Wingless plane???

I'm very young and want to go into the aircraft buisness so i was thinking of an idea and was wondering if it was possible. COuld you have a plane with no wings but a ver curved top and flat bottom acting like the wing or would it not produce enough life. The of like a bullet cut in half long ways just a little more rounded at the front.

yes you could nasa had done experiments with lifting body aircraft very cool look it up on google

yea the idea has been played with before...

there are a lot of posssibilities and advantadges to this technology.

Cool, im only 12 so i thought my young mind was completely retaded, but not anymore, unfourtunately those NASA a holes have already came up with it. They'll probably spend 3 million dollars on using one to take a rover to Venus only to find that they attached the engines pointing backwards and it'll blow up. so they government will giev them 9 billion dollars and si astronauts to kill.

Originally posted by SmokeyTheBear
Cool, im only 12 so i thought my young mind was completely retaded, but not anymore, unfourtunately those NASA a holes have already came up with it. They'll probably spend 3 million dollars on using one to take a rover to Venus only to find that they attached the engines pointing backwards and it'll blow up. so they government will giev them 9 billion dollars and si astronauts to kill.

- 12yrs old huh?

That's a mighty cynical and flippant attitude to be taking over matters that are difficult in the extreme to do.

Instead of kicking at NASA as if it's just blowing public money for the sake of it (a ridiculous proposition) you might like to consider that NASA contracts out much of it's work/research to private companies (whom, just because they're private companies you no doubt think are amazing bastions of economy, sense and righteousness).

You could try looking up all the vast amounts of research NASA has done - over the decades - which has helped private companies generate enormous wealth.......or just carry on complaining about them as if they know nothing, which.....to be honest, sorry and all...... isn't really doing much for letting folks know what you know, if you see what I mean.

NASA is an institution that has gotten so much more right than the tiny fraction of it's efforts it ever got wrong. You should be enormously proud of them not slating them.



[edit on 18-10-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

I am proud of them and what they've done. I was bored and just playin around. cut me some slack im young.

sorry to be the one to say this but: Youth is no excuse, if you know you need to be cut slack for something, you know better than to say it. Better to be wise in mind and young of body than to be young in both and abuse the liberties the latter grants you. That said you seem like a smart kid, age has no relevance here only thought, there are plenty on the bbs that would say stuff equally absent in foresight without a second thought. This is turning into a rant so i will stop but use your smarts to govern both what you say(write) and what you read, and you will get so much more out of this site.

Back to the Thread... Some advantages are light weight, strong structural strength, lots of internal volume and low parasite drag. Disadvantages are instability, high induced drag and loss of energy when manouvering. A design like this lends itself well to high altitude/high speed.

About thread subject, if you put enough powerful engine to it everything can be made to fly!


This would be pretty much lifting body plane.

www.globalsecurity.org...

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Instead of kicking at NASA as if it's just blowing public money for the sake of it (a ridiculous proposition) you might like to consider that NASA contracts out much of it's work/research to private companies (whom, just because they're private companies you no doubt think are amazing bastions of economy, sense and righteousness).

Yeah.
There's lot things in common use now which were originally developed for space exploration.

And fault in Genesis return capsule was because of mistake of Lockheed Martin. Failed Mars Polar Lander and Climate Orbiter were also made by LM so you're barking wrong tree.
After all LM is capitalistic corporation and only object of those is to make as much profit as possible... and more extensive QC would decrease that.
story.news.yahoo.com...