Back to Squawk list
  • 42

Exclusive: Pilots of World’s Largest Airplane Reveal Flight Details

प्रस्तुत
 
Stratolauncher pilot Mark Giddings, along with co-pilot Evan Thomas and flight engineer Jake Riley, successfully completed Sunday’s third test flight of the world’s largest airplane—nicknamed Roc—which is scheduled to begin air-launching hypersonic test vehicles later this year. (www.flyingmag.com) और अधिक...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


hangar14
Rick D 5
and some people say size doesn't matter...
trainman2041
Jeff Butler 1
Its how you use it, is what matters
rb522140
ROLAND BALCH 1
rollinstone
Gary Stone 3
Who's in the other cockpit?
bentwing60
bentwing60 2
Stratolauncher is the collaboration of unlimited funding and the stellar imagination of The 'Wizard of Mojave', Bert Rutan! How could it be anything but controversial, given that almost everything out of Bert's place in the beginning of Scaled Composites was, particularly in appearance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratolaunch_Systems

My hope is that it becomes something that actually contributes to humanity and not just another tribute to the hubris of big money and egos. In Latin the term is 'In Esse", it exists, do something with it!
eesteve
Edward V Esteve 2
Have to clarify my question for those who missed my "Humor" ! On first flight,Thomas sat in "Right" seat .And,on second flight he sat in Left seat.There appear to be TWO separate cockpits ? So ?
flybd5juan
Juan Jimenez 4
Hmm. I think the AN-225 has a higher payload by some 10,000 lbs.
srobak
srobak 1
now now - don't go trying to confuse the issue with facts
8literbeater
8literbeater 0
Yes, and completely irrelevant facts as well. The wingspan is 95 feet more than the AN-225, so it is larger. It is the world's largest airplane.
srobak
srobak 0
a movie poster is larger than a stoneware dinner plate - but which one is going to hold a pile of superbowl foods from the crock-pots? Size means nothing without capacity.

I'm guessing that you also think the U-2 is bigger than an ERJ-145 too, eh?
8literbeater
8literbeater 0
You're a little "touched" aren't you?
srobak
srobak 0
unfounded personal attacks as a result of explaining basic things to you and questioning your perceptions? Cmon now...

Just because you think payload is an irrelevant fact for large aircraft doesn't mean that it is.
8literbeater
8literbeater 1
First: I didn't attack you. I really think there's something wrong with you, and I asked you.
Second: Basic things = this plane is bigger than that plane by 95 feet. That is not perception.
Third: I didn't say payload was an irrelevant fact for large aircraft, but it is largely irrelevant when comparing the SIZE of one aircraft to another. The four door AM General HMMWV seats four people. I suppose you think a Ford Focus is bigger because it seats five... eh?
Bigger vs. smaller is something you should have pretty well mastered before kindergarten.
srobak
srobak 1
lol... a vain attempt to feign personal attacks under the guise of concern. Right. The icing on the cake is when you added the snide remark at the end of your last comment.... but I'm sure that wasn't an attack either, eh?

Basic thing: it takes more than wingspan to make a plane big. Hence my previous question to you about the U-2 v. the ERJ-145. I will give you some time to think about that one.

The number of people a vehicle seats is irrelevant to it's payload - in which case the Hummer still wins.

Now - if you wish to have a civil discussion going forward then we can continue this debate. But - if you're just going to continue with your childish outbursts of incivility - then the discussion is over, as you will have nothing of value to say or that is worth listening to.
8literbeater
8literbeater -1
Wow. You're really something. You just make the rules up as you go along, that way you can always make yourself and only yourself believe that you've won something or proven something. Well at least now we all know that an aircraft tug is bigger than a Hummer, because it can tow more than a Hummer. I'm eagerly awaiting your new twist on which one "wins". (psst - what if the payload IS people?)

Now - if you wish to have a civil discussion going forward, then we can continue to give you an education on big versus small. If airplane A is 95 feet larger than airplane B, then which airplane is bigger?

You must really watch out for those "childish outbursts of incivility". All that ranting and raving and such. Oh the horror.

I've run across people like you every now and then. You know, if you don't already have one, a psychiatrist might really help you. At least I know they'd enjoy studying you. Don't mistake that for a feigned attack. I'm not attacking you. I really do think you need mental help.

Hey just a quick one for you since I can see you have absolutely nothing better to do than to attempt to impress everyone on FlightAware with your erudition: Is a Mallard duck the same size as a Sandhill crane? Because neither one carries a payload or passengers. Let's assume they're both adult males. I say they're the same size. But then the wing loading on the crane is certainly less, so I suppose the Sandhill crane is smaller.
srobak
srobak 1
See my previous comment. Keep reading it over and over until you understand.
eesteve
Edward V Esteve 1
Question ! When you speak of "From the "Right-Left" Seat ,are you saying "Right -Left" POD ?
bentwing60
bentwing60 1
Not to throw too much cold water on the F35ish gestation period of the 'ROC', a mythical b1rd of dubious reality, but three naked test flights does not a launch ready vehicle 'make'!

"Third flight took place 16 January 2022 from Mojave Air and Space Port; the flight lasted 4 hours 23 minutes and reached altitude of over 7,160 meters (23,490 ft) and top speed of 330 km/h (178 knots)".

They barely penetrated the flight levels, at a speed regularly topped by any turboprop or gutsy piston single, on a questimated 350,000 lbs of thrust with no payload. And they are still testing the landing gear one at a time? It obviously has yaw inertia issues with no payload, (external drag), as attested to by the flight crew and at this rate when will they have time to address the issues of instabilities induced by any delivery vehicle presence.

My prediction, this albatross will come to rest in the Paul Allen/Bert Rutan tribute hangar in the desert, somewhat akin to the Howard Hughes "Spruce Goose" and its various 'anomaly' of flight museums on the west coast to be viewed by the "did that really fly" crowd. To which the answer is , 'Not much, and not very far'.

srobak
srobak -3
Sorry.... not impressed. Haven't been since the beginning of this... project. It is a stupid solution to a non-existent problem which offers no advantages to the entire world of aviation, and actually only creates problems due to the severely limited number of airfields this thing can operate at (hint: most of the old runways which were once B-52 bases and required 300ft widths have been narrowed to 150).

If you want bigger planes and higher capacities - then keep making the A380, spin up C-5 production again (and make a passenger version) and make more AN-225s. Or even a new design of something along all of those lines.

But making a twin-fuselage, ridiculously wide aircraft, introducing a host of design unknowns & complexities and by the pilots' own admission "flies completely unlike any other aircraft" .... whay?
MrRockoutLoud
MrRockoutLoud 13
I think you miss the point of the project by comparing it to traditional cargo and passenger aircraft. That was never its mission. It's been designed from day 1 to haul test vehicles and rockets up to higher altitudes to either save their fuel or facilitate a high-altitude drop flight test, not haul cargo from A to B. It was built because those other aircraft can't do the job. It doesn't have to operate from anything but a handful of airports because that's where the missions are. The twin fuselage design is purely for balance and symmetry while providing enough room for the large payload and delivery mechanism that those other aircraft simply cannot do. It's a scaled-up version of the SpaceShipTwo and White Knight Two concept which is fitting since the same company built both, so the experience is there.
8literbeater
8literbeater 1
It's a launch vehicle, not a transport vehicle. It only ever needs one or two runways. Mojave has a 200 foot wide runway, where it currently flies. Spaceport America has a 200 foot wide runway. That's likely the only two runways it will ever need.
LeanderWilliams
Leander Williams 1
I agree with you on your observance. I don't like the world's largest plane title, though. Unless it is generating revenue like the A380 or the AN225, it's just a massive experimental plane. I always thought Airbus could maximize usage of the A380 if they created a freighter version. It seems cargo business is booming these days.
dlwmiami
D. W. -1
Listen to her! Bet you wouldn't be so grumpy-critical if you'd been offered the chance to be on board - - even to serve coffee to the flight crew.
srobak
srobak 6
failboat. I would actually refuse if offered the chance. I see waaay too many design risks to put myself on that aircraft.
flybd5juan
Juan Jimenez -3
srobak
srobak 4
see the post I replied to. LOL double failboat for you not paying attention.
VMGR352
Robert Jennings 0
srobak
srobak 0
did you even read _any_ of my comment?
VMGR352
Robert Jennings 3
It's in TESTING. MrRockoutLoud's comments are spot on.
bentwing60
bentwing60 2
And will be until retired!

लॉगिन

क्या आपका कोई खाता नहीं है? अनुकूलित विशेषताओं, फ्लाइट अलर्टों,और अधिक के लिए अब(नि:शुल्क) रजिस्टर करें!
This website uses cookies. By using and further navigating this website, you accept this.
Dismiss
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from FlightAware.com. We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.
Dismiss