Project G42-200 StarLiner

[Moach]

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!

orbiter by default doesn't support "RCS both" mode... however, i do have it working on my rig, since i got my flight-control hookup module working...

the "real" G42 would be able of using that mode, it would be pretty much standard actually... the yoke controls ROT and tat knob you see marked RCS would control LIN..

pretty much the way i have setup with my space-navigator and X52 back home :lol:

of course, this implies a need to finish my flightcontrols module.. which i will... eventually....


anyways... still making changes on that cockpit... i'll let ya know when i upload the new revision (soon) :thumbup:

---------- Post added at 12:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:54 PM ----------

ok... new version...
i told you it was gonna be soon :lol:


http://www.moachcraft.xpg.com.br/G422-pit/g422-pit-detail.swf

you might need to shift-f5 in order to clear off the cache for this page... otherwise you may not see any difference :thumbup:

---------- Post added 03-30-11 at 11:50 AM ---------- Previous post was 03-29-11 at 12:57 PM ----------

ok, more! :banana:

as it should be pretty opbvious now, i've modelled the bay! :thumbup:

and i'm sure by now you've noticed, why on earth would you wanna roll the bay doors back, instead of simply hinging it about the edge?

reason 1 - ground servicing - a hinged system capable of operating on ground (not zero g) would require some heavy hydraulics... or, the crane that services it would have to "manually" open the bay... either way, both solutions call for a large gap between the gantry and the ship... a bulky cumberance for ground crews, in my opinion :hmm:

reason 2 - simplicity, (ai this point i'd guess you're going "how is this any more simple?!') - this approach allows the bay door to be built as a single section of hull - eliminating one large seam and potential sealing problems - (remember that Hubble door that wouldn't close?) - half the amount of huge moving parts that need to close tightly together

reason 3 - strength, a door that doesn't undergo acceleration perpendicular to it's surface is far less likely to bend, deform or anything else that might cause problems later on... as a result, we have a much lighter door too... maneuvering the ship with the doors open is also not as much of a liability, as it's closely tucked to the fuselage at all times :thumbup:

reason 4 - the G42 looked like a gnu with the hinged doors open... i was not pleased with seeing that :lol:

of course, this calls for another approach for the radiators... and we still gotta add a cover for the door railing behind the bay....

but i think it's a viable design decision, do you not?

 

[jangofett287]

I want to get in that cockpit and just spend a little while playing with every switch, button, dial and display, like I did when I first got a DGIV. I like knowing what every button does. I also like pressing buttons coloured red with black and yellow warning stripes around them!

 

[Grover]

as for radiators, how about sliding panels on top of the wings to reveal them sitting underneath the skin? hinges like you said are bulky. it wouldnt be aerodynamic, but you dont really need the radiators open in atmospheric flight. it wouldnt be terribly pretty (unless you did it well, i have every faith in you moach) but the only problem is how do you conduct the movement? runners underneath the skin alongside the radiators?

just my opinion. it would be nice to have a change.

although, you could always just fold them out of the wings

nice work Moach!

 

[T.Neo]

The railing and the radiator issue is why I'd go for shuttle-style doors; they require less... other stuff, and they conveniently also allow a platform to attach radiators to.

Ground handling is generally done by external structures (to open the doors in the OPF or within the RSS, external fittings allow the doors to be moved by much heavier ground infrastructure).

Opening and closing the bay doors has not (as far as I know) been a problem with STS; indeed, some sort of roll-back system would problably be more problematic (more has to move, and through a longer distance), especially if we include whatever is supposed to protect the 'track' during atmospheric flight (which would probably outweigh the advantage of losing the middle seam).

The door(s) shouldn't bend while opening (if they're that flimsy, then you'll likely have problems when the door is closed as well), and they shouldn't pose a spatial risk when open... the wings are already far wider than that.

On the other hand, even with a roll-back door, you can have a conventionally opening set of radiators... but this adds complexity and ruins any visual point in having a slide-back door.

 

[Moach]

The railing and the radiator issue is why I'd go for shuttle-style doors; they require less... other stuff, and they conveniently also allow a platform to attach radiators to.

Ground handling is generally done by external structures (to open the doors in the OPF or within the RSS, external fittings allow the doors to be moved by much heavier ground infrastructure).

Opening and closing the bay doors has not (as far as I know) been a problem with STS; indeed, some sort of roll-back system would problably be more problematic (more has to move, and through a longer distance), especially if we include whatever is supposed to protect the 'track' during atmospheric flight (which would probably outweigh the advantage of losing the middle seam).

On the other hand, even with a roll-back door, you can have a conventionally opening set of radiators... but this adds complexity and ruins any visual point in having a slide-back door.

well, i figured the slide-back mechanism could be something as simple as a long corkscrew rod with an eletrical motor that drives it pulling the door back -- it's all-electric, no hydraulics there... that's gotta be an advantage... :hmm:

the cover would then be no more than a half-section of pipe (a "C" shaped thing) that runs along with the aforementioned rod, when the motor kicks in, a slack in the initial travel of the door allows the "pipe" to rotate, clearing the gap on top so the door can now roll thought it :idea::cook:


as for the radiators... my initial guess was what you described, but indeed, that would make my efforts moot....

so i figured perhaps the rudder could offer us a nice area to radiate heat from... it's large and flat... so why not swing down panels on its side to make a nice radiator surface?

this would clear out the sides of the bay during activities, both grounded or in orbit, drastically reducing the risk of damaging the radiators or the bay doors by impacts with stuff that might come loose (we know NASA has recently had a few problems with that :lol

 

[Urwumpe]

Don't put too many functions into assemblies - a rudder for example has to take pretty heavy loads, especially during reentry, you don't want to put anything there, that is not precisely needed.

Otherwise, we are quickly talking about Transformers - spacecraft that transform from shiny metal to burnt slag on landing.

 

[Moach]

Don't put too many functions into assemblies - a rudder for example has to take pretty heavy loads, especially during reentry, you don't want to put anything there, that is not precisely needed.

Otherwise, we are quickly talking about Transformers - spacecraft that transform from shiny metal to burnt slag on landing.

true...

well, there are other places where the radiators can go... the fuselage has a lot of mostly flat area just over the wings.... that could very well have panels that swing down exposing radiators... or maybe the wings themselves could feature spoiler-like panels that flip up for that purpose


thanks for the insight! :thumbup:

 

[Urwumpe]

Opening and closing the bay doors has not (as far as I know) been a problem with STS;

It actually has once, but only during a test that was done precisely to test this problem (Banana effect, the spacecraft bends away from the sunlit side to the colder shadowed side).

The doors had been able to close again after turning the spacecraft around and removing the deformation.

A sliding door wouldn't be better there, it would be more likely to fail to latch in such a situation. On the Shuttle, you can use brute force to close the deformed doors (use hooks to pull both halves together and lock them into position), if you have uneven slides, you can't close a sliding door at all - it would get stuck in the middle.

 

[Moach]

oh well... i really can't see any further valid points past "it looks cool" for featuring a slide-back bay door insted of a regular hinged one...

i guess i'll just try to make it so that the doors don't look as awkward when open as with my initial attempt on hinging them :hmm:


good thing i hadn't really modelled anything specific so far... that screenshot was done only by repositioning the two panels i already had... so it's pretty easy for me go go either way right now


and i have done more progress on the cockpit layout - i've redesigned the CoG panel and made the "airframe data" panel a selectable screen on the EICAS panels (we now have 12 - and yes, i know how each should be)

if you're wondering how come it's taking me so long to simply draw up a cockpit schematic - well, i'm also deciding on how EVERYTHING i put in there should work - it'll later serve as a guide for implementation and possibly also for "crew training" :lol:


i haven't uploaded it yet... my server is acting out on me for some unprobely reason... when it decides to cooperate i'll give you folks a heads-up :compbash:

 

[HarvesteR]

Hmm, what about instead of having them bay doors pivoting out to each side, having them slide downwards?

They would be split in the middle, but instead of hinging out, they would slide down the fuselage, so that their lower ends almost meet on the underside.

I reckon this design doesn't offer much in the way of radiator real estate... but it would look mighty cool!!

I like the airbrake-like radiator contraption... it's actually less moving parts than the DG radiator, and being somewhere on the wings, they have plenty of room to radiate heat without throwing it back at the ship.

Oh, and what about solar panels? are those in? or are we going with a fictionium fusion plant?

Cheers

 

[Manichean]

As far as the radiator goes, why not use that ridge in front of the rudder? I imagine having some sort of fin sticking up- you'd have only one moving part, the radiator itself, and it would not radiate back on the ship too much. Of course, the practicability of this approach depends on how you'd like the internal layout of the ship to be, although I'd imagine you could clear a narrow space in the middle of whatever went there.
I also thought about radiators on the ships' belly, however, I think that the underside should contain as few moving parts as possible- each moving part is a potential hull breach during reentry.

Oh, the ship looks gorgeous. I can't wait to fly it (crash it more likely, keeping my piloting skills in mind).

 

[Moach]

As far as the radiator goes, why not use that ridge in front of the rudder? I imagine having some sort of fin sticking up- you'd have only one moving part, the radiator itself, and it would not radiate back on the ship too much. Of course, the practicability of this approach depends on how you'd like the internal layout of the ship to be, although I'd imagine you could clear a narrow space in the middle of whatever went there.
I also thought about radiators on the ships' belly, however, I think that the underside should contain as few moving parts as possible- each moving part is a potential hull breach during reentry.

Oh, the ship looks gorgeous. I can't wait to fly it (crash it more likely, keeping my piloting skills in mind).

i had actually kinda thought of that :tiphat:

but that "fin" actually houses the CoG-shift fuel transfer lines....

so if we opt for the slide-back bay door, i think the wing-top radiator setup would be the most likely to succeed :hmm:


thanks for the ideas - keep 'em coming!

---------- Post added at 11:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 AM ----------

alright - cockpit news!

check it out: http://www.moachcraft.xpg.com.br/G422-pit/g422-pit-detail.swf -- make sure you clear your browser cache, should you not see any changes :thumbup:

if you wanna have a closer look, use the "zoom in" options in the right-click menu

 

[Manichean]

but that "fin" actually houses the CoG-shift fuel transfer lines....

so if we opt for the slide-back bay door, i think the wing-top radiator setup would be the most likely to succeed :hmm:

I agree- in that case, the wingtop would be the best solution. As far as looks go, sticking a radiator out under the rudder would look good, I think, but then you'd have it in the way of on-orbit engine firings, which could lead to much Fun :lol:

alright - cockpit news!

check it out: http://www.moachcraft.xpg.com.br/G422-pit/g422-pit-detail.swf -- make sure you clear your browser cache, should you not see any changes :thumbup:

Lots of switches? Me likes. As long as the internal systems are modelled in that detail as well, you can't go wrong. Also, I very much like your glass cockpit approach, however, you could potentially cram another MFD in on the pilot side if you get rid of the four gauges you have there- the craft would pretty much be doomed in an onboard computer failure anyway (aerodynamic instability with canards and deltawings and all that jazz), so why not go all glass? The functionality is replicated in the surface MFD, after all.

 

[deltawing777]

Looking good Moach! :thumbup:

 

[Grover]

just a few questions:

1) will the FCS work, and if so, what functions will it carry out?
2)is a "Stall" light really necessary? it will spend 90% of flight time in a place where stalls are impossible
3) why not include fuel loading into the dock re-supply? (read a little later on)
4) are all switches shown in that useable? there sure are a lot, and i cant think of uses for some since they arent labeled
5) why so many lights?

thats all for the questions :sorry: for having so many

as for the fuelling, i have a nice idea: make it draw fuel from the docked vessel, not "create" more then if you want to do it to the ISS, it only requires one line added to the CFG to give it fuel, and it adds realism (for a rescue mission, you could expend all your fuel to get there, then use the crippled vessel's fuel to get home, i do something like this when i do a lunar mission with the CTV/LTV, using the LTV tanks after ascent to fill the CTVs so i can get back to earth, do orbit insertion and re-enter with great accuracy and little risk)

finally, what did you decide to do about the radiators (and bay doors)?

thanks

 

[Urwumpe]

It is also a delta wing plane - such planes do not stall in the conventional sense and during reentry, you will fly practically stalled. If you want to produce a meaningful warning there, include "FCS SAT" - Saturation of the flight control surface, which essentially means you are either out of control and your aerodynamic actuators can't compensate it anymore, or pushing your spacecraft too hard.

 

[Grover]

so its like a hardcore "Stall" light, coz it means... more

 

[Urwumpe]

Next: Pilot and Commander should have the same instruments and indicators at their station. Not different. what you can have special are different actuators, for example landing gear at the pilot side, but abort switches at the commander.

Also, having special indicators for slip and AOA is pretty useless, most of the time, you don't need to monitor these values.

Also the computer keyboard is a bit large, you could not just operate it with a space suit, but by pressing almost your full hand against the keys.

 

[Spacethingy]

Woah, she looks beautiful! Looks like someone welded a Concorde to a IL-76!

(Which is awesome BTW, not insulting...)

Can't wait to fly her!

Just one thing, will it have engine sounds when the throttle is on zero (like the DG-EX)? I know this sounds stupidly pernickety, but it does add a bit of extra realism to a ship.

 

[Grover]

i just had a good idea for the radiators! you can still have them inside the bay:

just have them along the walls, then translate them upwards out of the bay, then rotate around a hinge near the rim of the bay to move them clear of any payload you may have in there

not sure if its possible at the moment, if the bay walls are curved, it would become trickier... but it should still be possible...