There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

ChaoticNeutralCzech , (edited )

Their rocket exhaust as they’re being fired would slow the planes down, rather than providing a boost

For the same reason, cars have exhaust on the rear so that they can go much faster forward than backward

Edit: /s since you apparently need it after every joke. I know that missiles aren’t really fired, they detach and then propel themselves. Also, anyone who’s ever idled their car on a flat surface knows that the exhaust thrust cannot even overcome rolling resistance.

TwentySeven ,

The exhaust doesn’t propel a car forward

Successful_Try543 , (edited )

Let’s agree on that the effect is of negligible magnitude.

towerful ,

I’m going to start a meme crackpot theory.

Torque doesn’t exist.
Cars move because of the exhaust gasses.

“What about trucks with an exhaust that points up?” I hear you ask, well why are they always bent over at the top to point backwards?

Tractors that have an exhaust on the top use it to keep the tractor on the ground, otherwise the forces of dragging things would cause the tractor to float off the ground. But the exhaust is pointed backwards slightly, other wise it wouldn’t move. The small backwards pointing force explains why tractors are so slow.

Electric cars are CGI, and part of the conspiracy to hide the fact that torque doesn’t exist.

dutchkimble ,

My god, you’re onto something here. That must also be why we evolved with backward facing asses, to ease our walks when we fart. Ventilated seats in your car? They help channel your farts to add nitro boost to your car’s exhaust.

UndulyUnruly ,
@UndulyUnruly@lemmy.world avatar

Fucking hell, the air vents in the dashboard are all blowing backwards against the direction of travel, too. We been living a lie.

Rhaedas ,

This is even better than birds aren't real. Which is true also.

Trainguyrom ,

Electric cars are CGI, and part of the conspiracy to hide the fact that torque doesn’t exist

Ah so the cyber truck just never got an up close model made

ChaoticNeutralCzech , (edited )

I forgot you need “/s” after every joke, even in joke communities. It is a reference to this greentext:

anon drives a car

Let’s give anon the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps they’re an alien engineer from a planet that only knows rockets, disguised as a teenager to learn about our modes of transportation.

Yes, there is a short film with just about this plot

Successful_Try543 ,

OK. I didn’t know that one.

riodoro1 ,

Oh yeah dummy? Go plug up your exhaust and see if you drive anywhere.

Got_Bent ,

Is that you, Foley?

Blue_Morpho ,

Haven’t you seen Batman?

Successful_Try543 ,

The rockets would need to accelerate in the opposite direction of their initial motion, thus a lot more energy would be needed to reach design velocity. That makes it necessary to carry a lot more fuel for the propellant and thus, the rocket can carry less explosives. For some moment the rocket would also have zero velocity.

On the analogy with the car: The exhaust gases do not carry enough momentum to actually have a nonneglibile effect.

StereoTrespasser ,

For the same reason, cars have exhaust on the rear so that they can go much faster forward than backward

Where do people come up with this nonsense

ChaoticNeutralCzech ,

It’s a reference to the greentext I posted in another comment. I know it makes no sense.

modeler ,

Ackshually they do this, not with cars but, with WW2 era prop planes.

The Spitfire for example:

The Merlin consumed an enormous volume of air at full power (equivalent to the volume of a single-decker bus per minute), and with the exhaust gases exiting at 1,300 mph (2,100 km/h) it was realised that useful thrust could be gained simply by angling the gases backwards instead of venting sideways.

During tests, 70 pounds-force (310 N; 32 kgf) thrust at 300 mph (480 km/h), or roughly 70 hp (52 kW) was obtained, which increased the level maximum speed of the Spitfire by 10 mph (16 km/h) to 360 mph (580 km/h). The first versions of the ejector exhausts featured round outlets, while subsequent versions of the system used “fishtail” style outlets, which marginally increased thrust and reduced exhaust glare for night flying.

From Wikipedia

Diplomjodler3 ,

The missile would have to cancel out the speed of the plane before achieving any meaningful acceleration.

yggdar ,

To be fair, speed is relative. Imagine a plane flies at 500 km/h and is pursued by another plane at the same speed. If the first plane fires a rocket backwards that accelerates for a total of 200 km/h, then for an observer on the ground the rocket will still do 300 km/h, in the same direction as the planes. However, the guys in the second plane will see a rocket approaching them at 200 km/h.

Wind resistance, aerodynamics, etc. will have an impact, but it can work.

waigl ,

To be fair, speed is relative.

Sure, but the relevant speed up there is relative to the air around you. The missile will have a negative air speed at first, than accelerate to positive, briefly passing through 0 in between, which comes with weird consequences for lift and steering.

F04118F ,

Thrust vectoring though

🥺

👉👈

Tar_alcaran ,

The zero doesn’t matter all that much, but I think going negative 1000kph is probably a great way to get it into an uncontrolled tumble.

F04118F ,

It’s obviously a great idea, but

(why has no one said this yet?)

Ackshually 🤓 - those things in the image of the A-4 that you flipped around are fuel tanks, not weapons.

Ioughttamow ,

It’s against the standards set down in Strunk and White’s Elements of Dogfighting

zaphod ,

Submarines used to have torpedo tubes in the back.

PugJesus ,

OP reinvents tail gunners

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •