Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Call me stupid.On 2019-07-11 7:30 p.m., Jamie M wrote:
On 2019-07-11 7:20 p.m., Jamie M wrote:
Hi,
Airports are expensive, reinforced runways etc..
Here is an idea: instead of runways, use 10foot deep
water (or antifreeze in winter) and build planes without
landing gear and tires/brakes.
This will prevent fires on crashes, so no firetrucks needed too.
Also saves on cost/weight/maintenance of landing gear/tires,
which are prone to failure sometimes.
The saved weight could go to extra ranged and or reinforcement
required for water landing.
Also now flying over the ocean is less dangerous, so some
flights may route more direct.
Also for unplanned landings, there may be more suitable water
bodies than runways for aircraft.
cheers,
Jamie
Also these airplanes would all be easily converted into
water bombers (seems they will be valuable from more forest fires),
and could even use the runway water if necessary.
One other benefit, above wing engines can have larger diameter,
more efficient fans than the obsolete designs under the wing.
Jamie M wrote:
On 2019-07-11 7:30 p.m., Jamie M wrote:
On 2019-07-11 7:20 p.m., Jamie M wrote:
Hi,
Airports are expensive, reinforced runways etc..
Here is an idea: instead of runways, use 10foot deep
water (or antifreeze in winter) and build planes without
landing gear and tires/brakes.
This will prevent fires on crashes, so no firetrucks needed too.
Also saves on cost/weight/maintenance of landing gear/tires,
which are prone to failure sometimes.
The saved weight could go to extra ranged and or reinforcement
required for water landing.
Also now flying over the ocean is less dangerous, so some
flights may route more direct.
Also for unplanned landings, there may be more suitable water
bodies than runways for aircraft.
cheers,
Jamie
Also these airplanes would all be easily converted into
water bombers (seems they will be valuable from more forest fires),
and could even use the runway water if necessary.
One other benefit, above wing engines can have larger diameter,
more efficient fans than the obsolete designs under the wing.
 Call me stupid.
 A wing engine AFAIK is not limited in size with regard to
"above"/"below".
 Obvious limit is placement cannot be closer than radius.
On 2019-07-11 7:30 p.m., Jamie M wrote:
On 2019-07-11 7:20 p.m., Jamie M wrote:
Hi,
Airports are expensive, reinforced runways etc..
Here is an idea: instead of runways, use 10foot deep
water (or antifreeze in winter) and build planes without
landing gear and tires/brakes.
This will prevent fires on crashes, so no firetrucks needed too.
Also saves on cost/weight/maintenance of landing gear/tires,
which are prone to failure sometimes.
The saved weight could go to extra ranged and or reinforcement
required for water landing.
Also now flying over the ocean is less dangerous, so some
flights may route more direct.
Also for unplanned landings, there may be more suitable water
bodies than runways for aircraft.
cheers,
Jamie
Also these airplanes would all be easily converted into
water bombers (seems they will be valuable from more forest fires),
and could even use the runway water if necessary.
One other benefit, above wing engines can have larger diameter,
more efficient fans than the obsolete designs under the wing.
On 12.7.19 05:32, Jamie M wrote:
On 2019-07-11 7:30 p.m., Jamie M wrote:
On 2019-07-11 7:20 p.m., Jamie M wrote:
Hi,
Airports are expensive, reinforced runways etc..
Here is an idea: instead of runways, use 10foot deep
water (or antifreeze in winter) and build planes without
landing gear and tires/brakes.
This will prevent fires on crashes, so no firetrucks needed too.
Also saves on cost/weight/maintenance of landing gear/tires,
which are prone to failure sometimes.
The saved weight could go to extra ranged and or reinforcement
required for water landing.
Also now flying over the ocean is less dangerous, so some
flights may route more direct.
Also for unplanned landings, there may be more suitable water
bodies than runways for aircraft.
cheers,
Jamie
Also these airplanes would all be easily converted into
water bombers (seems they will be valuable from more forest fires),
and could even use the runway water if necessary.
One other benefit, above wing engines can have larger diameter,
more efficient fans than the obsolete designs under the wing.
Moving the engine(s) up causes two effects, both undesirable:
a) the thrust line moves up, causing adverse pitch (nose up/down)
changes along with thrust changes,
b) the center of gravity moves up, causing less stability on
both pitch and roll axes.
I have flown one high-engine aircraft (Lake Buccaneer), and
it ws a challenge compared to other planes of similar size.
I did not like.
Hi,
Airports are expensive, reinforced runways etc..
Here is an idea: instead of runways, use 10foot deep
water (or antifreeze in winter) and build planes without
landing gear and tires/brakes.
This will prevent fires on crashes, so no firetrucks needed too.
Also saves on cost/weight/maintenance of landing gear/tires,
which are prone to failure sometimes.
The saved weight could go to extra ranged and or reinforcement
required for water landing.
Also now flying over the ocean is less dangerous, so some
flights may route more direct.
Also for unplanned landings, there may be more suitable water
bodies than runways for aircraft.
On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 7:20:25 PM UTC-7, Jamie M wrote:
Hi,
Airports are expensive, reinforced runways etc..
Here is an idea: instead of runways, use 10foot deep
water (or antifreeze in winter) and build planes without
landing gear and tires/brakes.
This will prevent fires on crashes, so no firetrucks needed too.
Also saves on cost/weight/maintenance of landing gear/tires,
which are prone to failure sometimes.
The saved weight could go to extra ranged and or reinforcement
required for water landing.
Also now flying over the ocean is less dangerous, so some
flights may route more direct.
Also for unplanned landings, there may be more suitable water
bodies than runways for aircraft.
Nah, too much complexity/expense/failure modes.
Go with VTOL passenger planes. No runways needed at all.
(ahem)
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 23:03:29 -0700 (PDT), "nuny@bid.nes"
alien8752@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 7:20:25 PM UTC-7, Jamie M wrote:
Hi,
Airports are expensive, reinforced runways etc..
Here is an idea: instead of runways, use 10foot deep
water (or antifreeze in winter) and build planes without
landing gear and tires/brakes.
This will prevent fires on crashes, so no firetrucks needed too.
Also saves on cost/weight/maintenance of landing gear/tires,
which are prone to failure sometimes.
The saved weight could go to extra ranged and or reinforcement
required for water landing.
Also now flying over the ocean is less dangerous, so some
flights may route more direct.
Also for unplanned landings, there may be more suitable water
bodies than runways for aircraft.
Nah, too much complexity/expense/failure modes.
Go with VTOL passenger planes. No runways needed at all.
(ahem)
Just a *little* more fuel, less lift capacity, lower reliability, and
*slightly* higher operating costs. Yeah, that'll work. Airlines are
rolling in cash.
On 2019-07-12 9:53 a.m., Jamie M wrote:
On 2019-07-12 4:46 a.m., sroberts6328@gmail.com wrote:
I suggested antifreeze, which could also deice
the airplanes, but maybe a better solution such as
recessed runways to have geothermal heating effects,
with low sloped ramps at the ends as well as possibly
impact resistant small rubber/plastic hollow balls that
float on the water for a thermal insulation layer.
The floating hollow plastic balls are a bad idea as they
would not work with either flowing water or high speed
take off. So antifreeze/saltwater and geothermal heating,
as long as the antifreeze wasn't too viscous for taking off.
On 2019-07-15 7:50 p.m., krw@notreal.com wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 23:03:29 -0700 (PDT), "nuny@bid.nes"
alien8752@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 7:20:25 PM UTC-7, Jamie M wrote:
Hi,
Airports are expensive, reinforced runways etc..
Here is an idea: instead of runways, use 10foot deep
water (or antifreeze in winter) and build planes without
landing gear and tires/brakes.
This will prevent fires on crashes, so no firetrucks needed too.
Also saves on cost/weight/maintenance of landing gear/tires,
which are prone to failure sometimes.
The saved weight could go to extra ranged and or reinforcement
required for water landing.
Also now flying over the ocean is less dangerous, so some
flights may route more direct.
Also for unplanned landings, there may be more suitable water
bodies than runways for aircraft.
Nah, too much complexity/expense/failure modes.
Go with VTOL passenger planes. No runways needed at all.
(ahem)
Just a *little* more fuel, less lift capacity, lower reliability, and
*slightly* higher operating costs. Yeah, that'll work. Airlines are
rolling in cash.
It looks like airbus is already working on a new jet concept that will
work for water landings quite easily. The wing is on top and they use
hybrid electric fans, so it could more easily be made fairly immune to
water/salt, as there is no jet engine combustion chamber to rust etc.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/airlines/a28451260/airbus-concept-plane/
Also the battery could be a "flow battery" and the jets could refuel
while landing/taking off by scooping up some of the liquid runway.
The discharged flow battery liquids can be dumped by the planes
when they land at the end up of the runway to be recharged.
Yeah, another of Popular Mechanic's great prognostications. KeepHere is an old idea of floating airports, unfortunately they didn't
realize they can land right in the water instead:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/airlines/a28576498/nasa-jetport-lake-erie/
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 22:32:19 -0700, Jamie M <jmorken@shaw.ca> wrote:
On 2019-07-15 7:50 p.m., krw@notreal.com wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 23:03:29 -0700 (PDT), "nuny@bid.nes"
alien8752@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 7:20:25 PM UTC-7, Jamie M wrote:
Hi,
Airports are expensive, reinforced runways etc..
Here is an idea: instead of runways, use 10foot deep
water (or antifreeze in winter) and build planes without
landing gear and tires/brakes.
This will prevent fires on crashes, so no firetrucks needed too.
Also saves on cost/weight/maintenance of landing gear/tires,
which are prone to failure sometimes.
The saved weight could go to extra ranged and or reinforcement
required for water landing.
Also now flying over the ocean is less dangerous, so some
flights may route more direct.
Also for unplanned landings, there may be more suitable water
bodies than runways for aircraft.
Nah, too much complexity/expense/failure modes.
Go with VTOL passenger planes. No runways needed at all.
(ahem)
Just a *little* more fuel, less lift capacity, lower reliability, and
*slightly* higher operating costs. Yeah, that'll work. Airlines are
rolling in cash.
It looks like airbus is already working on a new jet concept that will
work for water landings quite easily. The wing is on top and they use
hybrid electric fans, so it could more easily be made fairly immune to
water/salt, as there is no jet engine combustion chamber to rust etc.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/airlines/a28451260/airbus-concept-plane/
Yeah, Popular mechanics. There's a top-notch technical journal with a
long history of predicting the future.
Also the battery could be a "flow battery" and the jets could refuel
while landing/taking off by scooping up some of the liquid runway.
The discharged flow battery liquids can be dumped by the planes
when they land at the end up of the runway to be recharged.
You're nuts.
Here is an old idea of floating airports, unfortunately they didn't
realize they can land right in the water instead:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/airlines/a28576498/nasa-jetport-lake-erie/
Yeah, another of Popular Mechanic's great prognostications. Keep
believing in the tooth fairy, moron.
On Friday, 12 July 2019 18:24:44 UTC+1, Jamie M wrote:
On 2019-07-12 9:53 a.m., Jamie M wrote:
On 2019-07-12 4:46 a.m., sroberts6328@gmail.com wrote:
I suggested antifreeze, which could also deice
the airplanes, but maybe a better solution such as
recessed runways to have geothermal heating effects,
with low sloped ramps at the ends as well as possibly
impact resistant small rubber/plastic hollow balls that
float on the water for a thermal insulation layer.
The floating hollow plastic balls are a bad idea as they
would not work with either flowing water or high speed
take off. So antifreeze/saltwater and geothermal heating,
as long as the antifreeze wasn't too viscous for taking off.
Saltwater on thin ali aircraft... a match made to descend from heaven.
NT
On 2019-08-03 9:27 a.m., krw@notreal.com wrote:
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 22:32:19 -0700, Jamie M <jmorken@shaw.ca> wrote:
On 2019-07-15 7:50 p.m., krw@notreal.com wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 23:03:29 -0700 (PDT), "nuny@bid.nes"
alien8752@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 7:20:25 PM UTC-7, Jamie M wrote:
Hi,
Airports are expensive, reinforced runways etc..
Here is an idea: instead of runways, use 10foot deep
water (or antifreeze in winter) and build planes without
landing gear and tires/brakes.
This will prevent fires on crashes, so no firetrucks needed too.
Also saves on cost/weight/maintenance of landing gear/tires,
which are prone to failure sometimes.
The saved weight could go to extra ranged and or reinforcement
required for water landing.
Also now flying over the ocean is less dangerous, so some
flights may route more direct.
Also for unplanned landings, there may be more suitable water
bodies than runways for aircraft.
Nah, too much complexity/expense/failure modes.
Go with VTOL passenger planes. No runways needed at all.
(ahem)
Just a *little* more fuel, less lift capacity, lower reliability, and
*slightly* higher operating costs. Yeah, that'll work. Airlines are
rolling in cash.
It looks like airbus is already working on a new jet concept that will
work for water landings quite easily. The wing is on top and they use
hybrid electric fans, so it could more easily be made fairly immune to
water/salt, as there is no jet engine combustion chamber to rust etc.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/airlines/a28451260/airbus-concept-plane/
Yeah, Popular mechanics. There's a top-notch technical journal with a
long history of predicting the future.
Also the battery could be a "flow battery" and the jets could refuel
while landing/taking off by scooping up some of the liquid runway.
The discharged flow battery liquids can be dumped by the planes
when they land at the end up of the runway to be recharged.
You're nuts.
Hi,
I guess if you can't think laterally the idea would seem insane,
however consider how batteries are being considered for grid
storage of energy, and also how flow batteries are one of the
most economical large scale types of batteries. Why not use
the airport as a giant flow battery for the nearby city as well
as for aircraft? The liquids used could be selected for energy
density as well as freezing point.
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 17:42:15 -0700, Jamie M <jmorken@shaw.ca> wrote:
On 2019-08-03 9:27 a.m., krw@notreal.com wrote:
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 22:32:19 -0700, Jamie M <jmorken@shaw.ca> wrote:
On 2019-07-15 7:50 p.m., krw@notreal.com wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 23:03:29 -0700 (PDT), "nuny@bid.nes"
alien8752@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 7:20:25 PM UTC-7, Jamie M wrote:
Hi,
Airports are expensive, reinforced runways etc..
Here is an idea: instead of runways, use 10foot deep
water (or antifreeze in winter) and build planes without
landing gear and tires/brakes.
This will prevent fires on crashes, so no firetrucks needed too.
Also saves on cost/weight/maintenance of landing gear/tires,
which are prone to failure sometimes.
The saved weight could go to extra ranged and or reinforcement
required for water landing.
Also now flying over the ocean is less dangerous, so some
flights may route more direct.
Also for unplanned landings, there may be more suitable water
bodies than runways for aircraft.
Nah, too much complexity/expense/failure modes.
Go with VTOL passenger planes. No runways needed at all.
(ahem)
Just a *little* more fuel, less lift capacity, lower reliability, and
*slightly* higher operating costs. Yeah, that'll work. Airlines are
rolling in cash.
It looks like airbus is already working on a new jet concept that will
work for water landings quite easily. The wing is on top and they use
hybrid electric fans, so it could more easily be made fairly immune to
water/salt, as there is no jet engine combustion chamber to rust etc.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/airlines/a28451260/airbus-concept-plane/
Yeah, Popular mechanics. There's a top-notch technical journal with a
long history of predicting the future.
Also the battery could be a "flow battery" and the jets could refuel
while landing/taking off by scooping up some of the liquid runway.
The discharged flow battery liquids can be dumped by the planes
when they land at the end up of the runway to be recharged.
You're nuts.
Hi,
I guess if you can't think laterally the idea would seem insane,
No, moron, it only seems insane because IT IS insane.
however consider how batteries are being considered for grid
storage of energy, and also how flow batteries are one of the
most economical large scale types of batteries. Why not use
the airport as a giant flow battery for the nearby city as well
as for aircraft? The liquids used could be selected for energy
density as well as freezing point.
Idiot.
On 2019-08-03 9:27 a.m., krw@notreal.com wrote:
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 22:32:19 -0700, Jamie M <jmorken@shaw.ca> wrote:
Also the battery could be a "flow battery" and the jets could refuel
while landing/taking off by scooping up some of the liquid runway.
The discharged flow battery liquids can be dumped by the planes
when they land at the end up of the runway to be recharged.
You're nuts.
Hi,
I guess if you can't think laterally the idea would seem insane,
however consider how batteries are being considered for grid
storage of energy,
and also how flow batteries are one of the
most economical large scale types of batteries. Why not use
the airport as a giant flow battery for the nearby city as well
as for aircraft? The liquids used could be selected for energy
density as well as freezing point.
On Sunday, 4 August 2019 01:42:17 UTC+1, Jamie M wrote:
On 2019-08-03 9:27 a.m., krw@notreal.com wrote:
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 22:32:19 -0700, Jamie M <jmorken@shaw.ca> wrote:
Also the battery could be a "flow battery" and the jets could refuel
while landing/taking off by scooping up some of the liquid runway.
The discharged flow battery liquids can be dumped by the planes
when they land at the end up of the runway to be recharged.
You're nuts.
Hi,
I guess if you can't think laterally the idea would seem insane,
however consider how batteries are being considered for grid
storage of energy,
not by sensible people, unless they're optimistic about profiting from it
and also how flow batteries are one of the
most economical large scale types of batteries. Why not use
the airport as a giant flow battery for the nearby city as well
as for aircraft? The liquids used could be selected for energy
density as well as freezing point.
why don't you answer that yourself, it's not a hard question.
On 2019-08-04 1:17 a.m., tabbypurr wrote:
On Sunday, 4 August 2019 01:42:17 UTC+1, Jamie M wrote:
On 2019-08-03 9:27 a.m., krw@notreal.com wrote:
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 22:32:19 -0700, Jamie M <jmorken@shaw.ca> wrote:
Also the battery could be a "flow battery" and the jets could refuel
while landing/taking off by scooping up some of the liquid runway.
The discharged flow battery liquids can be dumped by the planes
when they land at the end up of the runway to be recharged.
You're nuts.
Hi,
I guess if you can't think laterally the idea would seem insane,
however consider how batteries are being considered for grid
storage of energy,
not by sensible people, unless they're optimistic about profiting from it
and also how flow batteries are one of the
most economical large scale types of batteries. Why not use
the airport as a giant flow battery for the nearby city as well
as for aircraft? The liquids used could be selected for energy
density as well as freezing point.
why don't you answer that yourself, it's not a hard question.
I guess you are referring to having an uncovered airport sized
pool of reactive and likely toxic chemicals.
On Sunday, 4 August 2019 18:56:05 UTC+1, Jamie M wrote:
On 2019-08-04 1:17 a.m., tabbypurr wrote:
On Sunday, 4 August 2019 01:42:17 UTC+1, Jamie M wrote:
On 2019-08-03 9:27 a.m., krw@notreal.com wrote:
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 22:32:19 -0700, Jamie M <jmorken@shaw.ca> wrote:
Also the battery could be a "flow battery" and the jets could refuel
while landing/taking off by scooping up some of the liquid runway.
The discharged flow battery liquids can be dumped by the planes
when they land at the end up of the runway to be recharged.
You're nuts.
Hi,
I guess if you can't think laterally the idea would seem insane,
however consider how batteries are being considered for grid
storage of energy,
not by sensible people, unless they're optimistic about profiting from it
and also how flow batteries are one of the
most economical large scale types of batteries. Why not use
the airport as a giant flow battery for the nearby city as well
as for aircraft? The liquids used could be selected for energy
density as well as freezing point.
why don't you answer that yourself, it's not a hard question.
I guess you are referring to having an uncovered airport sized
pool of reactive and likely toxic chemicals.
not me
You work for the EPA?
not me. Not Jamie either I'd bet.