What practical use does a helicarrier actually serve?
Like what does it have over a normal carrier?
Seems like one of the main problems in the first Avengers movie could've been avoided if they just used a standard Nimitz carrier and were part of a larger battlegroup.
Being in the air gave them no advantage whatsoever.
It's setting up the fact that it's actually a giant transformer
The only thing that comes to mind is the cell for holding and quick-releasing the Hulk.
That only works if the carrier is airborne.
It can fly over land.
How the fuck does this thing not run out of fuel every two hours?
powered by arcane Stark tech
Even if we had the tech to do this mo one would be stupid enough to make this as a military tool.
...
Explain the ISS then, stupid.
wouldn't it be better if you dropped him while on the water so he sinks to the bottom of the ocean?
Also, Aerospace engineer here. That fucking design is the most retarded thing I've ever seen. There is a reason the best quadcopter out there can get at MAX 2 hours flight time - because it has to expend so much god damn energy to lift its weight as opposed to letting a wing do the work for it. That thing would not last at all - let alone the size of the ducted propellers being ridiculously small to ever work. There is an article over on wired that actually went and did the math using the best possible numbers. Being as generous as possible, the smallest props required to achieve hover are pic related
How big and fast would the rotors have to be in real life to carry millons of pounds? Would they be so big and fast that it would create a vacuum or hurricane or something retarded
How were they even planning on getting Banner into the cell? They couldn't do it when he was Hulk (and good luck even trying) and by the time you think he's going to turn you have to ask him to voluntarily be confined, by which he'll likely be too stressed to make it
yeah it is such a stupid concept when you think about it. The only way he could be in that cell is if he chases someone in there by which time that person is dead. Or they just keep Bruce there all the time which they weren't. I don't even see their plan ever working
Wouldnt it kill everyone/destroy everything under those rotors by its air blowing thru?
ISS is not a military tool?
Real world nuclear carrierscan literally run engines at maximum for DECADES without needing to refuel.
There have been plans to create nuclear aircrafts, all having an extreme advantage of being able to stay airborne for literally decades on end. The only problem is that either spew out radioactive gases as you go or when you crash you end up turning the crash site into a radioactive wasteland for the coming centuries. If the carriers in winter soldier were radioactive, DC would have been turned into Chernobyl.
It move faster than a normal carrier. so faster deployment.
the only purpose it has is to look cool.
>What practical use does a helicarrier actually serve?
None.
>Like what does it have over a normal carrier?
It looks cool.
>Being in the air gave them no advantage whatsoever.
One of the memes in the comics is about how Helicarriers crash
all.
the fucking.
time.
yes but not only that, rotors also require incoming air to work and thus there is an induced velocity on the top end. Being that large and that fast, when they first showed Bruce and Cap standing on the edge looking down, they would have been sucked in and become mince meat.
If i showed someone from the 20s smartphones, they would tell me I'm crazy because my phone doesn't use tubes.
so going over land means nothing to you people?
To be fair the majority of ships and cars we see in the comics also get destroyed
Carriers are designed to extend the range of jets, Unless your target is in the heart of Asia (in which case, use an airfield) you already have coverage from the sea
You cant apply that much logic to it because most of these things come from comics in the 60s intended for children and they go from that to trying to justify it after. Just accept it or dont, these arguments are so stupid.
Ding ding ding
I believe it's powered by Stark repolsor jets now, which are nearly perfectly efficient directional kinetic force generators.
Coupled with an arc generator power plant, which produces massive amounts of clean energy.
Cop out I know, but comic books think science is magic.
Because it can launch as high as sub-orbit, which would make it just float around the earth without consuming much fuel, much like a semi-satellite.
>aerospace engineer here
Good evening, reddit :^)
You're getting way too into it...this isn't hard scifi it's a marvel movie.
or he could just be flown in using literally any other aircraft and then thrown out of the plane.
What about that bit in Age of Ultron where they rescue civs with it?
>hurr durr a carrier is fucking useless
>universe with men in robot suits, genetically engineered supermen and literal fucking magic users
>lets pick apart the implausible physics of a minor aspect of the movie
tippy top kek
...
...
It's a real shame the Akron and Macon crashed ending America's flying aircraft carriers.
>ISS
>military
>flying
>carrier
kek, no way, that you're an aerospace engineer
well, thats just an easy target
>complaining about a floating aircraft carrier not being realistic
>when it's designed in a universe where there's a guy flying around in a suit of armour with beam-weapons, the first version of which he designed in a cave with a box of scraps and the rest of which he built in his own garage
Nigga they're using super-propellers with a super-reactor fuelling it and the whole thing acting as a wing or some shit. Problem fucking solved.
>One of the memes in the comics is about how Helicarriers crash
When they're not being flown into a villain to take him out, or brought down by Magneto just for kicks.
>Also, Aerospace engineer here.
Nobody cares you colossal fucking moron. It's super hero capeshit movies for children
Hell, with how people on here have latched onto the "everything in Asgard is science" line, you'd think people would be bothered by the boat-shaped spaceships they're rolling around in. That shit's way more implausible.
>A gigantic ship, with minimal armor and a fragile upper deck, damage to which would prevent it from executing its primary and only function? That's just an easy target.
why even have the propellers if they can just use directional force?
Fuck yeah!
Yeah, but your phone also wouldn't be violating the laws of physics. Those propellers just weren't large enough to lift that carrier.
Would you shoot him first?
>Aerospace engineer here
What's your opinion on this thing?
or being punches by Ironfist
Isn't it a hybrid?
i remember it being in the ocean when we first saw it.
Just turn off your brain ;^)
how do these things move forward if the propellers are facing up?
Are you serious? The helicarrier has jets on its ass as you see in OP's pic and the Dragon can tilt its props.
Futuristic setting. Hard to tell if the material is ultra light weight or if power source/propulsion design have some ridiculous efficiency or power output. Either way the aircraft appears a lot smaller than the helicarrier and thus seems to be more reasonable to have a quad rotor design. Would most likely be better to try to implement a VTOL aircraft using the technology we have today if we wanted to achieve the same performances.
Did you miss the big ass thrusters in OP's pic.
Unlike a normal carrier that can only be fielded around waters, the helicarrier can go around the world undetected. I bet it's also insanely fast compared to a Nimitz.
Helicarrier has rear thrusters. Don't know if avatar ship does. If not it would have control identical to quadcopters today. Reduce thrust in forward props and increase thrust in aft props to tilt the velocity vector forwards.
it's cool
Well the helicarrier has bigass thrusters
OP's pic is the first version of the helicarrier.
Because capeshit
>yfw Lockheed almost went full Ace Combat with a flying aircraft carrier.
That one is much more feasible however. Large wingspan even with an elliptical fuselage that assists in lift generation. We will most likely have that tech in the future because there are companies developing passenger aircraft with similar airframes
>how do these things move forward if the propellers are facing up?
INTIMIDATION
>no advantage whatsoever
Air travel is faster than sea travel, isn't impeded by terrain, and allows for swift and immediate projection of the same force capability of a naval aircraft carrier delivered into strike range regardless of distance to target. In all honesty, it's the only next step of the evolution of the modern aircraft carrier within feasibility.
>within feasibility
The aerial basing, not the actual tech. That's still decades away. The point is that the sea-based carrier has reached its endgame evolution, taking it to the sky is the only logical next stage.
>listening to the "aerospace engineer"
topkek I guess he read the wire article, he must know what he's talking about
I honest to God don't know.
Wouldn't they be awfully difficult to land on?
Like, I've heard that landing on a seabound aircraft carrier is for the topmost elite pilots.
wouldn't an air carrier be more stable? you don't have to deal with waves
The stealth mechanism wouldn't be as effective if it were treading water, leaving a mile-long dent in the ocean. You obviously couldn't use it as a carrier if it were submerged...
It's that fucking simple.
Are we really going to rationalize comic books now?
Well you'd have to deal with wind and turbulance and shit, and I actually think that'd be MORE of a problem than a few waves.
The only real advantage would be the mobility not being restricted to the ocean. That being said waves and shit are easily predictable.
The sky isn't. Why do you think we're still getting whether forecasts wrong 90% of the time?
>Are we really going to rationalize comic books now?
I don't see why not. If they didn't want some rationalization then they wouldn't use technobabble. They might as well call it magic then.
The way the machine functions isn't important. It's literally just there to be cool and threatening.
By that logic, why isn't the arc reactor magic? This shit is supposed to take place in a world where Tony, his dad, and Pym have all done things to advance technology well past our understanding anyway...
Just enjoy the movie or quit watching them.
I couldn't care less. It looks cool as shit.
I don't know how to prove to you that I'm an aero engineer let alone care if you believe me.
Technobabble: things that don't exist now but could possibly be made in the future
Magic: no explanation, just "spirit energy"
>Like, I've heard that landing on a seabound aircraft carrier is for the topmost elite pilots.
So what you're saying is that it's for the top guns?
Normal carriers can't make /sci/ sperg out.
There was a guy in /sci/ who said hoverbikes where the future of travel in cities. He was told they are inefficient as fuck but he said that didn't matter at all. He was told normal single rotor helicopters are already about as effcient and small as needed to perform the same fuction, but are still not used as mass transit in cities.
He proceeded to sperg out like no other for over 350 posts in that thread.
Couldn't find the first thread he posted in, the one with the guy standing up on the hoverpad thing, but here's the second thread he posted in and sperged out,
