h a l f b a k e r y
It's not a thing. It will be a thing.

meta:

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

 user: pass:
register,

pre-control control

Extend plane Pinochio nose cone, AI adjusts the shape, Wings, control surfaces use the flow.
 (+1, -2) [vote for, against]

This is a control surface out in front of the plane, that the plane drafts and utilizes the designed flow.

The nose cone is constructed so as to be able to telescope a few metres in front of the plane. The cone's shape is dynamic due to micro hydraulics and control electronics plumbed centrally from the plane.

This chameleon of shape takes the initial airflow and minutely changes it for the advantage of plane. This morphing will help with weather conditions, turning and cross winds by deflecting initial air flows and ironing out turbulence to a linear flow . Think flat water behind a ship.

Of course, designing the shape needed, for any set of conditions, is mathematically intensive, especially for a dynamic surface and will have be designed using AI learning algorithms.

Now McPlaney Plane Face, has a nose. Possible? or am I lying air flow at speed.

 — wjt, Jan 10 2021

Inlet cone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inlet_cone
[kdf, Jan 10 2021]

Droop nose https://en.wikipedi..._nose_(aeronautics)
[kdf, Jan 10 2021]

Retractable canard https://patents.goo...atent/US5495999A/en
[kdf, Jan 10 2021]

 //Think flat water behind a ship.//

 I'm thinking that. By that analogy, what this idea proposes is a second plane in front of the first plane, to do the hard work of smoothing the air flow to the benefit of the first plane. However, the first plane has to carry the second plane, and must enable it to do its work while holding it out at arm's length into the turbulent air - a posture which, to me, suggests mechanical disadvantage.

Maybe what you need is a separate, sacrificial aircraft with really poor fuel efficiency, so that the following aircraft can claim superior efficiency and performance.
 — pertinax, Jan 10 2021

Scale is a factor here, the first plane is some magnitude smaller. Complex waves//flows spread out from the initial point. And in a 175 billion machine learning parameter economy Droopy dynamics can be a bit more, well dynamic.
 — wjt, Jan 10 2021

//Maybe what you need is a separate, sacrificial aircraft// whose efficiency could also be improved by giving it a third smaller aeroplane in front of it &ce.
 — pocmloc, Jan 10 2021

And to the sides. The Recursive V formation is the operating flight procedure.
 — wjt, Jan 10 2021

Take a look at The Concorde.
 — xenzag, Jan 10 2021

 — 8th of 7, Jan 10 2021

 It’s not 100% bad science - there’s plenty of prior art for variable geometry aircraft “noses” - inlet cones, droop nose, retractable canards...

But still a [-] for a poor implementation concept.
 — kdf, Jan 10 2021

 // inlet cones, droop nose, retractable canards... //

 Inlet cones are there to modify airflow velocity into the engine - a necessary part of supersonic flight.

 Droop noses are to give improved visibility when landing a delta-wing airframe demanding a high angle of attack.

 Canards are active control surfaces, again often used with delta planforms.

Any dynamically variable system is going to add mass, complexity, and more possible points of failure - thus should be avoided if at all possible.
 — 8th of 7, Jan 10 2021

Now I understand your helicopter phobia too. You’re afraid of moving parts.
 — kdf, Jan 10 2021

It's a lie we say, you take that back RIGHT NOW ... Fake News ! Fake News !
 — 8th of 7, Jan 10 2021

 Shan’t.

Might as well use your fear to do something useful. How’s that reaction-less drive coming?
 — kdf, Jan 10 2021

 Evolutionary algorithms can find solutions that shock even the design programmers.So, in this environment of computationally looking under every rock, even strange, against the grain, ideas can have solutions.

Good ones? time will tell.
 — wjt, Jan 12 2021

 [annotate]

back: main index