would it work, Jow Forums?
Would it work, Jow Forums?
Jacob Wilson
Other urls found in this thread:
grc.nasa.gov
planeandpilotmag.com
twitter.com
Noah Thomas
Liam Lewis
For a true VTOL that can generate more downward thrust than its total weight, yes, though there would be no point. For 99.95% of aircraft, no, because they only fly due to the lift created by their wings. Taking off is a matter of accelerating to the speed required to generate the requisite amount of lift. Stationary takeoffs are impossible unless you're a helicopter, VTOL, or have a shitload of rockets strapped to you.
Brandon Carter
No, it's an airplane, not a rocket. The lift is generated by the shape of the wings, which force air upwards, lowering the pressure along the bottom of the wings. This causes air to rush into the low pressure area and force the plane upwards. In other words it has to be moving forwards to generate lift.
Wyatt Bell
Theoretically yes if the jet had sufficient thrust to achieve flight from its thrust alone (ie acting as a rocket not an aeroplane), but the amount of stress that would put on the airframe makes that a very bad idea. Not to mention that if the first point is true, you can just do away with the cable alltogether and launch the jet vertically like a rocket
Michael Davis
>would this work
No. Fuck no.
>t.6332
Here's a great idea though.
>AV8B
>swap out hardpoints
>put a "coffin" so a special forces guy can ride in
>have 2 guys per harrier
>harrier hovers, operators fast rope down
It would be the fastest insertion aircraft in service.
Levi Harris
We have catapults already, user.
Jackson Collins
>The lift is generated by the shape of the wings, which force air upwards, lowering the pressure along the bottom of the wings. This causes air to rush into the low pressure area and force the plane upwards.
The absolute state of public education.
Ayden Sanchez
pretty sure this is bait. Air does go up and over aircraft, but lift is achieved by the aircraft compressing against the air below and riding it as a fluid. Air is a fluid. fuck.
Adrian Bailey
Meanwhile there are a million VTOL jets you dumb fucker.
OP, it wouldn't work because the vehicle wouldn't be stabilised in any way, so it'd flail around on the end of the tether and probably crash into something.
Even if it didn't, it'd achieve max thrust before the tether released, but at that moment it would be at zero velocity and, unless it was sufficiently angled to stay aloft purely through thrust, wouldn't generating lift because it isn't moving at that moment, so it could potentially bounce off the ground even though it'd suddenly have a huge acceleration.
That just sudden acceleration would also be a kick in the dick for the pilot, potentially dangerous as well.
Caleb Gomez
It's more that physics is harder than what the average person can comprehend. Most people remember a simplification of the real phenomenon and mis-apply that.
planeandpilotmag.com
Benjamin Adams
It sounds like you just came up with a complex and dangerous replacement for aircraft wheelbrakes and a fucking ramp.
Easton Wilson
>air is a fluid
We aint fish.
Ryder Morgan
The only way it would get aloft in the first place is if it's thrust is greater than weight - the tether is unnecessary
Levi Miller
>the tether is unnecessary
You're kidding me, planes can take off without tethers? Wow this is like a whole new world.
Try to keep up.
>The only way it would get aloft in the first place is if it's thrust is greater than weight
Right, but thrust/acceleration is DIFFERENT FROM VELOCITY.
Ethan White
No. The plane is not moving forward, meaning no lift is generated by the wings. Also the force propelling the plane forward would just rip the plane in half.
Aiden Butler
Yep, which is why a big standard plane on a tether would never leave the ground in the first place.
Ian Brooks
>force propelling the plane forward would just rip the plane in half.
what
Hunter White
Very few planes have a trust to weight ratio above 1 when standing still (turbines-jet engines are inefficient at complete rest).
There are a few exceptions, like Sukhoi Su35 who has a TWR above 2, even before it start moving on the runway.
Even then, compared to OP's example image, that setup wouldn't work even then. You'd need to start pointing straight up until enough speed was achieved to generate life.
Easton Carter
The only way a Su35 has a TWR over 2 is if it's completely empty, and in that case it doesn't move on the runway very well because there is no fuel in the tanks.
If we look at other aircraft we see the F-16 would have a theoretical TWR of slightly under 2 if it were afterburning empty, and the F-15 would sit at 2 in the same situation. Same with the F-22, and the F-35 is close.
Michael Davis
Nope, fixed wing flight comes from air moving past the wings, forcing the bitch to fly. If you have it tethered in one place, air can't move past the wings, so there is nothing to force the bitch to fly. Thus, the bitch would fall to the ground and you would have a very expensive "oopsie daisy"
Jonathan Jones
Spoke a bit quickly and from memory, my bad.
Su35s has a TWR at rest (fueled up) of 1.3.
TWR of 2.1 can be reached while in flight using afterburners.
Anyway, the point still stands.
Landon Adams
What do you think the engine is doing while it is tethered? Creating a negative pressure that will pull air aft across the wing.
OP is clearly retarded but I will commend him on his ability to summon his kin.
Michael Hernandez
The 35 does not have a 1.0 TWR at max fuel.
Anthony Morales
Who said max?
Zachary Collins
Not nearly enough to provide any worthwhile amount of lift
>t. aerospace engineering major
Ryan Jackson
Can someone explain to me why VTOL is something anyone gives a shit about especially as opposed to STOL? It seems like anywhere worth putting an airplane is also worth putting some kind of runway right? Not trolling just legitimately ignorant of this topic
Levi Baker
There are parts of the world where you can't put a runway, and being able to take off vertically eliminates this problem. However, if you're the US you'll probably just float an aircraft carrier on over or just build an airbase.
Gavin Robinson
Adam Richardson
You'd need a pretty strong fan
Oliver Sanchez
My uncle is a bush pilot. He would have me tie up a rope to a tree and to the plane and do pretty much this. It made for easier short takeoffs. I don't know about jets though.
Lucas Robinson
>troll physics in 2018
Henry Taylor
Hmmm... The plane could hover if it applied enough thrust to counteract being blown backwards, while having sufficient lift from the fan. But as soon as the fan is retracted, the plane would drop because it isn't actually moving fast enough to generate lift.
UNLESS THE FAN ELEVATED FAR UP ENOUGH TO ALLOW THE PLANE SOME GLIDE TIME TO DEVELOP VELOCITY.
EXTENDO FANS FOR STO
Luis Richardson
Vertical landing requires a rotating nozzle, and once you have that you might as well have the ability for a vertical take off as well, it also does increase the amount of expedient sites for takeoff albeit with a heavy performance hit
Noah Garcia
That is just to get the plane to full throttle before moving. In short takeoffs you can't waste any ground rolling while the engine still spools up. Once released the plane takes off like any other.
Lincoln Cruz
Goddamn I miss troll physics threads.