Jump to content

Is it time to develop atomic/nuclear engines for prop aircraft?


On the way

Recommended Posts

With the advent of electric engines for prop aircraft, light the re-engining of DH Beavers with Magni500 electric engines,  it should be time to look at a small and lightweight nuclear reactor to power these electric engines, rather then batteries. Something simple to operate and maintain. Something jetttisonable if anything goes wrong. I read somewhere that the world's smallest nuclear reactor weight under 5kg. Not sure what the power yield on that was. The range on the aircraft would be phenomenal vs a battery powered electric aircraft. Any studies out there looking into this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect cooling a reactor achieving the needed power density would be incredibly difficult, with the added problem of the weight of shielding if you wanted anyone to fly on it. All of this is before you consider any safety or political issues that might arise from flying reactors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, On the way said:

With the advent of electric engines for prop aircraft, light the re-engining of DH Beavers with Magni500 electric engines,  it should be time to look at a small and lightweight nuclear reactor to power these electric engines, rather then batteries. Something simple to operate and maintain. Something jetttisonable if anything goes wrong. I read somewhere that the world's smallest nuclear reactor weight under 5kg. Not sure what the power yield on that was. The range on the aircraft would be phenomenal vs a battery powered electric aircraft. Any studies out there looking into this?

There are Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators, but they present a series of quite major drawbacks when used in Earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The three horrible, terrible, inherently bad ideas in aerospace vehicle design:

  1. Nuclear air-breathing propulsion for aircraft
  2. Single stage-to-orbit launch vehicle
  3. Flying cars aka roadable airplanes

These ideas seem to be irresistable and yet they never work or work well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flying cars could work... until the moment that people realize they need full pilot license even if they want to only drive them on the ground. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Kenneth P. Katz said:

The three horrible, terrible, inherently bad ideas in aerospace vehicle design:

  1. Nuclear air-breathing propulsion for aircraft
  2. Single stage-to-orbit launch vehicle
  3. Flying cars aka roadable airplanes

These ideas seem to be irresistable and yet they never work or work well.

Hopefully, we can count on Elon Musk building a Nuclear air-breathing, single stage-to-orbit launch vehicle that also is a flying car.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, bojan said:

Flying cars could work... until the moment that people realize they need full pilot license even if they want to only drive them on the ground. :D

It may not be so farfetched. Airlines are only a step or two away from being flown entirely autonomously. Autonomous driving is being introduced in cars as well. A flying car probably won't hand over the flying to the driver. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trains could be operated autonomously since decades ago, especially in high traffic lines, and subway trains without driver cab are not so uncommon nowadays. But the problem of driving a train is simpler, as steering is not necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, futon said:

It may not be so farfetched. Airlines are only a step or two away from being flown entirely autonomously. Autonomous driving is being introduced in cars as well. A flying car probably won't hand over the flying to the driver. 

Cars are way less problematic to fully automate then planes. Plus there is a marketing and liability issue, none cares for one "fender bender" per day in any city, while any news of problem with aircraft are big news and potential company killing lawsuits (unless you bribe off aviation authorities like Boeing did...). Technology is not there and will not be there for a while to have fully autonomous planes w/o pilot transporting people.

Another thing, cheapest thing about aircraft is a pilot, no matter how good his salary is and how much his training costs. Because for every pilot you need to have number of various maintenance personal running checks daily. And those people who can afford it tend to hire their own drivers anyway, leaving only real enthusiasts to bother with piloting. So not even market is there ATM.

 

 

Edited by bojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bojan said:

Cars are way less problematic to fully automate then planes. Plus there is a marketing and liability issue, none cares for one "fender bender" per day in any city, while any news of problem with aircraft are big news and potential company killing lawsuits (unless you bribe off aviation authorities like Boeing did...). Technology is not there and will not be there for a while to have fully autonomous planes w/o pilot transporting people.

Another thing, cheapest thing about aircraft is a pilot, no matter how good his salary is and how much his training costs. Because for every pilot you need to have number of various maintenance personal running checks daily. And those people who can afford it tend to hire their own drivers anyway, leaving only real enthusiasts to bother with piloting. So not even market is there ATM.

 

 

They are at best a sort of compromised light helicopter. And there isn't much of a market for private helicopter transport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
On 2/28/2022 at 9:58 PM, Kenneth P. Katz said:

The three horrible, terrible, inherently bad ideas in aerospace vehicle design:

  1. Nuclear air-breathing propulsion for aircraft
  2. Single stage-to-orbit launch vehicle
  3. Flying cars aka roadable airplanes

Where is my jet pack?

I should have had a jet pack by 2001. Here it is mid 2022 and still NO JET PACK!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/17/2022 at 7:08 AM, On the way said:

 Something jetttisonable if anything goes wrong.

😲

What possible good would that do?  It would simply change the trajectory of the falling power plant by separating it from the air frame.

Choosing between having an entire nuc aircraft falling on my house or just its nuclear plant doesn't really give me much choice, does it?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...