Chatroom
 

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum > General > Off-Topic Babbling
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

   

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #61 (permalink)  
Old 20-May-2008, 05:55 PM
Stuart van Onselen Stuart van Onselen is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 479
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mugaliens View Post
275' length, 290' wingspan... Yeah, I'd say it's a better comparison, particularly since it has the highest gross weight takeoff capability of any aircraft: 1.2 million lbs.

And the only remaining one in service is used commercially.
IIRC, there was only ever one. It was a one-off custom job (basically a 125 on steroids) designed to transport Buran. But wouldn't it just be so cool if someone started mass-producing that monster?
Reply With Quote
  #62 (permalink)  
Old 20-May-2008, 06:42 PM
danscope's Avatar
danscope danscope is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: R.I.
Posts: 1,716
Default

Hi, The cost of fuel is going to drive aircraft design, now and into the future.
I see the blended flying wing design as the hands down champion without
peer. And once you make enough of them, the price comes down.
And with the potential to store more carry-on baggage, the world will beat a path to it's door.
We shall see.
Best regards, Dan
Reply With Quote
  #63 (permalink)  
Old 20-May-2008, 07:09 PM
cjl's Avatar
cjl cjl is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: University of Colorado - Boulder
Posts: 2,368
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart van Onselen View Post
IIRC, there was only ever one. It was a one-off custom job (basically a 125 on steroids) designed to transport Buran. But wouldn't it just be so cool if someone started mass-producing that monster?
Yep, it was one of a kind. Amazing aircraft though.
__________________
WANTED:

Schroedinger's Cat

Dead And Alive
Reply With Quote
  #64 (permalink)  
Old 21-May-2008, 05:49 AM
Trebuchet's Avatar
Trebuchet Trebuchet is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: The great NorthWet
Posts: 1,645
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjl View Post
Yep, it was one of a kind. Amazing aircraft though.
I second that. I actually had the privilege of seeing it in person, when it stopped here (Everett, WA) on the way to an airshow somewhere else. I was just wishing they could have towed a 747 over to park next to it, for comparison.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Reply With Quote
  #65 (permalink)  
Old 21-May-2008, 09:18 AM
Stuart van Onselen Stuart van Onselen is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 479
Default

When it first appeared in the West, the 225 evoked quite a stir. Everyone was amazed by the size. I remember a cartoon in Air International magazine, set at the Farnborough airshow. It featured a sign which said "Due to poor weather, the aerial display will take place inside the An-225"!
Reply With Quote
  #66 (permalink)  
Old 25-May-2008, 07:21 AM
Delvo Delvo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,251
Default

Earlier in the thread, it was mentioned that you get into trouble with propellers when the blade tips are supersonic. Obviously, the end of a blade, and in all likelihood the whole blade, must be moving faster than the vehicle it propels, but we've got supersonic jets with fans in the front of them, sucking air in and throwing it back just like propellers do, making them essentially differently-shaped propellers in a tubular enclosure, except that they can get away with doing it supersonicly. (The RPMs in there must be horrendous.) Why is this not a problem?
Reply With Quote
  #67 (permalink)  
Old 25-May-2008, 03:19 PM
Trebuchet's Avatar
Trebuchet Trebuchet is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: The great NorthWet
Posts: 1,645
Default

Supersonic jets have inlets designed to slow the flow to subsonic before reaching the moving parts. "Supersonic combustion", especially in "Supersonic Combustion Ramjets" or Scramjets, has been a goal for a long time but has not reached anything like practicality.

I'm not sure how the fan, compressor, and especially turbine blades deal with the flow which must be supersonic relative to them but obviously they do.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Engine cards Glom Off-Topic Babbling 14 30-November-2006 01:00 AM
Hypothetical variable mass in hypo variable G? Luna2uno General Science 215 02-December-2005 06:30 AM
Did our sun blow up 5 billion years ago? snowflakeuniverse Against the Mainstream 118 27-September-2005 04:16 AM
Potential Threat to the Huygen Mission Jerry Against the Mainstream 1952 01-May-2005 05:33 AM
Quasars and Supernova Fires snowflakeuniverse Against the Mainstream 11 04-December-2003 04:05 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.0.0
©  2006 Bad Astronomy and Universe Today