Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Potato Salad
Oct 23, 2014

nobody cares


Nebakenezzer posted:

So it was not a problem in airships :smug:

But what shape works best for aircraft launching / recovery? Real world attempts often run into "this is so hard thanks to airflow and turbulence that even our test pilots in ideal conditions have trouble docking"

PS> PT6A lol that avatar

Put the flight deck in the front of the carrier with a hole in the front where the air is still laminar

Bonud points if used to stick a hole in the back too, so that carrier is kind of a hollow pipe flying through the air. With wings.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Potato Salad
Oct 23, 2014

nobody cares


Give me 24 hours with a 747 and a circular saw and I'll show you what I mean

Sagebrush
Feb 26, 2012

fun fact: ground effect works whether the "ground" is above or below the plane. if you fly less than one wingspan underneath a bridge, you'll get a burst of ground-effect-induced lift and potentially smack into the underside. so, you know, be careful about that runway tube.

bloops
Dec 31, 2010

Thanks Ape Pussy!
You guys are not thinking big enough. Imagine an airship with six externally-mounted runways that run lengthwise of the aircraft. As jets land, the runways rotate inside the airship for servicing and maintenance.

It’s like a revolver dogged a helicarrier.

Warbird
May 23, 2012

America's Favorite Dumbass

Sagebrush posted:

fun fact: ground effect works whether the "ground" is above or below the plane. if you fly less than one wingspan underneath a bridge, you'll get a burst of ground-effect-induced lift and potentially smack into the underside. so, you know, be careful about that runway tube.

So if you were doing some Ace Combat style nonsense in a tunnel would the opposing ground effect forces cancel out?

Sagebrush
Feb 26, 2012

Warbird posted:

So if you were doing some Ace Combat style nonsense in a tunnel would the opposing ground effect forces cancel out?

No, you'd just fly into the ceiling. Ground effect always gives you extra lift whether it's the result of a surface above or below the plane.

Ground effect is often portrayed as some sort of "cushion" of air created when the plane settles close to the ground, because that's kind of how it feels to the pilot and it seems logical, but that's an oversimplification. The real reason has to do with vortex generation. When an airplane (any airfoil, technically) is creating lift, it creates wingtip vortices as a result of the air spilling over from the high-pressure underside of the wing to the low-pressure upper surface. The vortices are a system of moving air that carry energy away from the airplane -- energy that can no longer be used for lift -- so they are modeled as a form of drag called "induced drag." Producing more lift means a stronger pressure differential on the wing, which means stronger vortices, which means more energy leaves the plane, which means greater induced drag. This basic relationship is fundamental to aerodynamics.

When flying close to the ground, however, the ground interrupts the tip flow and prevents the vortices from forming. Since the air can't spiral around, much less/no induced drag is created, and that sudden reduction in drag appears to the pilot like a burst of extra lift. So because the effect has to do with interrupted flow rather than creating a "cushion" underneath the plane, flying very close to a solid ceiling has the same result. The tip vortices break up, the drag suddenly drops, and the plane floats up and crashes into the bottom of the bridge.

I think that theoretically it would also happen if you flew down a canyon with walls only slightly wider than your wingspan, interrupting the vortices on the sides instead of from underneath or above.

bloops
Dec 31, 2010

Thanks Ape Pussy!

Sagebrush posted:

No, you'd just fly into the ceiling. Ground effect always gives you extra lift whether it's the result of a surface above or below the plane.

Ground effect is often portrayed as some sort of "cushion" of air created when the plane settles close to the ground, because that's kind of how it feels to the pilot and it seems logical, but that's an oversimplification. The real reason has to do with vortex generation. When an airplane (any airfoil, technically) is creating lift, it creates wingtip vortices as a result of the air spilling over from the high-pressure underside of the wing to the low-pressure upper surface. The vortices are a system of moving air that carry energy away from the airplane -- energy that can no longer be used for lift -- so they are modeled as a form of drag called "induced drag." Producing more lift means a stronger pressure differential on the wing, which means stronger vortices, which means more energy leaves the plane, which means greater induced drag. This basic relationship is fundamental to aerodynamics.

When flying close to the ground, however, the ground interrupts the tip flow and prevents the vortices from forming. Since the air can't spiral around, much less/no induced drag is created, and that sudden reduction in drag appears to the pilot like a burst of extra lift. So because the effect has to do with interrupted flow rather than creating a "cushion" underneath the plane, flying very close to a solid ceiling has the same result. The tip vortices break up, the drag suddenly drops, and the plane floats up and crashes into the bottom of the bridge.

I think that theoretically it would also happen if you flew down a canyon with walls only slightly wider than your wingspan, interrupting the vortices on the sides instead of from underneath or above.

I’ve genuinely learned something. Thanks.

Sagebrush
Feb 26, 2012

Incidentally if you want to learn about aerodynamics, this series is absolutely the best one I've seen. It's about 7 hours total and what else are you gonna do these days anyway?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1oCDR3DBbo

Yes it's quite ancient and it's narrated by literally a Nazi rocket plane scientist but the whole thing is extremely well put together and thorough. This guy's explanation of lift was the first time that I really got it, none of these dumb simplifications like the lonely molecules or the bouncing air, but the actual way that wings work. Highly recommended

Ola
Jul 19, 2004

Sagebrush posted:

Incidentally if you want to learn about aerodynamics, this series is absolutely the best one I've seen. It's about 7 hours total and what else are you gonna do these days anyway?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1oCDR3DBbo

Yes it's quite ancient and it's narrated by literally a Nazi rocket plane scientist but the whole thing is extremely well put together and thorough. This guy's explanation of lift was the first time that I really got it, none of these dumb simplifications like the lonely molecules or the bouncing air, but the actual way that wings work. Highly recommended

Flying into this rabbit hole, wingtips barely touching the sides.

babyeatingpsychopath
Oct 28, 2000
Forum Veteran


Sagebrush posted:

No, you'd just fly into the ceiling. Ground effect always gives you extra lift whether it's the result of a surface above or below the plane.

So you need giant fans in the ceiling of your tube to create short-final windshear proportional to ground effect lift.

Cat Mattress
Jul 14, 2012

by Cyrano4747

Inacio posted:

outrageous fantasy airship competition with the right scenario to make someone draw up a flying airship/airstrip when?

Why bother when we have Phil Foglio for this kind of nonsense?

bloops
Dec 31, 2010

Thanks Ape Pussy!
Neb is about to unleash some insane junior high school doodles.

aphid_licker
Jan 7, 2009


Petition to rename airships "Nebbelins"

Ola
Jul 19, 2004

aphid_licker posted:

Petition to rename airships "Nebbelins"

Seconded!

MrYenko
Jun 18, 2012

#2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

Aeronautical Insanity: Every Day We Nebblin

Xakura
Jan 10, 2019

A safety-conscious little mouse!

hobbesmaster posted:



"The concept, which included a complementary 747 AWACS version with two reconnaissance "microfighters", was considered technically feasible in 1973"

Fun when some electrical gremlin in the first plane ready to launch, prevents all other planes from launching as well.

bloops
Dec 31, 2010

Thanks Ape Pussy!
God invented a jettison button for a reason.

McTinkerson
Jul 5, 2007

Dreaming of Shock Diamonds


Is this the point where we start posting Crimson Skies screenshots?

I wonder if there's an easy way to get the models into a file that''s easily 3d printable...

Psion
Dec 13, 2002

eVeN I KnOw wHaT CoRnEr gAs iS

Inacio posted:

outrageous fantasy airship competition with the right scenario to make someone draw up a flying airship/airstrip when?

2007.



(it's being refueled by all those tankers simultaeously)

bloops
Dec 31, 2010

Thanks Ape Pussy!
What’s refueling the tankers because they’re never disconnecting lol

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008

Any of those helicarrier or other concepts need sci fi magic fuel sources to work like a fusion or antimatter reactor of some sort.

Or an open cycle fission reactor that magically doesn’t spew radiation everywhere

Psion
Dec 13, 2002

eVeN I KnOw wHaT CoRnEr gAs iS

bloops posted:

What’s refueling the tankers because they’re never disconnecting lol

those other tankers haven't arrived yet :v:

Midjack
Dec 24, 2007



bloops posted:

What’s refueling the tankers because they’re never disconnecting lol

They just land on the mega carrier when they’re empty.

Wingnut Ninja
Jan 11, 2003

Mostly Harmless

bloops posted:

What’s refueling the tankers because they’re never disconnecting lol

I'm just going to assume that the manta ray itself is nuclear powered and the tankers are to provide fuel for its air wing, like how it works with water-based aircraft carriers.

e: I just noticed the hull on the bottom and the outriggers, so it seems it's a flying boat on top of everything else. :shepface:

Cat Mattress
Jul 14, 2012

by Cyrano4747

Wingnut Ninja posted:

e: I just noticed the hull on the bottom and the outriggers, so it seems it's a flying boat on top of everything else. :shepface:

There's no way you could land such a thing on solid ground.

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008

Cat Mattress posted:

There's no way you could land such a thing on solid ground.

On a salt flat maybe

Xakura
Jan 10, 2019

A safety-conscious little mouse!

Wingnut Ninja posted:

I'm just going to assume that the manta ray itself is nuclear powered and the tankers are to provide fuel for its air wing, like how it works with water-based aircraft carriers.

e: I just noticed the hull on the bottom and the outriggers, so it seems it's a flying boat on top of everything else. :shepface:

Being a flying boat is the most sensible thing of it all. Where would you land it on land:P

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye

bloops posted:

Neb is about to unleash some insane junior high school doodles.

I gotta finish existing posts first! I did just order a book from amazon on how to draw for partially that reason, though

Cat Mattress posted:

There's no way you could land such a thing on solid ground.

There's definitely a life magazine which has illustrations of flying boat aircraft carriers

simplefish
Mar 28, 2011

So long, and thanks for all the fish gallbladdΣrs!


Psion posted:

2007.



(it's being refueled by all those tankers simultaeously)

1966



(Do you like cutaway drawings? Here are more than you needed: http://www.spectrum-headquarters.com/lower_deck.htm)

Godholio
Aug 28, 2002

Does a bear split in the woods near Zheleznogorsk?
Is this relevant yet?

marumaru
May 20, 2013



Godholio posted:

Is this relevant yet?



imagine the refrigeration system to try to stop all that water from evaporating in 10 minutes

Cat Mattress
Jul 14, 2012

by Cyrano4747

Godholio posted:

Is this relevant yet?



Ace Combat should do a flying version of that.

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye

One moar post that is absurd: can I confess I sorta hate the Avenger's heli-carrier

It needs a magic power source to fly, it crashes often and I can't remember any time SHIELD needed to launch aircraft RIGHT NOW, DAMNIT

Like guys, we get it, you're shield, but just get a ship or something

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008

Clearly Captain Marvell was very insistent that her Air Force friend got a flying aircraft carrier.

Platystemon
Feb 13, 2012

BREADS

Inacio posted:

imagine the refrigeration system to try to stop all that water from evaporating in 10 minutes

Just use a swamp cooler. :razz:

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye

Sagebrush posted:

Incidentally if you want to learn about aerodynamics, this series is absolutely the best one I've seen. It's about 7 hours total and what else are you gonna do these days anyway?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1oCDR3DBbo

Yes it's quite ancient and it's narrated by literally a Nazi rocket plane scientist but the whole thing is extremely well put together and thorough. This guy's explanation of lift was the first time that I really got it, none of these dumb simplifications like the lonely molecules or the bouncing air, but the actual way that wings work. Highly recommended

:allears:

I just watched the intro. Prof. Lippisch is precisely who I want narrating this

It's like John Moses Browning teaches gun engineering

FBS
Apr 27, 2015

The real fun of living wisely is that you get to be smug about it.

https://twitter.com/360tv/status/1250367761416626176

Google Translate posted:

SK posted a video of last year's SuperJet disaster at Sheremetyevo

Ambihelical Hexnut
Aug 5, 2008

Nebakenezzer posted:

:allears:

I just watched the intro. Prof. Lippisch is precisely who I want narrating this

It's like John Moses Browning teaches gun engineering


I like when he shits on the imperial system of units.

charliemonster42
Sep 14, 2005


simplefish posted:

1966



(Do you like cutaway drawings? Here are more than you needed: http://www.spectrum-headquarters.com/lower_deck.htm)

In retrospect, I was doomed to be an engineer because even as a child I remember wondering how the hell that thing stayed in the sky all the time. I loved that show, though. SciFi fantasy with puppets and aliens and mystery?? Fantastic!

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Jonny Nox
Apr 26, 2008




Nebakenezzer posted:

One moar post that is absurd: can I confess I sorta hate the Avenger's heli-carrier

It needs a magic power source to fly, it crashes often and I can't remember any time SHIELD needed to launch aircraft RIGHT NOW, DAMNIT

Like guys, we get it, you're shield, but just get a ship or something

Ok, but the helicarriers parts are being built in litterally every voting district in America. It's actually a good thing they keep crashing because it keeps so many of the voting public employed.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply