• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Brits want nuclear powered aircraft

Great. Just wait till one of those goes down anywhere near a populated area. STUPID idea.
 
Been tried and abandoned decades ago. Works well to boil water on large ships (and subs) though.
 
This was one of the first uses of nuclear technology patented after the Manhattan Project. Up until he died, Richard Feynman held the patent on the nuclear airplane and locomotive. When the Air Force was involved in their chicanery with this idea, Feynman actually went and demanded payment for using his idea.:eek:

As noted in the links posted above, the idea ever really got off the ground, though.

More than the safety aspect, I think the engineering is the gotcha, here. Weight is a driving factor in any aircraft design, so we use exotic materials and safety factors that would be considered obscenely small to other engineering disciplines. I cringe at the thought of a reactor made of plastic composite, or with a 1.01 safety factor.
 
I'm more curious how the engines are powered? Does the reactor generate electricity and then power electric engines? I read about the heat from the reactor used to power a ramjet, but I doubt a passenger jet would be going that fast.
 
From the full article:

The risk of reactors cracking open in a crash could be reduced by jettisoning them before impact and bringing them down with parachutes.”

He said that, in the worst-case scenario, if the armour plating around the reactor was pierced there would be a risk of radioactive contamination over a few square miles.

“If we want to continue to enjoy the benefits of air travel without hindrance from environmental concerns, we need to explore nuclear power..."


Those three paragraphs sum up the irrationality of this idea. Let's trade one environmental problem for another much more hazardous one. To think that they're spending British taxpayer money on this crap at a time when their economy could use a boost...

Children of the future will grow up believing that airplanes give people cancer. Cigarettes give you lung cancer, airplanes give you leukemia.
 
Some crashes happen so fast though that there wouldn't be anytime to jettison it. What if the plane crashes right after take off? On final? If this were to happen, it'll probably be relegated to long, transoceanic flights like the Concorde.
 
haha i thought this was a joke. It reminded me of an idiot mid on cruise with me, asking the Aux O on the ship why it wasn't nuke powered, then asking if there were any way to build a nuke powered airplane. The Aux O looked him directly in the face and replied....there's no need to fly for 25 years straight, so no, we don't have any nuke planes.


That kid is now a nuke.
 
scoolbubba said:
there's no need to fly for 25 years straight, so no, we don't have any nuke planes.
Click to expand...

Ha. . .I was thinking along those lines, too. Because really?? Carrying just 21 hours of fuel makes for a looooong flight. Even split between 3 pilots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top