Northwest1988 wrote:

They’re saying it could be the next spruce goose. What is everyone's thoughts?

Waterbomber2 wrote:

Paul Allen should have had a transition plan in place for when he's not around anymore.
That he didnt have that ready shows that he wasn't working for the greater good but for bragging rights.
The project is most likely to die now.

Phosphorus wrote:

realistically, no-one else needs Roc, right?

KFLLCFII wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

realistically, no-one else needs Roc, right?

On paper, it appears to have an even greater maximum payload figure than the An-225...No idea about the comparison of payload-range scope, though.

Considering if it could carry a greatly-oversized piece of cargo compared to the 225, perhaps an oversized cargo "capsule" could be designed to contain and carry such cargo slung underneath the wing from where a rocket would have been hung...Wouldn't even need to be pressurized (saving weight and complication), just aerodynamically sound. May hypothetically be lucrative as a 225 replacement, or even upmarket from the 225.

mikejepp wrote:

KFLLCFII wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

realistically, no-one else needs Roc, right?

On paper, it appears to have an even greater maximum payload figure than the An-225...No idea about the comparison of payload-range scope, though.

Considering if it could carry a greatly-oversized piece of cargo compared to the 225, perhaps an oversized cargo "capsule" could be designed to contain and carry such cargo slung underneath the wing from where a rocket would have been hung...Wouldn't even need to be pressurized (saving weight and complication), just aerodynamically sound. May hypothetically be lucrative as a 225 replacement, or even upmarket from the 225.

With the wide gear stance, unique non-production design, and huge wingspan.... can it even go to other airports? Has MHV been specifically modified to handle it?

"What size runway does the plane need? Is that a limiting factor?"

There are many runways. Think about almost every Air Force base you could use, most international airports you could use. Then you have the East Coast shuttle landing facility and the West Coast shuttle landing facility. You have Puerto Rico, which we could use if we want to go equatorial. We could use Hawaii. Almost any airport that can accommodate a 747 can accommodate this.

The issue is the stance of the vehicle, the width, not the runway length. More importantly, we have to be careful with the width of the taxiway. Taxiways aren’t normally wide enough to accommodate a 100-foot width. So we could use lots of airports, but we may not be able to taxi off the airport.

KFLLCFII wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

realistically, no-one else needs Roc, right?

On paper, it appears to have an even greater maximum payload figure than the An-225...No idea about the comparison of payload-range scope, though.

Considering if it could carry a greatly-oversized piece of cargo compared to the 225, perhaps an oversized cargo "capsule" could be designed to contain and carry such cargo slung underneath the wing from where a rocket would have been hung...Wouldn't even need to be pressurized (saving weight and complication), just aerodynamically sound. May hypothetically be lucrative as a 225 replacement, or even upmarket from the 225.

SuseJ772 wrote:

I had a thought, which I am certain is wrong, but it does have me curious.

The design of it always looked almost unbelievable to me that structurally it would hold up. The spar/wing between the two fuselages seemed to be a weak point to me. Like in heavy turbulence would it snap? It just seems like a lot of weight could be creating forces in ways a wing/spar has not been fully vetted through historical aerospace.

Now again, I am sure I am wrong, but I do wonder if they figured something out during the test flight that found the engineering wasn’t as sound as they would hope.