Is there a difference between the A380 and the MD12?

[mikegarrison]

10 hours ago, YNM said:

Contrary to your thinking, the forces that happens on a turn could mean they're actually still level to the plane floor. And there are 1g roll as well...

Depends on what kind of turn and how coordinated it is.

13 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Was it serious? military heavy lift planes are pretty specialized in that they tend to have lots of wheels and high wings to be able to land on bad runways. Also ability to load from rear who let you air drop. 
Passenger planes tend to have center line wings and fewer wheels as they don't need air drop or bad runway capability.

Yes, modern military cargo planes usually have high wings. As you say, the main reason is to support very short landing gear and roll-on/roll-off loading.

But passenger planes usually have low wings, not mid-wings. That's because if they had mid-wings, the wing root structure would be right in the middle of the passenger cabin. With low wings, that structure is under the floor. There are some exceptions, though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Dash_8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Aerospace_146

Fighter airplanes often have mid wings but can have any of the three locations.

Edited March 26, 2017 by mikegarrison

[YNM]

37 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

Depends on what kind of turn and how coordinated it is.

All normal intended turns on aircraft are meant to be coordinated. Unless you're going into a massive turbulence, entering a storm or passing through some diversion layer or something... Not that easy on those but AFAIK during training pilots are trained for coordinated ones (and automated turns are coordinated as well.)

[Nibb31]

A swimming pool is still impractical. It's not so much roll that would cause spillage, but pitch. You can't take off or land without pitching up or down and centrifugal force won't prevent your pool from spilling over.

Once the spillage starts, you get a massive transfer of weight that would be catastrophic.

 

Edited March 26, 2017 by Nibb31

[Scientia1423]

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

A swimming pool is still impractical. It's not so much roll that would cause spillage, but pitch. You can't take off or land without pitching up or down and centrifugal force won't prevent your pool from spilling over.

Once the spillage starts, you get a massive transfer of weight that would be catastrophic.

 

I just got it from a documentary tbh. Reference is at 27:10

Apparently that's what I heard with the swimming pool thing, might not be correct.

Edited March 26, 2017 by Scientia1423

[mikegarrison]

5 hours ago, Scientia1423 said:

I just got it from a documentary tbh. Reference is at 27:10

Apparently that's what I heard with the swimming pool thing, might not be correct.

The commentary you refer to gives the swimming pool as an example of "bizarre fantasy".

[Rath]

The only way I can see a swimming pool working would be if it was a waterproof compartment, that could only be entered and exited at certain times when the plane was perfectly level.   

 

EDIT: Or an airlock system!

 

It would have to be right on the COM too, because water is heavy and shifts around.

Edited March 27, 2017 by Rath

[YNM]

17 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

A swimming pool is still impractical. It's not so much roll that would cause spillage, but pitch. You can't take off or land without pitching up or down and centrifugal force won't prevent your pool from spilling over.

Once the spillage starts, you get a massive transfer of weight that would be catastrophic.

It's not economical either. In an age where you want to cram as many seats in your plane, getting bar rooms, sauna, or anything like the ship's time of Titanic or 50s/60s airplanes are not desirable. (I don't think you can really have "airplane cruise liner" as well - your plane would be around the world five times in a week !)

Yes pitch are unsolvable (unless the whole pool hinges ?) but I understand very well that it won't be in service anytime. Also, only takeoff/departures (and landing flares) are problematic - ascent, descent, approach and landing are actually more or less level pitch attitude on the right airspeed, vertical speed and flaps setting. (it just doesn't feel so, but trust me if you can see the indicators it should be level, even a little bit pointing down during landing final !)

Edited March 27, 2017 by YNM

[kerbiloid]

Swimming pool and passengers An-225.

http://www.buran.ru/htm/memory55.htm

Spoiler

Quote

Были в конце 1980-х годов и некоторые экзотические предложения по использованию самолета. Я не буду их все описывать, а остановлюсь только на двух. На АНТК обратился подданный Великобритании (по происхождению пакистанец) господин Самарканди. Он предложил на базе самолета Ан-225 создать специальный пассажирский лайнер. Это трехпалубный самолет (в грузовой кабине 2 палубы и одна палуба наверху, где расположена кабина сопровождающих) в котором бы были огромные каюты для бизнесменов и новобрачных с кроватями, душевыми и прочими удобствами, различные салоны для других пассажиров, магазины «дьюти фри» и казино. В отделе РИО-20 прорабатывались различные компоновки такого самолета. Причем летать этот самолет должен был по маршруту Сидней- Лондон-Токио-Сидней. Я еще тогда думал, что очень легко будет организовать техническое обслуживание самолета и обеспечить его ресурс, поскольку полеты очень продолжительные по времени, а полезная нагрузка небольшая. Но у ПВ, по-видимому, было другое мнение. Некому уже было строить такие самолеты, да и надежность комплектующих была не на высоте для регулярных пассажирских перевозок. Так этот проект и загнулся.

Второе предложение нам поступило от нефтяников.  Предлагалось перевезти ректификационную (для переработки нефти на составляющие: бензин и т.д.) колонну массой 190 тонн на внешней подвеске с Куйбышева на север. И там и там были аэродромы. Мы очень ухватились за это предложение, причем не столько из-за финансов, а для демонстрации возможностей самолета и получения новых аналогичных заказов. Обычная транспортировка этой колонны занимает два года: сначала по водному пути на север, потом по Северному ледовитому океану, потом опять по водному пути и, наконец,  специальным транспортом по дороге. Мы предлагали это осуществить за 15 дней и за счет существенного сокращения сроков доставки и ввода ее в эксплуатацию получить значительный доход для заказчика.

Развернули интенсивные работы. Нашли в Москве специализированную фирму, которая могла осуществить погрузку- разгрузку такого груза на самолет. Начали работать с разработчиком  и  производителем колонны на предмет ее местного усиления в местах установки на самолет (предлагалось приварить внутри распорки типа шпангоутов, а снаружи сделать узлы для крепления на самолете  и др.). Мы несколько месяцев напряженно трудились, но потом заказчик, не объяснив причин, отказался от этой работы.

 

Briefly.
"In late 1980s there were also exotic proposals. I won't describe them all, just two of them.
ANTK got an offer from a British citizen (of Pakistani decent) Mr. Samarkandi.
He proposed to create a passenger plane based on An-225. This should be a triple-deck plane (2 decks in the cargo cabin and 1 deck above, near the crew cabin), with huge apartments for businesshumans and justmarrieds, with beds, showers and other amenities, different saloons for other passengers, duty free shops and casino. 
RIO-20 department was designing different variants of such plane. It be routing Sidney-London-Tokyo-Sidney.
<skipped>
The project was cancelled due to common problems with aviation industry and due to not passenger-rated plane components.
<skipped>
The second proposal was from the oilers. They wanted to deliver a 190-t rectification column externally to the North. <skipped> Usually this takes two years, <skipped> we were going to do this in 15 days. <skip> Customer rejected the project without explanation of reasons."

Edited March 27, 2017 by kerbiloid

[kerbiloid]

17 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

A swimming pool is still impractical. It's not so much roll that would cause spillage, but pitch. You can't take off or land without pitching up or down and centrifugal force won't prevent your pool from spilling over.

Once the spillage starts, you get a massive transfer of weight that would be catastrophic.

Spoiler

A safe inkpot. 1930s.
Roll, pitch or yaw it - the ink will stay inside.
And the swimmer could stick his head out through the hole in the middle.

 

[Nibb31]

I didn't say transporting large volumes of liquid was impossible (there are such things as tanker aircraft). I said a swimming pool is impractical. Thanks for illustrating my point.

Edited March 27, 2017 by Nibb31

[kerbiloid]

6 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

 

I didn't say transporting large volumes of liquid was impossible (there are tanker aircraft). I said a swimming pool is impractical.

 

They read you.

 

Though, a nice window.
http://www.curbed.com/2013/4/10/10254742/inside-the-500m-flying-palace-sold-by-a-saudi-prince

Spoiler

Quote

What is reportedly making the cut is a special "magic carpet" room on the lowest level, which is outfitted with a transparent floor, providing astounding views of the countryside from cruising altitude.

 

 

[Gargamel]

23 hours ago, YNM said:

 

Yes pitch are unsolvable (unless the whole pool hinges ?)

They used to make billiard tables for use on cruse liners and rail cars.  The whole table was gimballed to keep it level.   So a gimballed swimming pool is do able, but not practical. 

 

Of course though, they do tend to use super high density metals (like depleted uranium in some cases, like the 747-100) as balance weights to get the CoM correct in some aircraft.   If they remove those, planning to use a swimming pool as a balance...  But of course, there's a reason air planes don't like their cargo sliding around, causing crashes and all. 

On 3/19/2017 at 2:57 PM, Nibb31 said:

Probably as much difference as with the Breguet Deux Ponts, a french-built double-decker that predated the MD12 by several decades.

That must be the ugliest aircraft I've even seen.   Including the ones I see here on the forums. 

Edited March 28, 2017 by gargamel

[mikegarrison]

6 hours ago, gargamel said:

That must be the ugliest aircraft I've even seen.   Including the ones I see here on the forums. 

It does look very kerbal, doesn't it?

[Scientia1423]

Tru tho

I love how this turned from a comparison post into "how a pool on a plane is impossible" post.

[Nibb31]

9 hours ago, gargamel said:

That must be the ugliest aircraft I've even seen.   Including the ones I see here on the forums. 

Have you ever seen a Nimrod MRA4 or a Short 330 ?

[monophonic]

10 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Have you ever seen a Nimrod MRA4 or a Short 330 ?

Curious about why you singled out the MRA4 when AEW3 variant also existed? 

[Nothalogh]

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

Short 330

Hey, don't speak ill of the shed.

That is not ugly at all.

[Scientia1423]

17 hours ago, Nothalogh said:

Hey, don't speak ill of the shed.

That is not ugly at all.

lol

[YNM]

19 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

Have you ever seen ... a Short 330 ?

USAF and the Army still use them !

Edited March 29, 2017 by YNM

[magnemoe]

19 hours ago, Nothalogh said:

Hey, don't speak ill of the shed.

That is not ugly at all.

Its kind of rectangular. Looks a bit like someone has converted an helicopter to an plane. 
However it don't look ugly like many of the hacks in an earlier tread about ugly planes. It reminds of helicopters as its un-pressurized. 
It did not sell very well so I guess it was a bit large for the un-pressurized category as most will want an pressure cabin for improved performance and flexibility