The Aviation Thread [Contains Lots of Awesome Pictures]

Continuing on that theme...

mi26_hastings_trspt.jpg

85-24335_hind_lift_a.jpg

RAF_Chinook_Linx_a.jpg

mi26_01.jpg
 
Would be cooler if the Mi-26 carries the chinook and the chinook carries another helicopter.
 
If I may interrupt you guys waving your choppers about, I've always fancied one of these tucked in a hangar somewhere just for fun:

Long-EZ.jpg


Can't believe we haven't had more Rutan stuff on here previously.
 
Rutans are awesome, they remind me of the awesome concept fighters from WWII.

[YOUTUBE]hJs1O2HSosE[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]4MEmHDvK9Sk[/YOUTUBE]
 
speaking of russian helicopters

Ka50BankingDiving2oClock.jpg

ka50-12.jpg

ka50_2.jpg

000ka-50-4.jpg
 
So, I had a brief discussion with my design group members yesterday, and so far 2 configurations have come out dominant:

1) A high mount wing, T-tailed design with 2 engines mounted under the wing (pretty much like the British aerospace 146)

2) A low mount wing with engines mounted down the back of the fuselage ala cessna citation, learjet, etc.

Any thoughts? I'm a big fan of the 1st configuration.

Requirements

Payload 80 passengers at 80kg each plus baggage at 20kg each.

Crew 2 pilots and 2 cabin attendants, each at 80kg plus 15kg baggage.

Range 800 nautical miles.

Reserve fuel 100 nautical miles to alternative followed by 45 minutes loiter.

Cruise altitude 35,000ft.

Cruise speed Mach number = 0.80

Climb Direct to cruise altitude at maximum takeoff weight. Minimum 2nd-segment climb

gradient 0.024, one engine inoperative (JAR Part 25). Minimum rate of climb at start
of cruise 300ft/min.

Takeoff field length 4,500ft at sea level, maximum takeoff weight, 40?C.

Landing approach speed 120kt maximum at normal landing weight, sea level, 40?C.

Powerplants 2 turbofans.

Pressurisation 5000ft cabin altitude at 35,000ft.

Certification basis JAR Part 25.
 
Last edited:
And the LWB version of that, the Vickers VC10:
vc10boac2.jpg
 
That is some heavy-duty Soviet iron.
 
pfft, and people say that it's just a coincidence that two countries should come up with pretty much identical looking planes..... during a period when everyone was spying on everyone. Yeah, it's totally just a coincidence.
 
pfft, and people say that it's just a coincidence that two countries should come up with pretty much identical looking planes..... during a period when everyone was spying on everyone. Yeah, it's totally just a coincidence.

Lets see we had the Concordski, Shuttleski, Harpoonski (a anti-ship missile that looked and performed pretty much exactly like early model Harpoons) and Sparrowski (another missile copy), Super Fortresski among others, but no the Russians never copied anyone!
 
These are the specs that are going to be most directly impacting configuration:

Payload 80 passengers

Crew 2 pilots and 2 cabin attendants

Range 800 nautical miles.

Cruise altitude 35,000ft.

Takeoff field length 4,500ft at sea level

Cruise speed Mach number = 0.80

Powerplants 2 turbofans.

Whoever wrote the spec has been a bit of a 'tard as they've mixed two market segments. The cruise speed, altitude and engine requirements represent a full fat turbofan airliner (737 etc). Your runway length, crew, pax and range are more typical of a turbofan (ATR72 etc). As you may well know, over such short haul routes the cruise alt and speed are of less importance so they'd tend to cruise in the 15-20k ft range rather than climbing only to then descend. You really want 2) in the cruise and 1) for takeoff and landing.

If it were me i'd be looking to do something CRJ-esque. The CRJ as it stands wouldn't meet your runway requirements but would meet cruise, so here's what i'd do:
- Take a CRJ clone
- Pump it full of composites and avionics. (A350 panel construction rather than 787 'all in one' composites for the fuz)
- Fit a larger wing covered in high lift devices to meet the take off requirement and include space for larger fuel tanks.
- Call this the base "100" model.
- Offer expansion in the form of "200" & "300" stretch models offering more pax (say 100, 120) while still using the same wing (i.e. longer take off runs for them).
- Use the promise of future expansion to write off part of the aircrafts development costs to later models, giving a lower purchase cost for the 100.
- Undercut the price of the other teams while meeting the spec and presenting a clear future development strategy.
 
Yep, the spec requirements given to us are certainly a bit WTF.

Would the British aerospace 146-style idea work though? The CRJ was our other comparison aircraft.

Any particular disadvantages if we choose to run a T-tail for this sort of application?
 
Would the British aerospace 146-style idea work though? The CRJ was our other comparison aircraft.
It would, but bear in mind that it can't ditch on water.

Any particular disadvantages if we choose to run a T-tail for this sort of application?
Not off the top of my head, a low wing T tail is going to be preferable to a high wing T tail for downwash and stall reasons.
 
Lets see we had the Concordski, Shuttleski, Harpoonski (a anti-ship missile that looked and performed pretty much exactly like early model Harpoons) and Sparrowski (another missile copy), Super Fortresski among others, but no the Russians never copied anyone!

Don't forget Valkyrieski (Sukhoi T-4):
Sukhoi_T-4_(Monino_museum).JPG
 
Lets see we had the Concordski, Shuttleski, Harpoonski (a anti-ship missile that looked and performed pretty much exactly like early model Harpoons) and Sparrowski (another missile copy), Super Fortresski among others, but no the Russians never copied anyone!

Don't forget the B-29'ski, the Tu-4.

ru_monino_aircraft_tu4_02.jpg
 
Top