[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/n/ - Transportation

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: Avro_Vulcan.png (238 KB, 1024x1064)
238 KB
238 KB PNG
I understand the argument for large planes that are designed for civil aviation because they need to maximise safety and have a minimum of maintenance costs to remain competitive, but this still feels like a great concept. especially for military aircraft or maybe even seaplanes which benefit from the decreased foreign object intake that podded engines dont provide (such as the saunders roe princess)
also post images of planes that don't make use of podded engines.
>>
File: Besson_MB_36.png (84 KB, 800x956)
84 KB
84 KB PNG
>>
File: saunders_roe_princess.jpg (452 KB, 2000x883)
452 KB
452 KB JPG
>>
File: Singular_Aircraft_SAo3.jpg (64 KB, 1200x666)
64 KB
64 KB JPG
>>
File: Blackburn_B-20.png (144 KB, 1280x961)
144 KB
144 KB PNG
>>
>>1734364
With props it decreases the effective wing area. With jets the maintenance becomes a nightmare and the vibrations will affect the wing structure more directly.
>>
>>1734364
they do, though
and military aircraft still need to have low maintenance requirements, even if it's higher than a civil aviation plane
>>
>>1734371
This is fair but doesn't the nacelle on jet engines or conventionally mounted turboprops on wings also reduce a wings ability to efficiently produce lift by breaking the uniformity of the airfoils?
Either way, the maintenance logistics would still cause a problem, although what still perplexes me is how little innovation there has been in this feild. modern aircraft companies are constantly trying to improve fuel efficiency and performance so reduced drag on smaller regional jets should be an entising proposal when it comes to next generation planes they plan to create.
>>1734378
do you think buried engines would be able to fit into the niche of distributed thrust perhaps? I forgot to mention it in OP
>>
sorry for the badly named jpegs btw
>>
File: X_57_distrubuted lift.jpg (34 KB, 828x551)
34 KB
34 KB JPG
>>
File: snowbird.jpg (699 KB, 1200x858)
699 KB
699 KB JPG
>>1734378
the B2 spirit certainly counts but I'm unsure about the F35. as the engine is placed in the rear of the aircraft with the air intakes placed below or inside the wings. similar to the canadian snowbird or other single engined jet trainers of the same era
>>
>>1734364
>large diameter turbofan engines are most efficient
>large diameter turbofan engines are most reliable and have longer lifespan (low rpm, larger parts, etc)
>its cheaper to build 2 large engines than multiple of tiny ones to fit the wings
>podded engines allow simple and lighter wing design
>podded engines are cheap to maintain
>podded engines are safer in case of catastrophic falure, it less likely to rupture airframe, fueltanks and controls.
>>
File: 1994626.jpg (256 KB, 1024x685)
256 KB
256 KB JPG
>>1734364
We need the Comet back, now
>>
File: 1332113.jpg (405 KB, 1280x837)
405 KB
405 KB JPG
>>1734391
>>
File: 1588547.jpg (83 KB, 1088x652)
83 KB
83 KB JPG
>>1734393
>>
File: 1254308.jpg (188 KB, 1024x695)
188 KB
188 KB JPG
>>1734394
>>
File: 0579175.jpg (259 KB, 1072x729)
259 KB
259 KB JPG
>>1734395
>>
>>1734390
>its cheaper to build 2 large engines than multiple of tiny ones to fit the wing
i thought it was cheaper to build 1 large engine but its simply not a common practice due to the FAA or ICAO ssafety regulations such as ETOPS. (single engine aircraft do not have insurance of safety comparable to 2 or 4 engine jets)
but still, this is nitpicking and i see your point. the cons outweigh the benefits. however the benefits are mostly beneficial to a civilian mass transport application!!
https://www.iata.org/en/programs/environment/technology-roadmap/
the IATA is predicting several future developments in air transport that increase fuel efficiency for the sake of the environment, so i'm sure innovation will catch up to the convenience of podded engines eventually :)
>>1734391
that's the spirit! thanks anon
>>
>>1734364
It worked in the turbojet era because those engines were rather small. A high-bypass turbofan produces thrust much more efficently, at the cost of having a large diameter (because it moves more air). Those things don't fit in the wings.
>>
>>1734407
ok,
would this also apply to propfans btw?
just a general question (since the main benefit to integrated engines is the fact that they create less drag and give the potential for more efficient fuel consumption)
>>
File: Nimrod_MRA4_1.jpg (504 KB, 3888x2592)
504 KB
504 KB JPG
>>1734391
I'm still sad the nimrod died
I mean it had to, it was so far over budget and behind schedule it wasn't even funny anymore, but the prestige of flying the first jet liner in the 21st century is so cool
>>
>>1734419
hehe one of the variants had a big nose it makes me laugh
splended addition anon
>>
>>1734417
Not entirely sure how propfans are setup, but you could have the power-turbine inside and a propeller outside (making an normal turboprop)

Mind you, those huge engines mostly suck in and accelerate all the air that comes to them, so at least under load I'd not expect them to contribute much to drag, but I haven't looked that part up, so I might be wrong.
In any case, the diffence the difference in efficiency between turbofan and turbojets is immense, and by far offsets any increase in drag.
>>
File: Ho_229.gif (40 KB, 1024x685)
40 KB
40 KB GIF
>>1734421
gotcha
thanks for contributing to the thread ^^
>>
>>1734420
honk honk
>>
File: FMA I.Ae. 37.jpg (50 KB, 640x451)
50 KB
50 KB JPG
>>
>>1734364
wing spars are kind of in the way
>>1734407
>Those things don't fit in the wings.
make wing thiccer
>>
File: DINFIA IA 38.gif (10 KB, 324x476)
10 KB
10 KB GIF
>>
File: junkers.jpg (48 KB, 800x501)
48 KB
48 KB JPG
>>1734425
i like how they just took a whole bunch of the stipa caproni and shoved them into one big flying wing
people were such visionaries
>>
>>1734425
frontal area is one of the main factors for aerodynamic drag
You don't want massively thick wings.
>>
>>1734431
cant they just make the leading edge of the wing more sharp?
>>
File: Junkers G-38.jpg (437 KB, 2605x1707)
437 KB
437 KB JPG
>>1734429
Vision know no limit, even Junkers was absurdly ambitious, iirc he almost went bankrupt trying to make giant aircraft's
>>
File: douglas_skyray.png (314 KB, 800x1131)
314 KB
314 KB PNG
>>1734436
i know I'm irrational saying this but i kind of look up to these dream planes being built despite their lack of practicality :p
and admittedly i get upset when practicality crushes said dreams because i think all planes are cool!
>>
>>1734431
Parasitic drag ? this is becomes less significant at higher altitudes, Lift induced drag takes over and angle of attack becomes more critical
anyway with such a thick wing there is reason to favour a not having a separate fuselage
>>1734433
so far as bulky leading edges go there is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FanWing
>>
>>1734440
I almost feel sad for Howard Hues and other such tragic figures as Preston Tucker
gifting ain't easy
>>
Supercritical Aerofoil have a slightly more blunt leading edge
>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike_PUL_9
can anyone help me find a photo of this? i read it was created by argentinian students/friends of horten but I cannot find any on google
will post if i find it
>>
File: pul 10 pplane.jpg (24 KB, 1024x693)
24 KB
24 KB JPG
never mind, found it lol
>>
File: Pul-9.jpg (120 KB, 1000x625)
120 KB
120 KB JPG
>>1734450
https://www.horten-aircraft.com/en/the-history/
http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/Horten_Nurflugels/PUL-10/pul-10.html

there are many more Pictures of the PUL 10, but among them you can find mislabelled pic of the PUL 9
PUL 9 is easy to spot mostly by its significantly shorter and narrower canopy
>>
Prandtl flying wing
Apparently provides improvement upon yaw control
>>
File: g61i62v9rim01.jpg (207 KB, 1000x1366)
207 KB
207 KB JPG
>>1734391
What went wrong, Ameribros?
>>
File: 573520872.gif (47 KB, 684x980)
47 KB
47 KB GIF
>ywn be a crewman on a B-36 and have to traverse the wing root to enter the landing gear bay & release the landing gear locking pin manually while in-flight
>>
>>1734465
too dependant on too few excellent people, once they are gone its all ogre
you need some social and institutional mobility, + a good way of teaching up and coming talent
otherwise the skilled people are in their jobs for too long or start to jealously guard their knowledge and position of employment
while the people who might have eventually fulfilled that employment have know Idea what they are doing, or are confined to their own way of doing things
>>
>>1734379
Putting the engines in the wings was possible for first-generation turbojets, but to put turbofans in the wings, the wing thickness would have to massively increase, which would increase drag too much compared to the pylon design.
>>
>>1734509
the most bulky part of modern engines is obviously the Turbo fan
the low compression stage is farely large also
with the high compression stage being the most compact but also likely the hottest, so not really suited to being buried in a wing
>>
>>1734469
thank fuck
>>
File: ua 232.png (888 KB, 1128x631)
888 KB
888 KB PNG
>>1734364
>Punctures your hydraulic and fuel lines
>>
File: 0784374.jpg (205 KB, 1024x690)
205 KB
205 KB JPG
>>1734423
That's not even the biggest (((nose))) on the Comet
See pic related
>>
>>1734364
cum
>>
>>1734658
>sniiiiifffffff
>>
>>1734570
thats an image of a McDonnell Douglas DC-10!!
i dont get it pls elaborate anon
>>
File: IMG_20200218_162000.jpg (53 KB, 444x494)
53 KB
53 KB JPG
>>1734733
>Sniff
>>
>>1734465
Square windows
>>
>>1734364
Incorporated engine in wings fuck the aerodynamics.
>>
>>1734888
nani??
i thought they did everything but that
>>
File: 1614550755335.jpg (40 KB, 620x349)
40 KB
40 KB JPG
>>1734736
If your engine detonates it's gonna send shrapnel everywhere. If it's located deep within the wings, it will probably create a fuel leak, and possibly hydraulics too.
>>
>>1735036
Would they replace the pylon after this accident?
>>
>>1735036
as opposed to shrapnel from a hanging engine getting thruwn into the wing, where the fuel lives?
>>
File: Bv_m4_02.jpg (226 KB, 1280x960)
226 KB
226 KB JPG
>>
File: 1280px-Tu-16_Egyptian.jpg (362 KB, 1280x847)
362 KB
362 KB JPG
>>
>>
>>1734419
>>1735164
I'm not being disparaging here, but why did British bombers look so weird? The Nimrod and the V bombers all look like planes from some strange alternate universe.
>>
File: vickers v bomber.png (1.53 MB, 1536x1075)
1.53 MB
1.53 MB PNG
>>1735175
design work started before WW2 was even over iirc, the change of mission from strategic bombing to nuclear to high alt to whatever the fuck led to some true magic happening
on the other hand, vickers, fairey, miles, and all the others made innumerable completely alien designs even before the war so there was certainly something in the lead water pipes
>>
>>1735175
i think they look cool! very unique and unconventional even for today
>>
another stupid question, would a cylindrical wing with a centrally placed propeller function as a ducted fan?
>>
File: Stipa Caproni- (2).jpg (49 KB, 442x451)
49 KB
49 KB JPG
>>1735895
probably but it may be hard to steer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kB4-_OWz5qE
people have made scale models of such an arrangement
>>
File: Heinkel lerche.jpg (112 KB, 1024x839)
112 KB
112 KB JPG
>>1735898
the germans had a prototype of this in WW2 but it was a vtol tailsitter and didn't have an annular wing, however the weirdly placed propeller was there
>>
>>1734364
The podded engine is actually an innovation designed to reduce drag at higher speeds. They were first introduced on the XB-47. There is another half of the equation and that is wing sweep. Early designs had shock cones attached to the engine pod intakes. These were later removed. Pods were streamlined to reduce drag and moved the engine inlet and air being sucked into the compressor fan away from the wing.

At high speeds, the energized airflow and engine intake combined to produce drag, because most of the intake air was closer to skin whilst air further away would compress around it, this also reduced the efficiency of the wing. This effect limited the top speed of the aircraft.

On fighter jets, the Air intake is moved under the wing or is more closely integrated into the fuselage, whilst the airfoils used are selected for lower drag characteristics whilst being optimized for lift generation.
>>
>>1735915
thanks anon!
i can now live out my dreams of drawing planes online ^^
>>
>>1734465
Leftism pushed too hard for the support of the lowest common denominator. We dumb everything down and focus all of society's effort and capital on supporting those least deserving of it. Why build bridges, rails, and skyscrapers when you can spend it on welfare payments to Shane'qua and her 14 fatherless children?
>>
>>1734431
came here to say this, and i reckon as a layman that thick wing roots are thick necessarily for support, otherwise theyd be thin

also a podded jet is usually mounted on a brace that extends well away from the wing so there is much less interference
>>
>>1736192
that said, there are many designs for many applications that dont make sense, im sure podded engines in a fat wing could have a situation where they are the ideal
>>
>>1735899
>prototype
>shows model
>>
>>1736797
sorry im a failure :c
>>
>>1734465
The jews
>>
>>1734364
Engines inside wings or fuselage are bitch to maintain. Not to mention noise for passengers might be an issue. Also can't fit high bypass ratio engines inside wings.
>>1734378
Military doesn't fly even close to as much as airlines. Also, for both stealth and drag for high speed, nacelles aren't a practical solution. Those things justify harder access to engines for maintenance.
>>
>>1735915
it wasn't meant to reduce drag, it was designed to allow very thin swept wings with long wingspans (weight distributed along wing, engine placed forward to counteract wing twist, continuous wing spar), trading an increase in parasitic drag from extra surface area for less induced drag. A good tradeoff for subsonic high altitude bombers and airliners, but not for low level supersonic fighters.
>>
>>1737826
Yeah sounds like a much more reasonable answer.
>>
File: LERCHE GANG.jpg (113 KB, 1280x932)
113 KB
113 KB JPG
>>1735899
love lerche
lerche life
>>
File: SNECMA Coléoptère.jpg (45 KB, 600x523)
45 KB
45 KB JPG
>>1738083
Oui en effet
>>
>>1736014
>>
>>1736014
Why build palaces for the aristocrats when you can ensure that peasants have enough to avoid starvation?
>>
What was the reasoning for having prop engines in a tractor vs. pusher configuration? I always heard the pusher congi wasn't ideal, but obviously there was some tradeoff that made it a better choice for some designs.
>>
>>1739914
Tractor configuration has the advantange of the pilot being able to see what the engine is doing, makes the aircraft front heavy which maximizes the effect of the tail control surfaces (bigger lever for a given aircraft lenght), allows for the pilot to jump out of the aircraft without being hit by the prop, and provides cooling airflow without the need for ducting or separate fans, among other things.

Pusher props have the potential for having less drag as the prop isn't sending turbulent air all over the fuselage and frontal area can be smaller, less cabin noise (although it might be louder outside due to exhaust/prop interference), much better visibility , better structural strenght and less ways of an engine problem hindering the pilot.

If I have to give the tractor one advantage over the pusher prop that sums up all others and gave it the advantage since ww1, it's that the tractor configuration is much more forgiving of engineering mistakes, which is important considering how early planes were near death traps.
>>
>>1739909
It is pure cowardice for governments to hide behind their projects when they could just say that space is more important to them than their most vulnerable citizens.
>>
File: Vought_V.173.jpg (18 KB, 400x311)
18 KB
18 KB JPG
this is an interesting configuration somewhat related to the OP, the main difference being that the engines are buried in the fuselage/wing and drive the propellers through what I assume to be gears
>>
>>1734364
Remember that a certain ethnic group began to nitpick, sabotage, divest, ... the european and canadian aerospeace industry to boost the amerishart economy around the 60's?

Every attempt to build a modern passenger jet inside the US mysteriously failed during the last decades:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI-mg9FjdNk

(there are more examples that I posted here before)
>>
>>1738870
>>1740010
NASA is farely cheep
>>
File: naranjero-3v.jpg (124 KB, 900x600)
124 KB
124 KB JPG
another flying wing-like concept
>>
File: vickersV1000.jpg (42 KB, 736x384)
42 KB
42 KB JPG
vickers V 1000 was interesting, similar to the comet in design
>>
>>1734658
Plane inflation kink
>>
File: Gonzø.jpg (90 KB, 1024x683)
90 KB
90 KB JPG
>>1734733
>>1734658
>>1734423
Sniff sniff
>>
>>1736014
>>1738870
"poor black people is why we're not on mars!!" is a meme spread to cover the asses of senators who voted to defund both black people and Mars. welfare has generally gotten less generous since the 1950s and spending on it has primarilly risen because (a) we'd rather spend twice as much on bureaucracy to make getting welfare a pain in the ass, than spend half as much and risk more "undeserving" people getting it, and (b) we stopped trying to maintain full employment in the 1970s-80s. (they now declare we've got full employment, but that was redefined from "no involuntary unemployment" to "an arbitrary level of unemployment that the federal reserve deems will support low inflation")

tl;dr never trust a politician.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.