Project G42-200 StarLiner

[Hlynkacg]

FAA says pilots sit in the left seat (it's tradition), but a lot of military aircraft are flown from the right seat for exactly the reason you describe.

It's always puzzled me that civil aviation didn't follow suit, especially when considering how many retired-military guys there are in the aviation industry.

That said, all the VSIs and line-up lines are set up for the left so I guess there's a good deal of institutional inertia to overcome.

Personally I say "fly-right!" but then again I'm biased.

 

[Moach]

fly-right makes perfect sense to me :thumbup:

plus, i wanted the G42 cockpit layout to somewhat match the rig i got here at home, and that would be stick-on-the right :hmm:

well, i guess that's that - pilot on right seat it is!


edit::

forgot to mention... this morning i came about the idea that since the RAMCASTERs don't share the inlet with the turbo-rockets anymore, we could very well remove the central splitter and make it all one big RAMCASTER all the way
i'm still just considering it... but from their basic concept, i see no reason why that middle "wall" should be indispensable... and removing it would reduce quite a lot of weight and drag on a most critical section

unless... there's something i haven't thought of that removes this possibility... could there be?

 

[Grover]

it would be sensible, i think, to leave the model roughly as it is, have the front section of the intake as a single open section (with a single door to close the intake, for simplicity) with a splitter inside the intake to separate incoming airflow between left and right RAMCASTERs

two engines is better than one, any day

 

[Fabri91]

Suppose one engine fails and causes significant disruption in the airflow of it's intake, this way at least the second engine should be able to continue to operate. Might not be the case if two engines share a common inlet.

 

[Moach]

it would be sensible, i think, to leave the model roughly as it is, have the front section of the intake as a single open section (with a single door to close the intake, for simplicity) with a splitter inside the intake to separate incoming airflow between left and right RAMCASTERs

two engines is better than one, any day

that's a valid point.... but does the added complexity from the additional shockwaves from the splitter, plus the increase in weight (that thing needs heat-shielding) not outweight the advantages of redundancy?

mind that in the event of a ramcaster failure, even with a second one to spare, the mission is still a bust... the G42 cannot reach orbit half-powered... so if one fails, or both, it's pretty much the same - it's let 'er slow down and coast your way into turbines-restart for an emergency landing

the turbines are safely redundant, and the G42 can still cruise and land with just one :thumbup:

that was my driving point for this idea... there's no point in having a mid-tube splitter just for the sake of redundancy... (the gains don't seem to justify the losses) - remember, the RAMCASTERs are devices that burn air which is coming in at mach 15+... anything that could not be there, -should- not be there :lol:

the only other thing i can think of is, to mount the compressor spikes vertically, like in the XB70... this could perhaps improve the AoA tolerance of the whole thing... but then again... the inlet ramps are already horizontal... is that not too much shockwave interference?

 

[Grover]

it wouldnt need heatshielding (much anyway) of there was an intake door, to protect it from re-entry.

and as for your aerodynamics questions: i doubt many of us are experts on the field, mostly its educated guesswork (at least on my part), but you dont need to get too bothered about it, this isnt going to be 100% realistic, or else there would already be SSTO vessels in real life, you can sacrifice a little realism i think

good luck!

 

[Moach]

it wouldnt need heatshielding (much anyway) of there was an intake door, to protect it from re-entry.
(...)

well, it kinda does... flying at mach 15+ produces quite a lot of heat... and remember, this is the engine - we're burning fuel in there... that usually brings about a lot of heat in the process as well :lol:

so door or not... no heatshielding = doom :thumbup:


anyways... that aside, look at the freshly-installed canards

they're not as long as i initially imagined... it looked kinda weird and out-of-proportion, so i made them a little shorter :hmm: - and there it is! now everything looks as it should, and as i always say - if it looks right, it proably flies right :thumbup:

now, i'm still dwelling on the removal of the RAMCASTER splitter... i was hoping some of the more engineering-educated folks around here could offer some insight as to whether or not they are needed (assuming we have a horizontally mounted spike)

and what advantages could be in using a vertical spike? (like the XB-70 Valkyrie)

well, back to work now... real life calls again :hello:

 

[Grover]

it still looks a little out of proportion, perhaps is you make them longer and thinner

and as for the heatshielding, it wont create much EXTRA weight, since the shielding was already there for the combustion bit of the engine, its a much shorter workload to just add an internal splitter than it is to re-design the entire RAMCASTER system

 

[Moach]

(...)
and as for the heatshielding, it wont create much EXTRA weight, since the shielding was already there for the combustion bit of the engine, its a much shorter workload to just add an internal splitter than it is to re-design the entire RAMCASTER system

not so much work really... it's actually done already... :thumbup:

took me about 5 mins to remove the middle splitter... then i went ahead and modelled some of the ramcaster internals that would be visible from spot view...


it makes more sense, i figured... the less stuff we have in there, the better it should perform :hmm:


and if you don't pay much attention, you would not even notice the diffference :lol:

see? not that major a redesign after all... just no splitter, so the ramcaster is a large single unit instead of two smaller ones - simpler, less drag, less weight - more bang for your buck! :thumbup:

 

[Grover]

im still not sure how you will protect the intakes from re-entry carnage, they'll get torn to pieces as soon as you hit 60k

also, in that view, the craft does look a little... taller than it should be. is that height difference between wing plane and the entire front section of the craft done on purpose? id guess that the drag would then cause torque due to the 1m difference in height between nosecone and wing plane, and you dont want that, especially in a flight critical section like initial ascent, where you probably wont have enough speed for stable flight anyway.

sorry to nitpick (thats becoming a bit of a cliché here isnt it?) but it does raise some concerns, especially when you were going realistic on the engines

thanks

 

[Moach]

im still not sure how you will protect the intakes from re-entry carnage, they'll get torn to pieces as soon as you hit 60k

also, in that view, the craft does look a little... taller than it should be. is that height difference between wing plane and the entire front section of the craft done on purpose? id guess that the drag would then cause torque due to the 1m difference in height between nosecone and wing plane, and you dont want that, especially in a flight critical section like initial ascent, where you probably wont have enough speed for stable flight anyway.

sorry to nitpick (thats becoming a bit of a cliché here isnt it?) but it does raise some concerns, especially when you were going realistic on the engines

thanks

whenever the ramcaster isn't in use, the inlet doors (not yet modelled) swing down and seal it off - also works for emergancy water landings :thumbup:

anyways, the "taller" thing is just an optical illusion caused by the difference in F-O-V from the other shots...

the wings do converge on a wedge which is about 1m below the fuselage... that's mostly to prevent airlflow interference on the upper ramcaster diffuser...
but if you follow the curve from the wings upper surface, you'll notice that they rise up to meet with the fuselage higher up, and it's just that front part which is lowered, not the rest of the craft that is raised :thumbup:

---------- Post added at 04:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:53 PM ----------

ok... remember a while back i mentioned i had a good idea of how the engine controls should be laid out on the cockpit?

well, there it is:

mind that this is the middle console - the one that goes between the seats, and the pilot is sitting on the right :hmm:

does that make any sense? i''l explain it in detail later

 

[Wishbone]

What are the interlocks? Which combinations of switch throws are forbidden?

 

[Grover]

well, an explanation on each switch set would be nice, and also, FADEC? whats that stand for?

also, i think you should re-arrange the main engine control, swapping the RC with TR, so that your engine switches for a normal ascent will always be to move only one position, at the moment, the final switch would be across two settings:
(a normal ascent with that layout would go 1-2-1-3, note the last transition is 1-3, so you would have to activate the RC to get to OMS, a better layout is to swap the TR and RC so that a normal ascent goes 2-1-2-3)

also, is the "PULL" lever an ejection system? that would be very nice!

thanks

 

[Izack]

FADEC? whats that stand for?

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FADEC"]FADEC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] :thumbup:

 

[Grover]

thanks

 

[Moach]

(...)
also, i think you should re-arrange the main engine control, swapping the RC with TR, so that your engine switches for a normal ascent will always be to move only one position, at the moment, the final switch would be across two settings:
(a normal ascent with that layout would go 1-2-1-3, note the last transition is 1-3, so you would have to activate the RC to get to OMS, a better layout is to swap the TR and RC so that a normal ascent goes 2-1-2-3)

also, is the "PULL" lever an ejection system? that would be very nice!

thanks

i've changed the stop order in the throttle authority selector - nice catch!
now i'm working on a full-detail cockpit map... it'll help tremendously when i get around modelling it... things are always much easier when you already know where everything is supposed to be and what it should do :lol:

but guess what... that map is so large that to get a readable version of it on-screen, i had to make it a somewhat interactive flash doodad, so you can pan around and see what's what :thumbup:

no hassle really, just throw a code snipped in and there it goes... now i have just to finish drawing it... (lots of stuff in that cockpit)


BTW - the "pull" lever is not an ejection seat (read the long pages on the '100 thread about how unsound that is) - that is the DARTS jettison handle... when taking off with rocket assist, that's what you pull to get rid of the spent boosters

 

[Grover]

Aww, i wanted an ejector seat... back to the DGIV for me.

And ill take a look at your VC layout when i can, help make sugestions and whatever

Laters

 

[Moach]

right - this is what i have so far....
that pit is huge, lots of stuff to go in it... :hmm:

bit i think i have a good idea of how things should be set out...
for now, look here: http://www.moachcraft.xpg.com.br/G422-pit/g422-pit-detail.swf

 

[Hlynkacg]

Needs cup-holders

Seriously though, each time I check up on this thread I want to fly this thing more and more.

 

[Grover]

RCCS mode for both LIN and ROT? how does that work for a single yoke? but it does look nice and informative, but im afraid you'll need a detailed cockpit diagram with explanations if youre going to go to abbreviation central, i can work out most of them, but im not sure about everybody

nice work though, cant wait to see a mesh!