|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Apr 10, 2008 6:38:01 GMT -4
hmm... I'm tempted to make a properly scaled photoshopped image of that, just to see what it would look like. But I'm worried the image would end up being used as proof. Not photoshopped, but with a bit of patience and a simple drawing program...  |
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Apr 10, 2008 7:01:47 GMT -4
I'm no aeronautical engineer, but I'd imagine that the fin could be rendered useless by being in the wake of the S-IC like that. (IIRC the shuttle carrier has endplates on the tailplanes for that reason.)
|
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Apr 10, 2008 7:02:00 GMT -4
 Er, 400 vs 100 or is that meant to trip someone up? Heck of an air brake though.
|
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Apr 11, 2008 19:10:18 GMT -4
 That I would pay to see!  I'm reminded of the JATO-powered "jumping tank" once demonstrated to a British General, who then said something like "As a weapon of war it leaves much to be desired, but as a spectacle it takes some beating!" |
|
|
|
Post by graham2001 on Apr 12, 2008 11:05:34 GMT -4
Er, 400 vs 100 or is that meant to trip someone up? Heck of an air brake though. Agreed, perhaps if you GUPPY or Beluga the fuselage? Then again there is this... |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 12, 2008 11:50:35 GMT -4
Yeah, I meant to jump in on this thread earlier. Gotta have some kind of fairings on that guy or you'll get little if any pitch and yaw stability.
Not too wild about that attachment structure either. Not much lateral strength.
And the c.g. of an unladed S-1C is substantially aft because of the F-1s. That's gonna throw the Boeing's balance off.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Apr 12, 2008 17:42:05 GMT -4
Yeah, I meant to jump in on this thread earlier. Gotta have some kind of fairings on that guy or you'll get little if any pitch and yaw stability. Not too wild about that attachment structure either. Not much lateral strength. In my defence, I knocked that up in about twenty minutes from a 747 plan I found online and drawing the S-IC myself in paint. It was only supposed to be a simple illustration. The only thought I gave to the attachment structure was so that the S-IC wasn't floating, and I figured that something resembling a fairing structure would be required but couldn't be bothered to design one while I was supposed to be at work. Geez, engineers... I left the F-1s off because I couldn't recall where they were fitted, though now I think of it I guess the whole stage would be test fired before being shipped to KSC, so I should have included them. |
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Apr 12, 2008 17:58:08 GMT -4
I'm guessing the F-1's couldn't be removed as easily as the SSME's can be. If they could be removed they could be shipped separately in trucks or inside the 747.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Apr 12, 2008 18:16:04 GMT -4
Just an amateur thought here...
Would that stage be able to withstand the flight?
I mean, unfueled they are pretty flimsy aren't they?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Apr 12, 2008 20:38:54 GMT -4
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Apr 13, 2008 11:00:40 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Apr 13, 2008 12:55:40 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Apr 13, 2008 16:13:36 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Apr 13, 2008 17:41:00 GMT -4
Er, 400 vs 100 or is that meant to trip someone up? Heck of an air brake though. Agreed, perhaps if you GUPPY or Beluga the fuselage? Then again there is this...I was thinking along the lines of difference in size to a 1972 747 to todays version and how the stage would fit. I believe it was shorter? The jumbo that is.  |
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Apr 13, 2008 18:21:24 GMT -4
Jumbos are mostly the same size, except for the SP version which had a shorter fuselage. The main visible modification to some of the later versions was extending the upper deck...
|
|
That I would pay to see! 
