Would this work Jow Forums?

Yes but would be a nightmare to design and maintain with no advantages

for you

This plane can only carry four pilots and next to no cargo, but at least you don't need MCAS for that.

what do you mean "would this work"?
clearly, from your picture, someone already built it, and if it's built, then engineers were sure it would work, otherwise no one would finance this project
however, I don't understand why someone built such a thing

It would be extremely painful

the real question is if you put it on a treadmill, would it take off?

sarcasm sure is hard to spot online. you almost got me there.

Yes. Earth will fly away from it

The main issue is that the design doesn't have a redundant engine. Instead it has redundant passengers. It's a new method that hasn't been tried before, but makes sense.

The cabins will fuck the arodynamics, so no

Almost looks like it's from the leaf village with that logo on it.

I'm no engineer but I feel like it would be really hard to steer with only one engine.

One failure, twice the casualties

No wonder you're not an engineer. You don't use the engine to steer the plane.

Could we reduce the amount of steering needed by creating an omni directional runway (just a big ass square area) so you can fly directly at the next airport without needing to turn?

Yes I know about tail winds, I'm not asking about fuel efficiency.

Were old single props hard to steer?

Yes. Look up the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15 and the North American F-86 Sabre.

What is the problem you are seeking with this solution?

You mean cold war technology that quickly went obsolete

Something something Pekka

Take the humans away from the centre and ramp up those g forces during turns etc? Sure it might work but the pilot would need to be bench not to let go and fall out of his seat every 2 minutes.

You're a big guy

But why? Big engine and a small cargo bay to do what exactly? Generate more thrust to go faster? I'm not an aeronautical engineering (still an engineer) and I believe the main optimization problem nowadays is not really with speed but fuel economy.

You see jet airliners today can potentially go much faster but they don't. Because weird things happen when you start pushing mach1. Even if you are sub-sonic, airspeed around parts of the fuselage can get close to mach1 if you don't stay well below a certain safe speed. So just like plane become aerodynamically unstable below a certain stall speed, there is also a high speed stall limit.

So to conclude, giant engine, tiny haul does not give you any advantages in commercial airplane design. The stresses generated by super-sonic flight would rip them apart.

FUCK niggers

You can. It's called differential throttling.

>That pic
Nice 'shop user, but let me school you on a few pointers.

>First, that concept would not work because the wingspan is not big enough or strong enough to support a turbine the entire length and size of a normal cabin. It would rip the wings right off itself when it tried to fly.
>Second, you are losing too much seating space by having two pods for passangers on either wing. From an operations perspective this means that you would also have to have two sets of cabin crews, doubling your labour, two sets of embarking and disbarking ladders at each airport, two sets of restocking and rubbish collection. It more than doubles your labour costs which are the highest component of flight travel after fuel. You would have to charge about 34x the current airfare to offset this humungous cost.
>Third, and final, where would the pilots sit? How can you judge your landing trajectory from off to the side like that? You would have to make runways three to four times as large so that they would have a chance of landing. I suppose you might put a camera on the turbine and use that for landing, but the reason that pilots still have windows is to allow for technical faliure so that their hard earned skills can be utilised if the tech fails.

In summary, good troll thread because I took the bait. Have a free (you), I hope you don't kill yourself today because you got the attention you so desperately need and do not receive in your day to day life.

You can, but pilots don't actually do that. They use the ailerons to roll. Having only one engine won't impede steering capability.

>does not know what photoshop is

The future is electric airplanes. Eco-nazis will tax jet fuel because they convinced themselves that using tons of energy to carry 50 tonnes of batteries into the sky is somehow more eco friendly than using jet engines.

Attached: http___cdn.cnn.com_cnnnext_dam_assets_181030130218-easyjet-wright-electric.jpg (929x522, 63K)

You could reduce wind resistance by removing the wings and just driving the plane to its destination along the ground.

Attached: brain is the most important.jpg (485x339, 44K)

There would be one pilot in each pod. The only question I have is, what would happen if they each steered in opposite directions. Would the plane break in half?

It would never work. Engine would be so heavy that it would need so much fuel which has no place to be stored in this piece of shit, so no.

It needs stickers or else it won't work

Mig 15 was used for many decades and is still probably used in some shithole of a countries as a trainer or smth

Generally if the pilot and co-pilot enter opposing inputs, they cancel each other out. Air France Flight 447 crashed because one of the pilots sat there holding his side stick back fully, so when the other pilot was pushing his forward to try and lower the nose and get them out of the stall they were in, nothing happened. Everybody on board died because of one incompetent moron yanking back on the controls and stalling the plane into the ocean.

Yes but it would be insanely inefficient, assuming the output of the engine is proportional to it's size. So relative to a normal plane it would be 10x more powerful, consume 10x+ more fuel, and carry a smaller load.
>in b4 smaller load = less fuel consumption
Those engines are designed to run at one speed. Also i have no idea what I'm talking about but feeling pretty confident about this.

It would be extremely inefficient

Attached: medium.jpg (300x300, 54K)

Also gonna add there would probably be an issue with wing span not being wide enough to support the weight of that turbine.

Why do planes use Jet A1 instead of IFO like ships use?

>doesn’t know what bait is

No. It would be uncontrollable and be very ineffective and waste most it's fuel

4u

4u

No reason it shouldn't.