Can you explain why a helicopter or a prop-driven plane wasn't used for lunar landing?
Please stop! Actually, please continue, it's quite entertaining.
You mean moon having 1/4 of Earth's gravity.
Less gravity would only mean you would need less Thrust while breaking through the gravitational pull of the planet (which you can do in matter of seconds), but would make it even more important to have Stabilisers?!
Plus you would still need enough fuel to travel through the distances in space, same as much as you needed while travelling TOWARDS the moon.
Its like saying you would need more fuel travelling from Geneva to Zurich then the return journey.. no?
Lack of Power/thrust coz of prop-design vs jet engines.
Actually fins (or wings for that matter) dont balance torque. Try drilling a hole in your ceiling while standing on an office chair while holding an arm out to cancel the torque, see how well it works.
You don't say. I wonder how a Harrier can take off with the center of mass above the center of thrust then.
A blast engine? Interesting.
Oh wow. Same as "relatively less read makes for higher entertaining value on the internets".
Hey Dervaish, Nasa are trying to call you, they want you to design there next reusable space vehicle, they just realised, reading this thread, that they completely over engineered everything, and are really interested in your helecopter shuttle. Get in there!
Aha. I'm pleased to inform you a jet engine would develop exactly zero thrust on the moon, but please carry on.
Then how do you create thrust on the moon?
Travelling through space, its not the engine but combusting the fuel, which is a problem due to lack of oxygen. The use liquid oxygen along with fuel ..if I can remember correctly.
Yeah, especially so if travelling from Geneva to Zurich would imply reaching escape velocity.
Ok.. why do helicopeters have that small propeller at the rudders then?
Would you mind rephrasing that in English?
How would you balance torque on a vehicle like XYF Pogo then?
It can because theres enough thrust to lift its weight, and the wings provide for the stability.
Probably because the fins don't cancel torque (but that's just a crazy thought i've had now).
that's just a turbo boost when they need to get out quickly while under enemy fire.
Now *that* is an interesting question. Pilot holding arm out of the cockpit as an extra fin?
A rocket also has enough thrust to lift its weight (one would hope...)... and the wings provide zero stability in hover flight. But please carry on.
Nah the propeller is used for amphibious helicopter operations. Everyone knows that.
Derv, the Pogo was designed with Contra Rotating Turbo Props.
As Shorrick pointed out to you, fins have absolutely nothing to do with it.
Also, there's a difference between Jet engines and Rockets. Go and look it up. The Googles are very good for that, I hear.
Jet engines create thrust by combusting fuel (kerosene/jetfuel). For combustion/burning you need oxygen, which is in abundance within Earth's atmosphere. If you notice you have "air intakes" on the front side of aeroplanes, even cars and exhausts at the back.
In space there is NO oxygen hence you wont be able to burn fuel, hence the need to carry liquid oygen in tanks along with furl to help with Combustion.
I stand corrected.
Just like the froglets in The Clangers.
.
You're right, I missed the contra rotating turbo props in the pic
BUT still it has 4 horizontal fins, faily large in size too, as its need for extra stability while VTOL.