3 ms·
I've wondered why catapult designs haven't been studied for airports, since they're used frequently for launching fighter jets from aircraft carriers. It would
by llampx 7y ago
I've wondered why catapult designs haven't been studied for airports, since they're used frequently for launching fighter jets from aircraft carriers.
It would cut down on fuel consumption, emissions and noise when taking off.
- rocqua 7y agoG forces and the fact that a lot of noise isn't from takeoff itself but just from the low flying that occurs near takeoff and landing?
- chrisseaton 7y agoDo catapults on aircraft carriers cut down noise and fuel consumption? No because you still run the engines at max.
- wetmore 7y agoOstensibly over a shorter period of time though.
- AdrianB1 7y agoNot at all, planes keep full afterburner until they reach a safe speed and level (varies by aircraft) and most planes are refueled again after the take off. The catapult just enables them to take off with serious costs for the pilot, plane and energy.
- MagnumOpus 7y agoThey would put massive stress on airframes that are not designed for them. And (at a guess) they are probably far more accident prone than unassisted take-off, a trade-off that is not acceptable for passenger operations.
- nradov 7y agoAirbus has studied that. We might see it eventually. But it would be tremendously expensive to build electric catapults long enough to keep G forces down to tolerable levels. And aircraft would have to be redesigned with a strong attachment point. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/07/airbus_smarter_skies/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/07/airbus_smarter_skie...