One of the aircraft named is the Kalinin K-7 [1], which is a favorite ridiculous aircraft of mine. It's the most literally "flying fortress" looking aircraft ever made. The design process for the K-7 was "add engines until it flies".
Basically, the Kalinin K-7 was an attempt to build an extremely heavy, high capacity aircraft before the jet engine was introduced. As a result, the entire plane is prop-driven, and the plane has a crap-ton of engines. There's 6 on the leading edges of the wings, but when it turned out 6 wasn't enough, they just started adding engines anywhere they could until the thing flew. By the end, there were the 6 original engines on the leads of the wings, plus 4 more engines on top of the wings and two more on each side of the cockpit/cabin.
Shades of the Convair B-36 Peacemaker, the predecessor to the B-52. "Six turning, four burning" because it had six piston-powered pusher propellers and four jet engines in underwing pods for take-off boost and high speed bombing runs:
I would say the NB-36H because it actually flew and because "The original crew and avionics cabin was replaced by a massive lead and rubber lined 11 ton crew section for a pilot, copilot, flight engineer and two nuclear engineers. Even the small windows had 10-12 inch thick lead glass."
The thought that the X-6[1] and WS-125[2] would be good ideas further lead me to nominate the NB-36H.
And for some reason the photo of the K-7 used in the quora thread is a photoshop of the plane with 2 heavy gun turrets from a battleship... When the original is this incredible, why add lipstick?
I know of one plane so crazy that it has to make this list even though it never left the drawing board, the Lippisch P.13A.
We all know the Nazis had crazy ideas, we know that had overambitious ideas, this is one of those crazy AND overambitious ideas that kinda, sorta made sense. It was a delta winged, pyramid shaped, supersonic interceptor powered by a coal-fueled ramjet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lippisch_P.13a
It was basically an amalgamation of half-baked construction and propulsion ideas but the aerodynamic principles were fundamentally sound and incredibly advanced for their time. The aero research and data from this program was used with great effect by the US and USSR. It was basically the common ancestor from which all future delta-wing designs evolved.
Coal has a reasonable enough energy density to be used as aircraft fuel. The reason it isn't, and liquid fuels are used instead, is that solid fuels require very laborous processing and complex systems to produce the kind of even continuous combustion that liquid fuels can do with just a pump.
In peacetime, with oil as cheap as it is on the world market, it would never make sense to produce a coal-powered aircraft. At war, with no oil imports coming in, and in desperate need of operable aircraft, the investment of processing coal into even granules to burn in a ramjet might.
Not super ridiculous but I thought the x32 which was Boeings competitor for the F35 was a bit silly looking. Also it came close to being the trillion dollar everyone must have it project if it had beat the F35 in testing.
If you look at the Super Guppy with it's loading bay open [1] you can't help but wonder where they put all the wiring and hydraulics between the cockpit and the rest of the plane?
Yep, I was a bit annoyed to find stuff like the Boomerang in here. Most people don't realize that losing the critical engine on a multi can be much more dangerous that losing both. Burt's Boomerang is probably one of the least ridiculous designs out there, as the asymmetric design of the wings is there to negate the adverse effects of a critical engine failure.
My favorite is the Flettner aeroplane since it uses the Magnus effect [1][2] as it generates lift without a wing. Screenshot linked in the original post [3].
For me this is the final proof we live in the Matrix and flight is achieved by an unholy ugly hack in a perl script. Jumbo Jets just don't look like they belong and that thing ... That whatever is just the machines taking the ps
EVERY NOW AND then a new aircraft design comes along that just makes you shake your head, wondering where to start. The Oliver Hexplane is one of those designs.
I always was fascinated by the X-29 simply because it could not be flown without computers to make up to forty adjustments a second to keep it airborne. Hence the limitations imposed by the programming kept it from being as agile as many had hoped.
I have to wonder, if in drone form where crashing would not result in a pilot death could it live up to its supposed hype because its programming restrictions could be lifted to the point of it being always in near crash
I would add the 1930s Gee Bee Racer. It won many races, but it was essentially like strapping the pilot onto a big engine, with barely any wings and tiny control surfaces, and it frequently crashed.
I'm surprised the Pond Racer [0] isn't in there. With its (relatively) huge engine nacelles way out front dragging the tiny cockpit way in the back, I swear it's got to be the inspiration for the "pod racers" in Star Wars.
I'm also surprised to see the Proteus and X29 in the list.
The Proteus was quite a ground-breaker and doesn't look too strange if you've seen a few gliders.
I remember seeing the X29 on the front cover of (I think) Popular Science back in the day, and thought it was a beautiful design. Highly efficient, highly maneuverable, and I think this was the one with a vertical canard (under the pilot, not visible in most pictures) that allowed it to corner flat (for improved visibility during dogfights).
I think the Edgley Optica looks like something from Lexx, the Bartini Beriev VVA-14 belongs in a video game and the Handley-Page Victor belongs in Agents of Shield!
It's amazing that with all that "experimental" stuff, the design of planes really has not changed much. I am sure there are certain things that were learned, but I also cannot get past the notion that there is a more appropriate method for initiating and supporting research.
I get that people's common refrain is "you never know what comes out of research", but I think that is also too easily used as an excuse to not apply some diligence and rigor. There are both real and virtual hangars chocked full of research that should never have been funded for a while host or reasons. I guarantee that a society that figures out how to more deliberately direct R&D funding will surpass the USA in technological advancement.
Does anyone know of any efforts to quantify the rate of return on R&D? I suspect that an honest calculation would invoke "abysmal" and "atrocious".
Simple structurally, awkward looking on the ground, slow takeoff/landing speeds. Because of takeoff/landing dynamics I wonder if it would have been a safer platform for small civil aircraft. Though who knows how it would handle losing an engine.
I find it incredibly sad that anyone would think these planes are ridiculous. Very fkn cool would be my thoughts.
But I'll switch my brain to thinking people are just using this poorly worded question bagging out hackers as a springboard for cool things people have tried (And some of them successful)
Back on topic always remember flying cars have been around or almost 100 years, it's not a technical problem -
I wonder if we will ever see more use of rockets in aircraft design? With improvements in manufacturing (like 3d printed parts), simulation, cleaner fuels and better control (SpaceX) it could open up new possibilities.
What possibilities? Carrying your own oxidiser is always going to be wasteful when there's a plentiful supply of oxygen around already. If anything the opposite technology is more interesting - a space launch vehicle using air-breathing engines (i.e. SABRE). Where aircraft have used rockets it's been similar to use of afterburners - for emergency short-term extra thrust (e.g. JATO).
Unless I misremember, thrust is proportional to exhaust velocity. Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity.
The big advantage of air breathing engines is the ability to use air as the reaction mass. IE, take a huge amount of air, and accelerate it a small amount to produce thrust. Which is why propeller driven aircraft are still 'a thing' and you see turbofan engines with ever higher bypass ratio's. (modern designs are 10:1, 10kg of air flow through the fan fro every 1kg of air through the engine)
I guess there are some hybrids coming along like the Virgin SpaceShipTwo that fires a rocket at high altitude to get 112km up. Also hybrid missiles with rocket and ramjet that have 3x the range are on their way:
Aren't there enough people with little knowledge of the F-35 posting invective about it?
I, for one, don't hate jokes. But HN is still a place where it's possible to have a substantive interaction without devolving into tangential silliness. I hope it stays that way.
Basically, the Kalinin K-7 was an attempt to build an extremely heavy, high capacity aircraft before the jet engine was introduced. As a result, the entire plane is prop-driven, and the plane has a crap-ton of engines. There's 6 on the leading edges of the wings, but when it turned out 6 wasn't enough, they just started adding engines anywhere they could until the thing flew. By the end, there were the 6 original engines on the leads of the wings, plus 4 more engines on top of the wings and two more on each side of the cockpit/cabin.
For some more reading/pictures, see [2][3].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalinin_K-7
[2] https://www.warhistoryonline.com/military-vehicle-news/serio...
[3] http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/models/aircraft/Kalinin-K7.html