101–110 of 114 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, baffles aren't free, since they add empty weight and reduce payload. The designers will be tempted to keep them to a minimum. There definitely will be at least some free surface effect and slosh.
Plastic bags to reduce slosh?
Blended-wing body makes a lot of sense for cargo/tanker aircraft. No issues with emergency evacuation procedure for passengers.
I thought that the main disadvantage with flying wings for passenger traffic was that any kind of roll is made much worse the further you get from the main roll axis, so turbulence etc becomes more uncomfortable in the wing part.
Also, anecdotally from my flying (I'm a private pilot, small, single engine planes) turbulence tends to create much more vertical translation and pitching movement than it does roll movement.
Blended-wing body makes a lot of sense for cargo/tanker aircraft. No issues with emergency evacuation procedure for passengers.
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.
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.
> the flight crew certainly will care How long will tankers be crewed?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But do you need to pressurize it? Only the crew space needs that which could be a small/short tube in the middle right behind (and including) the cockpit. The fuel tanks don’t care. They’re not pressurized on a normal design. The cargo may not need it either.
true. I thought cargo planes are often used for troop transport and this would be the same, but if they're solely using it for cargo/fuel it should be fine.
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.