Why enlarge Heathrow Airport when you can make it smaller?

[fisicx]

The bulk of braking of aircrafts now is done by reverse thrusters, which are fixed along the back of each wings on both sides. It is logical the body frame must be strong enough to bear the increased weight of both wings when reverse thrusters go to action and when they go to action their weight increases by many times. Let me ot requote the post of Sir Earl:

I know this thread is a wind up but you aren't doing a very good job anymore.

Thrust reversers are not fixed on the back of the wings. They are part of the engine. They weigh very little. The forces are fore and aft not vertical

There is nothing on the fuselage where you can attach your arresting system.

 

[Swisaw]

I know this thread is a wind up but you aren't doing a very good job anymore.

Thrust reversers are not fixed on the back of the wings. They are part of the engine. They weigh very little. The forces are fore and aft not vertical

There is nothing on the fuselage where you can attach your arresting system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_reversal

OK, so thrust reversers are operating directly behind jet engines. this validated my points a lot stronger. This type of thrust reversers not only add extra weight to the body frame when they go to action, they also add extra load to the engines. When you don't need them the engines become lighter and less expensive to make. Are you sure these thrust reversers weigh very little? bear in mind when they go to action they have to bear thrusts of thousands of tones, so they can weigh very little?

By the way if you are so knowledgeable please tell me what are these things behind the wings lowered downward on the first picture in the link above?

 

[johndon68]

By the way if you are so knowledgeable please tell me what are these things behind the wings lowered downward on the first picture in the link above?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileron

John

 

[Deleted member 138423]

][/COLOR]

By the way if you are so knowledgeable please tell me what are these things behind the wings lowered downward on the first picture in the link above?

They are insipient spin deflectors which basically stop the aircraft from getting out of control. The aircraft uses them a great deal especially when landing and taking off as it is most prone at these times to losing control. These devices deflect wind flow and cause greater stability.

 

[Swisaw]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileron

John

Many thanks to you and NickJ for this information.

How interesting!!! some one tried to patent this before the first aircraft flew. How did he know that and why he didn't make the first flying machine before Wright Brothers?

 

[fisicx]

...they also add extra load to the engines.

No they don't. All they do is take the normal jet efflux and point it forwards not backwards (reversing the thrust).

There is no extra load, it's same load as used when the aircraft is flying.

When you don't need them the engines become lighter and less expensive to make.

Nope. The engines still have to propel the aircraft when flying so you can't make them any lighter.

The bits pounting down at the back are the flaps. The bits outboard of the flaps are the ailerons. On top of the wings you have airbrakes and on the front you can have slats.

Can you explain wher you are going to attach you arresting system. You can put it behind the wheels as this is either a fuel tank or cargo. You can put it further back as there is nothing stong enough to attach it.

 

[Subbynet]

Wait a minute!!! with my braking system you can use almost the same principle of building Eiffel Tower to build body frame of a plane. In the case of Eiffel Tower, the way it is built
helps it to carry a lot of weight while it uses less material, less weight, to keep the frame of the tower very light.

Wake up man, they've already done it... Heck even Airships were using that method of construction around the same time they finished building the Eiffel Tower. This system has been in use for 100 plus years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuselage

The bulk of braking of aircrafts now is done by reverse thrusters, which are fixed along the back of each wings on both sides. It is logical the body frame must be strong enough to bear the increased weight of both wings when reverse thrusters go to action and when they go to action their weight increases by many times.

No, the reverse thrusters are not fixed along the back of each wing, they're part of the engine. I have already said this Swisaw, two or three times now in fact. What you're referring to are the air brakes, spoilers and slats!

The body is not the same strength throughout its length. The part the wings attach to is substantially stronger than the rest of it.

Let me ot requote the post of Sir Earl:

150mph=67m/second
500tone=500,000kg

At this speed the weight, momentum, of wings when reverse thrusters go to action increases by 500k kg x 67m/second. So the wings must have a lot of extra strength over flying strength to bear the extra braking stress, strength.

You're really showing your naivety if you think the aircraft braking puts any extra strain on the system than flying itself.

Of course the wings are extremely strong, they have to bare all the weight of the aircraft when its flying. They're designed to be stronger than they'd need to be as a safety precaution. (Around 150%) Braking by contrast never comes anywhere near this level.

Have a look on Youtube for Wing Stress Test.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sA9Kato1CxA

With my my system, you may need to redesign body frame but you don't need add extra weight to it. My system behaves exactly like reverse thrusters. So now instead of bearing the increased brake stress of wings, the body frame bears the increased brake stress of my system. As the aircraft no longer needs the use of reverse thrusters, it gets red of them and needs lighter wings. Hypothetically the wings can become lighter by 67 times. But this is only a hypothesis. Nevertheless it should become lighter at least by two or three times. This in addition of getting rid of the weight of reverse thrusters.

This paragraph is so wrong I don't know where to begin. Its like debating with someone that doesn't understand the very basics of engineering. Its clearly obvious that you don't know the first thing about the construction of a plane, and can't even point out its component parts. (Even after its been pointed out to you numerous times!)

Conceptually hook arrestors are not new but technically mine is different. It is a major improvement. Additionally the recovery of brake power is completely new as stated before by mikeJ.

You cannot recover the brake power! Something for nothing doesn't exist, it must be used somewhere else, and that would be on the parts of your system.

Any power you generate would be eclipsed by the power required to make the arrestor ropes and springs used in your system. Even on Aircraft carriers the rope used to catch the plane are replaced every 100 or so landings, on a commercial airport with the number of landings and type of planes used they'd be replacing them every single day.

Heathrow has a plane landing every minute. So if the ropes need replacing every 100 landings, that would mean roughly every 2 hours you'd need to close the runway and replace the ropes.

I know you probably spent a long time writing up your idea and producing all the drawings, but the most successful inventors know when to let an idea die.

 

[Swisaw]

No they don't. All they do is take the normal jet efflux and point it forwards not backwards (reversing the thrust).

There is no extra load, it's same load as used when the aircraft is flying.

Obviously they take a very heavy load when they go to action, reverse thrusting. If we use the 500tone jumbo of Sir Earl post they will face a reverse thrust against a momentum of 500k x 67 = 33.5Billion Newton. To face this tremendous force you must have some thing very strong. The only way to strengthen them for this large force is by increasing their weight. Bearing in mind that their circular shape does help to reduce their weight. Nevertheless they are still going to be very heavy unless made from special light materials, which we don't know about.

Can you explain wher you are going to attach you arresting system. You can put it behind the wheels as this is either a fuel tank or cargo. You can put it further back as there is nothing stong enough to attach it.

You can not use the existing planes. You have to redesign new planes to cater for my arresting system. I assume it is going to be a point at the back on an imaginary line across centre of gravity of the plane.

 

[johndon68]

Nevertheless they are still going to be very heavy

Compared to the overall weight of an engine the thrust reversers are very light indeed...

In any event, larger airliners don't tend to use the type of thrust reversers shown earlier in the thread, they use Cascade Reversers which, at a very simple level, involve the entire cowling of the engine sliding back as shown here: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/319708/ which means that, apart from the mechanism to reverse the cowling, there is a very small weight penalty.

John

 

[johndon68]

I assume it is going to be a point at the back on an imaginary line across centre of gravity of the plane.

Not even close - have a look at carrier based aircraft and you see that the hook is as far back down the fuselage as possible (in fact on some aircraft, the hook itself, actually goes beyond the 'end' of the aircraft).

To put it at the centre of gravity would mean that you have no chance of catching the wire...

John

 

[Deleted member 138423]

Swisaw, you are aware of Newton's 6th Law which states 'That all masses subject to gravitational momentum will be directly affected by the opposing force determined against them' means that even if the reversers worked in close conjunction to the braking kinetics, there is a distinct possibility that the airliner would not be able to stop in time to fulfil this proportional momentum?

 

[Swisaw]

Wake up man, they've already done it... Heck even Airships were using that method of construction around the same time they finished building the Eiffel Tower. This system has been in use for 100 plus years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuselage



No, the reverse thrusters are not fixed along the back of each wing, they're part of the engine. I have already said this Swisaw, two or three times now in fact. What you're referring to are the air brakes, spoilers and slats!

The body is not the same strength throughout its length. The part the wings attach to is substantially stronger than the rest of it.



You're really showing your naivety if you think the aircraft braking puts any extra strain on the system than flying itself.

Of course the wings are extremely strong, they have to bare all the weight of the aircraft when its flying. They're designed to be stronger than they'd need to be as a safety precaution. (Around 150%) Braking by contrast never comes anywhere near this level.

Have a look on Youtube for Wing Stress Test.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sA9Kato1CxA

This paragraph is so wrong I don't know where to begin. Its like debating with someone that doesn't understand the very basics of engineering. Its clearly obvious that you don't know the first thing about the construction of a plane, and can't even point out its component parts. (Even after its been pointed out to you numerous times!)

If brake stress on wings, because of thrust reversers and because wheel brakes separately, is not higher than the flying stress on the wings, you can not reduce the weight of the wings when you get rid of thrust reversers and wheel brakes because of the use of my system. But still the plane can become lighter and cheaper to make because you remove thrust reversers and lighten wheel brakes and associated parts.

You cannot recover the brake power! Something for nothing doesn't exist, it must be used somewhere else, and that would be on the parts of your system.

Any power you generate would be eclipsed by the power required to make the arrestor ropes and springs used in your system. Even on Aircraft carriers the rope used to catch the plane are replaced every 100 or so landings, on a commercial airport with the number of landings and type of planes used they'd be replacing them every single day.

Heathrow has a plane landing every minute. So if the ropes need replacing every 100 landings, that would mean roughly every 2 hours you'd need to close the runway and replace the ropes.

I know you probably spent a long time writing up your idea and producing all the drawings, but the most successful inventors know when to let an idea die.

Already new vehicle, mainly cars, recover brake power. Some of them convert it to electrical energy and some of them store it in flywheels. In my system, it is stored as hydro-mechanical power. Look at diagram 2B, ground brake and HMB, on the link.


The question of replacing ropes must have a technical solution. I have seen a film about French navy 40 yours ago. In the film fighter jets when landed, used arrestor hooks to stop. The hook behind the jet was catching a thick wire on the ground. Both ends of the wire were fixed to some thing at each side of the runway. It was obvious the wires made from metals and metals lose their strength when each now and then the heavy wheels of planes pass over them.


Since 40 years ago, technology have leaped forward a lot. Now a lot of new materials have been created and these materials can replace metals for this purpose. This materials may never need maintenance because of the use except because of the age.

 

[johndon68]

The question of replacing ropes must have a technical solution.

If there is then the US Navy haven't been able to figure it out and they've got more carriers and landed more aircraft using a hook and wire than every other country in the world put together...

John

 

[Subbynet]

Already new vehicle, mainly cars, recover brake power. Some of them convert it to electrical energy and some of them store it in flywheels. In my system, it is stored as hydro-mechanical power. Look at diagram 2B, ground brake and HMB, on the link.

Yes but there is always a cost - that energy is never free, and most certainly never 100% efficient in conversion. If you take Formula 1 as an example, you'll notice that less than half the teams choose to use it, and the reason is the increased weight on the car. Batteries and flywheels are heavy! So the benefits of it are negligible in most cases.

There is always energy going to waste that can be captured, but its never as efficient as using the original fuel source. Another example would be that cars use around 25% of the energy provide from petrol for propulsion, the rest of it is wasted as heat. Car engines become very hot during use, and the energy to do that had to come from somewhere, but its completely wasted.

The question of replacing ropes must have a technical solution. I have seen a film about French navy 40 yours ago. In the film fighter jets when landed, used arrestor hooks to stop. The hook behind the jet was catching a thick wire on the ground. Both ends of the wire were fixed to some thing at each side of the runway. It was obvious the wires made from metals and metals lose their strength when each now and then the heavy wheels of planes pass over them.

Since 40 years ago, technology have leaped forward a lot. Now a lot of new materials have been created and these materials can replace metals for this purpose. This materials may never need maintenance because of the use except because of the age.

Even the hardest known materials in the world, like Diamond wear out, but sometimes a type of material doesn't offer the properties which would be suitable for a certain application.

One thing you can be certain is, you'll never find a material that never wears out, they'll all wear out with use, it just depends at what rate.

 

Yes but there is always a cost - that energy is never free,



.

All energy is free and can never be lost.

 

[Subbynet]

All energy is free and can never be lost.

Ha! Yes, that is true. There is as much energy in the universe today as there always has been!

If you can remove people from the process, it would also be free! If only you could stop the Government from taxing it.

 

[Swisaw]

Swisaw, you are aware of Newton's 6th Law which states 'That all masses subject to gravitational momentum will be directly affected by the opposing force determined against them' means that even if the reversers worked in close conjunction to the braking kinetics, there is a distinct possibility that the airliner would not be able to stop in time to fulfil this proportional momentum?

Frankly I don't have a clue what you are talking about.

I must congratulate you for your high intellect. Even the brains running google have not been able to write a search formula to find something like your Newton's 6th Law.

 

[Swisaw]

Not even close - have a look at carrier based aircraft and you see that the hook is as far back down the fuselage as possible (in fact on some aircraft, the hook itself, actually goes beyond the 'end' of the aircraft).

To put it at the centre of gravity would mean that you have no chance of catching the wire...

John

That is what I meant, to put the hook beyond the end of the aircraft directly against gravity centre on a parallel line with the aircraft.

 

[fisicx]

That is what I meant, to put the hook beyond the end of the aircraft directly against gravity centre on a parallel line with the aircraft.

Sigh....

There is nowhere to put it. You can't retro fit an arrestor hook. Behind the main frame there is nothing strong enough to bolt it too.

And you can't get rid of the reverse thrusters or anything else. The planes land at a lot more places than LHR and they won't be using your system.

 

[johndon68]

That is what I meant, to put the hook beyond the end of the aircraft directly against gravity centre on a parallel line with the aircraft.

You mean on the centre line of the aircraft which is not the same as the centre of gravity...

John

 

[Swisaw]

If there is then the US Navy haven't been able to figure it out and they've got more carriers and landed more aircraft using a hook and wire than every other country in the world put together...

John

Wires made from metal and metals get flattened under the wheels and lose their strength. But already you can find ropes and strings, on the market, which are a lot stronger than metals. The existing ropes and strings don't become flattened permanently under tolerable weights to lose their strength. Obviously with my system these types of ropes and strings, which can tolerate the weight of aircrafts passing over them and tolerate braking power of aircrafts, will be used.

 

[Subbynet]

Wires made from metal and metals get flattened under the wheels and lose their strength. But already you can find ropes and strings, on the market, which are a lot stronger than metals. The existing ropes and strings don't become flattened permanently under tolerable weights to lose their strength. Obviously with my system these types of ropes and strings, which can tolerate the weight of aircrafts passing over them and tolerate braking power of aircrafts, will be used.

It has nothing to do with the plane rolling over it. The metal rope is stretched until it loses its tensile strength and breaks.

Honestly, as has already been said Swisaw, the US military has a budget of over $600,000,000,000 (600 Billion! ) every YEAR, if there was a material on the market which had the right properties and better performance, they'd already be using it.

 

[Swisaw]

Yes but there is always a cost - that energy is never free, and most certainly never 100% efficient in conversion. If you take Formula 1 as an example, you'll notice that less than half the teams choose to use it, and the reason is the increased weight on the car. Batteries and flywheels are heavy! So the benefits of it are negligible in most cases.

There is always energy going to waste that can be captured, but its never as efficient as using the original fuel source. Another example would be that cars use around 25% of the energy provide from petrol for propulsion, the rest of it is wasted as heat. Car engines become very hot during use, and the energy to do that had to come from somewhere, but its completely wasted.

My system uses hydraulic system, which is over 90% efficient. My system, in this case, hardly has any cost a part from the cost of making parts. All powers recovered, stored in hydrau-mechanical Batteries on the ground.

 

[fisicx]

My system uses hydraulic system, which is over 90% efficient. My system, in this case, hardly has any cost a part from the cost of making parts. All powers recovered, stored in hydrau-mechanical Batteries on the ground.

What about installation and maintenance?

The cylinders have a limited life as will most of the components. You might be lucky and get six months use but you will be decomissioning and replacing regularly. That means closing down the runway.

And you still haven't got an aircraft that can use the thing.

It takes about 5 years to get a modification approved. Add another 5 years to carry out the mod across the whole fleet. The cost is going to millions and will only be applicable to one ariport.

 

[Subbynet]

My system uses hydraulic system, which is over 90% efficient. My system, in this case, hardly has any cost a part from the cost of making parts. All powers recovered, stored in hydrau-mechanical Batteries on the ground.

You're calculations are wrong, your hydraulics might transmit say 75%-90% efficiency but your mechanical parts will loss some of that energy.

Lets calculate it with no loss and use rough numbers for ease of sums.

1 Megajoule is equal to 1 ton moving at 100mph. So a 500 Tonne jumbo jet using your system generates around 500 Megajoules.

If your rope is 1 tonne in weight, it takes roughly roughly 6-15MJ to create steal (per kilo), so lets say 8MJ per kilo for steel, 1 Tonne = 1000 kilos = 8 Gigajoules. 1 landings every minute as we calculated earlier in the thread means 12 replacements per day at Heathrow, so that equals 96 Gigajoules energy used to create parts.

So you've created 50 Gigajoules using your recovery system, but used 96 Gigajoules.

That's rough numbers, and in reality there would be much more energy used to create the parts.

 

[Deleted member 138423]

Frankly I don't have a clue what you are talking about.

I must congratulate you for your high intellect. Even the brains running google have not been able to write a search formula to find something like your Newton's 6th Law.

Of course you don't considering it's utter nonesense! Oh, just like each and every post that you have put within this thread!!

 

[Swisaw]

What about installation and maintenance?

The cylinders have a limited life as will most of the components. You might be lucky and get six months use but you will be decomissioning and replacing regularly. That means closing down the runway.

And you still haven't got an aircraft that can use the thing.

It takes about 5 years to get a modification approved. Add another 5 years to carry out the mod across the whole fleet. The cost is going to millions and will only be applicable to one ariport.

Obviously it has installation and maintenance cost. This is something can not be achieved by an individual alone. But it can be achieved a major large company or governmental or multi national collaboration. For example each major air carrier can start experimenting with a plane made for this purpose and each airport can build a landing runway for the same purpose.

 

[Swisaw]

You're calculations are wrong, your hydraulics might transmit say 75%-90% efficiency but your mechanical parts will loss some of that energy.

Lets calculate it with no loss and use rough numbers for ease of sums.

1 Megajoule is equal to 1 ton moving at 100mph. So a 500 Tonne jumbo jet using your system generates around 500 Megajoules.

If your rope is 1 tonne in weight, it takes roughly roughly 6-15MJ to create steal (per kilo), so lets say 8MJ per kilo for steel, 1 Tonne = 1000 kilos = 8 Gigajoules. 1 landings every minute as we calculated earlier in the thread means 12 replacements per day at Heathrow, so that equals 96 Gigajoules energy used to create parts.

So you've created 50 Gigajoules using your recovery system, but used 96 Gigajoules.

That's rough numbers, and in reality there would be much more energy used to create the parts.

Let us forget about speculation about changing ropes.

Let me to give you real net energy gained from landing one of your 500tonne jumbos:


500tonne= 500k kg.
100mph=160934.4m/h=45m/second


Energy= ½ x mass x squre of speed= ½ x 500,000 x (45 x45) = 506.25Billion Joules, generated by the brake of the jumbo plane.


Energy taken by the rope= ½ x 1000 x (45/45)= 1.1Mega Joules.


So roughly each landing generates 506.25billion – 1.1million= 505.24billion joules

Obviously there aren't any planes as heavy as 500tonnes and I don't thing you need a rope of 1.00 tone.

 

[Swisaw]

You mean on the centre line of the aircraft which is not the same as the centre of gravity...

John

It has to be against the centre of gravity, which may not be at the centre line exactly.

 

Obviously there aren't any planes as heavy as 500tonnes and I don't thing you need a rope of 1.00 tone.

Really

The A380's wing is sized for a maximum take-off weight (MTOW) over 650 tonnes .

even a jumbo can be 500 tons and then there is the Antonov 225.

You is gonna need a bigger bit of string.

 

[Swisaw]

Really

The A380's wing is sized for a maximum take-off weight (MTOW) over 650 tonnes .

even a jumbo can be 500 tons and then there is the Antonov 225.

You is gonna need a bigger bit of string.

Thanks Sir Earl. Frankly I didn't believe 500tonne plane could exist.

 

[Subbynet]

I would correct you but I can't be bothered anymore. I've been reading your calculations for pages now, and every time you've put Billions where you meant Millions. Sometimes out by a factor of 100.

You're expecting me to think you understand the mathematics but you're unable to read the values on a calculator.

No offense, but unless its one of us giving you the actual units of measurement, or even the actual type of forces used, you've not had a clue.

Btw, some fully loaded Boeing 747's weigh in at between 375 and 475 tonnes - depending on the model.

I wonder how many joules it will take for you to understand this is a stupid idea. :redface:

 

[fisicx]

Your sums are all wrong.

It's not energy, it's Force you need to calculate.

F = ma.

Stopping the aircraft in a shorter distance increases the acceleration. Which means a greater breaking force not a reduced braking force.

And you still haven't explained where you are going to bolt your arrestor hook.

 

[Swisaw]

Let us forget about speculation about changing ropes.

Let me to give you real net energy gained from landing one of your 500tonne jumbos:


500tonne= 500k kg.
100mph=160934.4m/h=45m/second


Energy= ½ x mass x squre of speed= ½ x 500,000 x (45 x45) = 506.25Billion Joules, generated by the brake of the jumbo plane.



Energy taken by the rope= ½ x 1000 x (45/45)= 1.1Mega Joules.


So roughly each landing generates 506.25billion - 1.1million= 505.24billion joules

Obviously there aren't any planes as heavy as 500tonnes and I don't thing you need a rope of 1.00 tone.

Can some one please convert 505.24billion Joules to a monetary value on the basis of my last gas bill of £218.66 for 525 gas units converted to 5,831.11KWh?

 

[Swisaw]

I would correct you but I can't be bothered anymore. I've been reading your calculations for pages now, and every time you've put Billions where you meant Millions. Sometimes out by a factor of 100.

You're expecting me to think you understand the mathematics but you're unable to read the values on a calculator.

No offense, but unless its one of us giving you the actual units of measurement, or even the actual type of forces used, you've not had a clue.

Btw, some fully loaded Boeing 747's weigh in at between 375 and 475 tonnes - depending on the model.

I wonder how many joules it will take for you to understand this is a stupid idea. :redface:

I don't know where I have gone wrong in the following, please tellme, I have revised the figures many times, each time ended with the same:

500tonne= 500k kg.
100mph=160934.4m/h=45m/second


Energy= ½ x mass x squre of speed= ½ x 500,000 x (45 x45) = 506.25Billion Joules, generated by the brake of the jumbo plane.


Energay taken by the rope= ½ x 1000 x (45/45)= 1.1Mega Joules.


So roughly each landing generates 506.25billion - 1.1million= 505.24billion joules

 

[Swisaw]

Your sums are all wrong.

It's not energy, it's Force you need to calculate.

F = ma.

Stopping the aircraft in a shorter distance increases the acceleration. Which means a greater breaking force not a reduced braking force.

And you still haven't explained where you are going to bolt your arrestor hook.

He was talking about the sum of energy generated per landing. The position of arrestor hook will be determined by research and experiment.

 

[fisicx]

He was talking about the sum of energy generated per landing. The position of arrestor hook will be determined by research and experiment.

Yes, but energy is the wrong thing to use in your calculations.

The arrestor hook cannot be retro fitted to ANY commercial aircraft no matter how much research your do.

 

[johndon68]

It has to be against the centre of gravity, which may not be at the centre line exactly.

But the hook has to be at the rear of the aircraft which certainly isn't where the centre of gravity is...

John

 

[fisicx]

But the hook has to be at the rear of the aircraft which certainly isn't where the centre of gravity is...

Except of course all there is a the rear is your luggage and the pressure bulkhead.

 

[johndon68]

Except of course all there is a the rear is your luggage

Which will be splattered all over the runway as soon as the hook catches and the whole back end of the aircraft is ripped off

John