The fact that this thing is VTOL might have to do with Pandora's lower gravity yet almost earth level atmospheric presure. That certainly makes it easier to get away with stuff like that.
@@scelonferdi that is the pressure according to the wiki the density it's about 20% more dense than earth "Pandora's atmosphere is a mixture of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide (>18%), xenon (>5.5%), methane, and hydrogen sulfide (>1%) and is about 20% denser than the atmosphere on Earth primarily due to the high percentage of Xenon; a heavy, colourless, odourless, and generally unreactive noble gas." gravity is .8G so its lower gravity with denser air so things are more buoyant in atmosphere and lighter (I don't really know how much .9 atmo of pressure would help or hinder with flight though) also wouldn't denser air make it harder for a plane to take off normally as it would have issues getting up to speed? perhaps the VTOL lets it get up to where the air is less dense?
@@lekoro1 Wow, that means that Pandora actually has a "lower" (Stretching less distance above as atmospheric presure is density*gravitational accelaration integrated over height) atmosphere than earth. I guess the higher density can be either detrimental or beneficial depending on the drive system. If your ejection mass is collected from the atmosphere it should help. It should however increase friction.
@@lekoro1 Its slower top speed and lower require speed for take off because of atmosphere influence on lift if I'm correct but everything else you said looks right.
Since it can't take much cargo back up into orbit, that means that _most of the military equipment on the surface_ will have to be left behind for the T̶a̶l̶i̶b̶a̶n̶ Na'vi during evacuation.
The big reason for the engines rotating rather than just the nozzle is probably due to the heat of the engine. VTOL planes normally have a 90 second window to land before the nozzles become compromised. Forcing thrust gasses to take a 90 degree turn creates huge amounts of heat.
yes and making it turn also makes it lose efficiency fluids like water and air dont like sharp turns in high efficiency things like high flow hydraulics sharp bends are avoided and only used when absolutely necessary if a turn is needed gradual turns are used.
Yes the harrier had this problem not because it burnt up but because it used water which was in a small supply to maintain the thrust needed to do vertical lift operations. This being further exacerbated by the usual low fuel levels needed to arrive at the ship ready to land at the appropriate weight. This isn't a problem with vtols in general it's a problem with certain really early jet vtols where the technology to do so wasn't all there. Aircraft like the X-32 X-35 and F-35B can stay hovering as long as they have fuel.
@@koc988 This is what I came to see. The harrier and other early VTOL jet aircraft were really the only ones to have the overheating/water issues. The F35B without weaponry and with less than full fuel can take off vertically, hover until bingo and then land vertically at the push of a button
Also, atmospheric density on Pandroa is also specified as being higher than Earths, so running atmospheric gases through an engine would likely create additional heating and pressure issues over plain air. Given the limited amount of activity on Pandora, one could assume there wasn't enough research to make safe assumptions about operating an engine at the limits of tolerance for the sake of efficiency in a field environment with limited options for repair of a critical system. It could be argued it was well worth taking a hit on efficiency for the sake of ruggedness and simplicity in a remote location.
@@koc988 the main problem with vtol is when it's landing. The f35 can't maintain a low hover and has to slam down when landing due to the engine ingesting the hot exhaust air which can cause the engine to cut out all together. That was a major problem earlier in the f35 development and was partly solved by having the plane land on a grate where the air can pass through and away from the engine intakes
My hat goes off to you sir, no one makes avatar videos and im greatfull that i found a channel that does and makes great quality content, i hope you go big bro
You said the Valkyrie wasn't as well designed as the ISV, but as someone who only saw Avatar in theaters once, I'm surprised they put as much thought as they did into any of this. But honestly, once you have fusion reactors small and light enough to power an aircraft, you can pretty much build whatever you want and it will fly. Propulsion tech is always the limiting factor in air/spacecraft capabilities.
Knowing Cameron this was allll thought out down to the bean.. just because we can't figure it out at first or second glance doesn't mean he didn't put serious thought into it The fact that I still discover new tech details in ALIENS decades later is testament to that
6 hours to rendezvous and dock? Maybe there are some extreme stationkeeping steps, but spacecraft could complete rendezvous in 2 hours or under if launched during the right launch window.
Whoever designed Halo's Pelican Dropship should be very proud of themselves, because now everyone goes "yes, that is what a future Space Shuttle looks like."
@@bugwar5545 well they are totally different vehicle types, one is a troop dropship and the other a rocket. Mabye after we get fusion the pelican will become real
i could be very wrong but 3:33 about the wing position, i imagine the twin massive self powered fusion engines are extremely heavy unlike those on spaceshuttle, which are basically nozzles. Judging by the position and difference in size of the rotatable jets, those fusion engines probably weights more than the rest of the craft, so the wing naturally should allign where all the mass is, and being top mounted also means stability, especially for a craft that have it's center of mass that far back. Awesome content tho subscribed!
Yeah I was thinking the same thing. They had to be pretty heavy and therefor the CG and VTOL jets were further aft to compensate. It just looked cooler so there's always that...
You’d want a top mounted wing to be able to more easily use the craft on unimproved surfaces - such as a jungle floor. While I was in high school a couple of decades ago, I drew a very similar design. Although mine was powered by chemical propulsion. I also didn’t consider mounting the engines on the wings. This is a great idea as it gets them off the ground. As to why they rotate, I’d imagine vectored thrust would limit lift capacity and create additional ware wherever the thrust is ducted. If you have the option to rotate the entire engine, you’d definitely want to take it. Modern vtol aircraft that have to vectored thrust do so because nearly the entire craft is the engine. Think of these shuttles as v-22 ospreys upgraded for orbital flight.
Top mounted wings are actually a lot more unstable than bottom mounted ones. That's why virtually every civilian plane has bottom mounted wings. The benefits of top mounted wings are mainly that you can put your engines higher up to allow landing in rough terrain
Since its use was so specialised, it would have made sense for it to have landing skids instead of huge rubber tyres and landing gear which would take up more weight. No runways on pandora and skids spread the weight better if they had to VTOL on soft ground. Even if it was originally designed for Earth use where they need a runway for lifting a larger payload to orbit, the background story in the movie stated clearly how crazy expensive it was to move even 1 kilogram from Earth to Pandora on the ISV so it made no sense to carry that heavy landing gear and tyres to Pandora.
I'd Guess That The Difficulty Would Be Something Like Of Course The Shuttles Going To Or From Earth And Thus Having To Swap Over The Landing Systems Each Time
@@JNJNRobin1337 But they go on a one way trip to Pandora. And if heavier loads need to be lifted to load the ISV from earth, just do 2 or more trips with VTOL since the cost of that should be very small compared to lugging those extra tons to Pandora. The main argument is still that the movie explicitly stated that every kilo transported to Pandora is very very expensive.
I think that VTOL mode worked only on Pandora, due to decreased gravity. So it used conventional takeoff and landing on earth. And thats where proper landing gear is needed
@@eugeneyanyuk4879 Yes but 1.) You could take off unloaded from Earth and load it in orbit. 2.) Even if you can't, still makes sense to swap the landing gear in orbit. The whole idea is that it is just very very expensive to carry any weight to Pandora which was stressed in the movie.
If I'm not mistaken regarding unobtainium, it isn't directly related to antimatter fuel or reaction mass in any way, it's refined product is used to manufacture high-temperature superconductive electromagnets used in fusion reactors and all the magnetic confinement apparatus of fusion drives, this is why not every vehicle in the human arsenal is equipped with it's own tiny fusion reactor, they're only cost effective when you get up to vehicles the size of the Valkyrie or larger. This also probably means that the Valk's jet engines are not actually turbojets, but some form of "electrojet" where power from the reactors is used to drive the engine's compressors via a high torque, high RPM electric motor, rather than the combustion of JP1. This would make a lot more sense than having completely separate, JP1 fueled engines, because without batteries inbetween you can convert your reactor electricity to kinetic energy with an efficiency of nearly 100% even with existing brushless electric motors, you can also use the jets to deal with waste heat from your reactor by placing the hot coolant loop in contact with excess intake air not needed to produce thrust.
I think it was using waste heat, you can clearly see hotngases escaping and it was concept used in real nuclear powered demonstrators. Not sure if it can be also used for scramjet, but it'd make sense to reduce whatever reaction mass they're using for the rocket stage.
and I suspect they are also the inlets for the scramjets taking a y-s inlet shape to drop the flow just enough for the engines to work (maintaining the flame in the engine is currently a major challenge)
@@avroarchitect1793 there would be no flame to maintain, as this is a fusion powered craft and they are dumping heat from the reactor directly into the compressed airstream, presumably through heat exchangers.
@@Jakedasnake1066 you are assuming the scramjets are using the fusion as the thrust source. Scram jets are designed the way they are to make fuel combustion and exhaustion hypersonic. Scramjets are by definition a liquid fueled system
@@avroarchitect1793 The fact that the engines are reffered to as "scramjets" in-universe could be considered an oversight by the writers, or "scramjet" might be being used as a colloquialism for any engine which compresses and heats the incoming gas without slowing it below supersonic speeds. Perhaps "SHRAMJET" wasn't catchy enough. I also think if you have a vessel with a fusion reactor, with sub- to high supersonic turbojet engines which are conclusively powered by the reactor, it would be absurd to haul around fuel to use for your third propulsion method. It would be like having a car, which is mostly a normal car, but when you shift into reverse the engine is disconnected and the wheels are driven by water flowing over a water wheel in the trunk. Additionally, the craft are said to be used in the atmosphere of the parent gas giant, which presumably would not contain oxygen in suficient concentrations for combustion.
To be fair the Shuttle wasn't exactly known for flying well. I'm certain you'd want quite a distinct design for an SSTO spaceplane that uses aerodynamic flight on the ascent as compared to a Shuttle that only needs to worry about re-entry and descent
Exactly. The shuttle’s plane like design was only used for an unpowered gliding landing. The Valkyrie flies like a plane (or VTOL) all the time when it’s in atmosphere.
I just liked that it (and most of the other hardware) at least looked plausible and that it could actually exist. I'm all for strange designs (like ships from Star Trek/Star Wars), but this just makes it easier to accept that it's actually there.
Would those intakes at the front not be for the fuel scooping? And the ramjets built into the turbofans similar to SABRE engines on Skylon? Great video all the same!
the vertical slots were likely for gas harvesting, after their refit, and were in the orijinal design to save time. the refit probs constituted of the removal of cargo storage and adding gas tanks.
One of the reasons why the Valkyrie had a top mounted wing was to give the wings more clearance from the ground. Those fusion engines would likely need more ground clearance when they're pivoted down like that. And like many large modern cargo planes (for example the C-5 Galaxy and the An-144), the Valkyrie also used top mounted wings so could open its cargo doors closer to the ground.
Your videos are such good quality, I was surprised you don't have more subscribers! Keep it up and I'm sure your sub count will increase exponentially.
@@hoojiwana Well the space shuttle wasn't very aerodynamic in real life either. So they might just have decided to design it to pretty much be a ready made as a gas harvester just needing small modifications like adding gas tanks in the cargo bay to simplify the work needed on Pandora. Since the engines can lift it and + 35 tons of cargo vertically and go to orbit then drag probably isn't a huge concern.
AVATAR VIDEOS IN 2021?! Buddy, take my like. Really cool, see you lat- wait... sci-fi vessels analysis channel??? Ok sir, now you've earned my sub. Thank you
One thing about the Avatar movies is that every bit of machinery in them makes sense and is practical for its designed function. Weapons have systems to aim them with. (Something that has never ever been thought of in Star Trek, any series....)
I have found the holy grail of spaceships/space travel at last. I can end my search now! I would really appreciate if you add all the scenes from the movie along with extra scenes, not miss a single.
I like to think the VTOL purpose of the ship is bc earth is so populated that it got to the point where runways at airports took too much space. So they adapted most if not all aerial vehicles to be all VTOLs so that they could land and takeoff vertically instead of having a long buildup do both. In all the deleted scenes of earth it is rubbing shoulders packed and buildings are so tall they probably have under cities.
Can you explain in detail how the orbital engines work ? Are they like rocket engines or just some very new alien type technology? And how does the jet engines derive power from fusion?
We don't know exactly how the fusion engines work due to lack of specifics, but at a basic level a fusion rocket just uses the energy from fusion for propulsion just like how a regular rocket uses the energy from combustion. The jet engines work electrically!
@@dranzergigs8333 the most basic fusion rocket diverts fusion products out as the exhaust/ reaction mass, so the reactor does its thing and the resulting fused atoms become the exhaust of the engine. Being very hot and moving very fast it would be a great engine. As for the jets, you use the heat generated by the reactor to heat the air and drive electric motors that power the compressors. A similar idea was proposed when the USAF tried to design a fission powered bomber.
Earth shuttles use ceramic plates to dissipate heat during re-entry. As well as use a certain degree of pitch to keep the bottom of the shuttle as the sacrificial heat shield. Maybe the atmosphere of Pandora doesn't create the heat on re-entry like it does on Earth? Which would allow for a lower angle of attack on re-entry.
atmo on pandora has less pressure but is more dense (about .9 atmo pressure and 20% more dense) I don't think the pressure does much to help nor hinder but the density would do something
What a ridiculous notion. Any sufficiently dense atmosphere creates atmospheric heating. And atmosphere of Pandora is even denser than Earth's. Go back to physics class before you spew bullshit on TH-cam.
I don't see a reason that the intakes on the front can't be the hypersonic inlets, the size of the cargo bay vs the overall width of the craft supports the idea there is a large amount of space being used there and the lower bulges are likely the fuel tanks. This would mean the intake air passes by the fuel to act as an pre-stage cooler as the air is compressed and directed to the primary engines. The internal shape of the inlet likely has variable structure and dramatic volume ramping. It seems like the front of the inlet itself can close or reduce in size to further control the flow of hypersonic air to the engine.
The bulges are fuel tanks on modern aircraft, but for the Valk I would assume they just hold reaction mass for the fusion torch rockets when they're in operation, and it's probably either just distilled water, or water doped with a cadmium salt compound that would allow it to be held in magnetic confinement when it transforms into plasma. Beneficial because when you don't plan on using the fusion rockets you can easily and quickly empty those tanks out to allow for more cargo mass to be carried in the jet configuration.
A VTOL SSTO is something we all really need, not reusable rockets. If Aeronautic companies want to really do something about cheap Earth to Low Earth Orbit transportation they be developing SkyHooks and smaller shuttles like that Virgin Spaceship instead of reusable rockets.
My guess was that those large intakes are for skimming hydrogen from the atmosphere. They're pretty large as to increase the volume of atmospheric intake. Whatever filters/containment they have is probably also huge considering hydrogen is notoriously hard to keep contained. This could just be my interpretation though, its possible the artists just put them on there because they looked cool, but after seeing how well other vehicles are designed in the movie, I don't think this is the case.
I've recently done a sci-fi illustration that features a wedge looking ship somewhat like this. I also used a brand new painting tool. You can see it if you click the icon on the left.
High mounted wings do make sense in the environment the shuttles are operating in. Low mounted wings are very easily damaged when operating from rough and remote landing sites - especially on a VTOL aircraft that will throw up huge clouds of debris when landing and taking off - both the Harrier and the Osprey use similar configurations to the Valkyrie. Also, for a cargo aircraft it works well, as it gets the wingbox out of the way of the floor, ensuring a nice flat cargo bay, and also makes operations around the aircraft easier - if it's high enough, cargo handlers don't have to dodge around the entire wing, and can move underneath it. It makes loading and unloading simpler, again, especially in rough conditions such as a jungle clearing or around mining sites with lots of kit, pits and spoil heaps all over the place. As for the whole engine rotating, this I think is pure vfx play. Even to allow greater than 90 degree deflection, nozzles can do this without the engine needing to move - the Harrier can do precisely this to allow it to land on a moving carrier. It isn't mechanically simpler (in fact, it's much more difficult), so I don't think it makes sense in scientific terms - but it does look neat and gives an instant visual explanation of what's happening to the audience.
I believe that the vertical inlets are for air cooling the reactor when it was heated by the atmosphere and environment of pandora. Also they just look cool.
The shuttles spend the rest of its life as gas harvesters for next ones to arrive? So, correct me if I'm wrong, they're basically disposable...? The viability of those shuttles and the resource it ferries, which in turn used to pay for said shuttles (build them, fuel, maintenance, *the works* ) is pretty vague
Probably because of weight. The unobtanium is of course loaded up in the ISV which adds weight/mass so in order for it to still operate normally and use the fuel more efficiently, the shuttles have to stay or else the ISV will have to deal with more mass that it is not intended for its design.
Maybe it's just be being picky, but given the location of the forward pair of engines, does that mean that all the cargo needs to be held back at the doors to stop it becoming nose heavy? Anything forward of those engines acts as a pivot in VTOL, GCSE physics.
Probably need the engines set back for unloaded flight because the fusion engines way a ton. I wonder if they’d need a runway for fully loaded orbital insertion from the ground. When collecting fuel from the atmosphere they are already in flight of course.
@@wallissimpson5414 True. But since they're supposed to be left behind to scoop fuel, do they just have a stockpile of them lying round or are they actually the original two from the first excursion?
I imagine the intake is for automated harvesting and the vtol engines are for first landing since there isn’t a runway for them to land on when they first land on Pandora. Maybe they perfected fuel economy so that efficiency isn’t the main propose, but rather how much it can do.
I think the vertical slots is for the scramjet fusion engine, and the four vtol engine have it’s own nozzle aswell, so i think the fusion plants, being micro in size, maybe place on the middle of the shuttle, and another air inlet redirect it to the scramjets, i think Valkyrie is well carefully design though
haven't read too much of the comment section, but some ofc. and I agree with most that speak to a heating issue having been one problem the rotating VTOL engines face. but there's one more thing they do when they rotate like that. they generate drag, or basically they become Air-breaks that can slow down the aircraft faster so it can get into a more stable hover faster. another thing is, it is easier to rotate the whole engine to keep it as simple as possible than to add a nozzle like the harrier has or the turning/bending nozzle of the F-35B. atleast that's what I'm thinking atleast. I could be talking out of my ass ofc :P but besides all the things in chat. the plane looks cool as balls because of the design. oh and the scram-jet components are likely just a part of the engines themselves using the normal inlets that just constrict on the inside to speed-up the airflow. if my understanding of a scramjet is worth anything. IF
I think the top mounted wings are not only for making clearance for the VTOL engines, but also having enough ground clearance in uneven landing zone, since it can serve as a dropship in combat. And because it's a cargo plane initially, top mounted wings can also lower the center of gravity below the center of lift, gives it much better stability when entering atmosphere. I love how they put those carbon-carbon plates on the bottom of the plane, make it at least much more acceptable, instead of throwing bunch of pure fiction designs at audience.
I think the wings were mounted at the top to give it more stability in vtol mode, because the center of lift during the takeoff and landing in vtol mode would be most likely above the center of mass. If the wings were mounted at the bottom, the center of trhrust would be below the center of mass which would result in worse stability. To get around that, the engines would have to be spread far away from each other, but because of the shape of the valkyries wings they could only be spread far from each other in the left/right axis, giving it good roll stability, but not far in the front/back axis meaning the pitch stability would be bad. the easiest way to get around this would be to attach the front engines seperatly, which would propably be harder than just putting the wings at the top.
No one talks about how the VTOL thrusters is at behind the valkyrie?? shuttle that massive, how is it can stable during hover while all the thruster VTOL is at the back?? wouldn't it gonna be like a long metal and you put thruster either right or left its gonna make it rotate like crazy the metal (valkyrie)?? it should've have front thruster too to prevent(stable) the shuttle during hover/VTOL
Perhaps when the valeries are refit into an automated harvester the turbojets are removed and converted into something else? Maybe a turbine engine for some other piece of equipment or scrapped for resources.
The key to SSTOL is not stage break classic ascending. But *phase* effects. Convertion from VToL low atmosphere bulk purpultion engines, to narrow ram & scram jet. Eventually 'Turbo-jet,' of rocket fuel used as atmosphere *within* turbines. Finally in exo orbit, 🚀.
on the note of where the scramjets are located, on the underside of the fusion rockets you can see two 'fins'. I think they are exhaust flow fins and the inlets are located where the top of the fuselage meets the f-engines. By running the local atmosphere along side the fusion reactors(which have a temperature of several million degrees) it would act as a pseudo scramjet as they work in the same principle. Then again I could be wrong and my theory could be very wrong xD Just my guess and use of them. Edit. Just realised the vertical slits at the nose could also be the hypersonic inlets
if you look at the centre of gravity location for delta wing designs the location of the VTOL engines does not make much sense, they should more to the front.
Yeah I was thinking the same thing. The fusion engines in the back had to be pretty heavy and therefor the CG and VTOL jets would have to be further aft to compensate. It just looked cooler so there's always that...
One of the reasons that the HOTOL space plane was cancelled is that the engines at the back and the decreasing fuel supply as it flew meant that the centre of gravity shifted backwards, making it very hard to control. They tried to beef up the control surfaces, but the weight cost was so large they joked that HOTOL was a great system to send hydraulics into orbit! The Skylon space plane design has the sabre engines on wing pylons at the centre of gravity precisely because of this. The Valkyries vector thrust engines could be used to compensate for CG shifts so the weight of the fusion engines at the back might not be an issue.
In all likelyhood the Valk IS aerodynamically unstable, however so are basically all modern fighter jets. Computer-assisted avionic systems even now in the modern day can make basically anything fly *as if* it were stable, so long as it has working control surfaces, by making tiny fine adjustments at high speeds that a human pilot wouldn't be able to handle with a purely mechanical flight system. This is also true for any rocket with moving engine pivots, especially right before the booster stage separates.
I'm pretty sure the scramjets are the same engines as the turbojets, as hybrid engines like that are a thing, something like how the engines on the Darkstar from Top Gun: Maverick worked, and Turboramjet engines like the J-58 engines of the SR-71 operated on a similar principle, above a certain speed you just open a diverter to bypass the compressor and you effectively have a scramjet
i dont understand why it was so back heavy as when it doesn't have cargo the front would be heavier than the back in terms of weight that doesn't generate lift which alludes me
@@risingmoon893 Yeah I'm saying the center of mass is probably pretty far back due to the fusion engines though, not that the design is super realistic anyway (its a lot more based on form over function unlike the ISV).
@@hoojiwana and with he engines there to would creates problems and the engines and the engines would make the back quite heavy but it does not correspond to a real physics and plane design
The fact that this thing is VTOL might have to do with Pandora's lower gravity yet almost earth level atmospheric presure. That certainly makes it easier to get away with stuff like that.
Pandora actually has a higher atmospheric pressure if I am not mistaken. That is why the Samson is capable of lifting so much on Pandora.
@@DankGank According to the wiki it's 0.9 atm. Anyway at 0.5 g that means the carrying capacity of aircraft is significantly increased.
@@scelonferdi that is the pressure according to the wiki the density it's about 20% more dense than earth
"Pandora's atmosphere is a mixture of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide (>18%), xenon (>5.5%), methane, and hydrogen sulfide (>1%) and is about 20% denser than the atmosphere on Earth primarily due to the high percentage of Xenon; a heavy, colourless, odourless, and generally unreactive noble gas."
gravity is .8G
so its lower gravity with denser air so things are more buoyant in atmosphere and lighter (I don't really know how much .9 atmo of pressure would help or hinder with flight though)
also wouldn't denser air make it harder for a plane to take off normally as it would have issues getting up to speed? perhaps the VTOL lets it get up to where the air is less dense?
@@lekoro1 Wow, that means that Pandora actually has a "lower" (Stretching less distance above as atmospheric presure is density*gravitational accelaration integrated over height) atmosphere than earth.
I guess the higher density can be either detrimental or beneficial depending on the drive system. If your ejection mass is collected from the atmosphere it should help. It should however increase friction.
@@lekoro1 Its slower top speed and lower require speed for take off because of atmosphere influence on lift if I'm correct but everything else you said looks right.
Since it can't take much cargo back up into orbit, that means that _most of the military equipment on the surface_ will have to be left behind for the T̶a̶l̶i̶b̶a̶n̶ Na'vi during evacuation.
Probably gonna change the dynamics of the Local tribes and cultures.
Lmao
LOL! That's a clever analogy!
Why do you think explosives and a radio/time detonator were invented?
that actually did happen in the movie! AVATAR PREDICTED IT!!!
The big reason for the engines rotating rather than just the nozzle is probably due to the heat of the engine. VTOL planes normally have a 90 second window to land before the nozzles become compromised. Forcing thrust gasses to take a 90 degree turn creates huge amounts of heat.
yes and making it turn also makes it lose efficiency fluids like water and air dont like sharp turns in high efficiency things like high flow hydraulics sharp bends are avoided and only used when absolutely necessary if a turn is needed gradual turns are used.
Yes the harrier had this problem not because it burnt up but because it used water which was in a small supply to maintain the thrust needed to do vertical lift operations. This being further exacerbated by the usual low fuel levels needed to arrive at the ship ready to land at the appropriate weight. This isn't a problem with vtols in general it's a problem with certain really early jet vtols where the technology to do so wasn't all there. Aircraft like the X-32 X-35 and F-35B can stay hovering as long as they have fuel.
@@koc988 This is what I came to see. The harrier and other early VTOL jet aircraft were really the only ones to have the overheating/water issues. The F35B without weaponry and with less than full fuel can take off vertically, hover until bingo and then land vertically at the push of a button
Also, atmospheric density on Pandroa is also specified as being higher than Earths, so running atmospheric gases through an engine would likely create additional heating and pressure issues over plain air. Given the limited amount of activity on Pandora, one could assume there wasn't enough research to make safe assumptions about operating an engine at the limits of tolerance for the sake of efficiency in a field environment with limited options for repair of a critical system. It could be argued it was well worth taking a hit on efficiency for the sake of ruggedness and simplicity in a remote location.
@@koc988 the main problem with vtol is when it's landing. The f35 can't maintain a low hover and has to slam down when landing due to the engine ingesting the hot exhaust air which can cause the engine to cut out all together. That was a major problem earlier in the f35 development and was partly solved by having the plane land on a grate where the air can pass through and away from the engine intakes
My hat goes off to you sir, no one makes avatar videos and im greatfull that i found a channel that does and makes great quality content, i hope you go big bro
I second this.
There isn't alot of "Lore" videos about Avatar.
Bravo.
The templin Institute has covered Avitar before
Spacedock has videos on the dragon assault ship and the Scorpion/Samson rotorcraft
@@adenhickman5780 this guy narrates for space dock
@@TheBoro4eva it's the same guy?
I did not know that. That's really cool
You said the Valkyrie wasn't as well designed as the ISV, but as someone who only saw Avatar in theaters once, I'm surprised they put as much thought as they did into any of this. But honestly, once you have fusion reactors small and light enough to power an aircraft, you can pretty much build whatever you want and it will fly. Propulsion tech is always the limiting factor in air/spacecraft capabilities.
Given enough thrust, even a brick can fly.
Knowing Cameron this was allll thought out down to the bean.. just because we can't figure it out at first or second glance doesn't mean he didn't put serious thought into it
The fact that I still discover new tech details in ALIENS decades later is testament to that
@@moteroargentino7944 For a brick, he flew pretty good!
6 hours to rendezvous and dock? Maybe there are some extreme stationkeeping steps, but spacecraft could complete rendezvous in 2 hours or under if launched during the right launch window.
@@moteroargentino7944 _The F-4 motto…_
Whoever designed Halo's Pelican Dropship should be very proud of themselves, because now everyone goes "yes, that is what a future Space Shuttle looks like."
Unlike the reality of SpaceX's Starship.
@@bugwar5545 :(
@@bugwar5545 well they are totally different vehicle types, one is a troop dropship and the other a rocket. Mabye after we get fusion the pelican will become real
@@avroarchitect1793 and extreme miniaturisation of one. can't use em if it's still the size of computers in the 60s...
@@PrograError correct
i could be very wrong but 3:33 about the wing position, i imagine the twin massive self powered fusion engines are extremely heavy unlike those on spaceshuttle, which are basically nozzles. Judging by the position and difference in size of the rotatable jets, those fusion engines probably weights more than the rest of the craft, so the wing naturally should allign where all the mass is, and being top mounted also means stability, especially for a craft that have it's center of mass that far back.
Awesome content tho subscribed!
Yeah I was thinking the same thing. They had to be pretty heavy and therefor the CG and VTOL jets were further aft to compensate. It just looked cooler so there's always that...
Having a rear heavy design is as dumb as it gets
You’d want a top mounted wing to be able to more easily use the craft on unimproved surfaces - such as a jungle floor. While I was in high school a couple of decades ago, I drew a very similar design. Although mine was powered by chemical propulsion. I also didn’t consider mounting the engines on the wings. This is a great idea as it gets them off the ground. As to why they rotate, I’d imagine vectored thrust would limit lift capacity and create additional ware wherever the thrust is ducted. If you have the option to rotate the entire engine, you’d definitely want to take it. Modern vtol aircraft that have to vectored thrust do so because nearly the entire craft is the engine. Think of these shuttles as v-22 ospreys upgraded for orbital flight.
@@Blazeoptimus Also, aren't the jets electrically powered? I'd asume that significantly simplifies the construction of rotating turbines.
Top mounted wings are actually a lot more unstable than bottom mounted ones. That's why virtually every civilian plane has bottom mounted wings. The benefits of top mounted wings are mainly that you can put your engines higher up to allow landing in rough terrain
Since its use was so specialised, it would have made sense for it to have landing skids instead of huge rubber tyres and landing gear which would take up more weight. No runways on pandora and skids spread the weight better if they had to VTOL on soft ground. Even if it was originally designed for Earth use where they need a runway for lifting a larger payload to orbit, the background story in the movie stated clearly how crazy expensive it was to move even 1 kilogram from Earth to Pandora on the ISV so it made no sense to carry that heavy landing gear and tyres to Pandora.
I'd Guess That The Difficulty Would Be Something Like Of Course
The Shuttles Going To Or From Earth
And Thus Having To Swap Over The Landing Systems Each Time
@@JNJNRobin1337 But they go on a one way trip to Pandora. And if heavier loads need to be lifted to load the ISV from earth, just do 2 or more trips with VTOL since the cost of that should be very small compared to lugging those extra tons to Pandora. The main argument is still that the movie explicitly stated that every kilo transported to Pandora is very very expensive.
I think that VTOL mode worked only on Pandora, due to decreased gravity. So it used conventional takeoff and landing on earth. And thats where proper landing gear is needed
@@eugeneyanyuk4879 Yes but 1.) You could take off unloaded from Earth and load it in orbit. 2.) Even if you can't, still makes sense to swap the landing gear in orbit. The whole idea is that it is just very very expensive to carry any weight to Pandora which was stressed in the movie.
And you dont even need to refit the gear in orbit if you used take-off dollies. Many real life aircraft did that e.g. the Me163
Great video on the Valkyrie, didn't expect any less from you!
Thanks!
If I'm not mistaken regarding unobtainium, it isn't directly related to antimatter fuel or reaction mass in any way, it's refined product is used to manufacture high-temperature superconductive electromagnets used in fusion reactors and all the magnetic confinement apparatus of fusion drives, this is why not every vehicle in the human arsenal is equipped with it's own tiny fusion reactor, they're only cost effective when you get up to vehicles the size of the Valkyrie or larger. This also probably means that the Valk's jet engines are not actually turbojets, but some form of "electrojet" where power from the reactors is used to drive the engine's compressors via a high torque, high RPM electric motor, rather than the combustion of JP1. This would make a lot more sense than having completely separate, JP1 fueled engines, because without batteries inbetween you can convert your reactor electricity to kinetic energy with an efficiency of nearly 100% even with existing brushless electric motors, you can also use the jets to deal with waste heat from your reactor by placing the hot coolant loop in contact with excess intake air not needed to produce thrust.
I think it was using waste heat, you can clearly see hotngases escaping and it was concept used in real nuclear powered demonstrators. Not sure if it can be also used for scramjet, but it'd make sense to reduce whatever reaction mass they're using for the rocket stage.
My guess is that the large air intakes are for cooling the fusion plants.
and I suspect they are also the inlets for the scramjets taking a y-s inlet shape to drop the flow just enough for the engines to work (maintaining the flame in the engine is currently a major challenge)
I would suggest they are for its late life repurposing as a gas harvester.
@@avroarchitect1793 there would be no flame to maintain, as this is a fusion powered craft and they are dumping heat from the reactor directly into the compressed airstream, presumably through heat exchangers.
@@Jakedasnake1066 you are assuming the scramjets are using the fusion as the thrust source. Scram jets are designed the way they are to make fuel combustion and exhaustion hypersonic. Scramjets are by definition a liquid fueled system
@@avroarchitect1793 The fact that the engines are reffered to as "scramjets" in-universe could be considered an oversight by the writers, or "scramjet" might be being used as a colloquialism for any engine which compresses and heats the incoming gas without slowing it below supersonic speeds. Perhaps "SHRAMJET" wasn't catchy enough. I also think if you have a vessel with a fusion reactor, with sub- to high supersonic turbojet engines which are conclusively powered by the reactor, it would be absurd to haul around fuel to use for your third propulsion method. It would be like having a car, which is mostly a normal car, but when you shift into reverse the engine is disconnected and the wheels are driven by water flowing over a water wheel in the trunk. Additionally, the craft are said to be used in the atmosphere of the parent gas giant, which presumably would not contain oxygen in suficient concentrations for combustion.
To be fair the Shuttle wasn't exactly known for flying well. I'm certain you'd want quite a distinct design for an SSTO spaceplane that uses aerodynamic flight on the ascent as compared to a Shuttle that only needs to worry about re-entry and descent
Exactly. The shuttle’s plane like design was only used for an unpowered gliding landing. The Valkyrie flies like a plane (or VTOL) all the time when it’s in atmosphere.
I just liked that it (and most of the other hardware) at least looked plausible and that it could actually exist. I'm all for strange designs (like ships from Star Trek/Star Wars), but this just makes it easier to accept that it's actually there.
The multiple sliding HUDs are my favorite detail
Would those intakes at the front not be for the fuel scooping? And the ramjets built into the turbofans similar to SABRE engines on Skylon? Great video all the same!
Skylon's never taking off.
@@carlosandleon what makes you say that? I expect to at least see a prototype to test the tech even if it isn't viable
@@avroarchitect1793 2 DECADES and still only one engine built, ok two, but they were not working at the same time with one never working right.
or like the Pratt & Whitney J58 on the SR-71 blackbird.
Would love to know more about the gas harvesting process and what that would look like.
Scoop. Scoopity poop. Scoopity scoop.
"Fuel scooping."
"Warning - temperature critical!"
"Supercruise disengaged."
Maybe that's what the two side intakes are for?
@@calluxdoaron1903 omg i havent open this game in a while... so much grind
The kind of movie analysis I've always wanted, but never really got or find them. Until I found this video and your channel, instant subscription
the vertical slots were likely for gas harvesting, after their refit, and were in the orijinal design to save time. the refit probs constituted of the removal of cargo storage and adding gas tanks.
I LOVE THAT YOU COVER THE STUFF NOBODY ELSE DOES. AND IN GREAT DETAIL!
I'm really late here but I love the detail, especially how the clip synced with him saying "flux vortex" at 1:25
ngl this scene felt magical as hell as a child
One of the reasons why the Valkyrie had a top mounted wing was to give the wings more clearance from the ground. Those fusion engines would likely need more ground clearance when they're pivoted down like that. And like many large modern cargo planes (for example the C-5 Galaxy and the An-144), the Valkyrie also used top mounted wings so could open its cargo doors closer to the ground.
Your videos are such good quality, I was surprised you don't have more subscribers! Keep it up and I'm sure your sub count will increase exponentially.
Its Basically the space faring version of the AN-225.
Close, but bigger than the 225. How? Well, compare these dimensional specs:
*[TAV-37 "Valkyrie" SSTO Shuttlecraft]*
Manufacturer: RDA Aerospace Industries 🇺🇸
Length: 101.73 Meters
Wingspan: 80.03 Meters
Height: 8.0 Meters
*[Antonov AN-225 "Mriya"]*
Manufacturer: Antonov Design Bureau 🇺🇦
Length: 84 Meters
Wingspan: 88.4 Meters
Height: 18.1 Meters
I'd say the Valkyrie takes the cake on that.
@@scarecrow108productions7 Oh I just meant its their biggest cargo vessel, just like the An-225 WAS our largest ever operating aircraft.
Awesome analysis as Always!
Do you think it's possible that the vertical slots on the front of the craft are the gas harvesters for atmospheric skimming on Polyphemus?
I do
If they are it seems weird to have them exposed before conversion, just adds more drag.
@@hoojiwana Well the space shuttle wasn't very aerodynamic in real life either. So they might just have decided to design it to pretty much be a ready made as a gas harvester just needing small modifications like adding gas tanks in the cargo bay to simplify the work needed on Pandora. Since the engines can lift it and + 35 tons of cargo vertically and go to orbit then drag probably isn't a huge concern.
@@hoojiwana Did you ever see the Star Raker project . It could be just copypasted into movie .
@@hoojiwana They may act to draw in a large volume of air to pass over the fusion plants while they're in operation in an atmosphere.
Such neat videos. I'd totally listen to as many as you'll make. This kind of stuff gets me through work.
Bloody brilliant !
AVATAR VIDEOS IN 2021?! Buddy, take my like.
Really cool, see you lat-
wait... sci-fi vessels analysis channel???
Ok sir, now you've earned my sub. Thank you
I loved all the VTOL nature of all the aircraft and spacecraft in Avatar
One thing about the Avatar movies is that every bit of machinery in them makes sense and is practical for its designed function. Weapons have systems to aim them with. (Something that has never ever been thought of in Star Trek, any series....)
Can the vertical air intakes you mention at 4:37 be in fact intakes for the gas the Valkyries are supposed to collect from the Polyphemus atmosphere?
I have found the holy grail of spaceships/space travel at last. I can end my search now! I would really appreciate if you add all the scenes from the movie along with extra scenes, not miss a single.
I like to think the VTOL purpose of the ship is bc earth is so populated that it got to the point where runways at airports took too much space. So they adapted most if not all aerial vehicles to be all VTOLs so that they could land and takeoff vertically instead of having a long buildup do both. In all the deleted scenes of earth it is rubbing shoulders packed and buildings are so tall they probably have under cities.
Impressive as always
Can you explain in detail how the orbital engines work ? Are they like rocket engines or just some very new alien type technology?
And how does the jet engines derive power from fusion?
We don't know exactly how the fusion engines work due to lack of specifics, but at a basic level a fusion rocket just uses the energy from fusion for propulsion just like how a regular rocket uses the energy from combustion.
The jet engines work electrically!
@@hoojiwana but the rockets create power by expanding gases whereas fusion only creates heat. How can it be used for propulsion
@@dranzergigs8333 Well sure but theres likely propellant in tanks that are never mentioned, thats the only way the engine could work.
@@dranzergigs8333 typically, when people talk of fusion engines, they mean either plasma or ion engines powered by fusion
@@dranzergigs8333 the most basic fusion rocket diverts fusion products out as the exhaust/ reaction mass, so the reactor does its thing and the resulting fused atoms become the exhaust of the engine. Being very hot and moving very fast it would be a great engine. As for the jets, you use the heat generated by the reactor to heat the air and drive electric motors that power the compressors. A similar idea was proposed when the USAF tried to design a fission powered bomber.
Earth shuttles use ceramic plates to dissipate heat during re-entry. As well as use a certain degree of pitch to keep the bottom of the shuttle as the sacrificial heat shield. Maybe the atmosphere of Pandora doesn't create the heat on re-entry like it does on Earth? Which would allow for a lower angle of attack on re-entry.
atmo on pandora has less pressure but is more dense (about .9 atmo pressure and 20% more dense) I don't think the pressure does much to help nor hinder but the density would do something
What a ridiculous notion. Any sufficiently dense atmosphere creates atmospheric heating. And atmosphere of Pandora is even denser than Earth's. Go back to physics class before you spew bullshit on TH-cam.
I don't see a reason that the intakes on the front can't be the hypersonic inlets, the size of the cargo bay vs the overall width of the craft supports the idea there is a large amount of space being used there and the lower bulges are likely the fuel tanks. This would mean the intake air passes by the fuel to act as an pre-stage cooler as the air is compressed and directed to the primary engines.
The internal shape of the inlet likely has variable structure and dramatic volume ramping. It seems like the front of the inlet itself can close or reduce in size to further control the flow of hypersonic air to the engine.
The bulges are fuel tanks on modern aircraft, but for the Valk I would assume they just hold reaction mass for the fusion torch rockets when they're in operation, and it's probably either just distilled water, or water doped with a cadmium salt compound that would allow it to be held in magnetic confinement when it transforms into plasma. Beneficial because when you don't plan on using the fusion rockets you can easily and quickly empty those tanks out to allow for more cargo mass to be carried in the jet configuration.
Beautiful video !
We need to get you more Subs this is an Awesome analysis.
Please make a video on C-21 Dragon assault ship
A VTOL SSTO is something we all really need, not reusable rockets. If Aeronautic companies want to really do something about cheap Earth to Low Earth Orbit transportation they be developing SkyHooks and smaller shuttles like that Virgin Spaceship instead of reusable rockets.
why not just use space elevators
there would be no need for shuttles at all
and can be the starting point for large space industry
No one probably no one
James Cameron is outsmarted the scientist, engineer's, of this beast AIRCRAFTS
Can you do the Milano and Benatar from GotG?
I will never get how Avatar was honestly mid as hell but also has some of the best worldbuilding I've seen for a sci fi film
Same story with Dune as well. I think that just goes hand in hand.
James Cameron has always been known for his great world building and storytelling skills
Damn I can't wait for KSP 2
Going to build my own version of this and fly to other worlds
My guess was that those large intakes are for skimming hydrogen from the atmosphere. They're pretty large as to increase the volume of atmospheric intake. Whatever filters/containment they have is probably also huge considering hydrogen is notoriously hard to keep contained. This could just be my interpretation though, its possible the artists just put them on there because they looked cool, but after seeing how well other vehicles are designed in the movie, I don't think this is the case.
I've recently done a sci-fi illustration that features a wedge looking ship somewhat like this. I also used a brand new painting tool. You can see it if you click the icon on the left.
Keep evolving, keep moving forward.
High mounted wings do make sense in the environment the shuttles are operating in. Low mounted wings are very easily damaged when operating from rough and remote landing sites - especially on a VTOL aircraft that will throw up huge clouds of debris when landing and taking off - both the Harrier and the Osprey use similar configurations to the Valkyrie.
Also, for a cargo aircraft it works well, as it gets the wingbox out of the way of the floor, ensuring a nice flat cargo bay, and also makes operations around the aircraft easier - if it's high enough, cargo handlers don't have to dodge around the entire wing, and can move underneath it. It makes loading and unloading simpler, again, especially in rough conditions such as a jungle clearing or around mining sites with lots of kit, pits and spoil heaps all over the place.
As for the whole engine rotating, this I think is pure vfx play. Even to allow greater than 90 degree deflection, nozzles can do this without the engine needing to move - the Harrier can do precisely this to allow it to land on a moving carrier. It isn't mechanically simpler (in fact, it's much more difficult), so I don't think it makes sense in scientific terms - but it does look neat and gives an instant visual explanation of what's happening to the audience.
I believe that the vertical inlets are for air cooling the reactor when it was heated by the atmosphere and environment of pandora. Also they just look cool.
Couldn't the intakes be the scoops needed for the aforementioned gathering of gas for fuel?
I always found the valkyrie to be an incredibly sexy air/spacecraft
Valkyrie: well hello there hot stuff miss me ! 💃💃🤪🙃😉
The shuttles spend the rest of its life as gas harvesters for next ones to arrive? So, correct me if I'm wrong, they're basically disposable...?
The viability of those shuttles and the resource it ferries, which in turn used to pay for said shuttles (build them, fuel, maintenance, *the works* ) is pretty vague
Probably because of weight. The unobtanium is of course loaded up in the ISV which adds weight/mass so in order for it to still operate normally and use the fuel more efficiently, the shuttles have to stay or else the ISV will have to deal with more mass that it is not intended for its design.
any space planes that can go from the planet into space is awesome
I thoroughly enjoyed this video, so I left a Like. Thanks.
My Man i always wanted someone to analysis this shuttle but not much did until now great video bro and also nice intro song what's the name it?
This is probably the most realistic sci-fi spaceship. I imagine the world building things like these in the coming decades.
Best shuttle ever.
Dunno about that, I'm kinda partial to the real world SpaceX Starship myself.
When is an analysis on Thanos’s ship coming????
Maybe it's just be being picky, but given the location of the forward pair of engines, does that mean that all the cargo needs to be held back at the doors to stop it becoming nose heavy? Anything forward of those engines acts as a pivot in VTOL, GCSE physics.
Probably need the engines set back for unloaded flight because the fusion engines way a ton. I wonder if they’d need a runway for fully loaded orbital insertion from the ground. When collecting fuel from the atmosphere they are already in flight of course.
@@wallissimpson5414 True. But since they're supposed to be left behind to scoop fuel, do they just have a stockpile of them lying round or are they actually the original two from the first excursion?
Damn these lores are interesting
Goddamm I stumbled on this channel for barely 10mins and its already convinced me great job!
easy sub from me, second video I've seen from you today
I imagine the intake is for automated harvesting and the vtol engines are for first landing since there isn’t a runway for them to land on when they first land on Pandora. Maybe they perfected fuel economy so that efficiency isn’t the main propose, but rather how much it can do.
This video really helped me remake this in kerbal space program, I can’t thank you enough
Maybe the intake vents were for its purpose as a gas refinery
Maybe the intakes at the front are used for gas coolection. They could lead directly into the interior and obviously be sealable.
I think the vertical slots is for the scramjet fusion engine, and the four vtol engine have it’s own nozzle aswell, so i think the fusion plants, being micro in size, maybe place on the middle of the shuttle, and another air inlet redirect it to the scramjets, i think Valkyrie is well carefully design though
1:27-1:29.
The ASMR is real!
Please do a video on battleships movie alien ships and there mother ship
haven't read too much of the comment section, but some ofc. and I agree with most that speak to a heating issue having been one problem the rotating VTOL engines face. but there's one more thing they do when they rotate like that. they generate drag, or basically they become Air-breaks that can slow down the aircraft faster so it can get into a more stable hover faster. another thing is, it is easier to rotate the whole engine to keep it as simple as possible than to add a nozzle like the harrier has or the turning/bending nozzle of the F-35B. atleast that's what I'm thinking atleast. I could be talking out of my ass ofc :P but besides all the things in chat. the plane looks cool as balls because of the design. oh and the scram-jet components are likely just a part of the engines themselves using the normal inlets that just constrict on the inside to speed-up the airflow. if my understanding of a scramjet is worth anything. IF
Hey, not sure if it's exactly space-related but would love it if you do a video about the Gunship from avatar!
I think the top mounted wings are not only for making clearance for the VTOL engines, but also having enough ground clearance in uneven landing zone, since it can serve as a dropship in combat. And because it's a cargo plane initially, top mounted wings can also lower the center of gravity below the center of lift, gives it much better stability when entering atmosphere.
I love how they put those carbon-carbon plates on the bottom of the plane, make it at least much more acceptable, instead of throwing bunch of pure fiction designs at audience.
I think the wings were mounted at the top to give it more stability in vtol mode, because the center of lift during the takeoff and landing in vtol mode would be most likely above the center of mass. If the wings were mounted at the bottom, the center of trhrust would be below the center of mass which would result in worse stability. To get around that, the engines would have to be spread far away from each other, but because of the shape of the valkyries wings they could only be spread far from each other in the left/right axis, giving it good roll stability, but not far in the front/back axis meaning the pitch stability would be bad. the easiest way to get around this would be to attach the front engines seperatly, which would propably be harder than just putting the wings at the top.
No one talks about how the VTOL thrusters is at behind the valkyrie?? shuttle that massive, how is it can stable during hover while all the thruster VTOL is at the back?? wouldn't it gonna be like a long metal and you put thruster either right or left its gonna make it rotate like crazy the metal (valkyrie)?? it should've have front thruster too to prevent(stable) the shuttle during hover/VTOL
What does it burn for their turbojet, scramjet and rocket engines? Isn't it a nuclear power plant? So it uses both a power plant and fuel?
great video very interesting, please make a video of the dragon ship .. I think it is one of the most interesting ships in its design.
Love it. Great work.
It reminds me the US Aurora strike craft from C&C Generals somehow. Both look awesome.
Perhaps when the valeries are refit into an automated harvester the turbojets are removed and converted into something else? Maybe a turbine engine for some other piece of equipment or scrapped for resources.
The key to SSTOL is not stage break classic ascending. But *phase* effects. Convertion from VToL low atmosphere bulk purpultion engines, to narrow ram & scram jet. Eventually 'Turbo-jet,' of rocket fuel used as atmosphere *within* turbines. Finally in exo orbit, 🚀.
I love the valkyrie shuttle.
Also it's partly inspired by the valkyrie from 40k which is awesome
Yes but it looks super cool
Very nicely done
on the note of where the scramjets are located, on the underside of the fusion rockets you can see two 'fins'. I think they are exhaust flow fins and the inlets are located where the top of the fuselage meets the f-engines. By running the local atmosphere along side the fusion reactors(which have a temperature of several million degrees) it would act as a pseudo scramjet as they work in the same principle.
Then again I could be wrong and my theory could be very wrong xD Just my guess and use of them.
Edit. Just realised the vertical slits at the nose could also be the hypersonic inlets
200 plus subs since I found you ?good boy
finally youtube recommendations works perfectly
awesome vid!
Hey, please do analysis of Zephyr 1 & quinjets from agent of shield
Please do about the Regents alien ship in Battleship 2012 =)
1:07 That is my favorite shot out of the entire movie.
if you look at the centre of gravity location for delta wing designs the location of the VTOL engines does not make much sense, they should more to the front.
พัฒนาต่อไปนะครับ เดินหน้า อย่างเดียว
Sounds plausible. Great presentation.
i think their engines are located too much astern, like, it looks like it would tumble forward, except if its center mass is also located at the back
Yeah I was thinking the same thing. The fusion engines in the back had to be pretty heavy and therefor the CG and VTOL jets would have to be further aft to compensate. It just looked cooler so there's always that...
One of the reasons that the HOTOL space plane was cancelled is that the engines at the back and the decreasing fuel supply as it flew meant that the centre of gravity shifted backwards, making it very hard to control. They tried to beef up the control surfaces, but the weight cost was so large they joked that HOTOL was a great system to send hydraulics into orbit!
The Skylon space plane design has the sabre engines on wing pylons at the centre of gravity precisely because of this.
The Valkyries vector thrust engines could be used to compensate for CG shifts so the weight of the fusion engines at the back might not be an issue.
In all likelyhood the Valk IS aerodynamically unstable, however so are basically all modern fighter jets. Computer-assisted avionic systems even now in the modern day can make basically anything fly *as if* it were stable, so long as it has working control surfaces, by making tiny fine adjustments at high speeds that a human pilot wouldn't be able to handle with a purely mechanical flight system. This is also true for any rocket with moving engine pivots, especially right before the booster stage separates.
Doesn't unobtanium become obtanium once you obtain it?
this is a D77-TC class pelican but for avatar. And a lot bigger.
I'm pretty sure the scramjets are the same engines as the turbojets, as hybrid engines like that are a thing, something like how the engines on the Darkstar from Top Gun: Maverick worked, and Turboramjet engines like the J-58 engines of the SR-71 operated on a similar principle, above a certain speed you just open a diverter to bypass the compressor and you effectively have a scramjet
i dont understand why it was so back heavy as when it doesn't have cargo the front would be heavier than the back in terms of weight that doesn't generate lift which alludes me
It's probably balanced around the big fusion engines.
@@hoojiwana but im talking center of mass and center of lift and thrust here which doens't really mean anything in terms of fusion engines
@@risingmoon893 Yeah I'm saying the center of mass is probably pretty far back due to the fusion engines though, not that the design is super realistic anyway (its a lot more based on form over function unlike the ISV).
@@hoojiwana but the engines would generate lift as the delta wing design would generate more life in the back which would make it tilt down
@@hoojiwana and with he engines there to would creates problems and the engines and the engines would make the back quite heavy but it does not correspond to a real physics and plane design