LH707330 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 1405 posts, RR: 3 Posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 8053 times:
I was reading this FG article and the picture of the aircraft taking off with the dolly caught my eye. The idea of propelling aircraft with a ground-based acceleration device is not new (aircraft carrier catapults), but what regulatory hurdles would need to be surmounted to enable this for commercial aircraft?
I see many benefits to jet donkey use, including reduced weight due to smaller engines, less flaps gear, shorter takeoff rolls, better climbout due to lower flap drag (smaller/no flaps), less jet noise, and the ability to use a rechargeable (with renewables) dolly to accelerate the aircraft. Downsides include infrastructure dependency (what if you divert to a field without them?). When I was in college I considered entering this as an Airbus fly your ideas challenge entry, but then figured that it seemed like such an obvious move that it would have been done already if there weren't a big log in the road. Thoughts?
rwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2740 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 8018 times:
Quoting LH707330 (Thread starter): Downsides include infrastructure dependency (what if you divert to a field without them?).
Emergency airfields could be equipped with an updated version of the USAF's HAVR Bounce or USN's Flexdeck systems (or perhaps the contemporary British system). Basically an arresting cable to stop the aircraft, and a bouncy mat for the now stopped aircraft to drop onto.
TWA772LR From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 3547 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 7990 times:
They do have arresting cables for military fighter planes, like the Israeli F15 that lost the wing and landed used an arresting cable. I guess it could be possible to launch a 747 or A380 with a catapult-like system, just the ammount of power and force behind it would be immense.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12710 posts, RR: 80
Reply 5, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 7748 times:
Quoting LH707330 (Thread starter): what regulatory hurdles would need to be surmounted to enable this for commercial aircraft?
The "hurdle" is that no regulations exist right now; such a system would require a total re-write of the takeoff requirements regulations because the existing regulations just wouldn't work. The last time a regulatory re-write of that magnitude was required was probably the invention of the jet engine.
You also need to figure out a way to deal with single-engine go-around, where you can't get any help from the ground.
AirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 23
Reply 9, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7500 times:
Quoting LH707330 (Thread starter): The idea of propelling aircraft with a ground-based acceleration device is not new (aircraft carrier catapults), but what regulatory hurdles would need to be surmounted to enable this for commercial aircraft?
You couldn't do it with today's commercial airframes. The structure is not built for this kind of abuse. You'll rip that nose gear off like a toothpick!
Even if the technology was applied to commercial aircraft, it would be a very expensive venture. The costs outweigh the benefits. IMO, I don't ever see this coming.
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
wingscrubber From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 860 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 7247 times:
I don't think the term 'jet donkey' will catch on! How about 'runway shuttle', or 'aircraft acceleration carraige' ?
I think usage of something along the lines of aircraft carrier-style catapults, winches or carriages (the wright brothers used this method) is overdue for modern airliners. The obvious benefits are noise reduction, increased take-off performance and increased fuel efficiency - but it's a cost prohibitive concept.
Here's another idea; what about a Maglev runway? That could drastically improve take-off efficiency if an air vehicle could be accelerated up to a safe climb speed and then released, and in addition if that same aircraft could land on a Maglev runway too then it would need no landing gear or brakes, which could result in a much lighter aircraft.
But - I severely doubt it'll ever happen, even though there's the old adage, a mile of road will take you one mile, a mile of runway will take you anywhere, the seem could apply to a mile of maglev runway
Fabo From Slovakia, joined Aug 2005, 1245 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 7179 times:
Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 3): Hm, why not use the landscape - and build downhill sloped runways for take-off, like the one at CVF?
Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 3): I wonder how the V1 and required runway length calculations will be, though.
I cant help, but post a meme:
(ASDR stands for Accelerate-Stop Distance Required, and stands for the distance that the aircraft need to accelerate to V1 and stop again, obviously must be less than runway available)
Anyway regarding smaller engines, the aircraft would still have to be able to drag itself into climb on MTOW with one engine out, so I am not sure that would be feasible,
less/simpler flaps, I am afraid you still have to land... but it might be possible to get away with less flaps actually used for T/O,
all in all too small a benefit to be viable IMHO.
The light at the end of tunnel turn out to be a lighted sing saying NO EXIT
LH707330 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 1405 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 7147 times:
Quoting Fabo (Reply 14): less/simpler flaps, I am afraid you still have to land...
Couldn't you use a massive spoiler mounted directly over the gear leg that goes all the way back to the trailing edge to plant the gear and enable more aggressive braking? On a long haul a/c this might make more sense because your landing weight is a lot lower so you can lower your approach speed.
I can't find that drawing that apeared in the 1980ies popular science magazine "P.M.", but it was even more dangerous - it was really a ski jump, and the airport was on top of a 30-story building. With a downward-sloped runway at least, you could offer a generous overrun area...
Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.