Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[05omegav6]

Wasn't very economical either iirc... took off with a full fuel load and still didn't get half way without running out

Joking aside, I'm not sure that a 100+ ton glider would be more efficient, although the Airbus did have a four hundred or so knot speed advantage when the lights went out

As for the nuclear powered flying car, I can see that being banned from sale in certain parts of the middle east, indian subcontinent and certain parts of Alabama 

[Kevin Wood]

Weight isn't necessarily a problem other than getting it airborne, as weight times altitude is energy. In fact, gliders carry water ballast to increase their weight, which improves their glide performance.

What will tend to be a problem is keeping the wing loading low, as that's what makes a glider efficient. To get a 60:1 glide angle on a glider weighing, say, 700 Kg, you are already above a 20m wing span. 100 tonnes is going to get pretty unwieldy.

[aaronjb]

3km wingspan? Sounds feasible..

[05omegav6]

3km wingspan? Sounds feasible..

Boris might need to rethink his island in order to land the Humber bridge sideways...

[Kevin Wood]

3km wingspan? Sounds feasible..

Boris might need to rethink his island in order to land the Humber bridge sideways...

No. I'm sure he'll tell you that, despite what everyone else* says, it's a great solution.

*- some of whom might know the first thing about designing airports