World’s largest airplane. It’s being built by a billionaire. It’s getting ready to fly.

[MacFromOK]

True. That's what struck me as most interesting about this aircraft--the fact that the tails weren't connected. That has the potential to put huge twisting loads on the central wing section, so there must be a combination of computer active control of the empennages and some remarkable materials in the central wing. My only guess as to a reason for such a design is to leave more clear space in the middle for the payload spacecraft than a connected tail would provide.

I have no clue what the intent for this design is/was, but personally (having experience as a mechanic/welder/fabricator), I wouldn't fly in that thing at all (especially if a computer is all that keeps it from mechanical self-destruction).

I just hope it survives the test flights without killing a bunch of folks.

Maybe (hopefully!) I'm wrong.

 

[Dave70968]

I have no clue what the intent for this design is/was, but personally (having experience as a mechanic/welder/fabricator), I wouldn't fly in that thing at all (especially if a computer is all that keeps it from mechanical self-destruction).

I just hope it survives the test flights without killing a bunch of folks.

Maybe (hopefully!) I'm wrong.

Having spent my entire flying career behind "steam gauges," and having seen what modern "glass" cockpits can do, I'd put my trust in the computer anymore.

And I'd trust any Rutan design, though I wouldn't necessarily trust my skill at flying it (Voyager, for example, flew most of its trip on autopilot because it was inherently unstable and thus utterly exhausting to hand-fly).

 

[dennishoddy]

My only guess as to a reason for such a design is to leave more clear space in the middle for the payload spacecraft than a connected tail would provide.

If their payload is going to be a human carrying rocket, I'd think the open space at the tail is by design to allow for rocket thrust to not destroy it. The payload is going to be carried midship if my thinking is right.

 

[RugersGR8]

I have no clue what the intent for this design is/was, but personally (having experience as a mechanic/welder/fabricator), I wouldn't fly in that thing at all (especially if a computer is all that keeps it from mechanical self-destruction).

I just hope it survives the test flights without killing a bunch of folks.

Maybe (hopefully!) I'm wrong.

That's the first thing that I thought of when I saw this design. I'm no engineer by any means, but not being connected at the tail would IMHO cause all kinds of metal fatigue, torque, twisting, etc. problems on the section between the two fuselages of the plane. The size and weight would just further compound these problems exponentially.

 

[dennishoddy]

That's the first thing that I thought of when I saw this design. I'm no engineer by any means, but not being connected at the tail would IMHO cause all kinds of metal fatigue, torque, twisting, etc. problems on the section between the two fuselages of the plane. The size and weight would just further compound these problems exponentially.

Most sophisticated aircraft are all fly by wire for the most part. If not for computer flight control, some of the fighter aircraft we have now couldn't stay in the air with 100% human control.
Next Gen won't even have a pilot from what I'm reading. Stealth is out, new radar and sensor systems are capable of tracking current stealth technology. They will be able to maneuver with such force that a human can't withstand the G forces they will produce.

 

[Dave70968]

If their payload is going to be a human carrying rocket, I'd think the open space at the tail is by design to allow for rocket thrust to not destroy it. The payload is going to be carried midship if my thinking is right.

That was my thinking as well (though not necessarily for thrust; possibly just the empennage of the daughter craft). The centerline-carry is supported by the design of SpaceShipOne and White Knight.

Whatever it is, the patents alone will probably pay for the development!

 

[Dave70968]

Most sophisticated aircraft are all fly by wire for the most part. If not for computer flight control, some of the fighter aircraft we have now couldn't stay in the air with 100% human control.
Next Gen won't even have a pilot from what I'm reading. Stealth is out, new radar and sensor systems are capable of tracking current stealth technology. They will be able to maneuver with such force that a human can't withstand the G forces they will produce.

Like Voyager, the F-16 is inherently unstable. Stability inhibits performance; stability is literally the aircraft's resistance to change, and change is the definition of maneuverability. Stability is necessary when the pilot can't respond quickly enough to an undesired change; when Robby the Robot is flying, he can respond more quickly than Harry the Human can even notice the change.

Robby completes the OODA loop and restarts before Harry even observes.

 

[MacFromOK]

An F-16 won't break into two pieces if the computer has a glitch for a few seconds either.

This thing is an accident waiting to happen IMO. But we can always agree to disagree.

 

[dennishoddy]

Speaking of an unstable aircraft, The F4 Phantom was a death trap in the making until they inverted the horizontal stabilizers.

 

[Dave70968]

Speaking of an unstable aircraft, The F4 Phantom was a death trap in the making until they inverted the horizontal stabilizers.

Can you provide me some reading material on that? I'm not doubting you, but the anhedral on the tailplane has always struck me as interesting, and I'd like to find some of the technical details on it. Usually, dihedral--upsweep--increases stability, so when I see anhedral, I always cock an eyebrow.