But planetside 2 told me VTOL aircraft were the future,

They're more dangerous than helicopters and slower than jets and all of our infrastructure is based on fixed wing aircraft and helicopters

>>34701793
But Anon, VTOL IS the future.

File: USS_America's_Test_F-35_Flight_Operations.jpg (271KB, 1004x643px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 1004x643px

>>34701810
Pic related

File: Fallout-for.jpg (264KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 1920x1080px

The future is Power Armor with Jet Packs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvauZAsWjwM&ytbChannel=Adult%20Swim

File: 19956745_1404804476272853_1977966015205011671_o.jpg (89KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1920x1080px

Can we at least agree on that Harriers are asthetic as fuck

File: HaloPelican.jpg (20KB, 350x208px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 350x208px

>>34701849


If we didnt have niggers to feed and breed we'd have Pelicans today

Pelicans should be real.

Magical forms of VTOL are popular in games because it's an easier mechanic to implement than actual accurate flight physics, and are easy to hand wave if you are in the future with special technology. STOVL aircraft like the Harrier and the F-35B are niche weapons with both advantages and disadvantages over CTOL.

>>34701950
actually the big problem with vitol in real fiziks is redirecting all the concentrated propelling energy efficiently vs bodymass

harrier vtol can make a vertical liftoff and landing when its unload but fully loaded harrier cant.


The pelican is ingenius in design but the technology to make it function inst there

>>34701849
no, they look fuck ugly

>>34702018

There is by definition 0% aerodynamic lift in a vertical take off. Which is why at pretty much any technological level STO will always be preferred to VTO, because it will always result in greater payload carried. The Harrier can generate appreciable aerodynamic lift at only 50 mph forward air speed, so that STO can be very short indeed depending on the thrust vectoring.

>>34702099
>There is by definition 0% aerodynamic lift in a vertical take off. Which is why at pretty much any technological level STO


There's always soemthing for something correct?

reason why VTOL was invented is you dont need a runway to takeoff and land in the first place at the same time making the craft reach much higher velocity than a helicopter.

>>34701793
You're obviously a TR commietard. Reavers are shit and would make you hate everything.

>>34702117

It's just that between; VTO, and CTO, there is a sweet spot where you can utilise the aerodynamic lift of the aircraft for a decent payload, but the take off is short enough that there is plentiful availability of potential take off sites, so most designs focus on this. The only aircraft which are truly designed to use both VTO and aerodynamic lift from forward flight in normal operation are tilt-rotors.

>>34701793
>Planetside 2
That shit was fun, too bad it's dead

>>34702327
so fucking wrong it hurts, stop playing at 3 am on a thursday

>>34702336
I'm a simple kangaroo farmer, there's 250 people at absolute prime time

>>34702165
I'll kill you if you badmouth my VTOL interceptorfu. Reavers are perfect and I like to pretend they're a tip of the fedora to Firefly.

But yeah TR fags are gay as fuck, not as gay as the spandex wearing space-muslims though.

>>34701883
He's right you know

>>34702099
A lot of fictional VTOL dropships often fly away by first accelerating forwards and then angling up into the sky or sometimes into space. So the engines in takeoff mode need only produce enough lift to get off contact with the ground, since the effectiveness of the thrust works better when you have a solid surface nearby to push off from. Then it can start generating aerodynamic lift as it slowly angles its engines backward and begins moving forward.

So on flat lands the dropship can still takeoff the traditional way, on short landing strips it can do STO as you said, and then if one puts their small square futuristic landing pads over or next to alien cliffsides the VTOL dropship can fall for just a bit before it builds up enough speed to fly like normal.

>>34701793
Muhreen F-35B and CV-22

VTOL is rare because helicopters are simpler (lol) and aircraft that only land on runways don't need it.

Just give it time.

>Planetside2
ded gaem

>>34702563
In regards to the CV-22 Osprey the real VTOL "Dropship" they don't hover anymore because it creates a fuckhuge chaotic vortex if they hover for any length of time.

Same thing happens to helicopters which is why they come in to land or takeoff with forward velocity and then flare to land. Hovering at low level is something to be avoided.

>>34701793

They have a much brighter future than Planetside 2.

>>34702336

<2k average players, down from 16k at launch, Daybreak is running a skeleton crew that can't properly support it (lol construction), and they admit they're out of ideas to monetize their F2P game. It's toast.

>>34703048
Section 8 was fun too, but suffers from the disease of noplayers. In the end Tribes is superior (also ded)

You cannot justify a helicopter design for people who're going in and out of space, so VTOLs fill the helicopter niche

>>34701883
I really wish we still had gnarly looking aircraft like the F4 Phantom and the handley page victor but it's just going to be decades of silver iFighters

>>34701793
>what went wrong?
They wanted the Call of Duty audience.

File: images.jpg (10KB, 240x210px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 240x210px

>>34701793
The flight model is trash. While it does have a high skill ceiling and is truly unique that's the problem. It's unique and has a high skill ceiling. Tutorials teaches you absolutely nothing about esfs, the aircraft maneuver in such an odd manner compared to other games with "jets" that a noob can't even begin to understand how to dogfight because it doesn't act like a traditional plane, it acts more like a ufo with no weight to it. They can't even hope to learn how to dogfight because an esf costs 350 nanites and as soon as they go out the WG they get blasted by AA or killed by a veteran pilot. If they run out of nanites then they'll have to wait a long ass time before pulling another one only to die soon after anyway. This often results in the person quiting out of frustration and just becoming an infantry or ground vehicle main. That's why the air community is so small.

>>34706246
There's also the fact that the Liberator is a better fighter than the actual fighters if you have a competent gunner.

>>34706263
This also. As a ground main who is enough brain power to pull AA if i see an esf lurking around, I say that esfs are arguably one of the worst vehicles in game. The amount of nerfs its ground hitting weapons have received is ridiculous and the removal of thermals optics was another hard hit. The weapons don't do enough damage for you to actually perform hit and run attacks like the liberator can do, you'll have to hover and continuously keep track of your target which is extremely dangerous to do giving how fragile the vehicle is. The liberator does everything the esf does in a better way and the only thing an esf can safely fight is another esf

File: SeaHarrier_5.jpg (253KB, 1024x715px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 1024x715px

>>34701849

I agree. I particularly like the pointy-nose Sea Harriers

Basic physics teaches anyone that VTOL is a pile of shit

And if anyone had magic engines + fuels that enabled it, they would just produce armored fixed wing planes instead.

>>34701793
Economies crash.

>>34701793
Terrible range and payload.

>>34701849

no, they are the most disgusting jet i could think of right now.

>>34701849
Eh... for a Bongistani airplane they look alright, I guess.

>>34702099
>There is by definition 0% aerodynamic lift in a vertical take off.
Not disagreeing with your conclusion regarding STOVL, but this assertion is technically incorrect. A jump jet is a powered lift vehicle, and given that air is the working fluid in an airbreathing jump-jet and this lift (thrust) is derived from fluid motion rather than buoyancy, the Harrier does technically hover using a form of aerodynamic lift.

File: download (2).jpg (6KB, 276x183px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 276x183px

>>34701793
It can be done... sort of.

>>34701883
>If we didnt have niggers to feed and breed we'd have Pelicans today
Pelicans look like they zero aerodynamics with tiny wings

>>34711394
I think he was saying that it generates lift from the downward thrust as opposed to differential pressure over the wings (aerodynamic lift)

>>34711474
They could fly, but they would have to either use part of their thrust to counter their weight, or go really, really fucking fast

>>34702947
>Same thing happens to helicopters which is why they come in to land or takeoff with forward velocity and then flare to land.
No, they do that (when open space is available) so that they have enough energy to autorotate in the event of power loss.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_height%E2%80%93velocity_diagram
A low (<10 ft) hover is safe, because you don't have very far to settle, and the rotor alone has enough energy/RPM to kill this small descent rate and cushion the landing using rotor pitch. From higher altitudes, your descent rate during autorotation will be far higher, so it takes forward airspeed terminated by a flare to kill this descent rate before setting down. If you have forward airspeed already, you can do this from any altitude; or if you're in a high hover (>1000'), you can transition to a forward autorotation in time to flare and land gently. But if you're hovering between ~10 and ~1000 ft, you're in a vulnerable situation which you may not be able to safely autorotate from. You can go there if you have to (i.e. for fastrope or cargo hook operations), but if the engine quits in this zone, you're in for a hard landing so as a general rule you should avoid it whenever practical.

File: Boeing Pelican Size.gif (19KB, 315x538px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 315x538px

>>34701883

File: D77 to D79 comparison.jpg (274KB, 836x1356px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 836x1356px

>>34711474
You want to talk about wonky Pelican design, don't smear the D77. Check the D79 instead.

LIVE fREE WITH N Ceeeeeee

__________
Seriously, right now it's just too expensive to produce lots of VTOLS as the average burger will constanly smash it in friendly sunderer.

>Planetside 2
Hi Frank.

>>34701793
I fucking hate that about PS2. It's so fucking annoying when you're trying to fly the stupid plane and it starts doing dumbass helicopter shit; or vis versa

Either be a heli or a jet. Stop fucking dipsy doodling around with this bullshit

File: landscape-1462370874-bell1[1].jpg (78KB, 980x490px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 980x490px

>>34711461
Don't forget the V-280s.

>>34702563
> solid surface nearby to push off from
Study Newton some more.

File: xfv12-2.jpg (78KB, 700x547px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 700x547px

>>34702099
>There is by definition 0% aerodynamic lift in a vertical take off
Not so fast

>>34716377
Looks more like hydraulic lift to me.

File: Rockwell_XFV-12 (2)-960.jpg (52KB, 960x592px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 960x592px

>>34716429
>tfw only 70% of required lift