Why don't we have fighter bombers like this?

Why don't we have fighter bombers like this?

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because it's cringe and has no space for armament
    >filename
    incredibly cringe

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Cry about it pussy

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This is ten percent kek
      Twenty percent jizzum
      Fifteen percent concentrated power of autism
      Five percent based
      Fifty percent cringe
      And a hundred percent reason to remember Ruby Ridge

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Looks gay.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Forward-swept wing fighters are gay.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You are wrong.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They're the hybrids of the aerospace industry and they're only going to be weaponized when we finally get our shit together as one nation and let them fucking Intergalactic Global Order experience another fucking big bang because humanity has always been the main race

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I fucking love the longsword

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The only good thing about this piece of shit show was jerking off to that MILF Halsey

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I heard that show barely had Master Chief in it.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I really wish someone would tell Lockhead "No" for once.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because it's not a bomer, that's clearly the focusing lens for its laser cannon

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because YOU op, haven't come up with a good design for one, or you have, don't have the balls or gumption to sell it.

    Work harder you shit drinker.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    That would never fly, it's heavier than the air.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Air obviously gets heavier as you go up, that'a why if you leave the plane the atmospheric pressure crushes you

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That sounds wrong but I don't know enough about chemistry to contest it.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The advanced home economic theories agree with the theology.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Build more of those weird hoops and you'd potentially have a frame to hold up some gas bags, she'd make a fine dirigible.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    wings like that are extremely expensive and hard to make with composites, consider that a straight wing costs 10% of a sweptback wing with some minor inclination change.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    looks bad.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    We do. They just don't tell you about them yet

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Wide hangers are easier to maintain than tall hangers, ask your mom about it.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This looks dumb.
    I'm guessing it's structurally very strong (light), but there is no way that makes up for having all of that extraneous vertical surface, there is more vertical surface than lifting surface on this aeroplane.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >extraneous vertical surface
      Parasitic drag.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    because its fake.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Engines located to be impossible to maintain.
    >Wing geometry reflects engine noise into passenger compartment + engines are as close to it as possible.
    >Questionable control authority (How does it roll?) and flap effectiveness. May have strict CG limitations due to localized wing area.
    >Impossible to land in a crosswind due to insane vertical surface area.
    >Combine that with a high center of gravity and it gets toppled over by a gust of wind when taxiing.
    ...yeah.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Wing geometry reflects engine noise into passenger compartment + engines are as close to it as possible.
      Imagine the EEEEEEE

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Engines located to be impossible to maintain.
      Just what I was gonna say, and the wings are even worse. One of the main reasons T-tails have died is that they were a maintenance nightmare and a number of fatal crashes have happened because crews couldn't be bothered to climb up there and inspect/service things, imagine half the wing being even higher than that.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What is even the advantage of such a design? Does that ring-wing also provide a bunch of extra thrust like a bladeless dyson fan?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >extra thrust like a bladeless dyson fan

      Dyson doesn't do that. It's all marketing.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Dyson never claimed any of what you guys are talking about. Their fans do work on the fluid dynamics principles, just not the way you guys think it does.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >wing
      >thrust

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        He meant lift, that's pretty clear.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The word thrust is what is pretty clear, you whiteknighting is also pretty clearly gay as heck!

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >What is even the advantage of such a design?
      none, that's why it doesn't exist.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        they did exist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipa-Caproni
        the big problem with closed wings is their aids-tier low speed handling and shit tier wing loading. Also lifting body design do the same thing as these garbage planes but better

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          so what you are saying is that OP's image is fake. thanks for clarifying that.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            How the fuck could it be real, it doesn't have a single visible control surface. There is literally no way to steer it. Well i guess you could to differential thrust to get some yaw control but that barely helps the situation. Not to mention just intuitively the wing looks way too small for that size plane

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              It actually appears to have ailerons/elevons and maybe a rudder, not that it makes it any more plausible.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Can't have wing-tip vortexes if you have no wing-tips

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Wingtip VORTECES enable more efficient formation kino. If the wingtips line up, the dudes behind and slgihtly to the side of you use less fuel.

        • 1 month ago
          PBrosnan

          try flying through actively turbulent air and tell me you prefer it cause it's more efficient.

          only thing it could be good for is if you had a massive pawg ass on your lap and you needed some earth shattering force to shake it

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >wingless design elminates wings
        Checkmate vortixers.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Vintage

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Status, comrade?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      But where's the ring?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      hmm

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They are considerably slower and less efficient than swept wing designs. Something like this could work for a hobbyist drone where people dont give a shit about fuel efficiency

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >won't be able to glide if a case of engine faliur happens
    >Won't be able to make quick menuvers
    >Is too fucking expensive and adds no kind of features

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >won't be able to glide if a case of engine faliur happens
      It's a shit glider but it would glide. also not that important for a bomber
      >Won't be able to make quick menuvers
      not that crucial for bombers
      >Is too fucking expensive and adds no kind of features
      yep

      Wingtip VORTECES enable more efficient formation kino. If the wingtips line up, the dudes behind and slgihtly to the side of you use less fuel.

      >the dudes behind and slgihtly to the side of you use less fuel.
      yeah but that's useful for airliners (see airbus new tech that i don't remember the name of). if your lead is bingo fuel you are going back with him

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The better question is why we don't have blended wing transport aircraft yet.
    Look at that storage space.
    Imagine how many bombs and missiles it could carry.
    That's neverminding that you can try and ape the arkbird aesthetic which would be kino

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It'd also work as a drone mothership.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Also for the record, over a regular big airliner a blended wing body has something like 3x the space.
        It's main issue for passengers is that the inertia gets kind of fucked, but if you're just hauling drones or bombs or ground gear, that thought goes mostly out the window.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Plus fuel efficiency over regular planes. Forgot to mention that.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Also for the record, over a regular big airliner a blended wing body has something like 3x the space.
            It's main issue for passengers is that the inertia gets kind of fucked, but if you're just hauling drones or bombs or ground gear, that thought goes mostly out the window.

            https://i.imgur.com/9bKKAft.jpg

            It'd also work as a drone mothership.

            https://i.imgur.com/xd4Rh6l.jpg

            The better question is why we don't have blended wing transport aircraft yet.
            Look at that storage space.
            Imagine how many bombs and missiles it could carry.
            That's neverminding that you can try and ape the arkbird aesthetic which would be kino

            Interestingly the airforce has already selected for a company to build a demonstrator of this thing.
            Maybe I'll go make a thread for it.
            https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3494520/daf-selects-jetzero-to-develop-blended-wing-body-aircraft-prototype/

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          If it were up to the airliners, passengers would be stacked like African slave ships, so that's really just a bonus for them.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      reminds me of the boxcar, I want to see a company of paratroopers parachute out of it

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Blended wing and high powered lasers, please let us be on the Arkbird timeline. Mass driver launcher/space elevator in the next decade.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It'd be pure kino.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The thing about wings that nobody ITT brought up yet is that they have to be able to flex in order to not snap off or shatter into a million tiny pieces. Every time the plane tilts side to side, upwards or downwards the wings flex. Every time a plane hits turbulence, the wings flex.
    This rigid looking donut design would do fuck all if it ever needed to flex and as such it will never ever fly anything larger and/or faster than a fucking Cessna crop duster

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      thats also really bad place to have an engine fire

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because it's dumb. All of the vertical wing section is useless as a lifting airfoil. You'll see biplanes re-emerge in viability before whatever abomination in your pic does.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The engines are high up and a pain to access, it's so tall that you need to rebuild all hangars for it.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I knew it reminded me of something.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Lots a static stability, good for an airliner that never banks more than 45deg but terrible for a fighter.
    Also you would have a hard time making a better radar reflector fly.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I can make a paper airplane that looks like that

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Test

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    wtf is that?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yore mom

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *