LazaroFilm@lemmy.world
on 17 Dec 2023 16:33
nextcollapse
Hey, if it works.
perviouslyiner@lemm.ee
on 17 Dec 2023 16:44
nextcollapse
V1 was a much larger pulsejet (hence the buzz) with a third of the range and ten times the payload of this thing
ShadowRam@kbin.social
on 17 Dec 2023 17:25
nextcollapse
I hate this stupid word 'drone'
Cruise missiles have all the same navigation and course correction tech in it.
These are the same thing with a propeller instead of a rocket and less payload.
CompostMaterial@lemmy.world
on 17 Dec 2023 17:36
nextcollapse
I mean, there is a difference. You even pointed it out. With a rocket you go point A to point B. That is it. With a prop, you can fly around for as long as your fuel supply lasts. Which is what makes it a drone.
ShadowRam@kbin.social
on 17 Dec 2023 17:39
nextcollapse
These only go from point A to to point B.
rockets can fly around for as long as their fuel supply lasts.
A Tomahawk cruise missile only uses a rocket motor to take off from a ship or submarine. After launch, it unfolds its wings and uses a jet engine to fly to its target.
MonkderZweite@feddit.ch
on 18 Dec 2023 12:55
nextcollapse
“Added unfolding wings for effect of cool.”
Seriously though, Rocket and jet engine is heavy. I know that from KSP.
What’s the difference between a rocket motor and a jet engine?
sylver_dragon@lemmy.world
on 18 Dec 2023 01:26
collapse
Cruise missiles are usually self-guided. Drones are often remotely piloted with some autonomous functions (loitering, station keeping, return to base). No idea what the case is for these new AQ400 units. Given the usage of the term “drone”, my guess is that these will be remotely piloted.
ShadowRam@kbin.social
on 18 Dec 2023 02:52
collapse
They aren't remotely piloted. Way too easy to jam.
plasticcheese@lemmy.one
on 17 Dec 2023 17:58
collapse
Hey, if it works.
Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
on 17 Dec 2023 17:56
collapse
What’s the deal with the front wing?
IndefiniteBen@leminal.space
on 17 Dec 2023 18:19
nextcollapse
Big wing tips?
Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
on 17 Dec 2023 18:25
collapse
Yeah seems rather inefficient
IndefiniteBen@leminal.space
on 17 Dec 2023 21:11
collapse
Well wingtips are typically used to increase efficiency, so not sure what you mean.
Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
on 17 Dec 2023 21:32
collapse
They increase efficiency if you don’t have space for longer wings to park your giant ass airplane in an airport with width limits
Longer wings should be more efficient
AlotOfReading@lemmy.world
on 17 Dec 2023 21:43
collapse
There’s probably a bunch of reasons for the multi wing design, but the big one is going to be improving lift/carrying capacity without increasing the width.
The most efficient wings for low speeds are glider wings: as long and thin as possible. That makes them inconvenient to pack and folding joints are weak points. The second wing adds lift, but also problems: it’s less efficient than a single wing of the combined length would be and the front wing makes the rear wing less efficient. The winglet improves the situation somewhat. Facing downward also improves maneuverability.
Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
on 17 Dec 2023 21:55
collapse
Thanks. How does this shape compare with the Iranian Shahed drones?
Is two seperate wings more efficient than a full v shape body?
threaded - newest
So, modern V-1 buzz bombers. Even the launch ramp sled thing in the article looks like a similar concept. Everything old is new again!
Hey, if it works.
Hey, if it works.
V1 was a much larger pulsejet (hence the buzz) with a third of the range and ten times the payload of this thing
I hate this stupid word 'drone'
Cruise missiles have all the same navigation and course correction tech in it.
These are the same thing with a propeller instead of a rocket and less payload.
I mean, there is a difference. You even pointed it out. With a rocket you go point A to point B. That is it. With a prop, you can fly around for as long as your fuel supply lasts. Which is what makes it a drone.
These only go from point A to to point B.
rockets can fly around for as long as their fuel supply lasts.
These seem like they can circle for rather longer than a rocket could.
There’s a bit of a difference, tactically, between a rocket with 2 min of fuel vs a prop plane with 5 hours of fuel.
A Tomahawk cruise missile only uses a rocket motor to take off from a ship or submarine. After launch, it unfolds its wings and uses a jet engine to fly to its target.
“Added unfolding wings for effect of cool.”
Seriously though, Rocket and jet engine is heavy. I know that from KSP.
What’s the difference between a rocket motor and a jet engine?
Cruise missiles are usually self-guided. Drones are often remotely piloted with some autonomous functions (loitering, station keeping, return to base). No idea what the case is for these new AQ400 units. Given the usage of the term “drone”, my guess is that these will be remotely piloted.
They aren't remotely piloted. Way too easy to jam.
Hey, if it works.
What’s the deal with the front wing?
Big wing tips?
Yeah seems rather inefficient
Well wingtips are typically used to increase efficiency, so not sure what you mean.
They increase efficiency if you don’t have space for longer wings to park your giant ass airplane in an airport with width limits
Longer wings should be more efficient
There’s probably a bunch of reasons for the multi wing design, but the big one is going to be improving lift/carrying capacity without increasing the width.
The most efficient wings for low speeds are glider wings: as long and thin as possible. That makes them inconvenient to pack and folding joints are weak points. The second wing adds lift, but also problems: it’s less efficient than a single wing of the combined length would be and the front wing makes the rear wing less efficient. The winglet improves the situation somewhat. Facing downward also improves maneuverability.
Thanks. How does this shape compare with the Iranian Shahed drones?
Is two seperate wings more efficient than a full v shape body?