Project G42-200 StarLiner

[Moach]

Would that placement of the canards so far aft not reduce their torque arm on the airframe? Thus reuducing their pitch-control effectiveness?

I mean, if you suggest it, then there must be a certain logic behind this that i fail to see, could you spare some reasoning as to why forward canards would be less efficient?


My original idea was to use them mainly to provide a better pitch control at lower speeds, mostly to bring that nose off the ground before running outta runway.... Before mach 1 they're mean to go back in and leave the job for the main wing elevons and fuel transfer ballast system


Is there much to gain by expecting any more of them than this?

 

[Hurricane]

Moach, not that I would be the one to criticize you, and I am also not sure if this was already brought up, but I think I found a flaw in your "pilot-on-the-right" ideology: take for example a 747. The 747 has a yoke on the left, and the yoke on the right. The captain seats on the left - and when the captain is the one carrying out the landing - does he not have to use the YOKE using his LEFT hand? He has to operate both the throttles and the control column, throttles on the right - so control column with the left hand. So yea, there you have it
Me being left-handed, however, I am not the one to really care because I would feel comfortable operating the controls using both hands

 

[Hlynkacg]

Moach, not that I would be the one to criticize you, and I am also not sure if this was already brought up, but I think I found a flaw in your "pilot-on-the-right" ideology: take for example a 747. The 747 has a yoke on the left, and the yoke on the right. The captain seats on the left - and when the captain is the one carrying out the landing - does he not have to use the YOKE using his LEFT hand? He has to operate both the throttles and the control column, throttles on the right - so control column with the left hand. So yea, there you have it
Me being left-handed, however, I am not the one to really care because I would feel comfortable operating the controls using both hands

The "Pilot on the right" format is common in helicopters and military aircraft.

The intent is for the pilot to fly with his right hand on the joystick and his left on the throttle.

The pilot is placed on the right side of the dual cockpit so that the throttle and engine controls can be placed in the center and thus be easy to reach for both crewmembers.

 

[jangofett287]

Are we going to have a version in 'Left-Hand-Drive' form, or would that be too much work?

 

[Hurricane]

The "Pilot on the right" format is common in helicopters and military aircraft.

The intent is for the pilot to fly with his right hand on the joystick and his left on the throttle.

The pilot is placed on the right side of the dual cockpit so that the throttle and engine controls can be placed in the center and thus be easy to reach for both crewmembers.

I'm not ruling out this arrangement, I'm saying that one of Moach's arguments is not fully valid.
actually I'm not sure about military aircraft, and helicopters, well - on side-by-side helos, it is indeed quite common that the captain is on the right side for the fact that it is easier to handle the cyclic/collective combination that way.

 

[Cras]

G-42 is no rotarcraft. It looks and I would say be treated as if it was a heavy jet liner. Considering you use similar flight techniques during the departure and arrival/approach.

And for jetliners, Pilot in Command sits in the left seat. Period.

But it is Moach's decision. I honestly do not care if it gets fixed, switched, whatever. If I had a vote, I would vote effort be put into the systems and displays before effort be put into having the PIC put into the left seat.

But to suggest because you sit on the right in a rotar craft thus sitting in the right seat in the G42....that doesnt make any sense to me.

 

[Hurricane]

G-42 is no rotarcraft. It looks and I would say be treated as if it was a heavy jet liner. Considering you use similar flight techniques during the departure and arrival/approach.

And for jetliners, Pilot in Command sits in the left seat. Period.

But it is Moach's decision. I honestly do not care if it gets fixed, switched, whatever. If I had a vote, I would vote effort be put into the systems and displays before effort be put into having the PIC put into the left seat.

But to suggest because you sit on the right in a rotar craft thus sitting in the right seat in the G42....that doesnt make any sense to me.

I am DEFINITELY not suggesting to sit in the right seat just because this is the way it is done with helicopters. (There we go again, people don't get me and an internet fight starts...)
Ok. Forget I said anything because you clearly can't see my point.

 

[Gr_Chris_pilot]

Where is the problem? You already can go to the Captain's position (left side) using TAB key....Left side MFD's working as well. I think i am missing something here :shifty:

edit: in real life airline operations both pilot and copilot can land - take off - fly the plane..... both pilot and copilot can be PF(pilot flying) or PNF(pilot not flying-pilot monitoring)

 

[dgatsoulis]

We do have some real-life pilots here, that can explain the advantages (and/or disadvantages) of this set-up.

In the case of the G42, I find nothing wrong in training the pilot to work mostly from the right side and the co-pilot doing pretty much the same thing.

 

[Proximus]

My Saitek X52 has the stick on the right and the throttle on the left which feels quite natural when flying the G42. :hmm: I think most low end flight systems have a similar set up.

 

[kamaz]

My Saitek X52 has the stick on the right and the throttle on the left which feels quite natural when flying the G42. :hmm: I think most low end flight systems have a similar set up.

Because it is the configuration used in fighter jets -- here is an F-16 cockpit:

That actually makes a lot of sense. Since most people are right-handed, and fighter jets require rapid maneuvering, it's logical to use right hand for the joystick, which is also used for firing weapons.

Airliners don't maneuver rapidly, so flying with left hand is less of a problem. But the aircraft can be flown from either seat, because all instruments are duplicated on both sides -- here is A320 cockpit:

The theory behind having an airliner PIC on the left seems to be that it is better to use the left hand for flying and right hand for switches. See: http://aviationmentor.blogspot.com/2011/01/flying-right-seat.html

 

[Gr_Chris_pilot]

As a real life student pilot you start flying with left hand (captains position) because everytime the instructor is on your right.... And after all this general aviation left side training finaly your transition to airlines require you to fly with right hand as a copilot so you have to get used to it all over again :facepalm:

 

[Hlynkacg]

And for jetliners, Pilot in Command sits in the left seat. Period.

"Pilot in command" and "Pilot at the controls" are two different things.

But to suggest because you sit on the right in a rotar craft thus sitting in the right seat in the G42....that doesnt make any sense to me.

That was not the reasoning. Read the argument again.

If (as in Kamaz's f-16 example) we assume that the pilot will fly his/her right hand on the joystick, the throttle would naturally have to be on his/her left. Otherwise they would have to either let go of the joystick or reach across their own body to make a throttle adjustment.

Now if we take this a step further and say that the controls for engines and other critical systems should be positioned in the center of the cockpit (so that they can be easily reached by both crewmembers) The pilot who will actually be flying the aircraft should be sitting in the right seat so that those controls remain to his/her left.

The fact that this was also the rationalization behind what became the standard rotorcraft cockpit layout is completely incidental.

 

[NERV aerospace]

so how long till the next release?
I hope its no trouble of course.

I see real potential here. so much so that I believe this is a feasible craft.
its is a semblance of unity between us who fly it and those who throw in there two cents for its improvement. Moach you have created more then just an awesome plane. you have created an idea and a focal point for other ideas. I guess this is the original point behind the creation of the internet.

p.s. I shall compile my ideas and submit them soon.

 

[Gr_Chris_pilot]

Soooo... any updates on this project so far? Any systems modeled or mesh changes? I really really want to see this updated.... Maybe something small but extreme useful like a CG indication.... :hmm:

 

[RacerX]

I would refer you to this post http://www.orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?p=369125&postcount=1248

 

[Gr_Chris_pilot]

I would refer you to this post http://www.orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?p=369125&postcount=1248

Yep i already checked that.... I'm just wondering if any progress made since july No offence of course, i asked in case we have something new

 

[Moach]

sadly not much to tell...

if there was something new (anything, really) - i'd be the first to post about it...


but hey, i gather i'm all outta further impediments now that my full-time job is gone...

still, i do have other matters to tend to, unless you or someone out there wanna hand me a million dollars lest the "well" shall runs over the next few months :shifty:


right now, i'm more or less fully bent on a more ambitious project of mine that has recently been given a mighty voluminous shot of lets-go-for-it juice (long story, patents pending...)



well, i'll let you know whenever i catch a break to get some able time on the old '42... she's got some mighty revisions to undergo too :thumbup:

 

[Gr_Chris_pilot]

sadly not much to tell...

if there was something new (anything, really) - i'd be the first to post about it...


but hey, i gather i'm all outta further impediments now that my full-time job is gone...

still, i do have other matters to tend to, unless you or someone out there wanna hand me a million dollars lest the "well" shall runs over the next few months :shifty:


right now, i'm more or less fully bent on a more ambitious project of mine that has recently been given a mighty voluminous shot of lets-go-for-it juice (long story, patents pending...)



well, i'll let you know whenever i catch a break to get some able time on the old '42... she's got some mighty revisions to undergo too :thumbup:

Thanks a lot Moach!!
See you around (maybe in LEO) :tiphat:

 

[NERV aerospace]

maybe if I can get access to the 3d model I could run some aerodynamic tests with my Solidworks premium on my spare time, so i could give you tips on streamlining the craft.

also, I agree with you, Moach, on the nose design. in my experience having a pointy nose is a bad idea for this application.
A. less heat distribution
B. the pressure would cause it to collapse unless you implement bulky reinforcement
C. a more dome-shape nose would encourage the creation of an insulating shock-wave to keep much of the heat away from the craft
D. domes have better pressure distribution
E. making the nose on the g42-200 pointy would look weird

So keeping the original nose may make it more difficult to achieve higher speeds but I believe it would decrease the likelihood of the crews death

Ill give you more advice as I compile my research
but PICA seems promising for refractory in this situation