91–100 of 114 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> fuel doesn't care about the bobbing up and down Maybe the fuel doesn't care, but the flight crew certainly will care about a large oscillating mass constantly changing the aircraft's center of mass.
Is it drastically different from conventional aircraft though? The KC-135 houses a great deal of it's own fuel in the wings as well. So does most commercial air liners AFAIK.
Personally, I think it looks beautiful. I hope it works. Generation 3 of the flying wing. A worthy tradition and a genuine problem to solve. Also, for the record, I think military operations get a different category on emissions. Yes they pollute but just hope they aren’t dropping ordinance. That stuff really pollutes. I live by a major cargo hub airport with occasional military traffic. The occasional C-5 Galaxy doi…
How so? Usually it’s just nitrate fertilizer. You can actually measure the greening effect that certain large 20th century ears (WW2, Korea, Vietnam) have had on global bio mass.
A tanker is a good fit for a blended wing body. Fuel efficiency is important for that mission, fuel tanks can be easily adapted to the odd shape (compared to cargo), and fuel doesn't care about the bobbing up and down in turns that comes from the wide hull shape (compared to passengers who don't like about that). Reconnaissance would work too.
> fuel doesn't care about the bobbing up and down Maybe the fuel doesn't care, but the flight crew certainly will care about a large oscillating mass constantly changing the aircraft's center of mass.
How long will tankers be crewed?
The KC-46 program has not gone swimmingly. I'm curious how they think they're going to get a demonstrator flying in 5 years when they can't get a tanker that's based on an existing production airframe flying on schedule. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-46_Pegasus
Maybe working off an existing design is harder than greenfield?
Except that Boeing has already one it:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-767
And Airbus (who originally won) didn't seem to have a problem:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
P8 went pretty well. Blended wing isn’t sci-fi, B2 and plenty of ucav are full flying wing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_P-8_Poseidon
Boeing was a very very different company then. I’m bullish on blended wing body, but I would have much more confidence if it were Lockheed or someone emulating the SpaceX, rapid development cycles working on this.
Personally, I think it looks beautiful. I hope it works. Generation 3 of the flying wing. A worthy tradition and a genuine problem to solve. Also, for the record, I think military operations get a different category on emissions. Yes they pollute but just hope they aren’t dropping ordinance. That stuff really pollutes. I live by a major cargo hub airport with occasional military traffic. The occasional C-5 Galaxy doi…
> Yes they pollute but just hope they aren’t dropping ordinance. That stuff really pollutes. How so? Usually it’s just nitrate fertilizer. You can actually measure the greening effect that certain large 20th century ears (WW2, Korea, Vietnam) have had on global bio mass.
Also I was just considering scale of military flights versus civilian. Yes they burn a lot of gas and haul ass, but there are way many more passenger and cargo flights day in and day out. I do love the idea of improving cargo shipping by sky in my lifetime. As my Uncle pointed out once, having dealt with Passengers and Cargo, "Cargo doesn't complain."
The Air Force should have forced some kind of transatlantic agreement, and make the A380 the new tanker, instead of letting the airplane go out of production.
Now, if Airbus just gives away everything we need to manufacture and support the A380 free of cost so Boeing / Lockheed / whoever can manufacture them in the US and keep all the monies, I am sure the pencil pushers and penny pinchers at these companies would jump at the opportunity but I suspect that would also run into problems in Europe...
The Air Force should have forced some kind of transatlantic agreement, and make the A380 the new tanker, instead of letting the airplane go out of production.
I totally agree but who will force them? I thought the US Senators (and politicians in general) are just as keen to keep "jobs" going to American companies? Now, if Airbus just gives away everything we need to manufacture and support the A380 free of cost so Boeing / Lockheed / whoever can manufacture them in the US and keep all the monies, I am sure the pencil pushers and penny pinchers at these companies would jump…
A tanker is a good fit for a blended wing body. Fuel efficiency is important for that mission, fuel tanks can be easily adapted to the odd shape (compared to cargo), and fuel doesn't care about the bobbing up and down in turns that comes from the wide hull shape (compared to passengers who don't like about that). Reconnaissance would work too.
> fuel doesn't care about the bobbing up and down Maybe the fuel doesn't care, but the flight crew certainly will care about a large oscillating mass constantly changing the aircraft's center of mass.