Random Aerodynamic Oddity of the Day Thread

[Bicycle Bob]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

Even as a kid I wondered why they did not make windows in the bottom of the (then fixed) cone, to see through during take off and landing. Still baffles me now.

At those landing speeds, a bottom window is pretty useless, and everything that isn't window now is crammed with instruments, etc. The Apollo moon landers were giving the designers fits, trying to include both windows and instruments, until someone realized that at moon gravity, the crew didn't need to sit down with their knees blocking the view.

The one that baffles me is why the 747 and 380 didn't have a big windshield on a forward passenger lounge. I love flying front seat when there's no co-pilot on a small plane.

[RedDevil]

Not straight down, just there what would be straight ahead with the cone in place.
Plus a camera for good measure.
Not that it matters anymore now.

[Piotrsko]

The vane things are high speed uhf blade antennas that are part of the VOR navigation system, now mostly unfunded and obsolete.

A prototype had a window, but it was found to be inadequate. As the flying weight varies, so does the angle it lands at. You need a huge window. Back then cameras and displays were generally unreliable.
The wheelie bar was for heavy landings or over zealous rotation. Some early 747 models have one.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by Bicycle Bob

The one that baffles me is why the 747 and 380 didn't have a big windshield on a forward passenger lounge. I love flying front seat when there's no co-pilot on a small plane.

From a post of mine in another forum back in 2016..........what I think would be cool.


http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/north...ngs-1608574997


http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/postw...tyle-512623148



Would kind of solve both issues that have been brought up.

[Bicycle Bob]

Flying wings are wonderfully elegant, but it turns out that their best niche is slow flight. A passenger compartment is of such low density that it works better as a streamlined pod with less surface area.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by Bicycle Bob

Flying wings are wonderfully elegant, but it turns out that their best niche is slow flight. A passenger compartment is of such low density that it works better as a streamlined pod with less surface area.

Flying wings and blended wings in other words are "high lift" and well suited for heavy freight - then I would agree.

In addition they tend to heave up and down (puke city) and tend to be unstable in the vertical (oscillating pitch) unless controlled by a computer.

They have a future, they are going to be there one day - when we are ready.

Of course, that's been said before...................

PDF
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...hPAJJ5yBddfmkl

“Perhaps the day is not far distant when flying-wing types will dominate the entire field of military, commercial, and private flying,” The New York Times gushed in November 1941.

PDF
same as above

Just before Northrop’s death, he was given special permission by the Air Force to enter the Northrop development facilities and see the ATB design, which eventually became the phenomenal B-2 stealth bomber. It had a wingspan of 172 feet, just like the YB-49. Northrop’s original Flying Wing was “30 years ahead of its time,” said E. T. Wooldridge when he was chairman of the Aeronautics Department at the National Air and Space Museum. Retired Brig. Gen. Robert L. Cardenas, who was the principal test pilot for the YB-49 in the 1940s, added that the airplane “had to wait for technology to catch up.

There is an image in the PDF, a close up of the front landing gear in which the caption mentions the co-pilots downward observation window.

[freebeard]

I like the Aeromodeller II


inhabitat.com:
Hydrogen & Wind Powered Zeppelin Could Revolutionize Airship Transportation

His early designs snaked through the air like an oarfish.

[arcosine]

This would fly at jet speeds, Mach 0.7

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by arcosine

This would fly at jet speeds, Mach 0.7

I've see the RC flying models of those online for years, very cool.

Truboprop, ducted fan and jet engine versions being compared.

I do not know if they have looked at hybrid-electric that the below article looks into.

2016
Coming Soon To Airports Near You: Fast Hybrid-Electric Aircraft For Everyone
https://www.ge.com/reports/coming-so...raft-everyone/

Regional air powered by range-optimized hybrid-to-electric aircraft is poised to take on this challenge. Electric propulsion will bring airliner competitive economics to mid-sized aircraft over ranges from 700 miles in the early 2020s to over 1,000 miles by 2030. Hybrid aircraft will give rise to a regional air system that is very different from the concentrated hub-spoke of the jet engines today.

This is a complex topic, but in short I think in the future there will be both larger intended for Hub & Spoke +500 passenger superjumbo megaliners (+Airbus A380 size) of blended wing, and an expansion of the smaller airport, smaller aircraft Point-to-Point system outside of western Europe (W.E. too congested/dense for P-to-P).

Do not confuse Point-to-Point with non-stop and or "direct" flights as many people do. The article below provides some examples on the topic.

Hub vs Point

Back to that Boeing/NASA blended wing, flying wings and semi-flying wings or so-called "Blended Wing" configurations suffer from heaving up and down oscillations, but computer controls may temper this as they have with the B-2.

In addition, no more looking out the window (bad?), but again people glued to their electronic devices may be an advantage here so we shall see if this is an important tomorrow as it is today.

Back to some odd stuff...................but I like this one a lot.

https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/modif...ndia-1129.html




I'm not so sure about the following, but it's giving me something to think about.

https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/modif...ndia-1129.html

[freebeard]

More my speed:


Just A Car Guy: in the category of what if