I have an idea. Instead of the fiddly wires and catapults on

Energy inefficient, fucks with your aerodynamics and would prevent simultaneous take-offs and landings.

>>29829106
>Energy inefficient
Who cares if it werks? Plenty space for more fuel
>fucks with your aerodynamics
Planes can fly fine in a tailwind, fucking with aerodynamics is good if you are going the other way and trying to slow down.
>prevent simultaneous take-offs and landings.
Make two wind tunnels.

>>29829181
>Plenty space for more fuel
No.
>fucking with aerodynamics is good if you are going the other way and trying to slow down.
No.
>Make two wind tunnels.
So quarter your flights per unit time? No.

>>29829201
If it was WW2 they would have given my idea a chance. The aircraft carrier made of ice got taken seriously after all.

>>29829219
There's a big fucking difference between Habbakuk and...whatever the fuck you're talking about.

File: 2bvey8[1].jpg (201KB, 1000x682px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1000x682px

What if we carry the fighters to above their stall speed, before launching?

>Belka stronk

>>29829219
It really wouldn't. A wind tunnel requires a huge amount of energy to keep rolling - something only nuclear-powered carriers would be capable of without severely limiting range.

I gave your idea due consideration but it's not as good as current solutions. It may well work if the aircraft's avionics could be properly tuned for the highly variable lift/drag encountered during landing but the fact that it prevents simultaneous landing and takeoff is reason enough to abandon it.

File: y5IfM.jpg (205KB, 1536x1238px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 1536x1238px

>>29829253
Ok fine. Why don't they just put more research into VTOL fighters? If the aliens can do it why can't we?

>>29829359
Money.

Don't worry once the cold war heats up again I'm sure we'll be seeing some very interesting VTOL stuffs.

For now STOVL/STOL etc. will have to do.

>>29829219
>If it was WW2 they would have given my idea a chance. The aircraft carrier made of ice got taken seriously after all.

They did some early proof of concepts and then abandoned it. And that was something that actually seemed like it might work, at first.

Also, appealing to the desperation of wartime just to give your idea a chance is not a good way to sell your idea.

Finally, the wires and catapults are a simpler, cheaper solution than your wind tunnel idea. They require less mechanical complexity, less modification to the planes, etc.

They also have less risk. With an open deck, the plane can land late, touch and go, sideslip, etc., without having to worry about hitting the side of the tunnel.

Fuck, your idea, the plane crashes on landing, the pilot ejects, and then what?

>>29829518
Fuck the pilot he shouldn't have crashed.

>>29829106
>>29829201
>energy inefficient
Don't carriers have nuclear reactors?

>>29829635
The Nimitz do, yes. Doesn't mean you have unlimited power though.

>>29829635
yeah, but at the end of the day, a reactor is just a really, really fucking big generator.
you do still have a definite power output cap unless you wanna go chernobyl.

>>29829668
It's just a fan guys.
Never mind I found a fatal flaw with the problem. The fan will push the ship off course.

>>29829068
For US carriers: catapults work better and take up less space.

For euro "carriers": you really think the peons could afford anything more sophisticated than a ski ramp?

>>29829684
*tips respectfully in your direction*

>>29829684
Big carriers are a big target. Just remember that burger.

>>29829825
good luck getting close enough