[Senmut]

Originally Posted by Andromeda

I did ask about VTOL :-) when i was looking at streamlining the original shuttle.

Most of what i asked and what was told was all on the harrier.
looking at how the exhaust is vectored by the nozzles moving up and down
and how it was stable on it's roll (z) axis with vectored vanes in the exhaust
nozzles.

Croads fighter looking at it, looks more flyable, It would have the same
problems as the viper. one less engine reduces the drag, however the wings
are a problem. if that wing had a typical airfoil cross section, airflow to the
engines would be disrupted or restricted because the engine is on top of the
wing. Also the engines are slightly recessed into the fuselage and that
would restrict airflow as well.

Have a look at Learjets, engines on the side on pylons away from the
fuselage.

When air passes over a wing the pressure drops as it goes over the top,
air pressure under the wing remains the same. that's what gets the plane off
the ground. Having an engine on top of a wing, where air pressure is lower
and more disturbed means the engines are sucking in a lot less air and
sometimes even cause a flame out.

That's why passenger jets (eg 737) have the engines underneath on pylons jutting forward of the wing.

Croads fighter could be flyable, if the engines where under the wings, nose
tapered, and tail made taller. and wingspan a little larger, Angle of the wings
wouldn't be a problem there about the same as the space shuttle.

Edit: something else i thought of, you could leave the engines on top, put them on little pylons
so that they are above the wing and way from the fuselage, like and A-10 for example.

Just to play Iblis' Opposer here....since these machines were primarily intended to fly in space, does atmospheric compatibility mean as much?
What about the Cylon fighters?