Helicarriers

physically impossible

>>84799268
The entire retarded concept is a flaw.

File: 1499397706020.jpg (56KB, 485x459px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 485x459px

>landing strip points straight into an open turbine
who'd they contract to design this thing, ACME Corporation?
fucking capeshit lmao

File: 1484205106280.jpg (64KB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 650x650px

>>84799344
lol

>>84799268
fuel consumption

>>84799386
I own one the gas mileage isn't great but it's not as bad as you might think

>>84799386
Iron man already solved that

>>84799268
the back thrusters point in different directions

I mean that's so retarded it already invalidates the whole concept without even going into the lift the fans would have to generate

>>84799268
Helicarrier is dumb but looks cool and that's is all that matter in a movie.

I wish they kept at least one as the Avengers base.

>>84799310
>>84799291
Wrong you idiotic children. It's possible just completely economically unfeasible. The money spent making one could beat multiple normal aircraft carriers.

>>84799480
what's the point of aircraft carrier aircraft?

>>84799532
Looks cool.

>Find a flaw
A carrier that's already airborne does not need a huge flight deck or catapults, planes can just dive off and arrested landings don't need a deck that long.

File: sdf_1_.jpg (255KB, 1600x681px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 1600x681px

>>84799291
FPBP

File: helicarrier.jpg (22KB, 366x390px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 366x390px

The rotor size compared to the payload it needs to lift is unrealistic. Some autistic guy actually could be bothered to run the math and gave a to scale representation of what the helicarrier should look like.

Additionally, the scene where cap is standing on the edge of the helicarrier looking at the props as it lifts out of the water would have instantly killed all of those people standing near them when they started up due to induced air velocity.

Also the bit where Iron Man manually pushes the rotor up to speed after it was damaged was completely ridiculous as rotating that fast would have resulted in a sustained gforce of ~1200Gs

>>84799808
There are tons of scenes in the Iron Man films where the force exerted on Iron Man would have turned him into a fine red paste inside that suit, regardless of how strong it was.

>>84799480
It's impossible, nothing we have today can generate enough thrust to make something so big fly.

>>84799344
It's a motivator for the pilot to make a good landing.

>>84799901
But Tony Stark built this

IN A CAVE!!!

>>84799268
why not just 'hurr we invented the whatever whatever device and now we can make stuff float except for we only use it this one time on this one aircraft carrier and the lost the design"?

>>84799268
>all the faggots screaming "IT'S NOT POSSIBL!!!" in a vapid attempt to sound smart

>>84800054
WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS

>>84799268
It would make more sense to build more and faster combat aircraft than to build the delivery system.

Besides, in that fantasy world you could probably build 20 traditional AC carriers. To the cost of one, off setting the benefits of an airborne AC carrier.

tldr: expensive and redundant.

okay ill try. theres two jet streams coming off the tips of the wings of the planes thats landing instead a single one in the center. did i get it right?

File: 9109281bcf32c7c0da494bbb2079d7f8[1].jpg (71KB, 529x238px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 529x238px

The should have made it like a huge giant flying plane fortress

File: atlas-v-asymetric.jpg (39KB, 398x512px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 398x512px

>>84799462
>the back thrusters point in different directions

What is vector addition? What is thrust-vectoring (e.g. via gimbals)?

File: 4644.jpg (70KB, 248x252px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 248x252px

>DUDE LETS MAKE THE Aircraft Carrier Fly!
>Why?
>BECAUSE ITLL BE AWESOME
>But what advantage does flying in their air give over just being in the ocean?
>DUDE

Fuel costs would be astronomical

>>84800430

makes it easier to hide from radar and attacks from other battleships or subs retard

>>84800430
There's no ocean in the middle of a continent.

File: 1464684228380 (1).png (1MB, 622x1381px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 622x1381px

>>84800470
>He thinks a 3000 ton object flying in the air would be less visible by Radar
>Battleships still in service
>Submarines cannot attack targets in the air

>>84800470
>battleships
/k/ trolls everyone.

File: Genie Missile test.webm (3MB, 582x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 582x360px

heh...nothin personnel shield

>>84800506
you can just use an airport

>>84800470
>easier to hide from radar in the air vs in the water
Seriously? Do you understand how radar works? In the air you will have a much higher chance of being unobstructed for radars to detect you

>>84799268
Flaw 1. It's absolutely retarded
Flaw 2. Every movie with those things is pure shit

>>84799725
If difficulty wasn't really a factor, would be the shortest arrested landing mechanism we could employ that doesn't straight up kill the pilot from deceleration.

>>84799268
"Let's put a massive target for missiles right up there like Rooster Cogburn just threw a cornbread up there for target practice."

File: 1365566032743.jpg (34KB, 232x240px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 232x240px

>>84800513
>3000 ton

> Waste time building that crap when they could have built an SD

>>84800399
nigga who the fuck knows?

>>84800758
Huh?

>>84799386
it's powered by magic. They literally say that in the film.

>>84799268
One dude with a bow and arrow can completely cripple it

>>84799480
The thing would break apart. in order to put something that heavy into the air, it would need to be designed in a way that would be unrecognizable to us. This is because of the forces acting on it changing.

Form follows function.

Ships in the water look the way they do because they are built to withstand forces involving propulsion through the water and keeping the hull rigid. Add in huge forces on a different axis and the thing would break apart. Ships can expect the water to support the keel uniformly. That would not be the case in the air.

Also an aluminum airframe would corrode in saltwater in a matter of hours.

t. engineer

>>84799268

>Miss a wire landing, get inhaled and blended.

>>84799808
This. Quadcopters look the way they do because they need the rotors to be that big for stable flight.

Try making a quadcopter with a huge aircraft carrier shape in the middle and see if it even gets airborne.

>>84799742
>>84799291
>>84799901
It actually is possible, there have been four or five designs for aerial carriers, some would have used nuclear power plants as fuel sources and may have been perma-flight or landed on water for maintenance.

If we didn't have so many liberals against nuclear research and just nuked the commies so we could move on with tech progress, we'd be living in flying cities by now.

Only one I can remember right now is lockheed cl 1201

>>84799532
>>84800430
Same reason why in ww2 there were german plans for plans that could travel over the atlantic. Also extremely fast interception and potentially overwhelming aerial presence, assuming it wouldn't get shot down and you lose a hundred billion dollars.

File: 5Bgem.png (241KB, 640x385px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 640x385px

>>84799268
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow made better looking ones 8 years prior

>>84801680
>get shot down
Or a plane/helicopter falls off, but instead of dropping into the ocean like it often happens, does so on a propeller and crashes the whole thing with no survivors.

I agree OP, this engineering oversight in a film with a 100yr old supersoldier, a man in an impossible flying tank suit, a god, a giant monster of unlimited strength, a living robot made of a magic space crystal and a black man with an outstanding work ethic really ruins the immersion.

>>84801680
>Lockheed cl 1201
A fixed-wing airframe for heavy payload lifting is COMPLETELY different to a multirotor design such as the helicarrier. The enormous wings of the Lockheed are providing the lift and therefore the aircraft does not need a (relatively) ridiculous amount of power from its engines to remain in flight - merely to maintain airspeed. The helicarrier on the other hand has no means of generating lift through its structure and therefore relies purely on the rotors. It is physically impossible to have the helicarrier work.

>>84801496
>t. engineer
Now tell us why the rotary engine is dead.

>>84799268
Same as any carrier, useless against non unarmed shitholes

Would have been valuable 100 years ago when it took half a hour for planes to reach altitude

Now fighters can get to altitude in a few minutes so no point in making the carrier a bigger target

>>84801680
>nuclear powered
i dont think you know how nuclear powered things work, anon

File: 440x440[1].png (169KB, 440x440px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 440x440px

>>84799344
>ACME Corporation
>mfw it's also a name of a real corporation, and I have one of it's product that lives up to it's name

>>84799876
>would have turned him into a fine red paste inside that suit, regardless of how strong it was.
But there was padding on the inside of the armour that protected him.