/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12705155
>Is there a limit on how large we can make a flying machine?
No, as long as the perpendicular force pushing away the object relative to the surface of the planet is stronger than the gravitational force attracting the object to the earth.

>>12705155
Nuclear aeroplan aircraft carrier when?

>>12705200
Wonder if it would ever actually be possible

>>12705200
>>12705205
I think the Russians are developing a nuclear power missile. The thing blew up some time ago.
The Americans gave it up years ago.

>>12705155
Yes because at a certain point materials science becomes a bottleneck.

>>12705337
This

>>12705155
Aero fag here. The problem is going to be the moment induced at the wing attachment. As your span increases (which it would have to) your center of lift will keep being farther from the attachment point to the plane, increasing both the force and the moment.

Also, lift is a function of wing area, where as the weight is a function of wing volume. Aka square cube law is going against us here.

Also accelerating these huge beasts would require an extremely long runway for takeoff and landing, as well as super beefy landing gear, all which add weight.

Theoretically we could make something much larger than the an-225 but there would be no purpose. It would need it's own engines, it's own special runways etc and for what.

Dude aren't planes more of a /transportation/ topic why are there 3 plane threads on math&science

>>12706869
engineerchads run /sci/, math nerd

>>12706869
cause this is an engineering related question

>>12706868
everything you say is true but
it has been 118 years since the last breakthrough
it is about time someone came up with something new

>you'll never captain an nuclear-powered aircraft carrier plane
Why even live