h a l f b a k e r yKeep out of reach of children.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
An aviation expert recently stated in an interview that large diameter jet engines are quieter than small ones and more efficient, at the same thrust. Assuming that is true, a very large engine should be built around the fuselage. The plane would probably look like an oversized MIG-21, but without the
cockpit. The fuselage in the center of the engine has to be stabilized by gyro or other means so it doesn't rotate with the turbine blades. At the airport the fuselage is pulled out and towed to the gate while another one is moved in so the engine can be reused immediately after refueling.
Passengers may feel uncomfortable with the idea of all that burning fuel around them so there should be an emergency eject mechanism that kicks out the fuselage and lets it decent safely (no necessarily bump free) with an oversized parasail. To make up for the lost window seats cameras are installed around the outside and passengers can select individually which one is displayed on their little in-seat screens.
Mig 21 for those who need a picture
http://www.combatai...aircraft/fmig21.asp
[engineer1, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 21 2004]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
Scares the hell outta me, but (+) for the audacity.... |
|
| |
While larger turbines may be more efficient for a given thrust level, they also tend to be heavier. Heavier engines mean less payload. So while fuel consumption per lb overall may decrease, the fuel consumption per lb of cargo may actually increase. |
|
| |
Economics aside, it's a neat concept. I say keep the windows. I'd love to see the whirling blades and hot gasses inches away... |
|
| |
The fuselage wouldn't need gyro-stabilization. It could be supported by the stators. |
|
| |
I've once heard helicopters referred to as "600 parts all moving at the same time to see which one can break first" ... but the helicopters have certain baked-in saftey features like their ability to controll decent by auto-rotation in case of engine failure, etc. ... this could use some failsafes, but I like the idea ... very fresh half-baked goodness. |
|
| |
Solves the disc burst problems, and in case of engine failure you still have the ability to glide. Might take a while before you could unload passengers once you landed, waiting the turbine slows down, lot of momentum there. |
|
| |
There is a better solution: Turboprops are more efficient than turbines, even large ones. Basically, turboprops are very large turbofan engines (the type used by most passenger aircraft) without the outer ducting. |
|
| |