Talk:Shuttle Carrier Aircraft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	Aviation Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related WikiProjects and/or task forces: Aircraft WikiProject

[edit] Weight

I'm not an aeronautical engineer, but it seems to me that the shuttle's weight would alone would counteract some of the lift generated by the SCA's flight, so that even if it added no drag, more of the plane's energy would have to go into keeping itself aloft instead of moving forward. The article I linked to (which isn't written by an aeronautical engineer, either) also says the weight is significant. Could you explain why you removed it? Thanks, Dave (talk) 16:20, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I'd just had a quick discussion on sci.space.shuttle where I was told off for assuming it was weight not drag :-). Basically, the loaded weight of the Orbiter is about the same as the cargo+passengers weight on a normal 747, so the weight of the SCA plus Orbiter is about the same as the weight of a 747 taking off on a normal passenger flight. [1], which is written by an aeronautical engineer ;-)

As such, just lugging the Orbiter (and ignoring drag) would require no more fuel than flying normally, so in theory the SCA would have the same range... but it doesn't, and the difference is almost entirely due to drag (weight to a small degree, but also things like flying inefficiently). Shimgray 16:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

That makes sense, although it's hard to imagine the shuttle plus stabilizers etc. weighing less than three times as much as passengers, seats, and cargo. Maybe we should clarify in case it confuses someone else. Thanks for the quick response. Dave (talk) 16:57, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the SCAs have been gutted inside - they're missing all the seats, cabin furniture, and so forth. That weighs quite a bit. [2] quotes a quarter-million lbs of payload (presumably for a cargo variant), whereas the orbiter is about 240,000 lbs at takeoff (presumably similar or a little less on being ferried, as fuel and payload are missing, but tailcone &c added). So the numbers are pretty similar. Shimgray 17:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree it's probably worth noting something about the payload issues ("weight no problem", basically), but I'm not best sure how to do it. Hmm. Shimgray 17:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fuel stats

Something looked odd with the fuel stats, so I looked up some of the info. There should be an infobox for this, but I didn't see it.

• Range 1000 nautical miles [3], = 1152 mi = 1852 km
• Fuel capacity of standard 747-100, 183,380 liters Boeing_747#Technical_data = 48,440 gal
• Length of standard 747-100, 70.7 m Boeing_747#Technical_data, = 232 ft

This gives fuel stats of 99 L/km and .0238 mile/gal. However, .0238 mpg is 125 ft/gal, about than half the plane length. Thus, the "1.5 times the length of the plane" part is not consistent with the other units. [4] Gimmetrow 23:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black Side Down

I know it seems somewhat silly, but it does seem to be a real joke - different reports give different wording (Attatch/Place/Mount Orbiter Here...), but photos certainly exist and have turned up in reputable works - I don't have my copy to hand, but some poking suggests, there's one in Dennis Jenkins' book.

[5] is another picture - note different style and wording. I suspect the joke has been recreated a couple of different times, possibly on different bits of hardware. Shimgray | talk | 19:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yea, the Black Side Down part probably is a joke. The rest could just be overcautious warnings and such. The Place Orbiter Here image above is too small for me to read the lettering. -Fnlayson 05:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

PLACE ORBITER
HERE . . BLACK
SIDE DOWN

is a transcription, or close enough. Shimgray | talk | 18:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's the image and entry in the article.

Orbiter Mount note image

• The rear mounting point on N905NA is labeled for the absent minded installer, with an instruction to "Attach Orbiter Here" — clarified by the precautionary warning "Black Side Down".

It was removed and I'm not sure it should be in there. -Fnlayson 19:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I've just checked - it is indeed in Jenkins' Space Shuttle (photo on pp. 197, third edition, 2001), credited to Tony Landis - photographed with an orbiter attatched and the text blown up for clarity, though it's just about readable unmagnified:

CAUTION PLACE ORBITER
HERE BLACK SIDE DOWN
LEFTY LOOSY
RIGHTY TIGHTY

Same panel and (apparently) same strut, though possibly on the other aircraft or at a different point, so that's three sightings of the same gag, one cited in one of the definitive works. Just feel it best to make sure that if we do decide to remove it we don't do so under the misapprehension it's a hoax... Shimgray | talk | 23:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)