h a l f b a k e r yNot just a think tank. An entire army of think.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
As we have all found out, at one time or another, the biggest problem with flying a plane in space is the lack of air.
So, what I'm proposing is a Spitfire with a huge air tank. Then there's lots of air is available to be sprayed (?) over the lifting and steering surfaces.
The forward momentum
comes from the exhaust gasses from the Merlin engine being diverted into small holes on the reverse of the prop, which would make it spin as the Spitfire moves forward.
Perhaps this for propulsion, lift.
Bernoulli_27s_20Spaceplane#1248783223
[FlyingToaster, Jun 24 2012]
Thought for a moment that you were proposing a space spitfire version of this classic
Roaming_20Goldfish_20Bowl
[calum, Jun 27 2012]
Improper Spitfire...
Improper_20Space_20Spitfire
...I shall say no more.... [not_morrison_rm, Jun 28 2012]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
It would seem a bit more efficient to simply use your
compressed air--or better yet, rocket fuel--to directly
propell the craft. The amount of air required for sustained
maneuvers via flight surfaces in vacuum would require an
air tank the size of Wales. |
|
| |
First, this should be in the "vehicle" not "science" area. |
|
| |
Second, why not "an air tank the size of Wales"? Just fly the spitfire around inside the tank, while the tank orbits in space.... |
|
| |
Even better, do everyone a favour and tow wales into space ... |
|
| |
Didn't they already do that in one of the crappier Star Trek
movies? |
|
| |
// an air tank the size of Wales.// |
|
| |
Excellent. So we have somewhere to house the
prototype, what next? |
|
| |
//Didn't they already do that in one of the crappier Star Trek movies |
|
| |
Erm, which film was it they dragged Wales into space? I must have missed that one. What would the Borg do with Wales anyway? |
|
| |
//do everyone a favour and tow wales into space // |
|
| |
"Remember, lad, every time you have a roast lamb
dinner, you leave a Welshman lonely." |
|
| |
That's right up there with "Every time a mattress hits the freeway, a stripper gets her wings". |
|
| |
Okay, maybe it would help if you knew the back story. |
|
| |
Oh, and I love this idea for the level of practicality. Perhaps we could make it so the propeller did not rotate - the rest of the aircraft could spin instead thereby simulating gravity out on the wingtips where you could do those gravity things. |
|
| |
//the rest of the aircraft could spin instead// sp. spacecraft |
|
| |
I've always wondered how much the fine performance of the Spitfire was a product of the heavy, humid, cloudy British air. |
|
| |
Would a Spitfire even be able to manage a coordinated turn in sunshine? |
|
| |
Given the RAF's daylight sortie record over France and
Germany after the
Battle of Britain was won, I would say yes. The Spit was a
terrific aircraft, better able to maneuver in just about any
weather than any other fighter in the ETO. Like the best
kind of woman, it was
elegant, nimble, unpredictable, deadly, and very hard to
fly in a straight line. |
|
| |
// Like the best kind of woman, it was elegant,
nimble, unpredictable, deadly, and very hard to fly
in a straight line//...and had a retractable
undercarriage. |
|
| |
Vernon has it right, put the spitfire in the tank. Except once you're in the tank, you don't need the spitfire. |
|
| |
//Except once you're in the tank, you don't need the spitfire. |
|
| |
How is one to get about the tank, without the Spitfire? |
|
| |
//// Like the best kind of woman, it was elegant, nimble, unpredictable, deadly, and very hard to fly in a straight line//...and had a retractable undercarriage// ...and four .303 Browning
machine-guns |
|
| |
<placeholder for cockpit joke> |
|
| |
<placeholder for joystick joke> |
|
| |
Just a boring point here, but wasn't there something of a lengthy chronological gap between cock-fighting and first aeroplanes...just wondering why it wasn't called the bridge or something... |
|
| |
The "cockpit" was, of course, an invention of the French. |
|
| |
As is demonstrated by the 1783 balloon development of the Brothers Montgolfier, the natural and primary inclination of a Frenchman is to use a flying device for the transport of livestock and poultry. However, a device such as the Wright Flyer was eminently unsuitable for that task; putting your chickens right out there, untethered, in the slipstream, right in front of the pusher props. |
|
| |
So, a bucket to put the birds in; next thing, the pilot has to get in the bucket to control the birds. |
|
| |
(This also relates to the joke about a French car: Q: Why are there doors on a 2CV? A: So you'll know where to look for the eggs in the morning.) |
|
| |
R.J. Michélé was a genius engineer, no mistake, and the factory at Superbe-sur-la-mer near Le Harve is a mecca for all who wish to see where the Spitfire was originally designed and constructed. |
|
| |
Ah yes, that's close to where Franc Ouitelle invented
the jet engine, n'est ce pas? |
|
| |
Dirk Gently..during the accident (?)trial, the 2CV is only referred to "the alleged car".. |
|
| |
In Ouatani, "Two cee vee" translates (phonetically)
as "your penis is showing". |
|
| |
You missed your "joystick" placeholder. |
|
| |
I blame the Borg for perverting the whole idea. Crass commercial of the lowest kind! Forcing helpless Spitfires to work in clubs with punters going "Phwoah!! Look at the undercarriage on that baby, eh?" |
|
| |
<starts writing a letter to the Daily Telegraph, but can't find the mauve crayon> |
|
| |