4 ms·
They say there's a lot more volume, but would it carry more weight, and where would the weight have to be placed? Why isn't this design used commercially?
by skybrian 4y ago
They say there's a lot more volume, but would it carry more weight, and where would the weight have to be placed?
Why isn't this design used commercially?
- chrisseaton 4y ago> where would the weight have to be placed? In the body?
- skybrian 4y agoI meant that there might be balance issues. You wouldn't want something heavy placed far out towards the wing.
- socialismisok 4y agoYou know airliners carry fuel in their wings today?
- topspin 4y ago> Why isn't this design used commercially? Commercial airports. Planforms that don't fit the existing leased gate regime are non-starters.
- bombcar 4y agoIt would only work for cargo and would have other issues. Almost all commercial planes are for both cargo and passengers, and you’d have to bank really slowly if that was full of passengers.
- jameshart 4y agoWhile presumably military transport does involve moving very dense things, Some of the things the air force is called upon to transport have high volume but low weight. Like helicopters, for example.
- aembleton 4y agoI don't think they're getting rid of the C-17. This will be an additional aircraft.
- nomel 4y agoWouldn’t the massive increase in wing area make more lift/load possible? Or do things not scale this way?
- nickfromseattle 4y ago>Why isn't this design used commercially? In a commercial plane, passengers will rise/drop during turns relative to the center line, but it's minimal due to distance from center line. The further out passengers are from the center line, the more they will drop/rise during turns. Imagine being seated towards the outer edge of this fuselage. You might rise/drop 20-30ft off the centerline during a turn.