h a l f b a k e r y"It would work, if you can find alternatives to each of the steps involved in this process."
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. |
|
| |