3 ms·
Another stupid idea: use aircraft catapults[1] to reduce the onboard energy requirements. Takeoff seems to be the most energy demanding stage of the flight. Ob
by patrickk 10y ago
Another stupid idea: use aircraft catapults[1] to reduce the onboard energy requirements. Takeoff seems to be the most energy demanding stage of the flight.
Obviously a drawback is that existing airfields' or airports' runways would have to be retrofitted, but if the fuel and maintenance savings were enough, it might make sense.
[1] used on aircraft carriers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_catapult https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_catapult
- Dav3xor 10y agoA cable winch like they use with sailplanes would work really well for this.
- marcosdumay 10y agoYou just need to carry energy into the airplane, with coils for example. No need for a catapult.
- patrickk 10y agoThe catapult is a proven technology for aircraft though, with decades of development.
- agumonkey 10y agoOr with a reusable launcher. Somebody get Elon on the line.
- djsumdog 10y agoHuh...that's actually a great idea. I never thought about it for commercial liners. I'm sure Boeing or Airbus could create prototype liners and only have a few airports with catapults built into the airstrips. You could save a considerable amount of energy if it's designed correctly. Plus airplane tires have to be replaced very frequently. It could reduce takeoff wear as well.
- Sanddancer 10y agoThere's research going on about that [1], in fact going a step farther by removing the entire undercarriage of the plane. It's safer too -- partially extended landing gear is more dangerous than belly landing because struts and hydraulic systems are a lot more fragile than solid ribs of metal. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_carriage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_carriage