... its not wind... (bwrwrwr). You sir, lack the power of observation!
Nice aerodynamic effect though!

The mission generally dictates the engineering and design of a mechanical system. The Buran and the Shuttle are prime examples. The new X-37 resembles both in general shape because a reusable "space plane" needs certain specific physical characteristics.

The Mig-25 looks like the F-15 because both were originally designed as high altitude, high mach interceptors. The demand placed on the system by the overly large engines dictates the shape.

The basic principles of radar "stealth" dictate certain shapes to be effective. The Have-Blue shape was effective against high frequency radar through deflection. As materials technology advanced, e.g. radio absorbing materials, more aerodynamic shapes could be implemented and still retain "stealthy" characteristics, if not improve upon them.

All the F-22 vs Pak50, M1a1 Abrams vs T80 videos are funny. The 1 versus 1 advantages are fun to debate, but its the entire system that wins or loses the fight. In the same vein, its common knowledge that German armor in WW2 was vastly superior to American armor in every technical way. Similarly, German fighter aircraft were more maneuverable than the P-47s and P-51s that they fought. Unfortunately for the Luftwaffe, this superiority was not enough to defeat the allied system as it rolled east across Europe.

The term 5th generation does not define the aircraft themselves, but the system they belong to. If you read wikipedia, this does not mesh, but the wiki values maneuverability (which is inherently limited by the pilot), stealth features (limited by current materials and design), advanced avionics (what does this mean?) and multi-role capabilities (we have had this since the 1980's). The key to 5th generation fighters and its defining characteristic is the ability to integrate the new fighters with every other piece of war equipment in the theatre, not just in tactical use, but the total meshing of sensors and 2-way data links. Its the difference between a war of attrition and a war of "look first, shoot first".

The Russians appear to be building an excellent stealth fighter that looks sexy as hell. The Chinese are doing the same. What they both lack at the current time is the "backend" systems to make these new 5th generation-esque vehicles fully capable. The Pak50 and the J20 won't be sharing targeting data with their Navy or other ground forces anytime soon.

If you look at the aerodynamics and structure of the concept---it looks like it it became the design study for the Fairchild C-119 "Flying Box Car" which had the similar boxy fuselage ---but wasn't detachable...

>> ^Barbar:

The point I was making was that if air passes through the turbine, (I am assuming) it leaves with a portion of the turbine's forward velocity imparted upon it. If this is the case, then doesn't it mean that the car's chassis, following directly behind the turbine will experience less drag, since the relative wind speed is lower?


You'd have to do extensive wind tunnel testing, but I suspect the turbulent air following the fan's passage would actually make the rest of the car drag more. Look at properly done wind tunnel testing, it's all about smooth flow, the most aerodynamic model is the one with the least eddies in the wind. In this model you propose there are tons of eddies and unpredictable wind currents before you even begin to introduce the body of the car.

If you could somehow design something that worked as you propose (which I doubt is possible, but it might be if you threw enough money at the problem), the infinitesimal gain would almost certainly be lost through the inefficiencies introduced by the necessary (for safety) fan shroud, and the generator itself.

fuck! this is a actually aerodynamically viable? We're all doomed! DOOMED I TELLS YA!!

But that's not how the air is shaped by the wings. That's how some studio artist thinks they might be shaped. Those weren't based on a computer model. Even I could see things that were misleading or left out entirely in the air shapes. I know a little bit about how wings create downforce, and it was not represented here, groovy graphics or no.>> ^mxxcon:

>> ^messenger:
Interesting topic, but absolutely useless vid to me. A flat bit pointing down creates downforce? No kidding. I don't care what the names of the parts are. What do they do? How do they do it?
Here's the same guy explaining the same principle much better with clean old-fashioned animations rather than that fake steam mess: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5ZK314Cg0.
but it's still cool to see how the air is shaped by all those wings and ducts..even if it's cgi-smoke

>> ^messenger:

Interesting topic, but absolutely useless vid to me. A flat bit pointing down creates downforce? No kidding. I don't care what the names of the parts are. What do they do? How do they do it?
Here's the same guy explaining the same principle much better with clean old-fashioned animations rather than that fake steam mess: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5ZK314Cg0.
but it's still cool to see how the air is shaped by all those wings and ducts..even if it's cgi-smoke

>> ^Auger8:

Awesomesauce! Daft Punk is such an under appreciated band IMO.


Geeze, how appreciated should they be? They've been nominated for 8 Grammys, won 2 of them. They've appeared in movies, tv shows, adverts. They composed the soundtrack for one of the most awesome movies ever, Tron Legacy, their albums have gone platinum and gold around the world... what more do you want?

In reply to this comment by lurgee:
\^\^

Thank you so much for the promote! You're awesome!

I haven't ever gotten the hang of "slipping" an aircraft...then again, I don't fire up the simulator that much anymore.

Upvote the craziness. Well - they do say that tires, exhaust ports, air dams and spoilers all improve aerodynamics and general performance, so more must be better, right?

I know you weren't the one crying about the downvote, and my smarmy reply was intended for Payback, not you.

As to messenger's original comment, we obviously read it/into it differently. I don't think he was suggesting what you thought he was. I took his comment in the context of the video (plane starting on the ground), which is the way I believe he meant it. I wasn't exactly sure what part of his comment you were being critical of, which may be the reason for my extremely basic explanation. It wasn't to be condescending.
In reply to this comment by sirex:
I guess critical flaw is perhaps over-egging it. But the original statement seems misleading to me. It suggests that without a propulsion system any aircraft is incapable of flight, which is obviously incorrect. Its likely just a case of clarification, but yes, once airborne the aircraft will lose forward momentum and be carried by the wind the same as any lump of rubbish in a hurricane, at that stage its likely its acting as a kite rather than anything aerodynamic.

(Also, i couldn't care less about comment votes. Its the internet.)

I guess critical flaw is perhaps over-egging it. But the original statement seems misleading to me. It suggests that without a propulsion system any aircraft is incapable of flight, which is obviously incorrect. Its likely just a case of clarification, but yes, once airborne the aircraft will lose forward momentum and be carried by the wind the same as any lump of rubbish in a hurricane, at that stage its likely its acting as a kite rather than anything aerodynamic.

(Also, i couldn't care less about comment votes. Its the internet.)

ah yes, aerodynamics and the laws of physics are not science. the wind picking up hundred of pounds without mechanical power is not science. Good call.




Not.

Bugs love to suicide into my eyes for some reason. Happens to me more than anyone else around me. Maybe the aerodynamics of my face is the cause?

-Karl