4 ms·
"Jets" are called "jets" because they produce a jet of matter (water or air) behind them, causing motion via Newton's third law. If the illustrations on the tec
by lvh 10y ago
"Jets" are called "jets" because they produce a jet of matter (water or air) behind them, causing motion via Newton's third law. If the illustrations on the technology page are accurate, this fits the bill fine.
What useful definition of jet am I missing (beyond the trivial "can't be electric") where this can't usefully be called a jet?
- monkmartinez 10y agoWell, the only definition that matters would be the regulating body with jurisdiction. In the case of the US, that would be the FAA. It is squarely an experimental plane.
- ajross 10y agoThat's mostly what I'm getting at. They're called "jets" because the first ones used a turbojet engine, whose exhaust jet provided the thrust. The term is a colloquial contraction of the engine name, not a formal description of its operation. Designers (of subsonic devices) rapidly moved to a more efficient turbofan design where the exhaust provides very little thrust and the engine core is used as merely a torque engine to turn a rather larger shrouded fan which actually produces the thrust. So... if you pull out the internal combustion engine and replace it in a straightforward way with an electric motor that drives the same shaft, are you really changing the nature of the device?
- function_seven 10y ago> So... if you pull out the internal combustion engine and replace it in a straightforward way with an electric motor that drives the same shaft, are you really changing the nature of the device? Just like "turbojet" derives from it being a turbine-powered jet, I think the new electric version should be called a "magnejet". Or just "jet" for short.