The troop seats on USAF cargo planes were very interesting ..on takeoff, your head was in one neighbor's lap, on landing, your head was in the other's..
Evil Airplane designers :)
- Thread starter Gingerbread Demon
- Start date
The troop seats on USAF cargo planes were very interesting ..on takeoff, your head was in one neighbor's lap, on landing, your head was in the other's..
The troop seats on USAF cargo planes were very interesting ..on takeoff, your head was in one neighbor's lap, on landing, your head was in the other's..
Wow after flying on one of those you'd never complain about economy class flying again
All this talk about reducing weight reminds me of those hilarious designs I used to see in Popular Mechanics. I swear I'm not making this up, they once had a design of a plane with THREE FUSELAGES!
Sir, are you classified as human?
You mean wacky designs like this. Not froom Popular Mechanics but these were recent. But just as wacky....
No thanks, I'm not hungry.
You mean wacky designs like this. Not froom Popular Mechanics but these were recent. But just as wacky....
What's so whacky about them? It's an aerodynamic concept know as a blended wing body and has been around for 90 odd years.
The B2 bomber is an inservice example of a blended wing body design.
^ No, the B-2 is a flying wing, with no distinct fuselage. A BWB blends a fuselage and wing together.
And there's nothing wacky about a BWB, you just need to get someone to *buy* it. The best chance would be a military transport, because you can't make longer or shorter versions of a BWB by sticking in or removing fuselage plugs like you can with conventional commercial aircraft. Not to mention issues with airports and seating...
And there's nothing wacky about a BWB, you just need to get someone to *buy* it. The best chance would be a military transport, because you can't make longer or shorter versions of a BWB by sticking in or removing fuselage plugs like you can with conventional commercial aircraft. Not to mention issues with airports and seating...
Too late. I've already informed the airlines of the massive savings offered by catapults. the ecomentalists are behind it too. Your days of airline seats are numbered.
^ I prefer breakfastings and dinnerings anyway.
It's supposed to be extreme
Hey why can't we have a nuclear powered aircraft like the Fireflash from Thunderbirds? That was an airliner, though it had some technical problems on its first flight haha.
I know economy-class passengers complain about being packed in like sardines, but this idea takes it literally.
The last flight I was on this would have been luxurious.
It was AWFUL. The only flight I've ever been on that I would use that word for. And freaking HOT! sweating and parching for 8 hours, ugh.
- After 9/11 we spent tons of money retrofitting nuclear reactors to be more resistant to airliners crashing into the containment vessel. Putting the nuclear reactor into the plane itself kind of negates the point.
- The risk from crashes and midair explosions raining radioactive materials over a city or forest or water supply is too great.
- The heavy radioactive shielding required to protect the passengers and crew from exposure largely offsets the fuel savings (the nuclear-powered bomber tests we ran in the 50s consisted of a specially built heavily shielded separate cockpit section for the crew).
- What do you do with all the spent nuclear waste from the flights?
- The advantage to nuclear-powered aircraft is the long unrefueled loiter time in the air (good for pre-ICBM-era bombers when this was seriously being considered). However, that is contrary to passenger and transport travel demands where there is a need to constantly be loading and offloading passengers and cargo from various destinations. Some aerospace designers have proposed conventionally-powered docking aircraft that take passengers and cargo up to and down from the constantly circling nuclear-powered airliners, but that introduces a great deal of extra complexity and safety concerns to the mix.
- Cumulative radiation exposure risk to long term pilots and crew is too great.
- Some nations have strong anti-nuclear policies that might make landing these jets in or over-flying their territory unfeasible.
- Accident investigation and reconstruction made all the more difficult due to the radiation exposure risk.
- I'm not sure if they've overcome this problem or not, but some of the nuclear-powered engines were good for cruising but lacked sufficient power for takeoff, landing, and heaving maneuvering of planes the size of jumbo jets, in which case you'd need to carry additional conventional engines and fuel that would be useless for the majority of the flight and just take up weight and space.
- In order to be efficient and competitive on fuel savings, the planes would have to be massive, like twice the size of conventional jumbo jets, in which case they'd be limited in the number of airports that could handle their size, wingspan, weight, and servicing needs.
There are a few advantages to the idea of nuclear-powered airliners but a whole host of problems associated with their use.
The troop seats on USAF cargo planes were very interesting ..on takeoff, your head was in one neighbor's lap, on landing, your head was in the other's..
Wow after flying on one of those you'd never complain about economy class flying again
But the legroom couldn't be beat....
It's an Akira Class. 25 torpedo tubes in every direction with 10 squadrons of attack fighters that pour out of that front hangar bay.
