a reply to: Rob48
The effects on us are the important issue. When jets were grounded during the Icelandic volcanic eruption the quality of life was vastly improved. The
almost constant distant noise of jet engines causes stress to millions of people. This stress was absent during those glorious few days. The increase
in light reaching the ground made colours more vibrant. The effect on the climate was as expected. We saw that effect during the short grounding
following the 9/11 atrocities. www.pbs.org...
If those who choose to use jet aircraft actually had the decency to pay for the effects of their choice each seat would cost thousands if not
millions. But it's easier to choose ignorance and treat the corporate mass transport systems as a child regards a day at the park. Fun, fun, fun.
There is an alternative aircraft design that can have engines on top of the wings and project more of the engine noise upwards. But it does have other
problems. I don't know how different the contrail issue would be if these were used extensively.
The last comment was this from ahnggk
"I designed one in a simulator (which I though I invented, apparently not!).
I joined it in a competition and it won first prize getting ahead in performance far and beyond other designs. Let's not talk about safety yet...
...Using modern aerodynamics principles, the general layout is incredibly efficient and beats the pure flying wing layout.
There is some partial evidence that the design is safe but is not unique to Burnelli, in fact, any one-piece, BWB, no fuselage design exhibits
superior crash-survivability of the airframe vs conventional 'tube-and-wing' designs very common today
Back in WW2, the Hortens crashed one of their pure flying wings, the craft simply cartwheeled, ended up in one piece and everyone aboard lived.
Again in WW2, another 'one-piece' no fuselage/BWB aircraft the 'flying pancake' was crashed and it flipped in the ground, the airframe suffered little
A military prototype of the said 'flying pancake' had to be destroyed with a wrecking ball for the airframe is incredibly strong!!
It is an old concept that is superior in every aspect against our 'modern' tube-wing designs. The only reason it's not pursued in civilian aircraft is
the difficulty in pressurizing non-cylindrical cabins at high cruise altitudes. There has been recent successes in these using composite materials.
That's why it's only feasible in military aircraft or anything that flies below 10,000 ft at the moment.
But once the issue is solved, we'd be seeing dramatic drop in mortality rates in crashes once all jet-liners are are of flying or BWB designs, in
addition to crash-proof/self-sealing fuel tanks. Crash survivors running around covered in flames and burning jet fuel will be a thing of the past.
It's a horrible image that no one tells you. It's not instant pain, it's horrible amount of suffering for survivors, we are living in the 21st century
and things should change now!!!"
edit on 26 7 2014 by Kester because: alteration