I know it's supposed to have a nuclear reactor on it's back, but really, those backpack jet things make it as aerodynamic as a brick and make the nose's point rather pointless.

Serlo said:
I know it's supposed to have a nuclear reactor on it's back, but really, those backpack jet things make it as aerodynamic as a brick and make the nose's point rather pointless.

1) They're thrusters for spaceflight, which renders aerodynamic problems moot, and 2) applying logic to anime, killing cat-girls, etc.

Moonspeaker said:
1. They're thrusters for spaceflight, which renders aerodynamic problems moot, and 2) applying logic to anime, killing cat-girls, etc.

Don't those thrusters also provide enough thrust that it wouldn't matter how unaerodynamic your plane is, since the thrusters could sheer brute-force their way through an atmosphere with ease?

The F-4 was dubbed "the triumph of thrust over aerodynamics." Seems like it might work here too.

warellis said:
Don't those thrusters also provide enough thrust that it wouldn't matter how unaerodynamic your plane is, since the thrusters could sheer brute-force their way through an atmosphere with ease?

But there's no reason to leave them as-is. You could simply add a more aerodynamic shell around the thrusters, which is better than leaving two giant drag-coefficient-boosting bricks on the top of your plane.

Also, the F-4 made every attempt to be as aerodynamic as possible, but was given that nickname because it was simply massive compared to its more maneuverable contemporaries, appearing bulky and unwieldy by comparison.