Laughable Airliner design by graphic designer

Non-military aviation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2640
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post27 Feb 2015, 20:25

http://io9.com/this-spectacular-super-j ... 1688411559

Get a good laugh at this airline of the future design created by a graphic artist and not an engineer.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4930
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post27 Feb 2015, 20:47

"Yo Dawg! I heard winglets make a wing efficient, so we put winglets on your winglets to make your efficiency more efficient!"
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Offline

mrigdon

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 403
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2015, 22:03

Unread post27 Feb 2015, 21:05

DaVinci's designs for a helicopter are laughable by our standards today (and in his day, too), but there is a certain usefulness for artists and designers to make up stuff like this so future engineers can be inspired to make something practical out of it.

People thought the flip communicators on Star Trek were impossible devices, but the original Motorola engineer who created the flip phone used it as his inspiration.

If I went back in time to 1903 and showed the Wright Brother's a photo of an F-35B, they'd have laughed me out of Kitty Hawk 8)
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4930
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post27 Feb 2015, 21:32

My comment about the winglets stands. Having so many on top of each other like that will only increase interference drag especially at trans-sonic speeds.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2640
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post27 Feb 2015, 21:36

mrigdon wrote:DaVinci's designs for a helicopter are laughable by our standards today (and in his day, too), but there is a certain usefulness for artists and designers to make up stuff like this so future engineers can be inspired to make something practical out of it.

People thought the flip communicators on Star Trek were impossible devices, but the original Motorola engineer who created the flip phone used it as his inspiration.

If I went back in time to 1903 and showed the Wright Brother's a photo of an F-35B, they'd have laughed me out of Kitty Hawk 8)


There are inspiring designs:
"USS Enterprise" NCC-1701D from 'Star Trek: The Next Generation'
Most of the fighter forms from the various Macross series mecha.

Then there's ludicrous designs like the one from this graphic artist.
Offline

mrigdon

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 403
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2015, 22:03

Unread post27 Feb 2015, 22:23

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:My comment about the winglets stands. Having so many on top of each other like that will only increase interference drag especially at trans-sonic speeds.


Even aerospace companies throw out stuff that won't ever actually get built. There are Lockheed drawings of a swing-wing F-22, but I've been led to believe that a swing design would severely increase RCS (maybe they thought they could get it to work eventually). Of course, the Navy doesn't know if they want stealth (or something).

And there's plenty of "accepted wisdom" that gets overturned in a period of fifty years. One of the big arguments against the F-35 is "too much wing-loading". Those who know (sic), I guess, think there's no such thing as body lift. It's the devil's work :devil:

As far an imagination exercise goes, a few winglets doesn't hurt anything.

KamenRiderBlade wrote:There are inspiring designs:
"USS Enterprise" NCC-1701D from 'Star Trek: The Next Generation'
Most of the fighter forms from the various Macross series mecha.

Then there's ludicrous designs like the one from this graphic artist.


Inspiring to you :) As many Star Trek fans would probably pick the original Enterprise over the D (and the original Enterprise has certainly inspired far more people than the D model ever will. Two extra decades in syndication and a prime spot in the Smithsonian will do that). Personally, I'm partial to the A model from the original movies (which makes me a minority).

As far as Macross, I'd imagine there are more people in America inspired by Battlestar Galactica and Space 1999 than Macross.

Besides, inspiration's pretty much in the eye of the beholder. Otherwise, there'd only be one religion.
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2640
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post28 Feb 2015, 02:18

mrigdon wrote:Inspiring to you :) As many Star Trek fans would probably pick the original Enterprise over the D (and the original Enterprise has certainly inspired far more people than the D model ever will. Two extra decades in syndication and a prime spot in the Smithsonian will do that). Personally, I'm partial to the A model from the original movies (which makes me a minority).

As far as Macross, I'd imagine there are more people in America inspired by Battlestar Galactica and Space 1999 than Macross.

Besides, inspiration's pretty much in the eye of the beholder. Otherwise, there'd only be one religion.


True, what inspires me is different from what inspires people.

But even then, notice how you & I are at least inspired by one of the "Enterprise's" designs.

We may prefer different generations, but the same fundamental shape of saucer, star drive, & 2x Warp Nacelles are still in play.

I've never really watched BSG in the original or rebooted form or Space 1999.

But I watch more Japanese media than most people.
Offline

Prinz_Eugn

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 961
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2008, 03:35

Unread post28 Feb 2015, 02:23

It seems like this guy is a futurist, so is deliberately trying to do new crazy things, and I doubt he seriously believes these designs would actually work. I feel bad for the people who do though, like apparently the guy who wrote that blog post.

I like to "design" airplanes too, but I'm under no illusions about whether or not they would fly. That they sort of look like they would fly to a non-expert is good enough:

Image
"A visitor from Mars could easily pick out the civilized nations. They have the best implements of war."
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2640
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post28 Feb 2015, 02:37

Prinz_Eugn wrote:It seems like this guy is a futurist, so is deliberately trying to do new crazy things, and I doubt he seriously believes these designs would actually work. I feel bad for the people who do though, like apparently the guy who wrote that blog post.

I like to "design" airplanes too, but I'm under no illusions about whether or not they would fly. That they sort of look like they would fly to a non-expert is good enough:

Image


At least this one looks far more believable than the other one.

It looks inspired by the SR-71 with canards slapped on and some blending of engine nacelle into the frame.

That's far less of a stretch than that monstrosity that was posted in the article.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5600
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post28 Feb 2015, 03:27

Par for the course for Io9. Waiting for FoxtrotAlpha to pick it up with how it's going to be the awesome new bomber from Boeing. :lmao:
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3300
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post28 Feb 2015, 03:59

KamenRiderBlade wrote:http://io9.com/this-spectacular-super-jet-will-be-the-most-eco-friendl-1688411559

Get a good laugh at this airline of the future design created by a graphic artist and not an engineer.

Very pretty, but goofy as all hell.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3300
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post28 Feb 2015, 04:05

KamenRiderBlade wrote:
Prinz_Eugn wrote:It seems like this guy is a futurist, so is deliberately trying to do new crazy things, and I doubt he seriously believes these designs would actually work. I feel bad for the people who do though, like apparently the guy who wrote that blog post.

I like to "design" airplanes too, but I'm under no illusions about whether or not they would fly. That they sort of look like they would fly to a non-expert is good enough:

Image


At least this one looks far more believable than the other one.

It looks inspired by the SR-71 with canards slapped on and some blending of engine nacelle into the frame.

That's far less of a stretch than that monstrosity that was posted in the article.

Whether it could fly or not would depend heavily on what it looks like in 3D and what was actually inside of it. I can see a big problem with those canards positioned in front of the engine inlets, though.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2640
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post28 Feb 2015, 04:07

count_to_10 wrote:Whether it could fly or not would depend heavily on what it looks like in 3D and what was actually inside of it. I can see a big problem with those canards positioned in front of the engine inlets, though.


Yeah, I would've never positioned the canards in the path of the engine intakes if I was drawing the lineart.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5600
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post28 Feb 2015, 04:31

Interestingly enough, many of the "Super" F-106 configurations had the canards in front of the inlets. (They eventually moved them in the last configurations.)
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3300
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post28 Feb 2015, 05:06

Notably, when they made "active" testbeds out of the F-15 and F-4, they put canards on the sides of the inlets, not in front of them.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Next

Return to Civil and General Aviation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests