h a l f b a k e r yTastes richer, less filling.
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,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Robberfly Airport
Until you get up close and notice the "cars" have wings, it looks like a parking lot. Okay, it really doesn't, but it could on a cloudy day, from a distance. Anyways... | |
Made - at least initially - for small aircraft, the airport's main service is to provide takeoff and landing assist via electric drones : those with enough power and energy to pick up an aircraft and take it up to a decent altitude and speed before releasing ; likewise catching an incoming aircraft
and landing it, vertically. No need for a runway.
Once a network of these airports can be established, small aircraft can be designed without flaps or landing gear, engine/motor and aerodynamic surfaces optimized for cruising speed.
Of course, you'd still need a hardpoint on top for the drone to hook onto, and one beneath as a pedestal mount.
Parasite aircraft
https://en.wikipedi...site_aircraft#1950s
Existing technology [8th of 7, Jul 18 2019]
Semi-Airborne Airport
Mentioned in my anno. My idea that's vaguely related to this [notexactly, Jul 20 2019]
[link]
|
| |
I have considered this too. I think the lower top speed of a
rotorcraft vs. a fixed wing is the main problem. You might
have to do some clever geometry-shifting (like a V-22, but
with the rotors part of the "drone" instead of attached to
the plane proper) or drop them nose first... which would
also mean catching the plane from a dive to land. |
|
| |
We just need to make indefinitely suspended airports but this is good too. |
|
| |
In the 1920's and '30's there were experiments with "parasite" fighters deployed from airships; and post-WW2, a similar scheme was devised to launch and recover a fighter from a jet bomber. So mid-air capture and launch can be done, but required immense skill. |
|
| |
// without flaps or landing gear // |
|
| |
If something goes wrong mid-flight, you still need the hardware to let you land on a convenient bit of flat ground, at low speed. |
|
| |
Common sense says a BRS, probably attached to the top hardpoint, given the CG requirement. Also - perhaps - an internal belly skid, like modern cars with the bumper inside plastic fascia. |
|
| |
The hex/quad/whatever-copters would have their own BRS. |
|
| |
// which would also mean catching the plane from a dive to land.
// |
|
| |
// indefinitely suspended airports // |
|
| |
I don't know what those are—are they like my [linked] idea? |
|
| |
// If something goes wrong mid-flight, you still need the
hardware to let you land on a convenient bit of flat ground, at
low speed. // |
|
| |
Whole-airplane parachutes are available. Is that what "BRS" refers
to? |
|
| |
BRS = Ballistic Recovery System. |
|
| |
Useful, but not particularly steerable. |
|
| |
That's exactly what I was guessing it stood for. Probably a
guess based on a vague memory, not just being that smart
(not that I'm not, of course :P). |
|
| |
But I only know of such systems for small GA planes, not
airliners, yet. |
|
| |
That's because the big civil stuff doesn't have the margin of strength in the airframe to take a BRS; they would come apart, in a spectacular and deeply unpleasant way. |
|
| |
What about that plane whose roof came off but still landed
safely in Hawaii? |
|
| |
Couldn't the harness distribute the forces, too? |
|
| |
Ah yes, Aloha Airlines famous "Verandah" service ... |
|
| |
The problems with a BRS for a civil jet are numerous, but amongst them are: |
|
| |
1. Ideally, the chute should be coupled through to the mainspar, which runs across the centre of the cabin floor in most designs; a pylon at that point, colocated with the overwing exits, might be a little inconvenient. |
|
| |
2. The speed at which the chute needs to deploy; in fact, a staged system is needed to get the airspeed down to 150kt or less, which takes time (= altitude ) on a big jet. |
|
| |
3. The extra mass & bulk of the chute & harness. |
|
| |
4. The psychological factor of "expecting failure". On a single -engine puddle jumper, failure is always an option - on a scheduled service, maybe not so much. |
|
| |
[notexactly]: from a climb
That makes much more sense. |
|
| |