Thread replies: 14
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
File: maxresdefault.jpg (166KB, 1280x649px) Image search:
[Google]
166KB, 1280x649px
I'm not very well acquainted with physics and aerodynamics, and I need to float an idea out there with people who are.
Would it be possible to build a model Y-Wing (as shown in the pic and video) that works without aerodynamic lift via wings or rotors? I was thinking it might be possible if done with a gyroscope for pitch and roll movement; The gyroscope would be moved to to achieve this effect without any control surfaces. The yaw would be with small rudders attached to the rear part of the engine. The ship would powered with two engines to keep it aloft. Hovering would be achieved by the force of the engines being used to counter the movements of the gyroscope and the rudders to counter any flat rotation.
If my idea is shit, let me know, and any suggestions if you like.
>>
>>8620628
The turns, ya, slew, and angles could all be done with thrust vectoring instead of gyros and rudders and shit. Many modern fighter jets are starting to use thrust vectoring
>>
>>8620628
Maybe you should learn how to form coherent sentences before you worry about stupid shit like this.
>>
>>8620636
>thrust vectoring
Yes it would, but then it does not look authentic. I'm trying to go for something that looks indistinguishable from the real thing.
>>
>>8620628
It's possible, but it would look kind figure B in flight because it wouldn't have lift to counter the force of gravity.
>>
>>8620693
But wouldn't this be mitigated by tilting the gyroscope until level flight is achieved?
>>
>>8620719
No, why would it? Conservation of momentum tells us that the aircraft will need to be either shooting stuff out the back or pushing air backwards.
>>
>>8620728
Isn't that what the engines do?
>>
>>8620750
Yes, but the total thrust needs a downward component equal to or greater than the force of gravity or it will descend. A flight in a straight line parallel to the ground means the craft will need to be tilted. Gyroscopes do not generate thrust, only angular momentum. They can turn the aircraft, but not move it otherwise.
>>
>>8620628
Seriously guys? You wouldn't need aerodynamics in outer space.
>>
>>8620768
I'm not saying that the gyro is for thrust, it's for control.
>Yes, but the total thrust needs a downward component equal to or greater than the force of gravity or it will descend.
So basically what you're saying is that the leveling affect of the gyro will not be enough to keep the ship level during straight flight. Right?
>>
>>8620806
Gyros work withing a differential frame, not a frame. That means, as you apply force to them, the gyro applies a force with respect to its spin and never counter to the force applied. So that means:
1. no hovering. The force of gravity cannot be countered by a gyro. The force to make it hover would not just be a force opposite of gravity, but its main component in the direction of gravity would still have to equal the force of gravity. You gain nothing by having a gyro, and loose the force necessary to counter the gyros motion (Rockets use gyros because the force applied at the base creates a torque at the tip that needs to be balanced.)
2. no steering. Both the energy to keep the gyro rotating and its change of rotation are much greater than just applying the force in the direction you wish to go, either by lift, or by thrust, but more importantly, there is a limit to the amount of energy you could apply to the gyro that is much lower than the power needed to steer.
This is why gyros are used for stabilization of attitude not position. Gyros orient a body with respect to its surroundings, not orient the body in the surroundings.
>>
>>8620628
You can have a "flying" machine that consists of a vertical rocket or thrust fan and a gyro, gimbal or vectoring method to balance and control.
In effect you'd be creating the Lunar lander.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMfNkbEz8ZA
>>
red = aerofoils
green = prop
Thread posts: 14
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3