Would it be possible to make a supersonic propellor aircraft? Let's say that no more than 10 percent of the usable thrust comes from the exhaust.
>>7637623
I was about the mention the Tu-95, but you already have it posted in the image.
It seems like it would be possible. Just take a Tu-95 and add more engines.
>>7637634
I know there was a american turbo prop fighter that could have hit mach .95, but stability problems ruined it. I think it also got like 30 percent of its thrust from jet exhaust.
>>7637642
This thing got abandoned because it was too loud and incredibly unstable. The tips of the propellers exceeded mach 1 and the sonic booms became unbearably loud.
>>7637623
Bump
>>7637623
I've really got no clue, but I feel like supersonic air moving through a propeller would not be a good thing
>>7637650
not only that but the air vibration where in the infra sounds or something , and actually caused huge nausea in a 500m aera. an engineer working on the plane even got knocked unconscious
What causes the inherent unstabillity?
/k/ is smarter than /sci/
>>>/k/27804396
>>7637623
>/sci/ being this dumb
The blade of the propeller spinning supersonically would create such a large field of particle friction around it that it would essentially be spinning on nothing but it's own turbine field and would drop speed until the density in the air was thicker
>>7637623
Short Answer: No
Long answer: in order to get it to work it wouldn't be what you considered to be a "prop" engine.
You would need a way to boost the air flowing behind the propeller to supersonic speeds. That would require some sort of converging diverging nozzle. So it wouldn't really be a turboprop anymore.
