Kabir posted a thread recently stating that he was concerned the forum was losing its interest due to lack of topics. A number of us, me included, agree that it has lost some of its appeal, perhaps through lack of items to discuss. Well, how about we put forward our ideas for the future of civil aviation, and I’m happy to kick the ball off. I know I have already said a lot of what follows and I apologise for repeating myself, but I will add a few other ideas.
I think the first thing that aircraft designers of the future have to come to grips with is a replacement power source. I believe the future of the jet engine as we know it is limited, because of the fuels used and the ultimate development of the jet engine to its limits, as happened with piston engines. I think the principle of jets will remain, but the fuels used won’t be fossil-fuel based. I believe the future engine will use thermal reaction from artificial isotopes that, when brought into close proximity to each other, react and produce tremendous heat.
The isotopes would comprise “blocks” of two dissimilar materials, with one set of blocks fixed in the centre of the “combustion chamber”, and the second set fixed to a rotating ring around the edge of the chamber. When the outer set of fuel blocks rotates, they come into close proximity to the fixed inner set, producing tremendous heat. This heat is used in precisely the same manner as burning fuel is used in conventional jet engines, with air being drawn through the front of the engine, super-compressed, then super-heated and ejected through the rear of the engine.
Such an engine would be simpler than a conventional jet. It would require no pumps, no electronics apart from the rotator mechanism, and most importantly, no fuel tanks. There would be no need to trim the aircraft in flight as fuel was consumed.
Performance, because there is no actual combustion which requires oxygen, would be superior as the engine would operate at much higher altitudes in much thinner air. Airliners could travel above all weather patterns, around 55,000 to 70,000ft. Fuel consumption would not be an issue. Safety would be dramatically increased because of the lack of fuel tanks. The aircraft could be smaller, again with no tanks required. Passengers would number 250-350 single class, with adequate leg room to avoid DVT and other long-distance travel problems. Range of operation would be sufficient to enable non-stop UK-Australia/NZ flights, with no refuelling stops. Lower drag in the thinner air would have a dramatic effect on cruising speed, with flight times dramatically reduced from the present.
To enable this aircraft to provide maximum passenger safety, a number of inovations would be introduced. Obviously, the flight deck would be totally secured, with completely separate oxygen systems to enable the crew to operate independent of the passenger compartment environment. Closed circuit, concealed cameras would be placed throughout the aircraft to monitor passenger behaviour.
Airlines would have to seek legal assistance for the following steps. Passengers would be required to sign agreements and indemnities prior to boarding that they would take no legal action against the airline in the event of attempted hijacking, because the passenger cabins would be fitted with gas outlets which would be controlled by the captain. If a hijack was attempted, or passengers started to behave in a dangerous manner, a non-lethal gas could be released into the passenger cabin to knock the passengers out cold until the aircraft could be landed.
Airlines would also restrict the nature of cabin luggage to only the smallest and lightest items, with the limit on the size and weight of cabin luggage severely reduced from present limits. Overhead lockers could be locked electronically from the flight deck in the event of trouble.
Operating costs of such an aircraft would be dramatically reduced. No expensive fossil-based fuels, simpler electronics, no fuel tanks enabling a smaller and much lighter aircraft with the same passenger load. One would assume that substantially reduced fares should be possible.
I realise some of these ideas are “way out”, but I am sure that, within 20 years, some of them will be reality.
What ideas do others have about the direction civil aviation will take in years to come?
Regards
Wombat
E,R,S & L.
By: Wombat - 31st October 2002 at 08:50
RE: The future of civil aviation
Errr, these would be the same Russians that so successfully gassed so many hostages this week, wouldn’t they?
DC, as for wild erotic fancies, don’t you? (This is a family forum so I don’t want to bring sex into it!!)
I must confess, the actual mechanics of the gassing mechanism have not been thought out, but if the gas containers were designed into the aircraft so that they were pressurised to the same atmosphere as the cabin, and the ducting length was kept as short as possible, I imagine the gas would remain effective regardless of altitude. It might be that the Russian system excluded the gas feed system from the cabin pressurisation.
Regards
Wombat
By: KabirT - 30th October 2002 at 16:28
RE: The future of civil aviation
LOL i wanted to ask the same question…. :9
By: dcfly - 30th October 2002 at 16:06
RE: The future of civil aviation
I definately think that using gas to neutralise dangerous passengers is a good idea, even though it nearly backfired on the Moscow police.
You have wild erotic fancies about aircraft?????
sober at last
Dave
By: KabirT - 30th October 2002 at 16:02
RE: The future of civil aviation
Aircrafts working with gas have already been tried out by the Russians using a TU 154 and they were hoping the programe would gon on…..but results from first flight were not very good. During first flight…they found the gas had reacted to the high altitude and had made the fuel pipes expand…proving to be very dangerous…this happened after a specifil period of lfight. The Russians had put the gas chamber on top of the whole fuselauge which was again not a very convinicing design. The gas in the chamber was supposed to very safe as the chamber was made of a different subastance…which was suppose to be safe.
By: Wombat - 30th October 2002 at 06:56
RE: The future of civil aviation
Guys
In my wild, erotic fancy, I imagine the power cells will be “artificial isotopes” which are non-nuclear, at least, not in the conventional sense, producing radioactivity through fission, but producing heat from thermal reaction. That is the difficult part of the equation and the one bit of this dream which must first be overcome.
If, and it’s a big if, such artificial fuels can be developed, the problems inherent with “conventional” nuclear fuels would not exist. I’m sure that the experiments from the 50’s would have little relevance to this proposal, given the nature of the fuel used and our experience in handling such fuels today compared to 50 years ago.
I’m a bit surprised, too, that nobody has said “You can’t do that” in relation to the gas proposal for negating dangerous passengers. Obviously, I wouldn’t suggest that the gas used by the Russians this week would be the one for my proposal. But I do believe that the best way of handling hijackers et al is to knock them out, together with the rest of the passengers. This could also alleviate passenger panic, and I did forget to mention that portable alarm switches, carried by each member of the cabin crew and activated in the case of trouble, would also be provided, together with personal gas masks secreted at key locations in the cabin.
I know, Buck Rogers stuff, all of it…
Regards
Wombat
By: Hand87_5 - 29th October 2002 at 13:16
RE: The future of civil aviation
Shame on me!!!! Sure it was a B36
By: frankvw - 29th October 2002 at 13:12
RE: The future of civil aviation
Yes, it was a B-36.
By: GZYL - 29th October 2002 at 13:06
RE: The future of civil aviation
I thought it was a converted B-36 they used for nuclear trials.
By: Hand87_5 - 29th October 2002 at 09:41
RE: The future of civil aviation
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 29-10-02 AT 09:47 AM (GMT)]Right.
The US Air force had a project in the 50’s .
The made a bunch of test with a modified B29.
The main issue was radiation leak. I suspect that this problem could be get around with today’s technology.
An other main issue is that a nuke engine needs very heavu infrastructures on ground to handle the ” nuke fuel”.
I definitely believe that fossil fuel is easier to handle and that oil company are lobbying ( once again) against any plan B.
See what’a happen with cars . Many other options than gas are available but none of them are really pushed forward.
A french engeneer is about to put on the market a car using … compressed air.
Range :200 km
Speed :110Km/h
Cost of refueling : 1.5 euro !!!!
By: Nikumba - 29th October 2002 at 09:35
RE: The future of civil aviation
A nuclear powered aircraft has already been made in the past. The Russians outfitted one of their bears with nuclear engines, but they found it offered no significant advantages over convential engines.
Granted this was in the 60’s/70’s and our knowledge of nuclear materials has come on along way, so i wouldn’t be suprised if somewhere in a research lab someome is developing a new nuclear powered engine.
Of course the A/C maybe lighter with out fuel tanks etc, but what about radioactive shielding? Perhaps that will be heavier than the fuel making it ineffient??
Nikumba
By: wysiwyg - 28th October 2002 at 23:28
RE: The future of civil aviation
Wombat – I think you’ve got some great and workable ideas there.
With regard to the development of higher speeds, the main problem there is the environmental noise issue. Once sonic booms can be tamed in a realistic cost effective manner supersonic will be the way forward (pardon the pun). It was the Americans that effectively led the assault against Concorde (largely as they were nowhere near getting a piece of the action themselves!).
By: KabirT - 27th October 2002 at 14:27
RE: The future of civil aviation
For some reasons designers are not able to see that speed is the future…not size. None, Airbus or Boeing have come up with a design worth looking at the future. No one will need damn rooms and resturnats in an airplane if they can get to there destinations faster.
Talking about the future, currently we’ll see more airlines in turbulent conditions, it will take another year or two to stabilize.
Boeing conditions are getting worst as Airbus is taking away the market because there aircrafts are cheaper, fuel-efficient etc. but still are low on quality….hence they are cheap(I am not being biased here). Boeing make really super quality jets. Just for eg. next time you are on a Airbus aircraft take a window seat and look straight in front of you very near the window….you will see the finish of the Airbus a/c which is jaggered everywhere, while Boeing will be smooth as ever.
By: dcfly - 27th October 2002 at 07:27
RE: The future of civil aviation
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 27-10-02 AT 07:54 AM (GMT)]Well, Captain Kirk, er sorry, Wombat, some interesting concepts and I see no reason why some of them shouldnt be realised in the near future, after all, just over a hundred years ago people thought the Wright brothers were mad to think they could get a heavier than air contraption to fly, but they did. As you say, some of these ideas do seem a bit far fetched but anythings possible.
But even assuming some of your ideas are realised , which government will be brave enough to give them the go ahead and also finance them , although the end poduct will mean cheaper operating costs and cheaper fares, the initial research will probably cost. The only country that could afford to pour money into something like this would be the US otherwise it would have to be a joint venture by European countries, as was the Airbus and the Euro-fighter, unfortunately whatever is invented, discovered, or thought up to bring aviation well into the 21st century is going to cost money, and the world we live in at the moment that would mean military rather than commercial aviation would get priority
The idea of a knockout gas to overcome hi-jackers and violent passengers seems a good idea, in fact thats almost exactly what they did in Moscow to overcome the Chezchuan terrorists, so, one of your ideas has been realised already.
A nuclear powered aircraft is certainly an interesting concept
The commercial aircraft industry at the moment seems to be like that proverbial snowball, its getting bigger and faster and pretty soon its gonna come to a halt a break up, but I’m confident that there’s some boffins somewhere with the industies best interests at heart.
Phew! that was long winded for me! I hope I made some sense
Sober at last
Dave
Sign In
October 26, 2002 at 10:10 am