StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Wanna see something wild? A Japanese hobbyist managed to construct a working flying model of the Enterprise, seen making a circuit in the air in this .mpg file.

The original page on which this appears can be found here. The page is in Japanese, so unless you can read kanji, you're out of luck following the topics. Scroll down until you see the image of the flying Enterprise model plane. True, it mounts a propellor up front of the saucer, but it says something that this man pulled this off.

That's crazy.

That's pretty funny. Perhaps we can now argue that the original Enterprise is very well designed from a aerodynamic point of view.

Hardly, Mr. Walper. That little model is flying like the old Flapjack. Or maybe this hobbyist Trekker has found the secret to mastering gravity defying technology and space aged construction consisting of "foam board" and "gasoline engine." =D

VF5SS wrote:Hardly, Mr. Walper. That little model is flying like the old Flapjack.

I was joking. Given enough thrust/force, you can make the most non aerodynamic object "fly".

Pretty sweet. Flies a lot better than I'd have expected.

Robert Walper wrote:
I was joking. Given enough thrust/force, you can make the most non aerodynamic object "fly".

You're not genki enough to see my smilies =/

VF5SS wrote:

Robert Walper wrote:
I was joking. Given enough thrust/force, you can make the most non aerodynamic object "fly".

You're not genki enough to see my smilies =/

I suspected you were joking, but I wasn't sure. Just playing it safe.

Amazing feat on part of the man who pulled off such a difficult task.

The Shadow wrote:Amazing feat on part of the man who pulled off such a difficult task.

Now to scale it up a tad.

Sweetness!!!

The reason why it can fly so well is because of the surface area the saucer section provides, as well as the overall areodynamics of the ship design.

Excellent, a retard being a retard in a non-closed thread.

It doesn't fly well, and the "overall aerodynamics" of the ship are shit. Put that motor on anything resembling an airplane shape and it would have been out of sight. The thing flew in the same sense as a board with engines would fly. Give it enough power and things will happen.

Howedar wrote:Excellent, a retard being a retard in a non-closed thread.

It doesn't fly well, and the "overall aerodynamics" of the ship are shit. Put that motor on anything resembling an airplane shape and it would have been out of sight. The thing flew in the same sense as a board with engines would fly. Give it enough power and things will happen.

My dad used to always say "The F-4 is proof that the old adage 'If you put enough thrust behind a rock, it'll fly' is 100% correct". It just neat to see it in action again. Still...quite an accomplishment. I'm working on getting my monitor airborne. I'll let you guys know how it goes. I need to get in touch with shep...I hear tell he has some surplus rocket motors....

Howedar wrote:Excellent, a retard being a retard in a non-closed thread.

*pulls out his phaser*

I'm not a retard, I am a Star Trek "expert". I'm also in the USAF, so watch it. The overall areodynamics of the NCC 1701 are decent, the nacelles are relatively streamlined, the saucer is as well. Compared to the Ent-E, the aerodynamics suck, but it doesn't really matter, they fly in space, not air.

~Fear me, I am root.

JeanLucPicard wrote: *pulls out his phaser*

I'm not a retard, I am a Star Trek "expert".

This ought to be good.

I'm also in the USAF, so watch it.

Appeal to own authority through job title that need not have any knowledge attached. You might be a wing-wiper for all I know.

Oh, and I'm an aerospace engineering student. Bite me.

The overall areodynamics of the NCC 1701 are decent, the nacelles are relatively streamlined,

Except for the flat rear ends, they aren't too bad.

the saucer is as well.

Haha, okay. I'm sure that flat plate in back makes things great. It's about as aerodynamic as a flying turd. Not real draggy until you try to get lift out of it, at which point it proceeds to suck shit. That thing has a L/D coefficient that's out of this world (fitting I suppose).

I notice you studiously avoid the engineering hull.

Compared to the Ent-E, the aerodynamics suck, but it doesn't really matter, they fly in space, not air.

~Fear me, I am root.

I'm taking a poll. Will this fool:

A. Turn out to be like Stewie with his USAF experience
B. Run away
C. Put up a reasonably good WoI

I'm voting A, personally.

Howedar wrote:

JeanLucPicard wrote: *pulls out his phaser*

I'm not a retard, I am a Star Trek "expert".

This ought to be good.

I'm also in the USAF, so watch it.

Appeal to own authority through job title that need not have any knowledge attached. You might be a wing-wiper for all I know.

Oh, and I'm an aerospace engineering student. Bite me.

The overall areodynamics of the NCC 1701 are decent, the nacelles are relatively streamlined,

Except for the flat rear ends, they aren't too bad.

the saucer is as well.

Haha, okay. I'm sure that flat plate in back makes things great. It's about as aerodynamic as a flying turd. Not real draggy until you try to get lift out of it, at which point it proceeds to suck shit. That thing has a L/D coefficient that's out of this world (fitting I suppose).

I notice you studiously avoid the engineering hull.

Compared to the Ent-E, the aerodynamics suck, but it doesn't really matter, they fly in space, not air.

~Fear me, I am root.

I'm taking a poll. Will this fool:

A. Turn out to be like Stewie with his USAF experience
B. Run away
C. Put up a reasonably good WoI

I'm voting A, personally.

I'm a F-22 pilot. BE afraid.

The nacelles are fine,. The F-16 has a flat butt too. The saucer section is round, which is one of the reasons why it is aerodynamic.

The main hull? Ok. It is not that streamlined at all, I admit. That's really the one area in which it lack aerodynamics.

When I said "Fear me, I am root." that means that I am root on Linux. I am also a computer geek. It was my sig sorta,

Could you please Xplain the acronym "WoI"?

JeanLucPicard wrote: I'm a F-22 pilot. BE afraid.

Of course you are. Did I mention that we're not big fans of pretenders, especially those who claim to be in the military?

The nacelles are fine,. The F-16 has a flat butt too.

Exhaust comes out the back of that flat end. There is no comparison.

The saucer section is round, which is one of the reasons why it is aerodynamic.

Do you even know what the word "aerodynamic" means?

The main hull? Ok. It is not that streamlined at all, I admit. That's really the one area in which it lack aerodynamics.

Obviously not. The bridge sticks out like a tit in the airstream, the nacelle ends are draggy, the pylons are too thick and are of poor profile, the neck is the same, and the saucer is exceptionally thick and has a large near-vertical section. These things are not a tremendous issue at such low Reynolds numbers, but to ignore this and proclaim the design to be aerodynamically sound is asinine.

Your google science does not impress me.

When I said "Fear me, I am root." that means that I am root on Linux. I am also a computer geek. It was my sig sorta,

Could you please Xplain the acronym "WoI"?

Wall of Ignorance, something you're doing a fine job of putting up so far.

This is getting out of hand.

Ok, I never said the Enterprise was the most aerodynamic ship ever made, all I said was that it is relatively aerodynamic.

And I'm not a pretender. I would give you my real name and Air Base, but I'm not allowed too.

Of course you're not.

I accept your lack of a point-by-point rebuttal as an implicit concession of your arguments. Please, at least try to know what the fuck you're talking about.

Jean-Luc, I don't recall any F/A-22s in Illinois.

Indeed, there is only one USAF base in the entire state of Illinois, Scott AFB. It is home to the 375th Airlift Wing of the Air Mobility Command. You aren't going to find F-22s with AMC, last I checked.

Alyeska wrote:Jean-Luc, I don't recall any F/A-22s in Illinois.

Ssh! He's with the Air Battle Force. You're blowing his cover.
Propably freshly transferred from Dreamland to tell the new intestinal control system for the advaned YRBPSKCF/A-22TLTITX BrainFart tactical fighter/bomber/recon/antisub attack transport tanker.

Howedar wrote:Of course you're not.

I accept your lack of a point-by-point rebuttal as an implicit concession of your arguments. Please, at least try to know what the fuck you're talking about.

Ok, case in point:

Case Thesis: The USS Enterprise NCC 1701 is relatively aerodynamic.

Case Arguments:

1) The nacelles have rounded fronts, this is obviously aerodynamic because surfaces that are not blunt like this: " | " but are either pointed like this: " > " or rounded like this: " ) " give less air resistance.

2) The saucer section: Ok, this is obviously not the most aerodynamic part of the ship. However, if you look closely, you will notic that the saucer edge is angled like this: "/ ". This is in reality, an aerodynamic feature. The angled surface deflects the air under the saucer, creating lift, which means that the saucer's design is both aerodynamic and lift efficient. The bridge section and its ventral counterpart are not large enough to have a significant impact on air resistance, in fact, since the bulges in the saucer are rounded, they offer a lot less resistance than they would otherwise.

3) The Engineering hull: This is the least aerodynamic part of the vessel. The only factors in its favor are curves of the hull, and the moderately streamlined rear of the hull.

4) The interhull (the neck). This is probably the most aerodynamic feature of the Enterprise. It is thin, rounded, and offers very little air resistance.

Summary: The Enterprise is most definetly not overly aerodynamic, but as we have just seen, it does have some areas in which it is at least moderatly aerodynamic.

Is that clearer?

Just to clear things up. You would be surprised what you can make fly when you have enough power.

"Flies pretty good for a brick"

You're not making this any better for yourself.

JeanLucPicard wrote: Ok, case in point:

Case Thesis: The USS Enterprise NCC 1701 is relaticely aerodynamic.

Case Arguments:

1) The nacelles have rounded fronts, this is obviously aerodynamic because surfaces that are not blunt like this: " | " but are either pointed like this: " > " or rounded like this: " ) " give less air resistance.

Obviously the fronts of the nacelles are fairly aerodynamic. I was talking about the backs. Nice red herring.

2) The saucer section: Ok, this is obviously not the most aerodynamic part of the ship. However, if you look closely, you will notic that the saucer edge is angled like this: "/ ".

Yeah, about 25 degrees from vertical. That's damned near a flat plate, and has exceptionally poor aerodynamic qualities.

This is in reality, an aerodynamic feature. The angled surface deflects the air under the saucer, creating lift, which means that the saucer's design is both aerodynamic and lift efficient.

If that is the case, I defy you to find any airplane in the history of the world that has such a laughably stupid profile.

The bridge section and its ventral counterpart are not large enough to have a significant impact on air resistance, in fact, since the bulges in the saucer are rounded, they offer a lot less resistance than they would otherwise.

Ah, so that's why airplane companies spend big bucks to get small and streamlined radio antennas. Not to mention the extreme effort to streamline necessary bumps and lumps on such aircraft as modified KC-145s.

3) The Engineering hull: This is the least aerodynamic part of the vessel. The only factors in its favor are curves of the hull, and the moderately streamlined rear of the hull.

In other words, jack shit.

4) The interhull (the neck). This is probably the most aerodynamic feature of the Enterprise. It is thin, rounded, and offers very little air resistance.

Not only thick, but also fairly blunt on the trailing edge.

Is that clearer?

Yes, it is much clearer that you do not know what you are talking about. We already know you're a pretender and a liar, now we also know you're an idiot.