Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: DiabloTX on November 28, 2006, 11:40:18 PM
-
Ok, this question has been bugging me for the last couple of days. I figured the best way to get an answer would be to ask my best buds here at the AHII BBS. So here goes:
Let's say someone has a contest. The winner of the contest gets a google of dollars (88 :aok ). So here are the rules to win; the winner must build the largest possible airframe (determined by length + width + weight, or some better formula to determine the winner) that must be able to fly for at least 30 minutes at an altitude of no less than 30,000 ft. A custom built runway will be available to the contestants. There are no requirements for the aircraft to be used for anything after the contest so airline or military use is not a condition for the design.
Now, what do you think would be the biggest airframe, given today's technology, that could be built and flown?
-
waaayyyy back from like last year i dug up this pic.
replace the props with jets and there ya go :rolleyes:
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y46/b1leeb0b/flyingbattleship.jpg)
-
I don't think there's a limit technically. Is there any reason you couldn't line up a thousand F-16's, bolt their wingtips together and fly away? Of course they'd all have to function properly and in sync and need a pretty wide runway.
-
Well, I am meaning something altogether new, not cobbled together. Plus, F-16's wing to wing would get killed on the weight aspect. It may be wide but not long at all and not weigh as much as a single very large airframe. And the weight would be calculated as a dry weight, no loading up super-lifters with weight and claiming victory.
-
I was just using them as an example to show there should be no theoretical limit. Of course practically is another story.
-
does dry weight include unuseable fuel?
-
Zero fuel onboard during weigh in.
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/71_1164783584_untitled.jpg)
-
thats pretty old fasioned of you:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
-
Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob
waaayyyy back from like last year i dug up this pic.
replace the props with jets and there ya go :rolleyes:
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y46/b1leeb0b/flyingbattleship.jpg)
What in God's name is that from? Seems one shot from those 12 inchers (or whatev) would rip the guns from the wing roots. That or counter the thrust to let it hover.
-
Computer animated picture from a video game or something I guess.
That's a really awesome aeroplane Ball, I can see you spent a lot of time on it.
-
(http://myweb.hinet.net/home1/black_mafia/an225-13.jpg)
One of these was parked on the tarmac at Tocuman Airport in Panama when I was there last year. It's one big sum*****.
-
you suck furball, and im older than you by 1/2 a year.. i use 2 colours of crayon for my draw wings, red and blue. you suck.:mad:
-
Biggest possible would be limited only by the size of the runway available, and funding.
In theory a plane a mile wide is possible.
Granted the longer the wing gets the stronger it has to be to deal with uneven forces.
But given today's composite materials and a good design, a wing half a mile long is possible. Now, transporting it, getting it off the ground without a wind gust destroying it, etc are huge challenges.
Think modular construction that takes off as a series of pieces and locks together once up above surface winds.
-
I remember reading a short story ages ago that had a big flying wing (on the order of a thousand feet or more wide) that stayed in the air all the time and regional jets and commuter planes would climb up, 'dock' in a special collar, drop off/load up passengers, then pop back down to the ground.
They described using Edwards to launch and recover these for maintenance every few months, neat stuff.
-
its not even from a game its just some computer graphic
-
I would have thought that there would be a limit....
The laws of deminishing returns would have to come into play at some point.....
EG:
At 100KPH half of an average cars power is comsumed by windresistance (yes I could have worded that better ) and the faster you go the more power you need to over come the increased wind resistance....
-
Mussie: That's for faster, and doesn't account for changing airfoils for the purpose. For example, a 747 has a better glide ratio than a Cessna 172 (17.7/7.5).
As you get big, the flying wing shape really shows its benefits because you are getting rid of induced drag. If you needed non-wing cargo areas, something like a canard setup might be effective too, because that's an example of an aircraft that balances on two lifting surfaces instead of having a lifting surface (wing) and a downward pushing surface (the H-stab) fighting it out the way a conventional layout does.
Heck, when you get real big, why limit yourself to monolithic structures? The F-16 example (purely as an exercise, it would hardly be practical) could even work if you wanted if you designed it so that each plane remained free of the wake turbulence of the others. A hundred feet of carbon fiber rod between each wing and smart enough coordination to keep it together is an intellectual excercise that shows the limit would only be financial, not physical.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Mussie: That's for faster, and doesn't account for changing airfoils for the purpose. For example, a 747 has a better glide ratio than a Cessna 172 (17.7/7.5).
747 has a better glide ratio than a cessna... :huh Your ****ting me right ?
-
Ball will be famous one day... can I have a print? :aok
-
Originally posted by mussie
747 has a better glide ratio than a cessna... :huh Your ****ting me right ?
It's true!
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/b747.htm has an L/D of 18 for the 747, for example.
Google can show a bunch of correlation on the Cessna, I've seen L/Ds of between 8 and 10, I usually figure for 9 w/ best glide.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Zero fuel onboard during weigh in.
Bah, unusable fuel aboard is standard for weighing, otherwise some poor schmuck has to swab out the fuel tanks.(BOO!!!!!):p
-
I read somewhere that they were building a really big version of this...
http://www.pvresources.com/en/helios.php
(http://www.pvresources.com/images/helios_pic10b.jpg)
-
(http://www.aht.ndirect.co.uk/airships/r38/images/r38.jpg)
22k alt good enough? Modern lightweight materials I'm sure could get it to 30k, then it's just a question of finances to build them even bigger. Just needs a patch of land sized to it & a monstrous hangar. 65+ hour durations (with 1943 tech).
-
Originally posted by BlkKnit
Bah, unusable fuel aboard is standard for weighing, otherwise some poor schmuck has to swab out the fuel tanks.(BOO!!!!!):p
yeah, i was gonna get a quicky winner entry with an An-225 with teh worst fuel tanks evar
-
Originally posted by Black Sheep
What in God's name is that from? Seems one shot from those 12 inchers (or whatev) would rip the guns from the wing roots. That or counter the thrust to let it hover.
LOL I'd pay real money to see that sucker fire off a salvo at 40k :)
Imagine the concussion inside the cockpit, alone, from both turrets opening up at the same time.
Like that scene in the Devil's Brigade when sarge throws a boulder on the metal crawl-through with the canucks still inside...
multiply that...................by a LOT. :D
-
people always ooh and ahh at that thing
I would love to see it fire too