMercure wrote:
Well, it saves a lot on engineering and tooling to have only one type of nose.


Not only tooling and engineering but also manufacturing cost and time.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
KFLLCFII
Posts: 3311
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 7:08 am

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Fri Jun 09, 2017 2:11 pm

N14AZ wrote:
@ zanl188: thanks for your explanations.

Some more pics that I haven't seen before:

Image
Source: http://www.rp-online.de/panorama/auslan ... -1.6858904

Image
Nice title... ;-) Source: http://abc7.com/technology/stratolaunch ... r/2059612/


Looks like a fueling test.
"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
 
User avatar
NYPECO
Posts: 218
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2015 12:55 am

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:51 am

Why is it being called the largest aircraft in the world? The wingspan is the longest, but it's clearly smaller than a 747, A380, AN-225, etc.
 
WIederling
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:49 am

NYPECO wrote:
Why is it being called the largest aircraft in the world? The wingspan is the longest, but it's clearly smaller than a 747, A380, AN-225, etc.


PR: take the metric that can be made
to fit the "biggest" moniker and go with that.
No need to be truthful anyway.
see : international $something ~= US and Canada
"worlds" biggest $someotherthing ~= biggest in the US
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Fri Sep 15, 2017 12:50 am

WIederling wrote:
NYPECO wrote:
Why is it being called the largest aircraft in the world? The wingspan is the longest, but it's clearly smaller than a 747, A380, AN-225, etc.


PR: take the metric that can be made
to fit the "biggest" moniker and go with that.
No need to be truthful anyway.
see : international $something ~= US and Canada
"worlds" biggest $someotherthing ~= biggest in the US


Well what's the projected takeoff weight of the plane plus the upper stage vehicle that takes the satellite into orbit?
 
User avatar
NYPECO
Posts: 218
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2015 12:55 am

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Fri Sep 15, 2017 1:57 am

NYPECO wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:
WIederling wrote:

PR: take the metric that can be made
to fit the "biggest" moniker and go with that.
No need to be truthful anyway.
see : international $something ~= US and Canada
"worlds" biggest $someotherthing ~= biggest in the US


Well what's the projected takeoff weight of the plane plus the upper stage vehicle that takes the satellite into orbit?



According to their website, max takeoff weight is 1,300,000 pounds. So, that kinda answers your question.
 
WIederling
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Fri Sep 15, 2017 7:21 am

NYPECO wrote:
According to their website, max takeoff weight is 1,300,000 pounds. So, that kinda answers your question.


~= 590t
AN-225 : 640t / 1.4mlbs :-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
tapairbus370
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Tue Sep 19, 2017 9:03 pm

Hello all,

one step closer to first flight.

Anyone wanna guess a possible date?


http://www.paulallen.com/stratolaunch-a ... e-testing/
 
bhill
Posts: 1439
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 8:28 am

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:20 pm

Reminds me of "Spock's Brain"....will all the soft/firmware have to be re-written for the FMC and other control avionics? I cannot imagine just "plug and play" with 2 more engines..and the weight differences...
Carpe Pices
 
WIederling
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:22 am

bhill wrote:
Reminds me of "Spock's Brain"....will all the soft/firmware have to be re-written for the FMC and other control avionics? I cannot imagine just "plug and play" with 2 more engines..and the weight differences...


I'd be surprised if that thing is so complex to entail an FMC.
But they might use 2 of the original systems working 3 engines each ?
Murphy is an optimist
 
DigitalSea
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 6:28 pm

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:33 am

We do these things because the will to explore the unknown has severely diminished and we need pioneers to at least make some head-way into the great beyond so that we can explore the solar system and our local stars. Whether it succeeds or fails, it'll lay some type of foundation for the future and that's important. Let's see where it'll go! Reaching out to the stars and making people realize our problems here on Earth are minuscule may be the boost we need for humanity.
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 2550
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Sat Sep 23, 2017 6:09 am

WIederling wrote:
bhill wrote:
Reminds me of "Spock's Brain"....will all the soft/firmware have to be re-written for the FMC and other control avionics? I cannot imagine just "plug and play" with 2 more engines..and the weight differences...


I'd be surprised if that thing is so complex to entail an FMC.
But they might use 2 of the original systems working 3 engines each ?


I agree, no FMS required but just to make sure there's no confusion here, you don't need the FMC to control the engines.

I would think they would want to keep everything as simple as possible. No FBW just old fashioned cables and a fairly simple instrument package supplemented with iPads. Writing a whole bunch of software for a one off airplane and certifying it would not be easy or cheap.
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 4179
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Sun Sep 24, 2017 7:19 am

Forget about FMCs... A Garmin avionics suite plucked out of their GA catalogue would, ironically, give this bird a way better cockpit and navigation than the 747s it was born from.

The FMCs on the 747 are somewhat linked to the engine EECs as they provide a way of controlling the thrust limits and setting takeoff and climb power through the autothrust system.
I suspect that this can be easily circumvented throught a couple of switches. The Stratolaunch will probably use a very basic autothrust with simplified engine management (no takeoff derates, only one climb power setting, etc.).
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
parapente
Posts: 1805
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Stratolaunch‘s Carrier Aircraft Production

Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:10 am

Really look forward to seeing this aircraft flying.But sadly like some of the early posters I fear this project will be a total commercial failure.
I can see way back when -when Paul Allen won the Ansar prise with a mini version of this concept that it was logical to assume that if you could upscale X10 then you might have a winner.Look at pre spacex launch costs!Off the planet !(intended).
However Spacex did arrive,did return the booster (after many failures).Now their 'Block5 -final version of the falcon9 first stage is designed to do up to 12 launches and landings! (As I have read - they do 3 at present).
No other system can get even close to his launch costs either on a single launch,less so on 3 re-uses and certainly not above that!!!
I wish Paul the very best and I hope he can find a large rocket to sling underneath (ie what it was designed to do).Not these silly fireworks.That make some sense out of this project.

BTW of course Sir Richard Branston picked up on Paul's original work for the Ansar prise and upscale It for passengers.Frankly (and sadly) I think Richard is and will continue to loose his shirt (he can afford a few) on the project. (He - I note is now also offering small satellite launches).
Mr Amazon has also perfected the return to launchpad system on his new shepherd launch vehicle.This will be the winner for commercial day trips IMHO.-why go to 100,000 feet in a plane when you can go in a ROCKET! - AND then parachute down like real astronauts!!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Buckeyetech, scbriml and 2 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos