Even though this is photoshopped, I am curious if this would actually fly IRL

If this were to be real, it would obviously be impractical, but I wonder if it would actually fly.

Attached: 1g2UOG7O_WOXvAd_zyXQaZaqhtMDlSRK-MGr6vtrBCI.jpg (896x598, 70K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=uH0hikcwjIA
youtube.com/watch?v=cAEw1J_x6C4
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Yes it would fly
No it isn't efficient

And a waste of space, and why do you need such a big engine? Unless you are carrying 10 tons of lead.

What about this?

Attached: 00005424.jpg (1024x680, 273K)

You could, but then you can't make a profit with a fuck big engine like that and barely any space for passengers.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (3000x1687, 209K)

Same tred from like a month ago.

Attached: 1339550542693.jpg (728x384, 77K)

Yes, there's nothing in the laws of physics that says such a design wouldn't be able to fly, just look at Korean war-era jets like the MiG and the Sabre.

Has it really been a month? Im starting to lose it

Maybe I've been bored lately and it seems longer.

>let's pump hot air directly into the passengers cabin

Attached: 1491020486935.png (613x1024, 896K)

look again, dumbo

So basically decreasing capacity by at least 50%, barely useful.
What's the point of having the airflow inside anyways?

Nazis actually developed a piloted version of the V1 rocket. The pilot was supposed to steer towards the target and bail out.
I'm not sure how many pilots got sucked into the intake before they abandoned it.

Attached: article-2259619-16D3AFC2000005DC-494_634x352.jpg (634x352, 68K)

What about 10 tons of feathers?

It would fly, but passenger weight would completely fuck up the balance and, unlike an existing craft, you'd be fucked if you lost one engine.

The fan would have to spin at relatively low RPM to not fuck itself apart which makes the fan rather useless, the engine itself would have to be much smaller behind the fan which pretty much breaks the entire purpose, engines dont scale well

fuhr FUN

youtube.com/watch?v=uH0hikcwjIA
youtube.com/watch?v=cAEw1J_x6C4

Also you'd need some way of preventing the plane from rotating around its axis. Otherwise, torque from the single engine would be a severe problem.

would this fly?

Attached: AEA_Cygnet_II.jpg (1024x373, 135K)

People probably still think this wouldn't work.

Attached: plane_treadmill.jpg (298x269, 22K)

anything flies if you put a big enough rocket on it.

that's because the question is ambiguous so all the testing methodology has been flawed

i don't think anyone ever implied that a treadmill would impede the ability for a plane to take off, though this seems to be what everyone clamors for "THE IMAGE WAS PROVED RIGHT THANKS TO DISCOVERY CHANNEL, YOU SUCK AND WE'RE MORE SCIENCYSMART"
but you cannot reduce the amount of space required for the plane to take off by putting a treadmill under it, it needs to travel the same geographic distance in order to achieve the lift necessary

No, there is no cockpit, so it won't fly

No, jet fuel will melt steel poles of running road.

Oh, fuck. I thought it had turbofans on wings.
I need my eyes checked I guess.

Is this your fetish?