3 ms·
I'm similarly curious. Designing for a higher stall speed permits smaller wing area, lower drag, and lower weight. The cost is that takeoffs and landings become
by frontiersummit 3y ago
I'm similarly curious. Designing for a higher stall speed permits smaller wing area, lower drag, and lower weight. The cost is that takeoffs and landings become troublesome.
- zeusk 3y agoCould be catapult launched?
- H8crilA 3y agoLee waves? Thermals? Cumulonimbus thermals? :)
- moralestapia 3y agoI don't think one could just "throw" something 70k feet up in the air.
- frontiersummit 3y agoClimbing to altitude is the straightforward part. The transition from zero knots to the stall speed of the aircraft (minimum speed at which it can remain airborne) is the tricky bit. Designing for a lower stall speed necessitates wings which produce higher drag (by being larger) which requires more propulsion, which means bigger batteries and motors. So launching from a catapult or rocket or mothership or whatever means a lighter plane.
- yellow_lead 3y agoLaunch on a hydrogen balloon
- hermitcrab 3y agoLaunching by rocket means the plane would have to be pretty rugged to survive it. And that means more weight. You also have the issue of deployment. Folding wings means more weight and more things to go wrong.
- zeusk 3y agoSpinlaunch would disgree but here the trouble is getting off the ground; Take-off is the most demanding phase of flight in terms of propulsion demand.
- bagels 3y agoSpinlaunch would crush any aircraft that is light enough to stay aloft indefinitely.
- JKCalhoun 3y agoOr balloon launched, parachute landing.
- rjmunro 3y agoOther options that might work: * Launch from the roof of a vehicle * With a glider winch * Towed by another aircraft * Auxiliary engine / batteries that can be jettisoned & parachuted down
- bloak 3y agoWinch launch?