dear mnatt.
(1)the reason the dreamliner is of not use as a bomber (unlike the B-52) is simple, look at the wings, high wing on the B-52 and low on the 7E7.(1)
(2)you want the whole fuselage as usefull space, so you can fill it up with your payload, so the answer is to design it with high wing (wich is in turn attached to each other via a wing centerbox filled up with fuel, wich also in the case of a low wing, uses a lot of precisely that space you want.(2)
in the case of the B-1, its another type of construction, to have a low wing, and the wing centerbox is in this case hollow,
(3)so as to put payload and no necesarely fuel as on a comercial jetliner, nor B-52, also limiting its range.(3)
there are many more reasons still, thats why you wont see any jetliner doing such a job.
i hope this helps 🙂
Camaro.
1) dont understand what wing hight has to do with this for now.
2) still dont understand, because apart from the internal mechanisms the main issue is take of weight
3)
480,000 lbs + 8,500 isnt enough for you? what you want the bomber to go around the world twice before it gets to its target just to confuse the intended target? why not go around 3 times odd numbers are always good.
ive read the reports and their seem to be a conflicting requirements. the dreamliner has the range and the payload ability it would also have a great structural life.
Its velocity also fits in between the main arguments for a new bomber. supersonic Vs subsonic.
it has the ability to carry 480,000/2.2 * 0.35 (if going by assumption that 33perscent of take offweight is structural in modern aircraft 60 for old) = 76363.64Kg’s of weapons and people.. how is that bad?
Sign In
