Development > Artwork
small dropship
Noordung:
--- Quote from: cevaralien on July 23, 2014, 02:55:13 am ---It could be good to put an hump over the craft where the fuel will be stored.
--- End quote ---
so here are some sort of external fuel tanks under wings. they are bigger now.
cevaralien:
Looks fine.
If it not problem, i will give you an idea.
Put the engines at the wings, attached to the fuselage. Remove the upper air intake and transform it in a hump. Why? This is an Osprey type approach. All the fuel can be in that hump and you will have a more realistic aircraft.
Some like this, the Dornier VSTOL
but, instead to use the vertical take off engines at the tip of the wing, you can use it in the root of the wing.
It´s only an idea.
Noordung:
im sorry but that design is very old and inefficient.
1. closer to hull are engines weaker can be wings thus lighter... lighter aircraft less fuel... you know what i mean.
2. its wasteful to have more engine than you need - all engines should work all the time.
i think the best aproach (most efficient) is vectored thrust. 3 (triangle) points for stable aircraft on landing/takeoff. more points more stable but not too many engines if you dont really need them. i hope you see nozzle i made as i vectored thrust. that was my intention.
as efficient design you can see harrier. just one engine. when landing it got thrusters in 4 points and its stable. from start i wanted this to be 1 engine design. than it look a little strange. but my idea was helicopter like design with one engine at top. just faster with longer reach...
there are many other interesting experimental vtol aircrafts that i would like use as idea.
cevaralien:
--- Quote from: Noordung on July 24, 2014, 09:16:41 pm ---im sorry but that design is very old and inefficient.
1. closer to hull are engines weaker can be wings thus lighter... lighter aircraft less fuel... you know what i mean.
2. its wasteful to have more engine than you need - all engines should work all the time.
i think the best aproach (most efficient) is vectored thrust. 3 (triangle) points for stable aircraft on landing/takeoff. more points more stable but not too many engines if you dont really need them. i hope you see nozzle i made as i vectored thrust. that was my intention.
as efficient design you can see harrier. just one engine. when landing it got thrusters in 4 points and its stable. from start i wanted this to be 1 engine design. than it look a little strange. but my idea was helicopter like design with one engine at top. just faster with longer reach...
there are many other interesting experimental vtol aircrafts that i would like use as idea.
--- End quote ---
Harrier was not the most efficient VSTOL. The German VJ101 was better in many ways, but british design wins because the needs of the OTAN changed. But this is a little off topic.
The idea is use two wing engines that use vectorial thrust plus two engines in front. If you want put a single engine, ok, it´s your desing and it´s possible, but the craft is too little to fit a realistic fuel tank. But if you want this solution, i suggest to change the exit of the engines and put it like the Harrier but in the "roof" of the aircraft, in one line. Is something like the Harrier engine with the rest of the craft hanging on. The nozzles can be at both sides-up.
I suggest this: remove the frontal nozzles (red) and put it at the side of the intake. The rear nozzle can be the same as the frontal. It´s like the harrier engine design. By that way, the fuel can be stored behind the craft and in the wings.
Sandro:
--- Quote from: Noordung on July 24, 2014, 08:50:23 am ---why do you think ion engines are extremly unfiednly for enviroment? you can use oxygen from air as propellant and you than only need very powerful enegy source.
--- End quote ---
Toxicity, of course, depends on propellant used. Considering the propellants available on Earth, most effective among technically simple to use will be mercury, which is highly toxic. Especially mercury oxides created when exhaust will be mixed with air, they are much more toxic than mercury itself.
Of course, you can live with xenon, as modern ion engines do, but at cost of bigger fuel tanks, cryogenic system onboard and specially designed ionizer for the gas.
Oxygen is generaly a bad idea -- its atomic mass is way too small. You want a propellant with high atomic mass to have an effective ion jet propulsion. The heavier ejected ion is, the more specific impulse is (impulse gained by ejecting the same mass of propellant) for the same engine design.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version