Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Wed Jul 02, 2025 1:16 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific Luftwaffe Resource Center
When Hollywood Ruled The Skies - Volumes 1 through 4 by Bruce Oriss


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2005 3:44 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 9:08 pm
Posts: 1437
Hey guys:

I was doing some thinking, uh oh... Anyway, I was thinking, "Is it possible to create a wingless aircraft that uses an anti-gravity device"?

I believe we already have the technology to do it, but unfortunately it would require nuclear power. My thoughts are creating a huge high RPM nuclear powered gyro which would create a reaction force to the aircraft's weight. Is it possible? Why or why not?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2005 4:42 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 9:08 pm
Posts: 1437
I also suppose another option would be some kind of nuclear powered jet engine which would run the compressor section off of the nuclear power plant, and use radiation instead of combustion to heat and expand the exhaust air.

I think these designs are plausible, but would require some serious politics to allow! Also, they would have to be huge aircraft and engines.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2005 5:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 3:32 pm
Posts: 8
Hi

How about development on the Coanda Effect

For the model:

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/repcotst.htm

For the military applications

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:f3_x ... t%22&hl=en

Regards
Ross

_________________
I can do it well, cheap and quick. But you only get two. You choose which two.. Red Adair


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2005 3:50 pm 
Offline
Been here a long time
Been here a long time

Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am
Posts: 11324
HarvardIV wrote:
I also suppose another option would be some kind of nuclear powered jet engine which would run the compressor section off of the nuclear power plant, and use radiation instead of combustion to heat and expand the exhaust air.
It has already been done. The exhaust leaves a significant amount of fallout.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2005 4:11 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 9:08 pm
Posts: 1437
Hi BDK:

I don't think it would if you ran the compressor section off of the reactor. In fact it would be very clean. However if you ran radioactive particles through the combustion cycle, then that would cause pollution.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2005 10:08 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 4:43 pm
Posts: 7501
Location: northern ohio
does project aurora raise a few eyebrows???? probably with big brother lurkers on the site!!! :finga: here's to ya guys!!! regards, tom

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2005 10:41 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 9:08 pm
Posts: 1437
Tom Wrote:

Quote:
does project aurora raise a few eyebrows????


Yes, a friend of my dad, ex-Navy told me in 1986 that he saw a split second photo news leak of the stealth fighter and assured some friends and me of its existence. 3 yrs before it was officially released in 1989.

I asked him at the time "How can you be sure"? He said," I know what I saw".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2005 10:57 pm 
Offline
Been here a long time
Been here a long time

Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am
Posts: 11324
HarvardIV wrote:
I don't think it would if you ran the compressor section off of the reactor. In fact it would be very clean. However if you ran radioactive particles through the combustion cycle, then that would cause pollution.
What combustion cycle? What compressor section? Are you making a nuclear turbofan????


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2005 11:10 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 8:41 pm
Posts: 1469
Location: North Texas
A nuke powered jet turbine has already been tried and abandoned. The first prototype engine weighed in somewhere in excess of 89 tons and filled something like 144,000 cubic feet. The one megawatt reactor flown in the B-36 itself took up about the same volume as a couple of Suburbans.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 31, 2005 12:21 am 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 9:08 pm
Posts: 1437
Quote:
What combustion cycle? What compressor section? Are you making a nuclear turbofan????


Yeah; me and the Col., called Moxie turbine.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group