So, modern V-1 buzz bombers. Even the launch ramp sled thing in the article looks like a similar concept. Everything old is new again!
I hate this stupid word 'drone'
Cruise missiles have all the same navigation and course correction tech in it.
These are the same thing with a propeller instead of a rocket and less payload.
I mean, there is a difference. You even pointed it out. With a rocket you go point A to point B. That is it. With a prop, you can fly around for as long as your fuel supply lasts. Which is what makes it a drone.
These only go from point A to to point B.
rockets can fly around for as long as their fuel supply lasts.
These seem like they can circle for rather longer than a rocket could.
There's a bit of a difference, tactically, between a rocket with 2 min of fuel vs a prop plane with 5 hours of fuel.
A Tomahawk cruise missile only uses a rocket motor to take off from a ship or submarine. After launch, it unfolds its wings and uses a jet engine to fly to its target.
"Added unfolding wings for effect of cool."
Seriously though, Rocket and jet engine is heavy. I know that from KSP.
What's the difference between a rocket motor and a jet engine?
Cruise missiles are usually self-guided. Drones are often remotely piloted with some autonomous functions (loitering, station keeping, return to base). No idea what the case is for these new AQ400 units. Given the usage of the term "drone", my guess is that these will be remotely piloted.
They aren't remotely piloted. Way too easy to jam.
Hey, if it works.
Hey, if it works.
Hey, if it works.
V1 was a much larger pulsejet (hence the buzz) with a third of the range and ten times the payload of this thing
There's probably a bunch of reasons for the multi wing design, but the big one is going to be improving lift/carrying capacity without increasing the width.
The most efficient wings for low speeds are glider wings: as long and thin as possible. That makes them inconvenient to pack and folding joints are weak points. The second wing adds lift, but also problems: it's less efficient than a single wing of the combined length would be and the front wing makes the rear wing less efficient. The winglet improves the situation somewhat. Facing downward also improves maneuverability.
Thanks. How does this shape compare with the Iranian Shahed drones?
Is two seperate wings more efficient than a full v shape body?
Big wing tips?
Yeah seems rather inefficient
Well wingtips are typically used to increase efficiency, so not sure what you mean.
They increase efficiency if you don't have space for longer wings to park your giant ass airplane in an airport with width limits
So, modern V-1 buzz bombers. Even the launch ramp sled thing in the article looks like a similar concept. Everything old is new again!
I hate this stupid word 'drone'
Cruise missiles have all the same navigation and course correction tech in it.
These are the same thing with a propeller instead of a rocket and less payload.
I mean, there is a difference. You even pointed it out. With a rocket you go point A to point B. That is it. With a prop, you can fly around for as long as your fuel supply lasts. Which is what makes it a drone.
These only go from point A to to point B.
rockets can fly around for as long as their fuel supply lasts.
These seem like they can circle for rather longer than a rocket could.
There's a bit of a difference, tactically, between a rocket with 2 min of fuel vs a prop plane with 5 hours of fuel.
A Tomahawk cruise missile only uses a rocket motor to take off from a ship or submarine. After launch, it unfolds its wings and uses a jet engine to fly to its target.
"Added unfolding wings for effect of cool."
Seriously though, Rocket and jet engine is heavy. I know that from KSP.
What's the difference between a rocket motor and a jet engine?
Cruise missiles are usually self-guided. Drones are often remotely piloted with some autonomous functions (loitering, station keeping, return to base). No idea what the case is for these new AQ400 units. Given the usage of the term "drone", my guess is that these will be remotely piloted.
They aren't remotely piloted. Way too easy to jam.
Hey, if it works.
Hey, if it works.
Hey, if it works.
V1 was a much larger pulsejet (hence the buzz) with a third of the range and ten times the payload of this thing
What's the deal with the front wing?
There's probably a bunch of reasons for the multi wing design, but the big one is going to be improving lift/carrying capacity without increasing the width.
The most efficient wings for low speeds are glider wings: as long and thin as possible. That makes them inconvenient to pack and folding joints are weak points. The second wing adds lift, but also problems: it's less efficient than a single wing of the combined length would be and the front wing makes the rear wing less efficient. The winglet improves the situation somewhat. Facing downward also improves maneuverability.
Thanks. How does this shape compare with the Iranian Shahed drones?
Is two seperate wings more efficient than a full v shape body?
Big wing tips?
Yeah seems rather inefficient
Well wingtips are typically used to increase efficiency, so not sure what you mean.
They increase efficiency if you don't have space for longer wings to park your giant ass airplane in an airport with width limits
Longer wings should be more efficient