k would the star wars N-1 starfighter actually fly? the design I mean would the design actually fly?

Question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naboo_N-1_Starfighter

Answer 1

No. The aerodynamic center is way up in the front (wing is in the front), the center of gravity much further aft (unless the fuselage weight nothings) and there is nothing to balance this. It could not fly aerodynamically in a practical, efficient and logical way (the link says it is meant to fly in atmosphere AND space). In space, an object does not "fly" as there is no air, so the point becomes moot in that case.

Sometime, I wish Hollywood people would consult some engineers to validate their design, that would make movies much more entertaining to us engineers. I spend most of my time being turned off by the ludicrous design they have while watching that movie...


To "fighterace26" below: Burt Rutan is an aerospace engineer. Whoever came up with this N-1 design is NOT. That makes a world of difference. Making a poor design despite its flaws, by adding ballast in weird places or putting engines in hidden area, pointed a strange angles, is just applying band aids on a stupid design. No one would design an aircraft like that because it makes no sense. Engineering is the art of achieving the most with the least. Turning this ridiculous design into a flying demonstator by performing extreme adjustments is doing the most to achieve the least.

Answer 2

I disagree with a lot of your answers
everyone said the exact same thing about the Burt Rutan Drangonfly, and I built one.

first of,
lets assume that there are ballast weights in the wings in addition to fuel( that takes care of the CG )

now if you look at the bottom of the craft you can see it is a lifting body design also ( solves the lift )

how about a gyro, a great big computer controled gyro stabilization unit right there in front of the pilot, but behind the wings ( there is stability )

alierons would roll it, ( elevons for pitch ) like a flying wing

thrust would controll yaw, and even thrust vectoring could make it even more fun and aerobatic,

general electric J-22 engines would work perfect, one could even mount them in a tilt motor design for STOL capabilities

This is a totally flyable design,
and if configured correctly probably very agile and capable.
the only downside i can see is that there isnt much room for a military version (until we can make rail guns and pulse phazers ) that dont weigh much, and there is only room for 1 crew ( until we get droids ) so the pilot will have to be very skilled to handle the workload.


anyone have about 1.3 mill, I will build it and show you.

Answer 3

It would not fly like a traditional aircraft - relying on large wing surfaces to provide lift. Rather a craft of that shape would have to rely on thrust (from its engines mounted on each wing) and so it would fly more like a rocket than a plane - using various thrusters to maneuver rather than flaps or rudders.

This makes sense because the N-1 is designed to fly in space, where wings are less relevant because there is no air to provide lift to the wings, or cause turning by the use of flaps or rudders.

Answer 4

It would fly because looking at the V-22 Osprey it has short wings and large props. But note the N-1 was designed for use in space where gravity, air resistance, and a third axis is brought in to play. note: IT IS NOT REAL BUT THE CONCEPTS ARE POSSIBLE IN THE FUTURE.

Answer 5

I think not... Dosent planes are not made of metal ya know... The starfighter is one whole chunk of metal and the wings are not in the right position...

Answer 6

NO Design has MANY flaws in it. Turning and lift would be the first 2 that come to mind with MAJOR flaws in it.

Answer 7

With enough power you can fly anything, but that isn't a reasonable shape for an aircraft.

Answer 8

ANYTHING will fly with enough thrust and active stability systems, no matter where the wings, tail and fuselage are located.

Answer 9

models of it fly pretty good but not great.