Nuclear powered commercial aircraft.

ronbyrne2005

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5024190.ece

dogmatix

I would take this article with a pinch of salt. The article straight away loses credibility by describing the B36 as a jet powered bomber when it was actually a piston engined aircraft (with jet assist). The B36 carried a test reactor but it did not power the engines.

So how exactly would a reactor power an engine for flight? I can see it driving a propeller but I can't imagine how a jet engine could be powered by a reactor. Any engineers out there point this out?

FOGOFUNK

No idea, maybe pressurised steam directed through turbine blades? Its a bit far out, bio fuels and hydrogen are a better bet.

Fabio

dogmatix wrote: »

I would take this article with a pinch of salt. The article straight away loses credibility by describing the B36 as a jet powered bomber when it was actually a piston engined aircraft (with jet assist). The B36 carried a test reactor but it did not power the engines.

So how exactly would a reactor power an engine for flight? I can see it driving a propeller but I can't imagine how a jet engine could be powered by a reactor. Any engineers out there point this out?

It was done before by the US in the fifties I think...

The heat from the reactor is actually able to get a jet going, much like the heated air that goes through s jet once the fuel and air mixture is ignited. The problem with the reactor is how to keep that air radiation free because it'll be leaving the engine, like a normal jet.

There was a method to do this but it meant that a rectangular piing system would go through the reactor while another sepearte piping would taker that heat (thermal trasfer, no actual contact) and put it through the jet engine. This means more plumbing and at the time there was simply too much weight and the project was cancelled.

Biro

Fabio wrote: »

It was done before by the US in the fifties I think...

The heat from the reactor is actually able to get a jet going, much like the heated air that goes through s jet once the fuel and air mixture is ignited. The problem with the reactor is how to keep that air radiation free because it'll be leaving the engine, like a normal jet.

There was a method to do this but it meant that a rectangular piing system would go through the reactor while another sepearte piping would taker that heat (thermal trasfer, no actual contact) and put it through the jet engine. This means more plumbing and at the time there was simply too much weight and the project was cancelled.

Yes, there was a program on it recently I was watching. There was a 2nd less common method of doing it too, don't remember how that worked though. In any case the sealing from the radioactivity was insufficient to say the least, and I think lots of those pilots died of cancer. They did have one plane stay in the air for 2 days or something, didn't they? Till the pilots ran out of food.
In any case, what happens if there's a crash?

Run_to_da_hills

FOGOFUNK wrote: »

No idea, maybe pressurised steam directed through turbine blades? Its a bit far out, bio fuels and hydrogen are a better bet.

Hydrogen :eek:

dogmatix

"Oh the humanity!" - sorry, could not resist throwing in that memorable line on seeing that photo.

I don't imagine that hydrogen would be that much more dangerous to use then modern kerosene. The big problem with hydrogen as a fuel is keeping it liquid - you either keep it under tremendous pressures or supercool it. Either way storing it on an aircraft will present big engineering difficulties.

As for nuclear powered planes - just can't ever see it happening unless and until they finally crack controlled nuclear fusion and they have been promising that "within 25 years" since the late 50's.

JupiterKid

When the USA and Russia were obsessed with nuclear weapons and nuclear fission technology back in the 1950s, they designed and built some experimental nuclear powered airplanes. The bigggest difficulties were the weight of the reactors, the need to make them light enough to be able to fly but the other problem of developing adequate shielding from radiation.

The Russians flew some nuclear airplanes, but there was not enough shielding from radiation from the onboard reactor and most of the pilots died soon after from cancer.:(

I think nuclear airplanes are a dangerous and futile idea. The danger from radiation, the weight of reactors and the risk to the public if they crash causing a fallout disaster are just too great. There is no way the public would support these airplanes, let alone the environmenalists.

Hydrogen seems to be the way ahead.

cml387

For a truly frightening example of a nuclear powered flying weapon, search for "project Pluto" on Wikkipedia .

FOGOFUNK

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Hydrogen :eek:

:eek::pac: