NASA reveals strange, bomberlike planes of 2025

hesham

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
26 May 2006
Messages
32,824
Reaction score
12,170
Hi,

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20028638-71.html#ixzz1BBY2JYA5
 

Attachments

  • NASA 1.jpg
    NASA 1.jpg
    191.3 KB · Views: 178
  • NASA 2.jpg
    NASA 2.jpg
    271.1 KB · Views: 182
  • NASA 3.jpg
    NASA 3.jpg
    76.6 KB · Views: 148
I can envision the third one (Northrop Grumman design) as the perfect flying tanker. The two fuselages would be filled up with kerosene, allowing for longer range, and could refuel two aircraft at once. With the engines all the way to the front of the aircraft and above, there would be a lot of space at the back for the aircraft to clear off with no dangers of being in the trajectory of the jet exhausts. The cockpit would be reduced to the smallest size possible as there would be no need for anything but a pilot...
 
Stargazer2006 said:
I can envision the third one (Northrop Grumman design) as the perfect flying tanker. The two fuselages would be filled up with kerosene...
Click to expand...

There would have to be a very good interconnect and pumping system between the two fuselages... you wouldn't want to have asymmetric loading between the fuselages.
 
Last one is true Virgin Global Flyer on megasteroids
 
Stargazer2006 said:
I can envision the third one (Northrop Grumman design) as the perfect flying tanker.
Click to expand...

...Yeah, but the second one's the only one of the trio that has a snowball's chance in Hell of getting past even the 3D rendering stage. Wider airplanes - either in total wingspan and/or fuselage - require expansion and modifications that airports aren't willing to spend the money on. That was one of the reasons that the commercial version of the Flying Wing went nowhere. And then there's the fact that, like in Detroit, there'll always be one anal-retentive stuck-in-the-mud at the very least who'll nix any airplane project that looks neat, futuristic and/or fantastic, claiming that "nobody wants to buy anything that's not strictly utilitarian!" In other words, boring as a plain square block of wood.
 
Stargazer2006 said:
I can envision the third one (Northrop Grumman design) as the perfect flying tanker. The two fuselages would be filled up with kerosene, allowing for longer range, and could refuel two aircraft at once. With the engines all the way to the front of the aircraft and above, there would be a lot of space at the back for the aircraft to clear off with no dangers of being in the trajectory of the jet exhausts. The cockpit would be reduced to the smallest size possible as there would be no need for anything but a pilot...
Click to expand...

The issues with tankers is not size, but rather weight. I've been inside a C-135 at the Castle AFB museum and the cabin is completely empty. The fuel tanks are in what would be the cargo bays on a commercial 707 and with those full the aircraft is at maximum T/O weight.

Refueling capability is also not really a challenge. The Encyclopedia of Modern Warplanes has a picture of a KC-130 refueling 4 T-37s at once with hose drogue units. It might be useful for the Air Force and their flying boom system, but unless there is a significant civil uptake I can't see it being worth building the aircraft just for aerial refueling.
 
Unless you tank hydrogen.

By the way I always wondered, why did the B-36 have such a big fuselage?
 
mz said:
By the way I always wondered, why did the B-36 have such a big fuselage?
Click to expand...

the B-36 is a child of World War 2
it was design April 1941 for extrem long range 9700 km to fly unrefueled and with 33000 kg weapons in two bomb bays
and with crew of 13 persons for a 40 hour flight
only reasion the B-36 survied WW2, it was only aircraft capable of delivering of the US nuclear weapons 1946-1955 period
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom