Re:Are Passenger Jet Engines Hitting Their Technical Limits?
by nickhalfasleep on Tuesday November 12, 2019 @10:54AM
(#21515041)
I wonder how much fuel and maintenance could be saved on airliners if airports had giant electro-magnetic catapults like naval carriers to accelerate and launch aircraft without consuming as much fuel at high power.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Are Passenger Jet Engines Hitting Their Technical Limits?
by pboutros on Tuesday November 12, 2019 @11:00AM
(#21515095)
Honestly, even if it was 10% less efficient, I'd be on board with that just to spectate. I'd also invest heavily in barf-bag stocks and neck pillows.
Re:Are Passenger Jet Engines Hitting Their Technical Limits?
by outworlder on Tuesday November 12, 2019 @02:46PM
(#21517387)
> I wonder how much fuel and maintenance could be saved
Maintenance?
Catapults are notoriously finicky and expensive to operate. Also the additional stresses on the airframe couldn't possibly reduce maintenance. If anything (assuming they could withstand them), they would require more inspections.
Catapults only solve the problem of not having enough runway. And you'll notice that fighter jets taking off from carries will be on full thrust and full reheat.
Re:Are Passenger Jet Engines Hitting Their Technical Limits?
by hodgesrm on Tuesday November 12, 2019 @02:02PM
(#21516993)
Very little. By one estimate jets burn about 10% of fuel to reach _cruising altitude_. [1] Unless the catapult got you up to altitude it would not help much. Catapults solve a different problem, namely taking off from a short runway.
[1] https://www.quora.com/How-much-fuel-is-burned-during-take-of...
Re:Are Passenger Jet Engines Hitting Their Technical Limits?
by TheOtherDave on Tuesday November 12, 2019 @02:51PM
(#21517446)
On the plus side, a catapult that could get the airplane up to cruising altitude in one piece would make for a heck of a ride.