>civilian aircraft aren't /k/
youre totally right
slabbadaba oohcraney, lets get back on topic
https://i.imgur.com/JAue0TL.jpg
The future of aviation
https://i.imgur.com/oOLhDpL.png
NASA and Boeing were looking into new wings designs but they need extra supports. Airports also are more expensive for wings that long so they'd need to fold to reduce ground costs.
I'll be interested to see what comes out of the CFM RISE.
There's a bunch Barn Owls living in NZ and for some reason conservationists have decided they flew here across the Tasman and therefore are naturalized and allowed to stay.
Even though a fricking apex predator is clearly going to eat vulnerable native birds and be aggressive towards native birds of prey.
Morons actually thing a Barn Owl could have crossed the Tasman sea.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Seems way more likely that farmers imported them to deal with mice and rats. Barn Owls are rodentoid exterminating machines; a single family of Tyto Alba will eat between 1000 and 3000 rodents per nesting season. That's why they were brought to Hawaii, much to the chagrin of the native Hawaiian Short Eared Owl, which can't compete with the chad Barn Owl.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Also - Barn Owls aren't really apex predators and don't usually go after birds unless they have no choice, they are specialized in eating small mammals. Maybe in New Zealand or other places where they have been introduced they will take on the role of an apex predator, but in their native range they have to contend with much larger and more aggressive owls. Such as the Great Horned Owl, which is God's hungriest bird, or the Eurasian Eagle Owl, which is basically the same thing as a Great Horned Owl but twice as big and almost as angry, both of which will happily prey on Barn Owls.
Simple terms is aspect ratio of wings determines drag produced from lift. It's why you see aircraft like gliders optimize for long skinny wings because they can afford to, whereas there are other considerations that make that less feasible for other aircraft.
Simple terms is aspect ratio of wings determines drag produced from lift. It's why you see aircraft like gliders optimize for long skinny wings because they can afford to, whereas there are other considerations that make that less feasible for other aircraft.
oh I totally get it, its why the U2 basically cant be landed, and has to simply stall out of the sky on the runway
it just seems to be the opposite meta of current civ. aviation, which has been the same for essentially like 70 years
>the same for 70 years >2023-70=1953 >Pan Am is still flying DC-3's
unducted fans and hydrogen are going to be the move going forward, electric airplanes are moronic and flying wings aren't going to be economically viable
I figured planes would get "slower", flights longer, and they would be more "glider aspect" to conserve fuel, and obviously totally automated
11 months ago
Anonymous
>slower
no >flights longer
literally no benefit and consumers would vote with their feet, M0.83 is here to stay >glider to conserve fuel
not at high enough altitudes for meaningful range >obviously automated
if it ever happens it's 50 years away
-int'l ops need to get to unaugmented crews before domestic ops get to single pilot
-it's taken the FAA like 15 years to implement NextGen and it will take even longer to set up enough relays for line of sight control
-the current failure rate for large drones like global hawks is something like 1/3000 flight hours, which is CATASTROPHIC in terms of air transport. you need to be at like 99.9999999% system reliability before they'll let pax on a system with no human in the loop
11 months ago
Anonymous
It isn't like employing pilots is costing anyone money either, seems pointless. Plus it's the FAA old boys club, they'll never want to put flying out of pilots hands because its a good time.
NASA and Boeing were looking into new wings designs but they need extra supports. Airports also are more expensive for wings that long so they'd need to fold to reduce ground costs.
I'll be interested to see what comes out of the CFM RISE.
Bigger issue is when the plane has to roll. In a wide-body, you're still only sitting at most two yards from the axis of rotation, so you might move up and down a few feet. If you're sitting far out in a flying wing, that same rotation is going to be moving you up and down 50 feet in a matter of seconds.
>kill me
gooby pls
heh
kys newbie
Looks like that green princess fish in the new zelda
later
chinlet plane isnt real
why so smol?
Mass transit for ants.
civilian aircraft aren't /k/
Controlled demolition isn't /k/.
It literally is
Maybe its full of soldiers.
>civilian aircraft aren't /k/
youre totally right
slabbadaba oohcraney, lets get back on topic
why is the new meta super skinny wings?
Long skinny wings are more efficient
>Long skinny wings are more efficient
Albatross btfo owls.
Subtract the silent flight thing and owls are actually Terrible at flying
There's a bunch Barn Owls living in NZ and for some reason conservationists have decided they flew here across the Tasman and therefore are naturalized and allowed to stay.
Even though a fricking apex predator is clearly going to eat vulnerable native birds and be aggressive towards native birds of prey.
Morons actually thing a Barn Owl could have crossed the Tasman sea.
Seems way more likely that farmers imported them to deal with mice and rats. Barn Owls are rodentoid exterminating machines; a single family of Tyto Alba will eat between 1000 and 3000 rodents per nesting season. That's why they were brought to Hawaii, much to the chagrin of the native Hawaiian Short Eared Owl, which can't compete with the chad Barn Owl.
Also - Barn Owls aren't really apex predators and don't usually go after birds unless they have no choice, they are specialized in eating small mammals. Maybe in New Zealand or other places where they have been introduced they will take on the role of an apex predator, but in their native range they have to contend with much larger and more aggressive owls. Such as the Great Horned Owl, which is God's hungriest bird, or the Eurasian Eagle Owl, which is basically the same thing as a Great Horned Owl but twice as big and almost as angry, both of which will happily prey on Barn Owls.
Winglets have entered the chat like 5 years ago.
Simple terms is aspect ratio of wings determines drag produced from lift. It's why you see aircraft like gliders optimize for long skinny wings because they can afford to, whereas there are other considerations that make that less feasible for other aircraft.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20150017039/downloads/20150017039.pdf
oh I totally get it, its why the U2 basically cant be landed, and has to simply stall out of the sky on the runway
it just seems to be the opposite meta of current civ. aviation, which has been the same for essentially like 70 years
>the same for 70 years
>2023-70=1953
>Pan Am is still flying DC-3's
unducted fans and hydrogen are going to be the move going forward, electric airplanes are moronic and flying wings aren't going to be economically viable
I figured planes would get "slower", flights longer, and they would be more "glider aspect" to conserve fuel, and obviously totally automated
>slower
no
>flights longer
literally no benefit and consumers would vote with their feet, M0.83 is here to stay
>glider to conserve fuel
not at high enough altitudes for meaningful range
>obviously automated
if it ever happens it's 50 years away
-int'l ops need to get to unaugmented crews before domestic ops get to single pilot
-it's taken the FAA like 15 years to implement NextGen and it will take even longer to set up enough relays for line of sight control
-the current failure rate for large drones like global hawks is something like 1/3000 flight hours, which is CATASTROPHIC in terms of air transport. you need to be at like 99.9999999% system reliability before they'll let pax on a system with no human in the loop
It isn't like employing pilots is costing anyone money either, seems pointless. Plus it's the FAA old boys club, they'll never want to put flying out of pilots hands because its a good time.
WHAT IS THIS? A PLANE FOR ANTS?
For manlets and chinks
for some reason this reminds me of some kind of women hygine product.
I wonder if a cat thinks it can’t be seen in there.
NASA and Boeing were looking into new wings designs but they need extra supports. Airports also are more expensive for wings that long so they'd need to fold to reduce ground costs.
I'll be interested to see what comes out of the CFM RISE.
>Reducing aeronautical performance for stupid airport space
Are those the new CFM propfans? The ones that don't eradicate your eardrums?
>onanera
Bruh.
hehe,
what's with the long face?
What is it going to be? Long boi or phat boi?
I'd love to see a commercial aviation flying wing, but regulations in regards to evacuations are going to be hell.
Bigger issue is when the plane has to roll. In a wide-body, you're still only sitting at most two yards from the axis of rotation, so you might move up and down a few feet. If you're sitting far out in a flying wing, that same rotation is going to be moving you up and down 50 feet in a matter of seconds.
dear god I know this is just another prototype that isn't going to happen but please make it happen this one time
Long boi. You would have to redesign and build all new airport terminals to accommodate the flying wing.
Unless they have swing wings, the long bois are gonna require that as well since they're dramatically bigger then an existing plane in width as well.
Damn I wish i could have gone to paris for this, what’s the next airshow thats also an aviation expo I can go to?
B-21 at home would be cool but
has a point
>throw
>haha
>clunk
>wings fall off
>>>/n/ this thread has nothing to do with weapons.
Is it Logitech controller controlled?
Cute!
>a plane with fetal alcohol syndrome
>designed engineers with down syndrome
>powered by hydrogen
what could go wrong
Bigger=better
before I entered the thread and enlarged it my first thought was "one ugly fricking drone"
now its "one ugly fricking airliner"