Timeline for Why are there so few aircraft that had inhabited wings?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 4, 2019 at 18:15 | comment | added | CrossRoads | Ok, I wasn't thinking of fuel as payload, guess I should have. In my plane I figure on 264 or 300 pounds for it (filled to the holes, or filled all the way). The 600 pounds of passengers/baggage is usually of more concern. | |
| Mar 4, 2019 at 17:48 | comment | added | Jan Hudec | @CrossRoads, there is fuel there, which is much easier to put there as it can flow around all the necessary structural elements—and has to be somewhere too. | |
| S Mar 4, 2019 at 16:35 | history | suggested | Toby Speight | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Copy-edit slightly unclear sentence; minor spelling and grammar fixes too.
|
| Mar 4, 2019 at 16:00 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Mar 4, 2019 at 16:35 | |||||
| Mar 4, 2019 at 13:26 | comment | added | CrossRoads | That 1975 NASA paper was an interesting read - and yet there are still no payload in the wings airplane today, nearly 44 years later. Guess the market place decided fuselage only was sufficient. | |
| Mar 22, 2018 at 10:49 | comment | added | Marius | Just another example...the Boeing 314 Clipper (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_314_Clipper) did not utilize as extensive in-wing seating, but did have spaces for flight engineers to utilize during flight (pinterest.com/pin/326862885432596571). That said, the low number of passengers it could carry and high costs proved its downfall. | |
| Mar 21, 2018 at 21:31 | history | edited | Peter Kämpf | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 258 characters in body
|
| Mar 17, 2018 at 9:28 | vote | accept | Squareoot | ||
| Dec 24, 2017 at 22:08 | history | edited | Peter Kämpf | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 817 characters in body
|
| Dec 24, 2017 at 1:32 | history | answered | Peter Kämpf | CC BY-SA 3.0 |