[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/n/ - Transportation


Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 86 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


All work safe boards are now on the 4channel.org domain. Make sure to update your script blockers and whitelist the new domain.

There's now a setting option under Navigation to display the full list of boards on 4channel.org

The 4chan Vtuber Competition is over. Click here to see the winning entry!




File: Md-12-2.png (1.08 MB, 2256x1158)
1.08 MB
1.08 MB PNG
Planes that never flew thread.

Let's have a thread series dedicated to honoring aviation marvels that could have changed the aerospace world as we know it, but sadly had the plug pulled before they even had the chance. Gone but not forgotten.

RULES:

>aircraft must be serious proposals from real manufacturers and not just outlandish pitches from either retarded engineers or aerospace enthusiasts
>aircraft who's development was cancelled, but managed to have one or more prototype test flights are disqualified (thus they technically did "fly)
>global rules and local /n/ rules apply don't be a faggot.

Starting with a classic: the McDonnell Douglas MD-12, or the plane the A380 wishes it was. It would have been the first real competitor to the 747 and would have solidified the supremacy of the American aerospace industry, but complications with MD fucking up the cargo door design on the DC-10 made customers never trust them again and led to the entire company going under. They were bought by Boeing in 1997.
>>
File: Boeing-2707-1280x640.jpg (126 KB, 1280x640)
126 KB
126 KB JPG
Boeing 2707.
>>
File: concorde_b.jpg (32 KB, 557x351)
32 KB
32 KB JPG
Concorde B

Would have had more efficient engines, which combined with the active leading edge, would have removed the reheat/afterburner at takeoff. All together it would have used 25% less fuel. That, combined with a slight increase in fuel tank capacity, would have allowed it to do non-stop long distance flights at a reasonable cost. It was basically the aircraft that operators actually wanted.
>>
File: L133_2.jpg (40 KB, 510x314)
40 KB
40 KB JPG
Lockheed L-133. This was Kelly Johnson's first unsolicited proposal for a jet fighter, in 1939. USAAF couldn't be arsed with such an outlandish concept as an aeroplane with no propeller! Eventually, the clods got their heads straight and the P-80 was built and put into very limited service at the end of WWII.
>>
File: .jpg (92 KB, 900x561)
92 KB
92 KB JPG
Before the Arrow there was the CF-103
1/2
>>
2/2
>>
>>1252648
>implying the existence of any service-ready turbojet engines in 1939
>>
>>1252666
the me262 entered its design phase in 1939
the de Havilland Vampire 2 years later in 1941
>>
>>1252637
Still wouldn't have allowed it to fly over populated land
>>
>>1252666
You're extraordinarily dense.

The DESIGN was started in 1939, with the knowledge that practical jet engines were soon to come. By 1940, Lockheed was running early versions of their own L-1000 suck-n-blow.

Please work on your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills.
>>
>>1252675
The Sonic Boom problem was an invented myth.
>>
>>1252634
>>1252637
>>1252681
Are you the retard who makes the "When will we have supersonic passenger planes again?" thread every week?
>>
>>1252683
>I can hear the sonic boom of a plane flying at 60,000ft

You can't hear the engines of a 747 at 30,000ft, either. It's not magic.
>>
>>1252687
Regardless, I'd still rather not pay $7,000 to get to my destination four hours earlier. Go back to your Concorde appreciation thread.
>>
>>1252689
Okay. Except, like I said, the Concorde B would have actually been affordable and capable. You might not pay it but lots of people would.

Go back to being bitter and poor.
>>
>>1252683
I'm >>1252634

I'm not the retard who makes the threads. I'm the retard that replies to them because even though they're a complete fail as a sustainable transportation solution, they're fucking neat as hell.
>>
>>1252681
Incorrect
>>
File: 1524751577448.jpg (143 KB, 500x650)
143 KB
143 KB JPG
>>1252695
>but lots of people would
Wrong. Concorde stopped flying because people stopped paying for tickets. Engines with afterburners capable of bringing a plane up to supersonic speeds are extremely inefficient and airlines have to charge more just to offset the costs. For the last few years of its life, Concorde was actually losing the airlines money. Why would someone with the money to fly in a comfy business cabin on a normal jet pay the same amount to fly in a cramped and extremely noisy cabin just to save four hours? They're cool planes but that's it, they're not coming back until someone can engineer an efficient and comfortable one which isn't happening any time soon so keep calling me a poorfag while I state facts.
>>
>>1252710
Plus you're limited to subsonic speeds over land.
>>
>>1252710
I agree with this post.

I fly EWR-LAX-EWR twice a month. The flight is 6 hours going west, 5 hours coming back. Nominally.

I live on Lawn Guyland, near Islip. To make the 5PM flight from Newark, I have to leave my house no later than 2. I usually leave around 1. Earlier if it's a Friday.

My office is in shithole Lancaster. I get to LAX at 8PM. If I'm lucky, I'll get to the flophouse around 10:30. It's more common to be a little after 11. I hate LA.

11PM PDT is 0200 EDT. Door-to-door, I'm traveling for 13 hours. Less than half of my travel time has been in the air. It's not unusual to have up to an hour delay due to any number of fucked-up ground holds.

So, if an SST could go EWR-LAX, gate-to-gate in 3 hours, or even 2, That's still putting me at a travel day of at least 9 hours, only 2 of which are inside a tiny, noisy al-you-mini-um tube.

Furthermore, I can get NO work done on a 2-hour SST flight, so my whole day is non-billable time, essentially. At least on the 777 I can get a solid 5 hours of work in going west. I never work on the way home. I drink. A lot.

Supersonic flight is a luxury and an affectation. It's not practical for a business traveler who actually, you know, works.
>>
>>1252710
>Engines with afterburners capable of bringing a plane up to supersonic speeds are extremely inefficient and airlines have to charge more just to offset the costs.

Yes. That's why the Concorde B, which wouldn't have afterburners, would be economical enough to bring the cost down to something people could afford.

It'd help if you read the thread before you got all panty-bunched.
>>
>>1252721
>Concorde B
Try to look at it from the perspective of an airline exec (the people who put in orders for aircraft) instead of an autistic aviation enthusiast who only cares about cool factor. Which airline would order an untested 20th century design with no working prototype designed by a company that's been defunct since 2000? Before you say some dumb shit like "they could take the design and have Boeing or Airbus modernize it" consider that would cost too much and innovation in the aviation industry currently revolves around efficiency, not speed.
>>
>>1252442
Planes that "what if?" APPRECIATION THREAD

Kinda hard to appreciate aren't they. lol you fucking dummy OP.
>>
File: 062811FlyingDorito.jpg (121 KB, 2200x1080)
121 KB
121 KB JPG
McDonnell Douglas A-12 Avenger II

Combining all of the benefits of the B-2 and the A-10. Dick Cheney INSISTED that MD pull the plug on it, in case you didn't have enough reasons to hate him.
>>
>>
>>1252727
It would be Airbus who would be the one to modernise it, since Airbus did manufacture the first Concorde (although the name hadn't been adopted yet).
It's worth mentioning that all the systems like the hydraulics, electrics and air conditioning which were developed for the Concorde are still in use in aircraft as recent as the A350, albeit modernised.
An Airbus Concorde 2 would likely focus on composites, as well as modernisation of the flight deck, likely copying that of the A350/A380.
>>
>>1252732
>Combining all of the benefits of the B-2 and the A-10
Yah no, cuntmunch
>>
File: L-2000-SST.jpg (110 KB, 1200x645)
110 KB
110 KB JPG
>>1252634

And also the L-2000 which was not only superior to the Concorde and Tu-144 but also to the 2707 (from an economic perspective at least).

But the 2707 was picked because it was faster and could stuff more passengers into it. Ultimately, complications with the swing-wing mechanism and lobbing from angry hippies who were pissed about sonic booms killed both programs.

I wonder if the L-2000 had been picked instead they actually would have a shot at putting it into production.
>>
>>1252717
On the other hand, I'd sure as shit pay for cutting travel time in half on my SFO->SHA->SFO once-a-month trip. That fucker is over 13 hours long, and I spend under 90 minutes in transit/at the airport on either end. Cutting 6 hours out of a ~17 hour trip would be great.
>>
>>1252884
>But the 2707 was picked because it was faster and could stuff more passengers into it.
What made the L-2000 'better' then?
>>
>>1252900

Being an actually attainable goal and not batshit insane.
>>
>>1252884
>angry hippies who were pissed about sonic booms
Good, less noise = better
>>
>>1252869

What's not to love about a stealth BRRRRRRTTT?
>>
>>1252869
>>1252732
>>1253154
if you want to put a tank in the air why not just do it like the AC-130 and make it useful
>>
File: iu[1].jpg (59 KB, 444x591)
59 KB
59 KB JPG
>>1253154
Where's the BRRRRRRRTTT?
>>
>>1253160

You gotta BELIEVE the brrrrrt
>>
File: Boeing767-6xx.jpg (180 KB, 550x429)
180 KB
180 KB JPG
Whitecomb-rule 767. "Wasp waist" fueselage greately accelerates benefits of area rule.

Could cruise just a few knots below mach 1 without burning extra fuel.

Unorthodox fuselage proved to cumbersome to build in the end.

Another version of this concept had all 3 engines mounted on the tail rather than just 1.
>>
>>1252892
Thank you. If you could make the NRT-JFK/NRT-EWR flight or even the LAX-NRT flight supersonic that would be a game changer.
>>
File: e5myeq9znfv01.jpg (50 KB, 602x263)
50 KB
50 KB JPG
>>
>>1253360
I don't believe it. I've never seen anyone else mention BRRRRTT in the A-12 and it sure as fuck doesn't look like it would fit a GAU-8.
>>
>>1253470
I wonder if conformal fuel tanks could be used on civil airliners to achieve an area rule effect…
>>
>>1252727
When did anybody even suggest any of the things you're talking about in that post?

Oh that's right, never. Did you even bother to read the OP?
>>
File: bader thumbs up.jpg (44 KB, 306x423)
44 KB
44 KB JPG
>>1253512
based
>>
>>1253608
I had to do it to the concordefag. If you were on this board for more than five minutes you'd know him but I see you don't.
>>
>>1253653
>autistic screeching

Okay
>>
File: Vickers_V1000.jpg (129 KB, 1634x1036)
129 KB
129 KB JPG
>>1252854

I raise you the true missed opportunity
>>
File: boeing 2707.jpg (58 KB, 773x274)
58 KB
58 KB JPG
>>1252634
>the fucking nose on the early prototype
>>
>>1253833
Why they can't make windows on floor?
>>
>>1252892

> SHA

That's PVG, show some respect

>>1252717

Speaking of EWR (I know this is off topic) but BA runs LCY-SNN-JFK flights for businessmen, using an all-Club world A318. If PATH ever gets around to extending service from Newark Penn to EWR, do you think we'll see direct LCY-EWR flights? JFK is way out in in outer Queens but EWR is a short hop across the Hudson River (via taxi or limo) to Lower Manhattan. Especially combined with border preclearance in Shannon, I could see some business demand.
>>
>>1253852
>do you think we'll see direct LCY-EWR flights?
LCY-EWR is never going to happen without going through SNN because the A318 is weight constrained departing LCY.
>>
>>1253848
Because Mach 3.
>>
>>1253512

kek
>>
>>1253527
*blocks ur external view*
*blocks ur emergency exits*
pshhh… nothin personnel kid…
>>
>>1254202
Below the window level, you dullard.
>>
>>1253749
sexy af
>>
>>1252884
lockheed actually knew what the fuck they were doing. i will never not be angry at boeing.
>>
File: Boeing-Sonic-Cruiser.jpg (1.05 MB, 3300x2338)
1.05 MB
1.05 MB JPG
Boeing Sonic Cruiser.

Killed by the 2003 recession.
>>
>>1254462
I remember this thing, if the economy hadn't soured it sounded like it had a good shot at being developed. Might have been too different for the market though.
>>
>>1254463
The post-2004 petroleum price high would have killed it anyway
>>
>>1254462
>>1254463
>>1254613

Rumor has it that Boeing is considering reviving the project with a less retarded engine configuration.
>>
>>1254631

Rumor also has it that Donald Trump is really the Kool-Aid man in disguise.
>>
>>1253848
hard to see through your feet. The better solution would have been to use mirrors much like periscopes.
>>
>>1255379
Helicopter pilots manage.
>>
>>1254462

How do flaps work on canard designs? Conventional flaps would make it pitch down because the wings are behind the cg. Obviously that's not okay if you want to get off the ground.
>>
>>1255529
Flaps on the canards, obv.
>>
File: ebay-boeing-c-5-model-6.jpg (162 KB, 1280x960)
162 KB
162 KB JPG
This was Boeing's proposal for the C5
>>
There was a proposal for a mach 2 Harrier jet in the 60's. But it was quashed instead for the F-4
>>
File: Horten_H_XVIII[1].jpg (241 KB, 745x600)
241 KB
241 KB JPG
Horten flying wing bomber
>>
>>1255529
Most designs don't bother much like most delta wing aircraft, some make the canards pitch up enough to compensate the effect of the flaps, some like the saab viggen do like >>1255557 said, some settle for using only leading edge slats, others give the main wing so much sweep that the inner part is actually close to the cg.
>>
>>1255594
Looks like a C-5 except for the tail.
>>
>>1255529

They don't. This is why the canard configuration is taboo for large commercial jets but popular for small experimental aircraft.
>>
Either this was a design running againts the B 757 or it preceded it. I don't remember
>>
a shame they did not spend just a little more money
could have been the Great Eastern of the sky's
>>
File: ebay-boeing-c-5-model-2.jpg (145 KB, 1280x960)
145 KB
145 KB JPG
>>1255622
>Looks like a C-5 except for the tail.
Yes. But noticed the hump behind the cockpit. Clearly a 747 to me.
>>
>>1255765
Preceded.
>>
File: nazi-bell-918594.jpg (33 KB, 590x350)
33 KB
33 KB JPG
>>
>>1252663
Really, lets dedicate a whole thread just to what Avro could have made.
>>
>>1255960
>>1255594

Jesus Christ. Dust that shit off.
>>
File: Nord-1500-Griffon-3.jpg (62 KB, 1024x706)
62 KB
62 KB JPG
He flew a few times but never went into production. However, it really makes you imagine the possibilities.
>>
>>1256729
Why does the one on display at the Aerospace Museum have a rainbow painted on it?
>>
>>1256224

I'm cool with that.
>>
The naval version of the F-117.

I suppose it would have been long retired by now had it been built.
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DAgzBIvqEs
This mad thing obviously flew, but there were no orders placed. I wonder why this tech has not been employed elsewhere?
>>
File: C-5 airliner.jpg (103 KB, 1702x756)
103 KB
103 KB JPG
behold, the L-500. the passenger variant of the C-5 able to hold over 1000 passengers each.
>>
>>1257631
That kind of looks like it was designed for use in regional airports, like the original 737.
It's hideous though. Everything about it is pretty bad, at least as an airliner.
I could have seen it work pretty well as a dedicated civilian frieghter, but considering that the C-5 is a roll-on roll-off strategic airlifter, it would make more sence using it as a car airliner. Just drive to the airport, drive onto the plane, and then sit in your car for the 4-5 hour flight from coast to coast.
>>
On that the Lockheed 141 also had a commercial variant.
>>
File: 1541211222680.png (202 KB, 350x363)
202 KB
202 KB PNG
>>1257631
No windows and 999 other passengers on a 12 hour flight
>>
>>1257633
>and then sit in your car for the 4-5 hour flight from coast to coast
A new low
>>
File: F-4 phantom wallpaper.jpg (100 KB, 1400x900)
100 KB
100 KB JPG
McDonnell Douglass tried to made a new model of the F-4 to replace the air force's old models, twice. the first time they tried, it actually was superior to the F-15 they were making, however, they canned it because they didnt have enough money at the time to put two mainline fighters into service at the same time and shelved it until they had the capacity to produce it. the second time they tried it they werent able to finish designing it before it was cut due to MD not having enough money to finish it, as this time around MD was in even an even worse position due to the commercial flop of the MD-11, and the loss of several contracts. the first one was going to be called the F-4 2000 (not to be confused with the kurnass 2000) and the second one never got a designation, due to being so incomplete.
>>
>>1257733
the F-4 was nearly resurrected again by Boeing, with the super phantom proposal, which would see various improvements and changes for the F-4, however the same problem as the first time came around again, as this time the super F-4 was seen to have too similar of a performance to the F-18, and was again slightly superior to the F-15. and so, they canned the project.
>>
>>1257733
>superior to the F-15

holy fuck i laughed so hard i think i pulled a muscle
>>
Would have been Piper's first production jet. Killed by the 2008 slump.
>>
>>1252710
>pay the same amount to fly in a cramped and extremely noisy cabin just to save four hours
Because it would make the excruciating pain that is a flight to Asia half the time, you fucking retard.
>>
>>1252717
Those of us who live in the first world don't take 4 hours to go to the airport, it takes me 1.5 hours by public transit, 45 minutes by taxi. For a 10 hour flight that's about 15 hours door to door. Shaving 5 off of that would be an amazing improvement.
>>
>>1257810
i should have specified; it was superior in speed and payload, but not maneuverability. although the problem was that it wasnt that superior, so they didnt feel the need to change. either way, what i sad is true. you can look this all up on wikipedia, although there isnt much detail on the page itself the sources listed have more info. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_II_variants
>>
>>1257863
Bold design. Who needs second engine?
>>
File: 1980 ECA.jpg (27 KB, 600x246)
27 KB
27 KB JPG
You are all certainly wondering what the hell is that? Hell this is what the EuroFighter once look liked.
>>
File: NATF-22.jpg (156 KB, 1200x951)
156 KB
156 KB JPG
In the early 90's, there were ideas being brought forth to eventually replace the F-14 from USN service. The name of the program was the Naval Advanced Tactical Fighter.
At this time, the USAF was deciding upon the next generation of aircraft which would eventually lead to the F-22.
Seeing stealth as being the eventual means to keeping a modern naval air wing, several proposals were created based on a similar overall design as the Tomcat. But with probable costs expected to be very high due to complicated engineering and a tech still in it's infancy, the idea was dropped in 1992.
The pic was an idea from Lockheed Martin, very much based on their Raptor.
>>
File: Untitled.png (443 KB, 590x435)
443 KB
443 KB PNG
Whatever the fuck this thing is.
>>
>>1258012

Godzilla's cockring?
>>
>>1257863
I like it.
A lot of small private planes are single engine turboprops like the PC-12. A single turbofan wouldn't be outside the relm of thought.
>>
>>1258012
Do a barrel roll
>>
>>1258012

Good luck trying to fit that in a maintenance hangar.
>>
File: Model220blog1.jpg (43 KB, 600x400)
43 KB
43 KB JPG
Military proposal to fly Admirals. But no buyers.
>>
Anyone want a 3-engine C-17?
>>
>>1258371
That looks much cooler than it had any right to be
>>
>>1258416
Reminds me of the B-58.
>>
File: an-418-e1490596544128.jpg (108 KB, 678x451)
108 KB
108 KB JPG
An-418, passenger version of the Ruslan.
>>
>>1258410

Why
>>
>>1258012

So how is that fucking thing supposed to generate lift?


>>
File: X-33_Venture_Star.jpg (347 KB, 1000x751)
347 KB
347 KB JPG
>>1252442
Weather or not you consider this a plane might be up to debate, but it was an intereating concept.
>>
File: XF-103.jpg (290 KB, 1800x1130)
290 KB
290 KB JPG
It probably wouldn't have worked and it would have been too impractical in the day to fly in at mach 3 slow down to shoot it's missile.
>>
>>1258600
Not just a concept. Aerospike engines are among the most efficient since they get the highest specific impulse of any rocket engine at varying air pressures. While a vacuum bell on a rocket engine might get better specific impulse in space, that engine would struggle to work at sea level.

Ultimately, we never got the X-33, the DC-X or the Constellation program. A great shame really. All I can hope for is the Dream Chaser on board the Arianne 5 or the Atlas V.
>>
>>1258707

The Skylon is another promising concept.
>>
>>1258707
I am well aware about the benefits of the aerospike engine and the cooling issues of the cicular form vs. the linear form.
>Constellation programm
Well, we ARE getting some components of it, for example the SLS/AresV and the Orion capsule, maybe even the lander.
>>1258744
I would argue that relaunching rockets will stay cheaper than SSTO spaceplanes for the near future.
The development of Skylon will take quite some time because it relies on technology that is not yet available and if it is sucessfull, it will probably take longer than BFR fornits maiden flight.
Don't get me wrong, I realy like the idea but it is a realy complex issue...
>>
>>1258763
>Well, we ARE getting some components of it, for example the SLS/AresV and the Orion capsule, maybe even the lander.
I just hate that NASA's direction is basically steered by the President, who has all the political benefits of cancelling whatever project his predecessor started only to make his own.
This just creates the cycle of 3 years working on something before cancellation. No wonder people complain about NASA, their problem comes from presidents who have no idea what they fuck they're doing to space exploration.
ESA and JAXA at least have the benefits of having a high level of decision making separation from the government(s) which fund them. Arianne 5 is human rated anyway, so it can be easily modified to carry a human rated capsule of some kind. I have no idea if the H-II is human rated or not. All it really carries these days are HTVs.

Roscosmos is in a very different mess these days. In competent idiots now work there, and will install components upside down, or use hammers to make ball joints fit. I know they're working on the Federation capsule system, but the issue still remains that they haven't picked the rocket for it yet, either the Fenix/Soyuz-5 or the Angara, neither of which have flown yet.

It'll be interesting if ESA manages to get the rights to buy Orion capsules. Airbus are already making the Orion Service Module, but since that was just a system derived from the ATV, I'm sure they could just buy Orion capsules made in the US and just stick them onto an Arianne 5.

It'll be interesting if the Russians do just take the ROS and turn it into OPSEK and the Americans make LOP-G a thing. Perhaps then, the Europeans and Japanese might invite the Chinese to the ISS.
>>
File: Boeing RC-1 info.png (1.2 MB, 1247x537)
1.2 MB
1.2 MB PNG
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_RC-1

The Boeing RC-1. A pitch for a gigantic triple fuselage flying oil tanker, for hauling oil out of Alska.

Powered by no less than twelve engines.
>>
File: CAD004.jpg (82 KB, 695x521)
82 KB
82 KB JPG
C-5 for scale.
>>
>>1259208
That's looks like it would need those massive tanks to just fuel the 12 engines.
What was Boeing smoking when they came up with that design? I want to know if they were still smoking it when they came up with the MCAS for the 737MAX.
>>
>>1252442
Blimptrain
>>
File: mothership.png (500 KB, 640x299)
500 KB
500 KB PNG
>>1259212

>What was Boeing smoking when they came up with that design?

Apparently not as much as Lockheed was smoking when they came up with pic related. 1100 foot wingspan nuclear powered "mothership" flying aircraft carrier.

Yes, this was a serious proposal from the company.
>>
File: 1541155280934.jpg (9 KB, 480x360)
9 KB
9 KB JPG
>>1259208
>>1259309

ABSOLUTE UNITS
>>
>>1257707
It would be more comfortable than most business class fares today.
>>
>>1257863
>Single jet

Why don't we see more of these?
>>
>>1259212
> I want to know if they were still smoking it when they came up with the MCAS for the 737MAX.
Some Indian smelly sticks, considering nationality of software designers.
>>
File: A19740732000CU01.jpg (548 KB, 2000x957)
548 KB
548 KB JPG
I don't quite know how serious they were with this proposal......but it would have been awesome.
>>
>>1259486

redundancy
>>
>>1259486

If one engine quits you can use another (unless that's the only engine).
>>
>>1259591
>>1259660
There's plenty of single turboprops, why not jets?
>>
>>1259580
Yeah, some of the early space shuttle proposals were wild. Have you read Dennis Jenkins' book on the program?
>>
>>1259785

I'm pretty sure the FAA outright forbids single engine designs bigger than 10 passengers.
>>
>>1259972
But why no single jets for planes with under ten passengers?
I assume it's because such small planes typically fly short distances where a jet isn't the most economical option. I don't know much at all about the aeronautical world so please correct me if I'm mistaken.
>>
>>1260035
Over larger land masses, it could be an option. So long as you were not flying transoceanic, but rather within a continent (flights within North America or Europe), the single jet engine would be much faster than a Pilatus or other similar single engine turboprop, and would make longer 4-5 hour flights over land at least more fuel efficient at higher altitude.
>>
>>1258597

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_wing
>>
The Rockwell ATF

An unsolicited fighter proposal. Had it entered service, it would have been given the designation F-25.
>>
File: vulkan-family-1x.jpg (154 KB, 1500x1351)
154 KB
154 KB JPG
>>1259791
>Yeah, some of the early space shuttle proposals were wild. Have you read Dennis Jenkins' book on the program?

Afraid I don't. You seem to know more. Go a head and add more.
>>
>>1261903
rocket on the side of another rocket is hot.
>>
>>1259580
Doesn't look much more not serious than Energia II.
>>
>>1261972
> t every staging design ever
I'm more humored by flyback boosters below than on the sides of a spaceplane, like the Saturn-Shuttle.
>>
File: 57d8629b2d883.png (537 KB, 726x439)
537 KB
537 KB PNG
>>1261972
>rocket on the side of another rocket is hot.
No, that was the planned Mir-2. It's a TKA spacecraft which would be attached to the side of an Energia and then put into orbit. The first Energia test launch was with an unmanned TKA spacecraft, the Polyus, which had a failure after separation from the Energia.

TKA spacecraft are, however, still in use, and make up 2 modules of the ISS, the Zarya and the Zvesda are both TKA spacecraft which were docked with each other to make up the Russian Orbital Section. Both Zarya and Zvezda have the means to fly by themselves, however, due to them being docked to other modules as well as the United States Orbital Section, they cannot do this.

Any future TKA spacecraft would need to be launched by the Proton-M, and that is looking like a poor prospect right now. The Angara rocket is constantly delayed, the Federation spacecraft is also constantly delayed with no launch rocket either, and the planned OPSEK space station has been cancelled, also due to lack of funding and basically having no scientists anymore.

Here's my (space)plane that never flew, the Hermes. It was first conceived by the French CNES but later was adopted as the ESA spaceplane design to allow for ESA missions to occur without the need to rely on NASA. It would have been carried by the Arianne 5 rocket, and would have sat on top, making it a much safer design than the Space Shuttle. The Hermes never flew thanks to NASA offering free seats on the Space Shuttle after the prospect of competition became real.
>>
>>1260876
Hey MiG, can I borrow your homework?
>Sure, just change it up a little
>>
>>1257979

At first, Dassault was part of the project and wanted to be a leader in decisions.
It did not work, so after that there was Eurofighter between the British, the Germans and the Italians and the Rafale in France.
>>
File: AVRO 740.jpg (161 KB, 1324x808)
161 KB
161 KB JPG
>>
>>1262866

>v-tail trijet

Muh dick.
>>
>>1256048
shades of Kecksburg
>>
File: 797 patent.jpg (45 KB, 920x613)
45 KB
45 KB JPG
Boeing patent for a 747 replacement. Note the mid-mounted wings that allow better ground clearance for the two enormous turbofans (bigger even than GE90's). Consequently, some rows on the bottom deck will not have window seats.
>>
>>1260876
>atf
does it come with dog-seeking missiles?
>>
>>1262866
just fuck my maintainability up f.a.m.
>>
>>1263096
>center wing fuel tank is inside the plane
>>
>>1263255
this makes my penis the big penis
>>
The long range bomber the Nazis never put into service
>>
File: pelican.png (99 KB, 600x203)
99 KB
99 KB PNG
Boeing tried to convince the military to gib funding for a 500+ foot wingspan Ekranoplan with a 2000 ton payload.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Pelican

It went about as well as you expected.
>>
>>1263869

Basically a flying container ship?
>>
>>1263869
Boeing asked for some sweet sweet gubmint monies and *didn't* get an $1billion dark research budget? What is the word coming too?
>>
>>1253470
i wish this was a thing.
>>
>>1259309
So are those just ducted fans? How do you run a combustion engine on atomic power
>>
>>1264371
What’s being combusted
>>
File: kr860_5.jpg (94 KB, 1000x479)
94 KB
94 KB JPG
>>1258496
Is the an 418 anyway related to the Sukhoi KR-860
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_KR-860
>>
>>1264416
Nothing. Fission produces heat used to heat air to expand through the hot section of the turbofan rotating the whole assembly.
>>
>>1264349

I can picture an airborne nuclear reactor serving only as an electric generator powering podded electric ducted fans set up in a way to mimic the standard podded turbofan setup.

You can potentially power enormous (500+ foot) designs this way that would be impossibly expensive gas guzzlers with conventional power.
>>
>>1264453
Is there a heat exchange? Or is the air being exposed directly to fissile material?
>>
>>
>>1253470

Other version.
>>
File: 115403_600.jpg (64 KB, 600x451)
64 KB
64 KB JPG
Boeing

wat r u doin

Boeing

stahp
>>
>>1265140
It seems that Boeing keep on hiring engineers who seem to take some strong drugs. See: 737MAX MCAS

At least Airbus' concepts are much more sane.
>>
>>1265186
Oh yeah, none of the engineers at Airbus are dropping acid.
>>
>>1265190
Airbus concepts looks more like something you'd see in Thunderbirds.
Boeing concepts look more like something you'd experiment with in Kerbal Space Program.
>>
File: MATS Convair CV-990.jpg (321 KB, 2000x1305)
321 KB
321 KB JPG
>>
>>1265198
i dunno, the airbus one looks pretty retarded.
>>
>>1265140
This make maintenance crew sad
>>
>>1252666
You apparently don't know.
>>
>>1267361
How about i suck your dick, faggot!
>>
File: X27.jpg (82 KB, 992x333)
82 KB
82 KB JPG
>>
>>1263241
It fucking kills me that the Soviet Union dissolved before the 100% flyback Energia flew.
>>
>>1267762
:C

F
>>
Speaking of great planes. This was Boeing's proposal for the F-16
>>
>>1268239
Wasnt that the one that had a small payload and no radar thanks to pierre sprey's schizo ramblings?
>>
File: 15381332311_dedecc60cb_o.jpg (871 KB, 4262x1944)
871 KB
871 KB JPG
Hey Guys.

Im so sad this never happened :('''''' I honestly think if Qantas Got one we would be still flying it.
>>
The MBB Lampyridae was a West German project of the early eighties to produce a low-observable missile fighter. US stealth efforts were deeply classified at the time but the German company MBB arrived at a similar solution to the F-117 independently. The design relied on a simple faceted shape to control radar returns. It is rumoured that following a trip to the MBB black projects section in 1987 by USAF officers, the US demanded that the project be cancelled.
>>
>>1259208
This would make a neat fireball if/when it crashed.
>>
>>1263250
I learned about the 787 (then the 7E7) and the Sonic Cruiser at the same time. The 787 was to be the last "conventional" airplane before the Sonic Cruiser revolutionized commercial air travel.

I imagine this is what it felt like in the 1960s when the 747 was predicted to have a short life because SST travel was clearly going to be the preferred way of transport in the 1970s.
>>
>>1268894
The Sonic Cruiser was horseshit. It wasn't even supersonic.
>>
Convair super hustler, the early competition to the A-12. Was to be launched by a modified B-58
>>
Northrup XST, the Northrup equivalent to the F-117
>>
The F-117N Seahawk, a navalized version of the Nighthawk
>>
>>1268932
Pic
>>
Hawker Siddeley Inter-City Vertical-Lift.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5Fu6Jr1Wb0.

So, instead of crashing remotely they would have crashed in downtown London
>>
File: XB70 mothershipt X15.jpg (218 KB, 1535x1535)
218 KB
218 KB JPG
>>1252442
The delta-winged X-15, launched from the B-70. Cause screw capsules, gimme a real space plane!
>>
File: SST MiG25.jpg (24 KB, 700x468)
24 KB
24 KB JPG
>>1252442
The stretched MiG-25 executive SST. Guess it was a tad too fancy for Soviet tastes.
>>
File: su54or55prototype3.jpg (6 KB, 313x223)
6 KB
6 KB JPG
>>1269190
It would have been funny to see Gorbachev walk out of that.
>>
>>1269190
I can't even begin to imagine how loud that would be inside the cabin.
>>
File: DC-9 Proposal.jpg (88 KB, 600x526)
88 KB
88 KB JPG
Similar to the 737
>>
File: Do728.jpg (985 KB, 1600x1200)
985 KB
985 KB JPG
>>
>>1269931
Also this, a smaller Dc-8
>>
File: dac-p2067-dc9-pic.jpg (49 KB, 600x284)
49 KB
49 KB JPG
>>1270057
>>
>>1269188
Christ, the XB-70 was fucking massive.
>>
File: SST Su34.jpg (89 KB, 800x533)
89 KB
89 KB JPG
>>1269374
Yeah, even more so if they could make it retract & extend while taxiing. The Su-34 Sub-orbital could've really been something. Stretched cockpit with room for 6, and the rear "stinger" replaced with a rocket motor. Elon Musk would be crying into his corn flakes.
>>
File: concorde bomber.jpg (40 KB, 800x265)
40 KB
40 KB JPG
>>1268308
Speaking of Concordes that coulda been...gimme some Concorde Nuclear Bomber!
>>
File: shuttle tank station.jpg (28 KB, 550x446)
28 KB
28 KB JPG
>>1262081
One of the true tragedies is the 125 Shuttle External Tanks dumped back into atmosphere. Could've hung on the them a few minutes longer, leave them in orbit - instant ginormous pressurized space stations ready to be linked up.
>>
>>1270240
Wet Workshop concepts were considered as far back as the Apollo Program. Wernher von Braun actually designed a capability of turning a Saturn V second stage which had been expended into a pressurised vessel. Indeed until its cancellation by the Nixon administration, Skylab II was supposed to feature a Wet Workshop as it's known.

The actual Skylab instead used a "Dry Workshop" since the upper stage would no longer need to be used for propellant, so they just took the shell of the upper stage, removed the tanks and built the space station into that. Skylab B (Skylab naming is confusing) was supposed to be a modular design but would still use the same upper stage of the Saturn V rocket. The US government cancelled it because they didn't want to spend the money on space exploration anymore, especially since the public had the idea of "been there, done that" in the US. I think this was what has plagued the US space programs in the past and still in the present.

The future probably is with Bigelow Aerospace and their inflatable space stations. I don't know when their next project is set to be launched, but if they make it a commercial space station, it could be adjusted to fit space tourism better, especially if Falcon 9 and Dragon 2 costs become as low as $2M per launch. There would be a lot of rich people who would be totally happy to fill in 5 passenger seats on a Dragon 2 to get to space.

The BEAM, currently on the ISS, is due to be undocked and disposed of next year, but its mission can be extended to 2022 if necessary. So far, it's proven to be safe and not allow too much cosmic radiation into the station. I think it's currently being used as storage, supplementing the FGB (Zarya), PMM (Leonardo, a former MPLM) and the ELM on the JEM (Kibo). Considering that the Starliner and Dragon 2 flights will be starting soon and will bring cargo up as well, chances are that the BEAM might get more mission extensions to hold so much cargo.
>>
>>1270072
Having 4 engines for a short hop routes like a 737 would have been fine in the 60's when fuel prices were low. However, it would have been a huge bust by the 70's.
>>
>>1270773
And yet the BAe 146 got away with 4 small engines in a regional airliner.
Fun fact: BAe considered constructing an aircraft carrier version of the 146 capable of replacing the C-2 Greyhound for carrier supply.
I understand BAe constructed a prototype for testing, however no one was interested. The Royal Navy at the time had aircraft carriers which were functionally incompatible, as the only aircraft they could take were helicopters and VTOL Harriers. The French navy wasn't interested, since they would not have had space for the aircraft on the deck, plus, they relied more on helicopters for this job.
The US Navy wasn't interested in a foreign built aircraft for this job and instead carried out tests with C-130 Hercules aircraft in sea trials with test pilots. The C-130 was capable of landing and taking off without the arrestor wire or the catapult, but it was clear that in order to take off with any real cargo, a RATO system would need to be fitted.
>>
File: 00014062.jpg (84 KB, 1024x672)
84 KB
84 KB JPG
It flew. Why didn't they save her?
>>
>>1268308
Where could have Qantas flown this to?
>>
>>1271160

cause she's as loud as her vodka burner cousins. Though safan is back into active UDF dev, so who knows...
>>
>>1271446
Safran are a weird bunch. I'm not even sure what they make these days other than jet engine components, jet fighter engines and rocket engines.

I know Safran has a huge plant in Toulouse next to the Airbus facility and that Airbus Group SE owns a large share of Safran, but Safran, like ArianeSpace, are only partly owned by Airbus. Something about interests, or whatever. An aircraft manufacturer owning their own engine manufacturer was considered too dodgy. Same thing with a satellite manufacturer owning their own launch vehicle.
>>
>>1271452
>An aircraft manufacturer owning their own engine manufacturer was considered too dodgy. Same thing with a satellite manufacturer owning their own launch vehicle.

Why is this considered a conflict of interest? Is the concern that they may sell inferior engines to other aircraft manufactures, who are also their competitors? If they manufactured engines only for use on their own aircraft would it no longer be considered a conflict of interest?
Am I missing something here? I also don't understand why a satellite manufacturer shouldn't also manufacture launch vehicles.
>>
>>1271530
I think there was some sort of concern about the idea of Airbus wholely owning both Safran and ArianeSpace, and so both the French government stepped in as well as the EU.

Basically, the thing which concerned people was the idea that Airbus could make a plane and never use anything other than "Airbus" (or Safran engine). As for Airbus Defence and Space, the idea that Airbus could force customers into an Ariane launch when the customer might actually prefer someone else like SpaceX or ULA was a concern to the EU.

It was the idea that Airbus would go further than just consolidate, but rather monopolise the entire European aerospace industry. While the likes of Thales Alenia Space and Leonardo remain both stronger players in European aerospace industries, the only passenger airliner Leonardo makes is the ATR, while almost everything else they make is either avionics, space hardware or some kind of joint venture between themselves and BAE Systems, Airbus and sometimes something else. Rolls Royce remains the biggest aerospace name in Europe, and they're basically confined to engines.

Not even Saab fighter jets are safe. Most of the weapons systems on the Gripen and Viggen were developed by BAE Systems, DaimlerAerospace/Deutsche Airbus (the German section of Airbus) was heavily involved in design and the manufacturing of components like the fuselage and the avionics being developed by Leonardo. Even though most of the aircraft was made and assembled in Sweden, with the engine even being a Volvo, several manufacturers were ultimately involved in that fighter's make up.
>>
>Hums over you
>>
>>1273159
Except Airbus will do it first with a modified BAe 146.
>>
>>1270240
Even venting it in vacuum for weeks, you would never get rid of the fuel smell. Being trapped in an enclosed location for months at a time with such a strong odor would be a recipe for disaster
>>
>>1273343
If it was hydrolox cryogenic fuel in a shared bulkhead, then there would not be any fuel smell.

RP1 is not nice stuff, and there is no fucking chance in hell that they would ever turn a hypergolic fueled stage into a wet workshop, but hydrolox would be the thing in use here.
>>
File: 667767.jpg (293 KB, 1203x455)
293 KB
293 KB JPG
>>1273320
>>1273159
Can we put electrical fan like this on airplane?
>>
Could it have worked?
>>
>>1273394

see fanwing
>>
File: 232.jpg (72 KB, 800x455)
72 KB
72 KB JPG
>>1275557
Lol. Flying air conditioner.
>>
>>1275074
Worked in what sense? It would have flown, but like so many Century Series prototypes, it would have been overweight and underpowered. And, by the time it did get the right engine, the mission it was created for will have evaporated. The downward-firing ejection pod would end up being shit-canned, and 10 years into production, the whole shebang is obsolete.

Looks cool, though.
>>
File: 00012517.jpg (125 KB, 1200x696)
125 KB
125 KB JPG
Had mcdonnell douglas moved on with it's twin engine proposal it would have probably been there to compete against airbus.
>>
File: XB-70.jpg (425 KB, 2818x1895)
425 KB
425 KB JPG
B-70 Valkyrie



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.