NationStates Jolt Archive

OK, I know that some military cargo jets, like the C-5 or the C-130 or the Antonovs and all of them have these big ol' clusters of landing gear to help them land on rough surfaces.

Example:
http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/an225underneath.jpg
[Current RB-225 MegaFortress Bomber]

Well, problem... how the eff can I fit a Terrain-Capable landing gear structure on a Big Blended-Wing Body Jumbo jet, such as this:

http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/rt1707.gif

If you could help me come up with an answer, or an alternative, or some other way to land this thing without 2 miles of paved road, I would greatly appreciate it ;)

Also, just as a heads up, I'm finally going to design a BWB Bomber... basically the same stats as the RT-1707, but with more bombing-capable equipment. So far the RT-1707 only has the ability to drop equipment from its holds in "drop boxes"

Would a sea landing be possible? :P

I imagine that you would have more room to fit landing gear on a BWB than a conventional tube fuselage... not sure what you're getting at here. Those big arrays of gear are as much to support their weight as for landing on rough surfaces - and I'd be loathe to land a C-5 or an An-124/An-225 on anything other than a conventional runway, especially if loaded.

You could do a sea landing if you shaped the underside to displace enough water to support its weight on the water... but, thanks to water resistance, you might require just as much (if not more) takeoff distance.

I imagine that you would have more room to fit landing gear on a BWB than a conventional tube fuselage... not sure what you're getting at here. Those big arrays of gear are as much to support their weight as for landing on rough surfaces - and I'd be loathe to land a C-5 or an An-124/An-225 on anything other than a conventional runway, especially if loaded.

You could do a sea landing if you shaped the underside to displace enough water to support its weight on the water... but, thanks to water resistance, you might require just as much (if not more) takeoff distance.Well, if I could have a sea-faring jumbo BWB, That would be freakin awesome.

But i dunno, I heard somewhere that the big landing gear was for landing in meadows and plateaus and stuff... even though in the back of my head I knew it was for weight lol.

Still, on a BWB, you gotta have one weird looking landing array, spanning all the wingspace.

So back to sea landing... if I could shape the bottom right, what are the chances I could make one capable of landing in the ocea, then beaching up on shore for unloading? Then once its light enough, something could give it a kick offshore or something... is that possible? I would think with a shape like the BWB... if you built it right, it could work, no?

On that note, I though most commuter aircraft to reverse thrust? No?

I know little about this actually, but it sounds like it might be possible. Just hope there are no rocks where youa re going or you will A) Sink or B) Blow up midair.

On that note, I though most commuter aircraft to reverse thrust? No?

I know little about this actually, but it sounds like it might be possible. Just hope there are no rocks where youa re going or you will A) Sink or B) Blow up midair.good point :)

So, if I had a BWB with 2 big pontoons on the ends of the wings for balance, then would this scenario be possible:

In a massive evac/extraction operation from enemy territory, tanks and troops et cetera are commanded to rendezvous at a beach, where several modified BWB transports are waiting to load up.

After the beached planes are loaded up, they use treads or something on the bottom to nudge themselves out into the water, where they turn around with the help of several large outboard motors or something, then turn tail and take off.

Possible? (sans rocks i mean :P)

Well, if I could have a sea-faring jumbo BWB, That would be freakin awesome.

It's possible... but a wing-in-ground effect "wingship" like that featured in Popular Mechanics a few years back would be more efficient.

But i dunno, I heard somewhere that the big landing gear was for landing in meadows and plateaus and stuff... even though in the back of my head I knew it was for weight lol.

What gives the C-17 its unconventional landing capability is the thrust-vectoring ability of its high-mounted engines, moreso than any sort of landing gear arrangement. If it was a big enough plateau, you could probably land just about anything... but without a strong enough surface, I doubt you could get it out.

Still, on a BWB, you gotta have one weird looking landing array, spanning all the wingspace.

Not particularly. The designs I've seen show three-point landing gear arranged to support the "body" in enough space to fit on today's runways.

So back to sea landing... if I could shape the bottom right, what are the chances I could make one capable of landing in the ocea, then beaching up on shore for unloading? Then once its light enough, something could give it a kick offshore or something... is that possible? I would think with a shape like the BWB... if you built it right, it could work, no?

It is possible... I just think a WIG design would be more efficient for that purpose.

Wing-In-Ground? *googles* :P
These? Explain what these are please :P

http://www.first-to-fly.com/Program%20Images/Kit/!25%20wing%20in%20ground%20effect.jpg

*does a lil more research* OH i remember those... they don't fly more than a few feet off the ground/water though... still really cool and worth researching :)

But what I really need is a way for my Large bombers to land safely in nations where there are no paved runways.... oh nevermind, My bombers have global range anyway ;) I guess I'll just go ahead and research the WIGs :P Does anyone else have them?

Transdynamics Consortium is researching WIG vehicles for large commercial transports to and from our oceanic cities. Below is an example of one concept design.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/volume2/chap04/img00005.gif

The picture you linked to is an example of a WIG design for an amphibious fast landing craft called the Manta.

suggestions please: http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=108351