4 ms·
This is very impressive. However - is there not a problem of scale? As you scale, surface area is squared, but mass is cubed. I mean, ok, you could have a light
by einpoklum 5y ago
This is very impressive. However - is there not a problem of scale? As you scale, surface area is squared, but mass is cubed. I mean, ok, you could have a lighter central fuselage, but then how effective can this be in carrying passengers or cargo?
- lugged 5y agoBigger wings?
- Sharlin 5y agoBigger wings means heavier wings, and greater torque needed to actuate the wings, which means more power needed as well as greater stresses involved, all of which means even more mass, which eats into your payload budget.
- _Microft 5y agoPlanes aren't filled solidly, though. They are more like a shell around a volume, so I'd think the mass would rather scale like the surface area than the volume of the plane. Beside that, I would agree that it seems impossible to get such a solution working in dimensions of dozens of meters. A pun: maybe they just took "do things that don't scale" too literally? ;)