Air /k/ explain to me. Why we don't use flapjack jets?
>>29434050
because UFO's
>>29434050
If its the same size as a warthog then i'd say it would be a perfect match for its armament.
Considering the body lift on modern jets, they're not far from it.
>>29434050
Is this model based on a real aircraft or just a model.
>>29434428
There was what was essentially a prop version of this. When they tried to destroy the prototype, simply dropping it from a crane was not enough. They had to drop a wreckingball on it.
>>29434720
One would think if they were trying to destroy a prop they would just blow it up.
>>29434050
Because a large, thick low aspect-ratio wing like that will have terrible performance.
>>29434428
It's effectively an XF5U with the propellers taken off. The intakes they show on the front are actually air intakes for the XF5U's pistion engines.
>>29434050
That's clever..
Still it would be better as a jet.
>>29435341
Wouldn't have worked at all as a jet. The whole point of the design was to have the wingtip propellers counter the vorticies you get from generating lift and vastly reduce drag. You get rid of the propellers and all you have is a poorly-designed wing.
>>29435140
>Because a large, thick low aspect-ratio wing like that will have terrible performance.
How do you know? It was never tested.
It could be the greatest flying UFO the world has never seen..
>>29434050
Let's see
>huge cross-sectional area
>horrible chord to wingspan ratio
Oh god those drag forces, like to see that shit go super sonic
>>29435418
>How do you know? It was never tested.
Thick wings and low aspect-ratio wings have been tested plenty of times, both in the lab and on practical aircraft.
Induced drag is a function of the inverse of aspect ratio, so a small span with a large area will produce a shit-ton of drag compared to a wing with the same area but a longer span.
And the thick wing is going to really hurt performance. Not only is it going to give you a very low speed where compressibility effects start to come into play, but the front of the wing's going to produce a ton of drag even in normal flight. The only big advantage of a thick wing normally is that you get better low-speed handling, but with an aspect ratio that low, you're sacrificing any benefits the thick wing would have given you.
Unless you're doing something that counters the negative effects of the low aspect ratio (which the XF5U did), it's a terrible idea.
>>29434050
What do you think crashed at Roswell?
Do you seriously think the F-117 was our primary stealth fighter? Let alone the "expensive" "failures" (joke planes to mislead the Russians/Chinese) that are the F-22 and F-35?
>>29435730
>What do you think crashed at Roswell?
Not something related to any of the planes posted in the OP.
>Do you seriously think the F-117 was our primary stealth fighter?
It was our first and only armed stealth aircraft for a long time.
>Let alone the "expensive" "failures" (joke planes to mislead the Russians/Chinese) that are the F-22 and F-35?
The era of advanced top secret planes that surpass everything known to the public ended with the cold war, these planes are the best we can field as is evidenced by them being mass produced.
