h a l f b a k e r yBunned. James Bunned.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
login
|
|
|
The plane coordinates its slow approach, then once in the net, parachutes help slow down the whole thing, and its pulled down by lightweight but strong retrieval lines.
The retrieval lines themselves could be pulled up and attached using even lighter cables.
Makes air-strips obsolete.
A
similar process but reversed is used for takeoff, high in the air.
A second tethered balloon-base is pulled to a distance with cables holding the plane's net. balloon2 creates the shape of a parachute, so that air resistance will assist in holding the falling plane when it will be swung under it.
The plane is then released from balloon1 causing the plane to swing down and under balloon 2 and launch into the air with the motor's assistance.
Worse comes to worse they are high enough to recover from the fall by gliding.
Please watch the imaginary video of this idea in your mind. (Part 1: Landing plane, Part 2: Swing launch. Part 3 bloopers during the first experiments)
airplane lifting hot air balloon
Airplane_20lifting_20hot_20air_20balloon
[Voice, Sep 24 2026]
|
| |
It's going to be quite a balloon. For reference the Hindenburg was about 225 tons total mass at lift off. That's everything. It's lift capacity was maybe 100 tons - 125 tons of Hindenburg, 100 tons of passengers crew cargo etc. A loaded Boeing 747 is about 500 tons. So you'll need something 5x capacity and therefore size of the Hindenburg. It will certainly make the airport easy to find from a distance. |
|
| |
So the idea is that the plane never touches the ground? |
|
| |
I think the idea is 1. catch the plane with the balloon. 2. winch the balloon + plane down to the ground replace passengers/cargo 3. winch the plane back up and launch the plane by a scary sounding mechanism. |
|
| |
A less bonkers variant might be to have a plane without landing gear, and have some moving platform on the runway catch it. The landing gear on a large plane can be the size of a 4-bedroom house, and it requires large holes to be cut in the airframe. Computers do the landing in foggy weather already. |
|
| |
What happens if you have to land somewhere else? If you are landing on water or in some empty bit of the countryside you will probably go for a belly landing without the landing gear anyway. |
|
| |
How about an automatic catcher. Below it, a layer of water to land in in case the catcher fails. Some of the landing gear mass can be used to better prepare for water landings, improving survivability in such emergencies as well |
|
| |
There is an episode of Thunderbirds where a giant plane is caught on the runway by a set of moving wheels. |
|
| |
A tube is a strong, stiff structure. It gets weaker if you put holes in it. Get rid of the landing gear, and the airframe will be stronger because it no longer has the hole to let the wheels out, even if you had no weight saving because you replaced the load with something else. The catcher can spread the load over the body and wings so you avoid the point stresses when landing. |
|
| |
Reluctantly [-] : I left this for a day or two as sometimes a bonkers idea leads in an interesting direction. Maybe I should post Aircraft with No Landing Gear as a separate idea. |
|
| |
//A less bonkers variant might be to have a plane without landing gear,// |
|
| |
You still have to support the weight of the aircraft somehow. Without the landing gear serving as a way of passing the force to internal load bearing structures, such as the wing spar, then you're left taking the load on the skin. You'd have to reinforce the skin and very carefully cradle it, possibly in a fluid. You've then made a flying boat and those are much heavier and less aerodynamic than conventional aircraft. |
|
| |
//Computers do the landing in foggy weather already.// |
|
| |
A Cat 3 autoland CAN be done in foggy weather IF all the right airport equipment is present and functioning. But the wrong gust of wind and the autopilot will still hand over to the human to sort out the problem. |
|
| |
//Some of the landing gear mass can be used to better prepare for water landings, improving survivability in such emergencies as well// In modern commercial airliners, water landings are incredibly hard and almost always result in destruction of the aircraft. At typical landing speeds (120-180 knots) a 1m wave might as well be a 1m concrete wall. Usually one of the underwing engines will catch before the other and cartwheel the aircraft. Flat land WITH landing gear is far preferable. There's a reason why the Miracle on the Hudson was called a miracle. |
|
| |
I think there's a solid argument for removing life jackets from commercial aircraft and using the weight budged for something else - smoke hoods would be my choice. |
|
| |
Maybe explosive bolts attaching the underwing engines could allow them to be jettisoned just before impact on the water surface? |
|
| |