I can't even imagine the complexity of systems management of this system. You think people won't kill themselves by operating your contraption incorrectly? Is it "pull the knob and it's full throttle until it runs out of fuel? Or are you going to allow for throttle control? Will that control use the same throttle as the primary engine? If so, now you're adding complexity that could cause failure to the primary system. Etc, etc, etc.
Every time we build something that is idiot-proof, someone else designs and constructs a more creative idiot.
And those people vote!
Not, ummm, impossible. Back in the '80s, a guy I worked with had a ballute concept (concatenation of balloon and parachute) for satellite re-entry. The capsule or whatever would be behind the ballute, which faced into the re-entry plasma. It was actually cooled by the exhaust from a rocket engine facing forward.... the rocket exhaust was cooler than the plasma. So, conceivably, you could have a hot-air balloon inflated by a jet engine.
Good questions, but you already got to the right answer for an emergency situation - pull lever, get fixed power, when landing area (hopefully runway) is made, turn it off and land.
Fill the wings and rear of the fuselage with helium. Just gotta plug the leaks first.
Nope. You have to haul around the cooling drag for an entire 300hp engine. plus a windmilling prop, plus 3x the weight, plus the sonex was engineered to have a turbine engine and will be more efficient. Your assumptions are flawed.
A similar concept was successfully tested a few years ago, cooling rocket engine not required.
Funny you mention that. The BRS also took a lot of hate and vitriol from the crowd that saw it like a way of chickening out instead of flying the airplane all the way to the scene of the crash. A mindset that seems to persist to this day.
Oh, I've seen much dumber Soviet ideas, and the US has its fair share of ugly ducklings.
I agree, this wouldn't be a case of attaching it to the airframe with four self-tapping sheetmetal screws and hoping for the best. Careful design (especially with regard to center of thrust and CG placement) would probably mitigate most of the flying characteristics concerns. It would still be a decent-sized certification flight test effort.
Oh, you don't give yourself enough credit
I agree, but I'd also argue that Economy Cruise is a purely a marketing number, and L/Dmax is most efficient, which is more like Vy and slower yet.
Nice try. F- because you didn't pay attention to the rules.Oh, you don't give yourself enough credit
Cooling drag, do the math, you'll find out it's not that much at the speeds we're talking about. Also, all of that is already accounted for in the thrust needed to keep the plane airborne. Hopefully you remembered to pull the blue knob and stop the prop before whatever caused your engine to go on strike drains all the oil out of it.
For *Mars*, though. Eman's wallet would be enough of a heat shield for Mars.....A similar concept was successfully tested a few years ago, cooling rocket engine not required.
NASA's inflatable flying saucer aces Mars heat shield reentry test
LOFTID soared into space and back again Thursday (Nov. 10), safely splashing down in the Pacific Ocean on a crucial test of aeroshell technology for eventual human Mars missions.www.space.com
Someone on this board will tell you they can install them as a minor alteration...
The problem with JATO bottles is the short burn time. They're (mostly) intended to get the plane off the ground quickly; any major altitude gain is a bonus.
