|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Focke-Wulf Triebflügel article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
pulsejet not ramjet
Surely the propeller was powered by pulsejets rather than what it says here, a ramjet? The pulsejets article says that this was powered by pulsejets. Ramjets require very high speed to gain any sort of efficiency. Or, perhaps propellers spin a lot faster than I realized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- The project never got beyond the drawing board, at least not appreciably beyond it. Propellers can spin pretty fast, and in fact you have to take care that the tip speed does not become supersonic. The XF-88B flew supersonic with combined turboprop and two turbojets, and the noise of the propeller was earsplitting. However, the Triebflügel project does not have what anyone would call a propeller. It is a rotor or rotating wing. Probably they visualized trying a variety of engines. One possibility was rockets to get the thing spinning fast, and ramjets to keep spinning once it was up to speed. Ramjets can work at subsonic speeds. Even though the efiiciency would have been poor, it probably would not have been worse than rocket planes which actually flew. The whole thing is very fanciful, though. For example, there would have been a torque action on the fuselage, if only due to friction at the rotor hub; yet one does not see any feature to counteract this torque and keep the fuselage itself from spinning at a disastrous rate. Fnj2 (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Rate of climb
The currently quoted rate of climb in the article (160 ft/min) is a ridiculous, off-the-wall number. I have heard 25,000 ft/min quoted in a documentary. While that may be optimistic, it is not absurdly so, as the quoted number is absurdly low. Fnj2 (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Reference #1 ... What?
The first reference points to a forum post at F-16.net which links back to this article and the second reference. I'm fairly certain that a random forum user on the internet stating that something hasn't reached a prototype stage doesn't qualify as a valid source. Actually, I highly doubt that the second reference meets the standard for a reference either... 06:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)