What do your ships look like?

Hiya My favorite starship miniature is the "Mercenary Cruiser"
figure in RAFM's Traveller series -- it's essentially a sphere
with four landing legs. This design always seemed the most practical to me,
and you could consider it to be "streamlined" for atmospheric entry as well
(but it would have the flight characteristics of a big rock).

> for atmospheric entry as well (but it would have the flight

The wings of most modern jet planes (and pracically ALL jet fighters) are
there to keep the ailerons and flaps further away from the body of
the plane, and give space for weapon-stoage (look at a Hornet or a
Fishbed. How long do you think they would glide with the engine turned
off?).
It's the engine power that keeps them up there. Of course, streamlining

is a good idea to keep things from ripping off at high speeds (such as
might be encountered during re-entry).
I got a good lesson about airplane aerodynamics from a very tall,
very... well-shaped blond in a body-sock, who just happened to be a jet
engineer... Never believed the blond-jokes after that...

/GNiko
(who hopes his.sig is working already...)

> On Thu, 25 Jul 1996, Niko Mikkanen wrote:

> > for atmospheric entry as well (but it would have the flight

*Sigh!*  Some people have all the luck! :-)

> Niko writes:

> are there to keep the ailerons and flaps further away from the body of

> the plane, and give space for weapon-stoage (look at a Hornet or a

> might be encountered during re-entry).

I may not be a jet engineer (I don't even play one on TV) but I believe the
wings provide a more critical role than you describe. Wings translate the
horizontal component of thrust from the engine into a vertical component
called lift. Without wings to provide lift planes could not maintain altitude.
The only other alternative would be to fly at a very steep angle of attack,
allowing the thrust from the engine to provide a force vector in the vertical
direction. Such a high angle of attack produces excessive drag and is
inefficient. Wings are the more efficient method for translating thrust to
lift.

Course I look like hell in a body-sock, so there is little incentive
to beleive me! B-)

Marty

Date sent:  25-JUL-1996 14:37:42

> Niko writes:

> The wings of most modern jet planes (and pracically ALL jet

> I may not be a jet engineer (I don't even play one on TV) but

Most modern airplanes use the body for a significant proportion of the lift.

However, if we are talking about very fast jets, the 'wings' are designed to
create a vortex of air over the wing causing the air above the wing to move
much faster than the air below it. (Note that ordinary wings just give the air
over the wing a longer journey to create the same effect). The faster moving
air has, by definition, a lower pressure. So the plane goes up. As this method
of moving the air over the upper wing surface is much more efficient than
conventional wings, the high speed wings can be much smaller, so cause less
drag.

The snag is that unless the plane is being powered, it can't move fast enough
to create a vortex. No vortices is bad, since the smaller wings can't hope to
create enough lift without them. So below about 200mph a modern jet has all
the flight characteristics of a big brick.

At least thats the way a Concorde works. I presume military jets work on a
similar principle.

> The only other alternative would

> engine to provide a force vector in the vertical direction. Such a high

Hey. You ever seen a Lightening take off? The worlds first VTO
jet fighter (Though it needs a run up to the end of the runway 8-)
)

> Course I look like hell in a body-sock, so there is little incentive

Ditto.

> Marty