Achieving VTOL with jet engine instead of rocket engine

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the feasibility and mechanics of achieving vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) using jet engines instead of rocket engines. Participants explore the implications for aircraft design, performance trade-offs, and historical efforts in developing VTOL technology, particularly in military applications.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • Jetpack International's T-73 utilizes a jet engine for VTOL, providing longer flight times compared to rocket-powered models.
  • Some participants note that while the F-35 is a well-known example of a jet achieving VTOL, the Harrier is also a significant model in this context.
  • There is a trade-off between engine design for vertical lift and speed, as engines capable of vertical lift require large intakes, which increase drag at higher speeds.
  • The F-35B employs a complex system involving a gearbox-driven fan for VSTOL, which is costly in terms of payload and performance but allows for supersonic capability.
  • Historical efforts by the US Army in the 1950s to develop effective VSTOL aircraft faced challenges, with none achieving the effectiveness of helicopters.
  • Participants discuss the inherent conflict between the goals of speed and lift in engine design, noting that optimal conditions for lifting require high volume at low velocity, contrasting with the needs for speed.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the effectiveness and practicality of jet engines for VTOL, with some acknowledging the challenges and trade-offs involved while others highlight historical attempts and their outcomes. No consensus is reached on the superiority of one approach over another.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reflects limitations in understanding the specific engineering challenges and trade-offs involved in VTOL design, as well as the historical context of various military projects that were not successful.

Mr. Barracuda
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Jetpack International's T-73 achieves vertical takeoff with an actual jet engine as opposed to the rocket engines used by the majority of jetpack models. This allows it to have longer flight time (9 minutes as opposed to 30 seconds). Some fighter planes also manage VTOL with a jet engine, the most well-known of which is probably the F-35.

Most jets aren't powerful enough to achieve vertical takeoff and rockets are usually required. What is it about jetpacks and fighter plane engines that gives them the extra boost in power? I'm guessing a very powerful compressor to intake enough air even when starting from rest?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Mr. Barracuda said:
Some fighter planes also manage VTOL with a jet engine, the most well-known of which is probably the F-35.

And not Harrier?
 
As always it is a tradeoff.
An engine able to lift the aircraft vertically needs a large intake, which then creates big drag at higher speeds.
The F35B instead achieves VSTOL with a Rube Goldberg engine gear box driven fan built into the middle of the fuselage, with folding doors to cover it in forward flight. It is hugely costly in terms of payload and performance, but probably the only acceptable way to combine supersonic capability with VSTOL.
 
etudiant said:
The F35B instead achieves VSTOL with a Rube Goldberg engine gear box driven fan built into the middle of the fuselage, with folding doors to cover it in forward flight.

In the beginning ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8W2SI4c93s
 
Great footage, AlephZero!

The US Army was very active in the 1950s in the pursuit of VSTOL, with a whole series of experimental airplanes and devices. None was able to match the helicopter for overall effectiveness and none went into production.
The USAF did have an effort with West Germany in the 60s to develop a supersonic VSTOL fighter bomber with dedicated lift engines placed in wing tip pods.
The dead weight of the VSTOL propulsion and the cost of qualifying the lift engines killed that project.
But the siren song of VSTOL has clearly caught the USMC leadership in its spell, even though it is of questionable cost/effectiveness.
 
The goals of speed and lift are opposites of each other for engines, so that makes it difficult for jet engines. Lifting works best with a high volume at low velocity (which is why helicopter rotors are so large) while speed works best with a high velocity at low volume.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
8K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
10K
  • · Replies 63 ·
3
Replies
63
Views
9K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
10K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
  • Sticky
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
69K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K