Would it work?

kek came here to post that

>a 19 ton airplane can still fly with one of its four engines
>let's remove the other three engines, basically relying on just one, with no 'backup' ones
genius

>>let's remove the other three engines, basically relying on just one, with no 'backup' ones
>genius
But you now have even more backup pilots tho.

Why would it not work? You still get propulsion, in fact even more propulsion than before because the jet engine is much larger. And the structure of the jet and wings is the same as before.

It would but it would be less safe.

Two engines are for redundancy. Everything on a plane is designed to fail and still be capable of landing. Planes are over engineered for safety and that's why we have almost no crashes from malfunctions anymore.

You could rip off the roof of the plane like Fight Club and the flight would be capable of landing with the passengers unharmed.

Now this is think different

Yes but you'd have a reduced passenger capacity, so you'd be losing money on it

I won't be good idea to concentrate weight in the middle, would cause instability, still might work though.

the wings wouldn't be able to bear a cabin each on them, no way and also that would be a bitch to land, probably the only positive thing is that it would have a very stable thrust axis since it's centered

Not a problem, there are more than enough stabilizing factors to compensate for that. Remember many planes don't even have engines on their wings, all their weight is in the middle, yet they fly just fine.

>You could rip off the roof of the plane like Fight Club and the flight would be capable of landing with the passengers unharmed.
I doubt this, what about all the wind force and things flying around the plane
I'm sure even rain becomes a huge danger when hitting it at that speed

How would you stop the body of the plane from rotating around its own axis?

Ailerons, dumbass.

Possibly, but you only have one engine, and if anything happens to that engine, everyone dies.

bump

kys

no u

haha big plane

>that aloha air flight never happened

keeping mass close to the longitudinal axis is actually good for aerodynamics.

Yeah thats cool and all but where would the passengers be?

In the cucktubes at the side

Actually if you balance precisely the passengers inside, it would.

Attached: 1527387364633.jpg (986x1369, 878K)

for you

I think I saw a scramjet built like that. You lose the advantage of redundant engines so the mortality rate would skyrocket. It's fine to have one engine in a car, not so much in an aeroplane.
I think if you built a car with two 3 cylinder engines you could have something very dependable.

Attached: CopyQ.nS6868.png (700x271, 193K)

As an aviation engineer at Honeywell, there's no way it wouldn't work.
Trust me on this one.

Why not?

Attached: f-16_fighting_falcon.jpg (1486x866, 88K)

engine 2 smol

Yes but you are sacrificing stability and reliability way too much to be worth it.

Drag produced by cabins coupled with sheer power from fan rips off wings and cabins. Fan accelerates into space where it wont work.

Will it take off? No, this happens on the ground when the right speed is achieved

Thats not it, its the absence of aerodynamics of the wings. The engines on a real plane are essentially "in the middle" of their respective wings, and the cabin is just along for the ride

Do you really believe that airplanes simply fall to the ground when they lose thrust? Are you this retarded?

lovely

not at altitude it wouldn't
rapid decompression is a bitch

that plane doesnt have 4 engines though
its a boeing 777

What is a jet fighter?

Don't even need to precisely balance the passengers, and with most of the mass in the center with anhedral wings it should stay pretty well balanced anyways

You could even pump fuel between wings to dynamically balance weight if necessary.

It would be extremely painful

You're not sacrificing any stability

rapid decompression does fuck all but make people pass out

are you talking physically or physiologically?

superior soviet engineering already did this. Mikoyan and Gurevich 15 had engine in the center with a huge opening.

Because the little people pods under the wings would fit fewer people than one big thing in the center, and the fundamental for cost effectiveness in these things is rooted heavily in how many people they can carry at once

Probably within a decade we'll see those triangle planes that fit even more people while also being quieter and safer

Attached: 383F159D00000578-3785673-image-a-1_1473694613402.jpg (962x621, 87K)

>within a decade
>aerospace
BWAHHAHAHAAAHAHAA

It could work but here the issues
>in case of a emergancy landing you would make contact with the cabbins first
>engines on planes are designed to break off, dont want that happen with your passengers
>bad use of cargo area
>2 pilots and cockpits (allways bad)

THE PLANE CAN LAAAAAND WITH ONLY ONE ENGINE

You cant take off with one engine you fucking idiot

>within a decade we'll see those triangle planes
How much different do you think the 777 is from the 787?

Yes you can.
t. pilot on Microsoft Flight Sim

>this thread

Attached: SIPP.gif (320x180, 2.6M)

As much as I love those NASA designs they reflect an outdated way of thinking about civilian air travel. Back then the idea was more passengers equals more money which equals greater efficiency. With the de-regulation of civilian air travel and huge unexpected leaps in civilian airliner engine efficiency budget planes with less than 150 passengers have proven to be the plane of the future as they can server in more air ports and are far more flexible in scheduling. Big planes will only serve a niche role in the future as long endurance (10+ hour flights) over large expanses of water (i.e. oceans).

Most of the hold up in getting a new plane into service is politics. Civilian certification is not hard, but the standards are kept a secret so that way congress has the power to blackmail the aerospace industry into providing jobs for their district in order to get federal approval. There are planes that have been flying just fine for years in other countries, including Japanese, Chinese, and Brazilian planes, but because they refuse to bring part o their production to America to appease the demands of congress they will never get certified. If you were to fix this blatantly corrupt process then you could easily get a new plane from drawing board to flying within a decade no problem.

>secret standards
what

Airports are at capacity for landing slots and gets though. Big planes will be required.

*gates

Article is behind a paywall but it mentions how certification qualifications are not an open standard. japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/01/26/business/corporate-business/mitsubishi-aircraft-receives-first-mrj-cancellation/

Big planes mean you need more gates, it's not an across the board net increase. With smaller planes you get a higher throughput since the turn around on smaller planes is less than larger planes.

Yes

They look on bombers on radar, so enjoy being blown up.