S7alker117 [2015-04-19 22:56:57 +0000 UTC]
This was unexpected.
But yeah, this one was a blatant disaster.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ArmamentDawg [2015-04-19 19:47:42 +0000 UTC]
I'm constantly reminded of the F-35B's lift fan when I read about the Avrocar's turborotor. Do you think the US Navy would've managed the program better, as a predecessor to the LCAC? (Managing it as an AV-8 or "Harrier" predecessor, is obviously an invitation for disaster, when you consider the fact the AV-8 itself is a disaster- see www.pulitzer.org/archives/6722.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
BlacktailFA In reply to ArmamentDawg [2015-04-21 00:39:24 +0000 UTC]
I don't think the Avrocar would have fit the bill. This type of aircraft uses a broad, central lifting fan and a saucer-shaped aerofoil; two features that are bad enough on their own, but work even worse when combined.
As for use as a a load-bearing hovercraft, the Avrocar was barely able to move a few feet at a time before losing lift, and it could barely support the weight of the pilot and a full tank of fuel. Even if we excuse that, there's the problem of getting enough power to lift a useful payload, and it's effect on the stability of the machine's "flight" (I use the term loosely). Typically, a more powerful engine is a larger, heavier, and thirstier engine, forcing the airframe to be dramatically scaled-up just to fit the engines, which also makes it immensely more expensive. That also means you have to strengthen the airframe, cram-in more fuel cells somewhere, add more stabilization features, and so on, making the airframe even heavier and more expensive.
And on and on. This is called the Cost-Size-Complexity Spiral.
As for the Harrier, you might just see an episode on it. XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 0