3 ms·

Didn't everyone design one of these while doodling on the back of a notebook while bored in third grade? Several of my classmates came up with more plausible de

Didn't everyone design one of these while doodling on the back of a notebook while bored in third grade? Several of my classmates came up with more plausible designs... If it takes three engines' thrust to take off vertically, one engine won't be able to land vertically, even if we ignore the only-recently-solved-now control issues.

HPsquared 6y ago
Not sure about 3 times less, but planes are usually lighter when they come in to land, than they are taking off. (Fuel etc)
wil421 6y ago
Harriers, F-35s, and Ospreys are all VTOL aircraft that could’ve launch from a sub. The other airplanes have only one engine and the osprey 2. They already land vertically on carriers. I don’t think the image in the article would’ve worked where planes take off going straight up without additional thrusters.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  Using actually-functioning aircraft, as you suggest, would also be more plausible than TFA. The maintenance requirements of the specific aircraft you mention might preclude submarine deployment, however.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Harriers, F-35s, and Ospreys are all VTOL aircraft that could’ve launch from a sub. The other airplanes have only one engine and the osprey 2. They already land vertically on carriers. F-35s and Ospreys didn't exist when this was proposed (the Harrier, but not the Harrier II, did), and the use of a Mach-3 fighter after consideration of the F11F suggests that the role envisioned for the fighters was interception, which is at best a secondary role of the F-35, and not a role of the Harrier (and even less the Osprey). > I don’t think the image in the article would’ve worked where planes take off going straight up without additional thrusters. I doubt it would have been practical for recovery at sea; launch would have worked better, and, IIRC, both were demonstrated successfully with prototype aircraft on land.

HPsquared 6y ago

Not sure about 3 times less, but planes are usually lighter when they come in to land, than they are taking off. (Fuel etc)

wil421 6y ago

Harriers, F-35s, and Ospreys are all VTOL aircraft that could’ve launch from a sub. The other airplanes have only one engine and the osprey 2. They already land vertically on carriers. I don’t think the image in the article would’ve worked where planes take off going straight up without additional thrusters.

jessaustin 6y ago
Using actually-functioning aircraft, as you suggest, would also be more plausible than TFA. The maintenance requirements of the specific aircraft you mention might preclude submarine deployment, however.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Harriers, F-35s, and Ospreys are all VTOL aircraft that could’ve launch from a sub. The other airplanes have only one engine and the osprey 2. They already land vertically on carriers. F-35s and Ospreys didn't exist when this was proposed (the Harrier, but not the Harrier II, did), and the use of a Mach-3 fighter after consideration of the F11F suggests that the role envisioned for the fighters was interception, which is at best a secondary role of the F-35, and not a role of the Harrier (and even less the Osprey). > I don’t think the image in the article would’ve worked where planes take off going straight up without additional thrusters. I doubt it would have been practical for recovery at sea; launch would have worked better, and, IIRC, both were demonstrated successfully with prototype aircraft on land.