Project XR3 Phoenix (WIP)

[Rybec]

Maybe you have to fire RCS to roll off the runway.

Or hover-assisted takeoff.
Adjustable length front landing strut: Increase the pressure in the shock asborber to give that 5 degree pitch only on takeoff.

 

[Loru]

It folds front to back (opsosite to the shuttle) just to use this additional space

---------- Post added at 08:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:07 PM ----------

To clarify more:

 

[RisingFury]

Well, I doubt it'll be enough, so if Orbiter's still giving you trouble, the next obvious thing to do would be to vector the exhaust up on takeoff or slave it to the elevator. Vectorable nozzles have been around since the time of Jesus, so it's not too much to ask.

 

[Loru]

We'll deal with it if the problem occurs in orbiter - for now it's just a mesh

 

[MaverickSawyer]

Hmmm... :2cents: here, but what if you were to add a retractable canard for (relatively) low-speed flight? Have them retract by Mach 2, and extend at, oh Mach 1.3? That would provide very good pitch authority, and would shift the Center of Lift forward as well.

 

[Loru]

That's idea worth considering

 

[MaverickSawyer]

It worked for Moach's Starliner. Why not here? Plus, I've always been partial to the canard layout. properly designed, it's damn near stall-proof.

 

[Evil_Onyx]

:facepalm: Canards don't make an aircraft "Stall-Proof" it just gives better handling, Those aircraft that use fixed canards are designed to let the canard stall before the main wing. With a fully moving canard things are different, in fact they can under some circumstances be more trouble than they are worth.

 

[Donamy]

How about a hydrolic extending nosegear, that would retract to be stowed.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

How about a hydrolic extending nosegear, that would retract to be stowed.

IIRC, the Vought F7U Cutlass used such a setup. REALLY bad idea for a carrier aircraft. Lots of snapped nose gear struts... I can imagine that this would also be of concern when performing landings.

---------- Post added at 20:51 ---------- Previous post was at 20:43 ----------

:facepalm: Canards don't make an aircraft "Stall-Proof" it just gives better handling, Those aircraft that use fixed canards are designed to let the canard stall before the main wing. With a fully moving canard things are different, in fact they can under some circumstances be more trouble than they are worth.

I understand this. However, not using the canards to rotate off the runway may literally outweigh the downsides of using the canards.

 

[Loru]

Keep in mind that current point of origin for mesh is just chosen for practical meshing reasons. I estimate that with this shape and placement of inner systems COG will be moved 3 meters towards the rear (or to be more specific mesh will be moved 3 meter towards nose). That gives me rear touchdown point 3 meters behing COG/Center of lift at total lenght at about 36 meters. Less than 10%. I seriously doubt we'll enconter this problem.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

Okay, now that I look more closely, it MIGHT work. You'd need some really BIG elevons, though.

 

[Loru]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3n2n1gz5ap8whif/xr-wip8.jpg

 

[hedzup456]

Loru, could just be me but that image is broken. Someone confirm?
~Hedz
EDIT:
Ne'er mind, you've changed it.

 

[Izack]

Okay, now that I look more closely, it MIGHT work. You'd need some really BIG elevons, though.

If the mesh had uniform density, then yes, even then it might work with mighty control surfaces. But (especially with Loru's latest image) it really looks like most of the mass is aft of the struts, so IMO it'll be just fine. :thumbup:

 

[Hlynkacg]

What are the dimmensions of the xr-2 cargo modules?

 

[Loru]

Single module is ~3.3 wide x 1.5 long x 2.2 tall

 

[Hlynkacg]

It may be just the view angle but...

Have you considered rounding out the upper the body and then having the cargos sit base-to-base so that they form a 3.3 diameter octogon?

A cylinderical (or close to it) bay would make the it more combatable with traditional payloads, and the void space on either side (as the bay would be narrower but deeper) could then be occupied by the internal prop tanks or by the hover engines.

 

[worir1]

The only reason i ever fly the DGIV is becuase of the UCGO cargo bay but ESPECIALY because of the epic ejection system for the UMMU passengers. I think the XR vessels realy need an ejection system which would make it even better

 

[Rtyh-12]

The only reason i ever fly the DGIV is becuase of the UCGO cargo bay but ESPECIALY because of the epic ejection system for the UMMU passengers. I think the XR vessels realy need an ejection system which would make it even better

That was already suggested, and it was eventually rejected because it wouldn't be realistic - the XR series is closer to a commercial airplane than a DGIV (the XR2 carries 20-something passengers).

Edit: As for the UCGO cargo bay, have you considered using Woo482's [ame="http://www.orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=4571"]XR2 UCGO Cargo Platform[/ame]? While not as convenient as having native support, it works; you can also use UCGO fuel and O2 crates.