A
AASI Jetcruzer Business and utility transport
ACAC ARJ21 70-100 seat Regional airliner
AEA Explorer Multirole utility transport
Aermacchi AL-60 light aircraft
Aermacchi SF.260 Two seat trainer and aerobatics light aircraft
Aerion SBJ Planned supersonic business jet
Aero A.10 biplane five passenger airliner
Aero A.22 biplane two passenger airliner
Aero A.23 biplane seven passenger airliner
Aero A.34 two seat light aircraft
Aero A.35 five passenger airliner
Aero A.38 eight passenger airliner
Aero A.200 light aircraft
Aero A.204 eight passenger airliner prototype
Aero Ae 45 & Ae 145 twin engine light aircraft
Aero Boero AB-95/115 light utility aircraft
Aero Boero AB-150 light utility aircraft
Aero Boero AB-180 light utility aircraft
Aero Boero AB-210 utility aircraft prototype
Aero Boero 260AG agricultural aircraft
Aero-Cam Slick 360 Single-seat aerobatics aircraft
Aero Commander 100 Four seat light aircraft
Aero Commander 500/600 series of twin engine piston & turboprop powered business & personal aircraft
Aero Commander Jet Commander mid size business jet
Aeronca 7 Champion Two seat light aircraft
Aeronca 11 Chief Two seat light aircraft
Aero Spacelines Guppy series very large propeller cargo aircraft
Aérospatiale Alouette II & Lama Light utility helicopters
Aérospatiale Alouette III Light utility helicopter
Aérospatiale N 262 & Mohawk 298 Short range turboprop airliner
Aerospatiale SA-330 Puma Twin engine medium lift helicopter
Aerospatiale SA-341/342 Gazelle Utility helicopter
Aérospatiale AS-350 Écureuil & AS-355 Écureuil 2 Light utility helicopters
Aérospatiale SA-360/361/365C Dauphin Mid size utility helicopters
Aérospatiale SN-601 Corvette Light corporate jet
Aérospatiale-British Aerospace Concorde Medium range supersonic airliner
Aerokopter AK1-3 "Sanka" Light two seats helicopter
Agusta A109 Twin engined utility & corporate helicopter
Agusta A119 Koala Light utility helicopter
Ahrens AR 404 four engine turboprop utility aircraft
Air Tractor series of piston & turboprop powered agricultural aircraft
Airbus A300B2/B4 Medium range widebody airliner
Airbus A300-600 Medium range widebody airliner
Airbus Beluga very large cargo aircraft
Airbus A310-200 Medium to long range widebody airliner
Airbus A310-300 Medium to long range widebody airliner
Airbus A318 100 seat regional airliner
Airbus A319 Medium range airliner
Airbus A319CJ Long range large corporate jet
Airbus A320 Short to medium range airliner
Airbus A321 Short to medium range narrowbody airliner
Airbus A330-200 Medium to long range widebody airliner
Airbus A330-300 Large capacity medium to long range airliner
Airbus A340-200 Long range widebody airliner
Airbus A340-300 Long range widebody airliner
Airbus A340-500 Ultra long range widebody airliner
Airbus A340-600 Long range widebody airliner
Airbus A350-800 Long range widebody airliner
Airbus A350-900 Long range widebody airliner
Airbus A350-1000 Long range widebody airliner
Airbus A380 Long range high capacity widebody airliner
Alpha 2000 The Robin R2000 now manufactured in New Zealand
American Aviation AA-1 Yankee two seat light aircraft
American Aviation AA-1A Trainer two seat light training aircraft
American Aviation AA-2 Patriot four seat light aircraft prototype
American Champion & Bellanca series Series of two seat utility and aerobatic light aircraft
Antonov/PZL Mielec An-2 Biplane utility transport
Antonov An-10 110 passenger turboprop
Antonov An-12 turboprop cargo aircraft
Antonov An-22 Antheus Large capacity turboprop cargo aircraft
Antonov An-24 44-50 passenger airliner and utility aircraft
Antonov/PZL Mielec An-28 Regional airliner and utility transport
Antonov An-30 aerial survey aircraft
Antonov An-38 Regional airliner and utility transport
Antonov An-70 Heavylift propfan cargo aircraft
Antonov An-72 & An-74 STOL capable utility transport
Antonov An-124 Ruslan Heavylift freighter
Antonov An-140 50 passenger short-range turboprop airliner
Antonov An-225 Mriya Extra-Large cargo aircraft
APM 20 Lionceau Very light utility aircraft
APM 30 Lion Light utility aircraft
Arado S I & S III two seat trainers
Arado SC I two seat trainer
Arado SC II two seat trainer
Arado L I two seat light aircraft
Arado L II two seat light aircraft
Arado V I prototype four passenger airliner and air mail carrier
Arado W 2 two seat seaplane trainer
Armstrong Whitworth Ape experimental aircraft
Armstrong Whitworth Argosy three engine biplane airliner
Armstrong Whitworth Atalanta nine passenger four engine airliner
Armstrong Whitworth Ensign 40 passenger four engine airliner
Armstrong Whitworth A.W.52 flying wing experimental aircraft
Armstrong Whitworth Argosy four engine turboprop cargo aircraft
Arrow Sport two seat light aircraft
Arrow Model F two seat light aircraft
ATR ATR-42 42 seat turboprop regional airliner
ATR ATR-72 70 seat turboprop regional airliner
Auster J-1 Autocrat three seat light aircraft
Auster J-1U Workmaster agricultural aircraft
Auster J-2 Arrow two seat light aircraft
Auster J-3 Atom two seat light aircraft
Auster J-4 two seat light aircraft
Auster Avis prototype light utility aircraft
Auster Autocar four seat light aircraft
Auster Aiglet Trainer aerobatic four seat light aircraft
Auster Alpine four seat light aircraft
Auster B.4 prototype light cargo aircraft
Auster Agricola agricultural aircraft
Auster D.4 two seat light aircraft
Avia BH-1 two seat light aircraft
Avia BH-5 two seat light aircraft
Avia BH-9 two seat light aircraft
Avia BH-10 single seat aerobatic aircraft
Avia BH-12 two seat light aircraft
Avia BH-16 single seat light aircraft
Avia BH-20 two seat trainer
Avia BH-25 biplane airliner
Avia 14 28 passenger airliner
Aviat Husky Two seat utility light aircraft
Aviat Pitts Special Single and two seat competition aerobatic biplanes
Aviation Traders ATL-90 Accountant prototype 28 passenger turboprop airliner
Aviation Traders ATL-98 Carvair Freighter/utility transport
Avro Baby single seat light aircraft
Avro Avian two seat light aircraft
Avro 618 Ten ten passenger airliner
Avro 652 four passenger airliner
Avro York four engine airliner & cargo aircraft
Avro Tudor four engine airliner
Avro 748 (a.k.a. HS 748 & BAe 748) 50 seat turboprop airliner
Avro RJ Series See British Aerospace BAe 146
Avro Canada Jetliner prototype jet airliner
Ayres Let L 610 40 seat regional airliner
Ayres Thrush & Rockwell Thrush Commander Agricultural aircraft
B
BAC One-Eleven Short haul airliner
Baade B-152 also known as Dresden 152 was the first German passenger jet airliner
Beagle Airedale Four seat light aircraft
Beagle D5 Husky Light aircraft
Beagle Pup Two, three and four place light aircraft
Beagle Terrier three seat light aircraft
Beagle B.206 Six/eight place cabin twin
Bede BD-1 two place prototype design
Bede BD-5 single seat sport aircraft
Beechcraft Model 17 Staggerwing high performance light aircraft
Beechcraft Model 18 Twin Beech Light utility transport
Beechcraft Model 19 Musketeer Four seat light aircraft
Beechcraft Model 23 Sundowner Four seat light aircraft
Beechcraft Model 24 Sierra Four seat light aircraft
Beechcraft Model 33, 35 & 36 Bonanza Four & six seat high performance light aircraft
Beechcraft Model 50 Twin Bonanza Six place light business twin
Beechcraft Model 55, 56 & 58 Baron Four or six place light business twin
Beechcraft Model 60 Duke Four or six place high performance twin
Beechcraft Model 65, 70, 80, 85 & 88 Queen Air Utility, light executive transport, commuter airliner, Air Ambulance
Beechcraft Model 76 Duchess Four place light twin
Beechcraft Model 77 Skipper Two seat pilot training aircraft
Beechcraft Model 90 King Air 6-10 seat Executive Transport, Commuter Airliner, Air Ambulance, Freight Transport
Beechcraft Model 95 Travel Air Four place light twin
Beechcraft Model 99 Airliner 19 seat Commuter Airliner
Beechcraft Model 100 King Air 8-12 seat Executive Transport, Commuter Airliner, Air Ambulance, Freight Transport
Beechcraft Model 200 (Super) King Air 8-12 seat Executive Transport, Commuter Airliner, Air Ambulance, Freight Transport, Aerial Survey Aircraft
Beechcraft Model 300 (Super) King Air 8-14 seat Executive Transport, Commuter Airliner, Air Ambulance, Freight Transport, Aerial Survey Aircraft
Beechcraft Model 1300 Airliner 13 seat Commuter Airliner
Beechcraft Model 1900 Airliner 19 seat Regional Airliner and Corporate Transport
Beechcraft Model 400 Beechjet light corporate jet
Beechcraft Starship 2000 Advanced technology corporate transport
Bell 47 Two or three seat light utility helicopter
Bell 204 & 205 Medium Lift Utility helicopter
Bell 206 JetRanger Light utility helicopter
Bell 206L LongRanger Light utility helicopter
Bell 212 Twin TwoTwelve Medium lift utility helicopter
Bell 214B and 214ST Medium transport helicopter
Bell 222 & 230 Twin engine light utility helicopters
Bell 407 Seven place utility helicopter
Bell 412 Medium lift utility helicopter
Bell 427 Light twin utility helicopters
Bell 429 Light/intermediate twin utility helicopters
Bell 430 Twin engine intermediate size helicopter
Bell BA 609 Six to nine seat corporate/utility tiltrotor
Bell 206LT TwinRanger & Tridair Gemini ST Twin engine light utility helicopters
Beriev Be-30/Be-32 Regional airliner and utility transport
Beriev Be-103 Firefighting and Multirole Maritime Amphibian
Beriev Be-112 Firefighting and Multirole Maritime Amphibian
Beriev Be-200 Firefighting and multirole amphibian
Beriev Be-2500 Proposed amphibian freighter
Boeing Model 40 biplane air mail carrier/airliner
Boeing Model 80 biplane airliner
Boeing Model 221 air mail carrier
Boeing 247 propeller airliner
Boeing 307 Stratoliner propeller airliner
Boeing 314 Clipper FLying boat airliner
Boeing 367-80 jet transport development aircraft
Boeing 377 Stratocruiser propeller airliner
Boeing 707-100 Medium to long range airliner and freighter
Boeing 717 Short to medium range airliner
Boeing 720 Medium range narrowbody airliner
Boeing 727-100 Short to medium range narrowbody airliner
Boeing 727-200 Short to medium range narrowbody airliner
Boeing 737-100/200 Short range narrowbody airliner
Boeing 737-300/400/500 Short to medium range narrowbody airliner
Boeing 737-600/700 Short to medium range airliners
Boeing 737-800/900 Short to medium range airliners
Boeing 747-100 Long range high capacity widebody airliner
Boeing 747-200 Long range high capacity widebody airliner
Boeing 747-300 Long range high capacity widebody airliner
Boeing 747-400 Long range high capacity widebody airliner
Boeing 747-8 Long range high capacity widebody airliner
Boeing 747SP Long range high capacity widebody airliner
Boeing 757-200 Medium range narrowbody airliner
Boeing 757-300 Medium range narrowbody airliner
Boeing 767-200 Medium to long range widebody airliner
Boeing 767-300 Medium to long range widebody airliner
Boeing 767-400 Medium to long range widebody airliner
Boeing 777-200 Long and ultra long range widebody airliners
Boeing 777-300 Long range high capacity widebody airliner
Boeing 787-3 Medium range high capacity widebody airliner
Boeing 787-8 Long to Ultra-Long range high capacity widebody airliner
Boeing 787-9 Long to Ultra-Long range high capacity widebody airliner
Boeing Business Jet Long range large capacity corporate jet
Boeing 2707 Supersonic transport project
Boeing Vertol (Kawasaki) KV 107 Medium to heavylift utility helicopter
Boeing Commercial Chinook Heavylift utility and airliner helicopter
Boeing/MDHS/Hughes 500 Light utility helicopters
Boeing MD 520N Light utility helicopter
Boeing MD 600N Eight place light utility helicopter
Boeing MD Explorer Light twin helicopter
Boeing Stearman Two seat sport, utility and agricultural biplane
Bombardier BD-100 Challenger 300 Super mid size corporate jet
Bombardier CL600 Challenger 600/601/604/605 long range corporate jets
Bombardier Challenger 850 large long range corporate jet
Bombardier Global 5000 long range high capacity corporate jet
Bombardier BD-700 Global Express Ultra long range, high speed, high capacity corporate jet
Bombardier Learjet 40 small corporate jet
Bombardier Learjet 45 Mid-size corporate jet
Bombardier Learjet 55 & 60 Mid-size corporate jets
Brantly B-2 & 305 Light piston powered utility helicopters
Bristol 167 Brabazon long range airliner
Bristol 170 Freighter Short range freighter/utility transport
Bristol 175 Britannia long range turboprop airliner
British Aerospace Jetstream 31 18 seat regional turboprop airliner
British Aerospace Jetstream 41 29 seat regional turboprop airliner
British Aerospace/Hawker Siddeley 748 Turboprop Regional airliner
British Aerospace ATP Turboprop powered regional airliner
British Aerospace BAe 125 Mid-size corporate jet
British Aerospace BAe 146 four engined regional jet airliner
Britten-Norman BN-2 Islander Commuter airliner and light utility transport
Britten-Norman BN-2A Mk III Trislander Commuter airliner
C
Canadair CL-215 & Canadair CL-415 Firebomber and utility amphibian
Canadair CL-44 & Yukon Medium to long range airliner and freighter
Canadair CL-600 Challenger 600 Medium to long range widebody corporate jet
Canadair CL-600 Challenger 601 & 604 Long range widebody corporate jets
Canadair CL-600 Regional Jet CRJ-100 & 200 Regional jet airliner
Canadair CL-600 Regional Jet CRJ-700 70 seat regional jet airliner
CAP Aviation CAP-10/20/21/230/231/232 Single and two seat aerobatic light aircraft
CASA C212 Aviocar STOL turboprop regional airliner and utility transport
CASA/IPTN CN235 Utility transport and 45 seat regional airliner
Cessna 120
Cessna 140
Cessna 150 & Cessna 152 Two seat primary and aerobatic capable trainers
Cessna 170 Four seat light aircraft
Cessna 172 Skyhawk
Cessna 175 Skylark Four seat light aircraft
Cessna 177 Cardinal and Cardinal RG Four seat light aircraft
Cessna 180 & 185 Skywagon Four to six seat utility light aircraft
Cessna 182 High performance four seat light aircraft
Cessna 188 AGwagon, AGpickup, AGtruck, and AGhusky series of agricultural aircraft
Cessna 205, 206 & 207 Six seat utility light aircraft
Cessna 208 Caravan I, Grand Caravan & Cargomaster Single turboprop utility transport
Cessna 210 Centurion High performance four to six seat light aircraft
Cessna 310 & 320 Skynight Four to six seat light piston twins
Cessna 336 & 337 Skymaster Six seat light piston twins
Cessna 340 & 335 Six seat business twins
Cessna 404 Titan Ten place corporate, commuter and freighter transport
Cessna 411, 401 & 402 Freighter, 10 seat commuter, or six to eight seat business twins
Cessna 421 & 414 Pressurised six to eight seat cabin twins
Cessna 500 & 501 Citation, Citation I & Citation I/SP Light corporate jets
Cessna 550 Citation II & 551 Citation II & Bravo Light corporate jets
Cessna 560 Citation V, Ultra & Ultra Encore Small to midsize corporate jet
Cessna 560XL Citation Excel Small to mid size corporate jet
Cessna 650 Citation III, VI & VII Medium size corporate jets
Cessna 680 Citation Sovereign Mid size corporate jet
Cessna Citation X Long range, high speed, mid size corporate jet
Cessna CitationJet, CJ1 & CJ2 Light corporate jets
Cessna Corsair, Caravan II Turboprop powered executive transports
Cessna Conquest, Conquest I & II Turboprop powered executive transports
Cessna T303 Crusader Six seat corporate and utility transport
Chichester-Miles Leopard High performance jet powered four seat light aircraft
Cirrus SR20/22 Four seat high performance light aircraft
Citabria series of tandem 2 seat high wing, aerobatic, utility and STOL aircraft
Christen Eagle, aerobatic kit aircraft, based on Pitts Special
Columbia 400 Four seat high performance light aircraft
Commander 114B Four seat high performance light aircraft
Concorde
Conroy CL-44-0 Skymonster Large freighter
Convair 240/340/440 Short haul commercial transports
Convair CV-540/580/600/640/5800 Short haul turboprop converted commercial ransports
Curtiss C46 Commando Freighter
D
Dassault Falcon 2000 Transcontinental range mid to large size corporate jet
Dassault Falcon 50 Long range mid size corporate jet
Dassault Falcon 900 Large transcontinental range corporate jet
Dassault Falcon 7X Large transcontinental range corporate jet
Dassault Mercure Short to medium range narrowbody jet
Dassault Mystère/Falcon 10 & 100 Light corporate jet
Dassault Mystère/Falcon 20 & 200 Mid size corporate jet and multirole utility transport
De Havilland Canada DHC-1 Chipmunk Two seat light aircraft
De Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver STOL utility transport
De Havilland Canada DHC-3 Otter STOL utility transport
De Havilland Canada DHC-4 Caribou STOL utility transport
De Havilland Canada DHC-5 Buffalo STOL utility transport
De Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter STOL turboprop regional airliner and utility transport
De Havilland Canada Dash 7 STOL Four turboprop regional airliner
De Havilland Canada DHC-8-100/200 Dash 8 Twin turboprop regional airliner
De Havilland Canada DHC-8-300 Dash 8 Twin turboprop regional airliner
De Havilland Canada DHC-8-400 Dash 8 70 seat Twin turboprop regional airliner
De Havilland Comet the world's first commercial jet airliner
De Havilland DH.86 1930's biplane airliner
De Havilland DH.89 Dragon Rapide 1930's biplane airliner
De Havilland DH.104 Dove Eight seat commuter airliner and executive transport
De Havilland DH.114 Heron 14 seat commuter airliner
De Havilland DH.82 Tiger Moth Two seat biplane light aircraft
Diamond DA20 Two seat light aircraft and basic trainer
Dornier Do 27 Four to six seat STOL utility light aircraft
Dornier Do 28 & 128 STOL utility transports
Dornier Do 228 turboprop utility aircraft
Dornier Do 328 turboprop and turbojet aircraft
Douglas DC-3 Short range airliner and utility transport
Douglas DC-4 Piston engined airliner and freighter
Douglas DC-6 Piston engined airliner and freighter
Douglas DC-7 Piston engine airliner and freighter
Douglas DC-8 Series 10 to 50 Medium to long range airliner and freighter
Douglas DC-8 Super 60 & 70 Series Long range medium capacity airliner and freighter
E
Edgley Optica British light aircraft
EH Industries EH 101 Commuter, offshore oil rig support & utility helicopter
Embraer EMB 110 Bandeirante 15-18 seat turboprop multi-purpose aircraft
Embraer EMB 120 Brasilia 30 seat turboprop regional airliner
Embraer EMB 121 Xingu 8-9 seat turboprop multi-purpose aircraft
Embraer/FMA CBA 123 Vector 19 seat turboprop regional airliner
Embraer ERJ 135 37 seat regional jet airliner
Embraer ERJ 140 45 seat regional jet airliner
Embraer ERJ 145 50 seat regional jet airliner
Embraer 170 70 seat medium range jet airliner
Embraer 175 78 seat medium range jet airliner
Embraer 190 98 seat medium range jet airliner
Embraer 195 108 seat medium range jet airliner
Embraer Lineage 1000 corporate jet based on the Embraer 190 platform
Embraer Legacy 600 corporate jet based on the Embraer ERJ 145 platform
Embraer Phenom 100 very light corporate jet
Embraer Phenom 300 light corporate jet
Enstrom F-28/280/480 Three and five seat light helicopters
ERCO Ercoupe and derivatives Two-seat light aircraft
Eurocopter Super Puma Medium lift utility helicopter
Eurocopter Ecureuil Light utility helicopter
Eurocopter AS-355 Ecureuil 2 Twin engined light utility helicopter
Eurocopter AS-365N Dauphin 2 & EC-155 Twin engine mid sized utility helicopter
Eurocopter BO 105 & EC Super Five Five place multi purpose light utility helicopter
Eurocopter Colibri Five place light utility helicopter
Eurocopter EC-135/635 Seven place light twin turbine utility helicopter
MBB/Kawasaki BK117 Twin engine utility helicopter
Exec 162F Two-seat kit helicopter, manufactured by RotorWay International
Extra 230, 300 & 200 Unlimited competition aerobatic aircraft
F
Fairchild (Swearingen) Merlin Turboprop corporate transport
Fairchild Aerospace 228 15-19 seat regional airliner and STOL utility transport
Fairchild Aerospace 328 30 seat regional turboprop airliner
Fairchild Aerospace 328JET & 428JET 32 seat regional jet airliner
Fairchild Aerospace Metro II, III & 23 19 seat regional airliner
FFA AS-202 Bravo Two seat basic trainer and aerobatic light aircraft
Fokker 50 Turboprop regional airliner
Fokker 70 70 seat regional jetliner
Fokker F100 100 seat regional jet
Fokker F27 & Fairchild F-27 & FH-227 Regional airliners
Fokker F-28 Fellowship Regional jet airliner
Fokker F-VII
Ford Trimotor
Fuji FA200 Aero Subaru Four seat light aircraft
G
GAF N22 & N24 Nomad STOL utility transport
Gippsland GA200 "Fatman" Two seat agricultural aircraft
Gippsland GA8 "Airvan" Eight seat utility light aircraft
Grob G 115 Two seat basic and aerobatic trainer
Grob GF 200 Four seat high performance light aircraft
Grumman American AA-1B Trainer Two seat light aircraft
Grumman American AA-5 Traveler, Tiger & Cheetah Four seat light aircraft
Grumman G-111 Modified HU-16 used as an airliner
Grumman G-1159 Gulfstream II/III Long range large corporate jet
Grumman G-159 Gulfstream I Corporate transport and regional airliner
Grumman G-164 Ag-Cat Biplane agricultural aircraft
Grumman G-21 "Goose" Eight seat utility amphibian
Grumman G-44 "Widgeon" Light utility amphibian
Grumman G-73 "Mallard" Ten seat utility amphibious transport
Grumman HU-16 "Albatross" Amphibious airliner and light utility transport
Gulfstream American GA-7 Cougar four place light twin-engined aircraft
Gulfstream Aerospace Gulfstream IV G-IV Long range large corporate transport
Gulfstream Aerospace Gulfstream V G-V Ultra long range large corporate transport
Gulfstream Aerospace Jetprop & Turbo Commander Twin turboprop utility and corporate transports
H
Handley Page Herald Turboprop airliner and freighter
Handley Page Jetstream 12 seat regional turboprop airliner
Harbin Y-11/12 Commuter airliners and utility transports
Hawker Siddeley H.S.125-1/2/3/400/600 Mid-size corporate jet
Hawker Siddeley HS 748 (a.k.a. Avro 748)
Hawker Siddeley Trident-1/1E/2C/3B Short/Medium range airliner.
Helio Courier Four/six place STOL utility light aircraft
Hiller UH-12 Light utility helicopter
Hindustan Advanced Light Helicopter Medium utility helicopter
Honda HA-420 HondaJet Light corporate jet
I
IAI Arava STOL utility transport
IAI Westwind Small to mid size corporate jet
Ilyushin Il-14 Short range airliner and utility transport
Ilyushin Il-18 Medium range turboprop airliner
Ilyushin Il-62 Medium to long range medium capacity airliner
Ilyushin Il-76 Medium to long range passenger
Ilyushin Il-76TF Medium to long range freighter
Ilyushin Il-76MD
Ilyushin Il-76MF
Ilyushin Il-76MK
Ilyushin Il-76TF
Ilyushin Il-86 Medium range widebody airliner
Ilyushin Il-96 Long range widebody airliner
Ilyushin Il-96-300 Medium range widebody airliner
Ilyushin Il-96-400 Medium range widebody airliner
Ilyushin Il-96T Medium to long range freighter
Ilyushin Il-96-400T Medium to long range freighter
Ilyushin Il-112B
Ilyushin Il-103 Two and five seat light aircraft
Ilyushin Il-114 Turboprop regional airliner
Ilyushin Il-114-100 Medium to long range passenger
Ilyushin MC-21
Ilyushin Il-MTC
IPTN N-250 64/68 seat turboprop regional airliner
Israel IAI-1125 Astra/Gulfstream G100 Small to mid size corporate jet
Israel IAI-1126 Galaxy/Gulfstream G200 Super mid size corporate transport
J
Junkers Ju 52
K
Kamov Ka-226 Medium size utility helicopter
Kaman K-1200 K-Max Aerial crane and utility helicopter
Kamov Ka-26 & Ka-226 Light twin engine utility and training helicopter
Kamov Ka-32 Medium size utility helicopter
Kamov Ka-50 Attack helicopter
Kamov Ka-52 Attack helicopter
Kestrel K250 Four to six place light aircraft
L
Lake LA4, Buccaneer & Renegade Four/six place amphibious light aircraft
Lancair LC-40 Columbia 300/350/400 High performance four seat light aircraft
Lear Jet 23, 24, 25, 28 & 29 Light corporate jets
Learjet 35, 36 and Learjet 31 Light corporate jets
Let L-40 MetaSokol Three/four seat light aircraft
Let L-410 & L-420 19 seat turboprop regional airliners
Let L-610 40 seat turboprop regional airliners
Let L-200 Morava Four/five seat light twin
Lockheed C-130 Hercules Medium range freighter
Lockheed JetStar Large size corporate jet
Lockheed L-100 Hercules Medium range freighter
Lockheed Constellation Long range piston engine airliner
Lockheed L-1011 TriStar 1/50/100/150/200/250 Medium to long range widebody airliner
Lockheed L-1011 TriStar 500 Long range widebody airliner
Lockheed L-188 Electra Turboprop airliner and freighter
Luscombe Model 8 Silvaire Two seat light aircraft
Luscombe Spartan Four seat light aircraft
M
MA60 Turboprop regional aircraft, from China
Martin 2-0-2 35- to 43-seat twin piston engined regional airliner
Martin 4-0-4 40-seat twin piston engined regional airliner
Maule M-4 to M-7 4-5 seat STOL capable light aircraft
McDonnell Douglas DC-10 & Boeing MD-10 Medium to long range widebody airliner
McDonnell Douglas DC-9-10/20/30 Short range airliners
McDonnell Douglas DC-9-40/50 Short to medium range airliners
McDonnell Douglas MD-11 Long range widebody airliner
McDonnell Douglas MD-81/82/83/88 Short to medium range airliner
McDonnell Douglas MD-87 Short to medium range airliner
McDonnell Douglas MD-90 Short to medium range airliner
MDM-1 Fox Two-seat aerobatic glider
Mil Mi-8/17 Medium lift utility helicopters
Mil Mi-26 Ultra heavy lift utility helicopter
Mil Mi-34 Two/four place light helicopter
Millicer M10 AirTourer Two seat aerobatic capable light aircraft
Mitsubishi MU-2 Twin turboprop utility transport
Mooney M-20 to M-20G Four seat high performance light aircraft
Mooney M-20J to M-20S High performance four seat light aircraft
Mudry CAP10B (aka CAP-10) Two-seat side-by-side aerobatic trainer/competitor
N
NAL Saras Regional turboprop airliner (India) built by Hindustan aeronautics and NAL
NAMC YS-11 Twin turboprop regional airliner
Noorduyn Norseman 10 place utility transport
North American Rockwell 100 Darter/Lark Commander Four seat light aircraft
North American/Ryan Navion High performance four/five seat light aircraft
O
Omega AircraftNew all metal Microlight LSA VLA Two Seater Low wing
P
Pacific Aerospace CT-4 Airtrainer Two/three seat basic trainer
Pacific Aerospace Fletcher FU-24 Agricultural aircraft
Pacific Aerospace Cresco Agricultural & Utility Aircraft
Pacific Aerospace 750XL Utility Aircraft
Partenavia P.68 Six/seven place light twin
Piaggio P-166 Commuter airliner and utility transport
Piaggio P.180 Avanti Twin turboprop executive transport
Pilatus PC-12 Utility, regional airliner and corporate turboprop
Pilatus PC-6 Porter & Turbo Porter STOL utility transport
Piper Aerostar Six seat high performance light twin
Piper Cub Two seat light aircraft
Piper PA-18 Super Cub Two seat utility light aircraft
Piper PA-20 Pacer & PA-22 Tri-Pacer, Caribbean & Colt Two and four seat light aircraft
Piper PA-23 Apache & Aztec Four seat light twins
Piper PA-24 Comanche Four seat high performance light aircraft
Piper PA-25 Pawnee Agricultural aircraft
Piper PA-28 Cherokee Series Two and four seat light aircraft
Piper PA-28R Cherokee Arrow Four seat light aircraft
Piper PA-30/39 Twin Comanche Six seat light twin
Piper PA-31 Chieftain/Mojave/T-1020/T-1040 Eight/ten seat corporate transport and commuter airliner
Piper PA-31 Navajo/Pressurized Navajo Six/eight seat corporate transport and commuter airliner
Piper PA-31T Cheyenne Twin turboprop corporate transports
Piper PA-32 Cherokee Six, Lance & Saratoga. Six seat high performance light aircraft
Piper PA-34 Seneca Six place light twin
Piper PA-36 Pawnee Brave Agricultural aircraft
Piper PA-38 Tomahawk Two seat light aircraft and basic trainer
Piper PA-42 Cheyenne III, IIIA & 400LS Twin turboprop corporate transports
Piper PA-44 Seminole Four seat light twin
Piper PA-46 Malibu & Malibu Mirage. Six seat high performance light aircraft
Piper PA-46 Malibu Meridian Six seat corporate turboprop
PZL-Mielec M-18 Dromader Ag spraying and firefighter aircraft
PZL Mielec M-20 Mewa License-built Piper PA-34 Seneca
PZL Mielec M-28 Skytruck Light utility aircraft
PZL Swidnik (Mil) Mi-2 Light twin turboshaft utility helicopter
PZL Swidnik Kania Light twin turboshaft utility helicopter
PZL Swidnik W-3 Sokól Mid size twin engine utility helicopter
PZL Swidnik SW-4 Puszczyk Light utility helicopter
PZL Warszawa-Okecie PZL-104 Wilga Four seat light utility aircraft
PZL Warszawa-Okecie PZL-110/111 Koliber Four seat light aircraft
R
Raytheon 390 Premier I Light corporate jet
Beechcraft 1900 Regional airliner and corporate transport
Raytheon Beechcraft Baron Four or six place business, utility & advanced pilot training twin
Raytheon Beechcraft Bonanza Four to six seat high performance light aircraft
Raytheon Beechcraft King Air 200 Twin turboprop corporate, passenger & utility transport
Raytheon Beechcraft King Air 300 & 350 Turboprop powered corporate and utility aircraft
Raytheon Beechcraft King Air 90 & 100 Twin turboprop corporate and utility transport
Raytheon Hawker 400XP (formerly Beechjet 400) Light corporate jet
Raytheon Hawker 800 (formerly BAe 125) Mid-size corporate jet
Raytheon Hawker 1000 Mid-size corporate jet
Raytheon Hawker 4000 Super mid-size corporate jet
Rearwin Ken-Royce A bi-plane built in 1929 by Rearwin Airplanes
Rearwin Junior Small high wing monoplane
Rearwin Speedster A narrow, streamlined airplane powered by Cirrus 90 or Menasco 125 HP
Rearwin Cloudster A popular enclosed cabin monoplane
Rearwin Sportster Another popular Rearwin design from the early 1940s
Rearwin Skyranger A small high-wing airplane somewhat similar to a Cessna
Republic RC-3 Seabee Four seat amphibious light aircraft
Robin DR400 & DR500 Four/five seat light aircraft
Robin R2000 & Robin HR200 Two seat training and aerobatic light aircraft
Robin R3000 Two/four seat light aircraft
Robin Aiglon Four seat light aircraft
Robinson R44 Four place piston engined light helicopter
Robinson R22 Two seat piston engined light helicopter
Rockwell 500/520/560/680/685/720 Commander Utility and corporate transports
Rockwell Commander 112 & 114 Four seat high performance light aircraft
Rockwell Sabreliner Mid-size corporate jet
Ruschmeyer R 90 Four seat high performance light aircraft
S
Saab 2000 50 seat twin turboprop regional airliner
Saab 340 Twin turboprop regional airliner
Schweizer 269/300 Light utility helicopter
Schweizer 330 Light turbine powered utility helicopter
Scorpion Homebuilt one (and later two) seater helicopter, manufactured by RotorWay International.
Scottish Aviation Jetstream 12 seat regional turboprop airliner
Scottish Aviation Twin Pioneer Utility transport
Shanghai Y-10 Four-engine medium airliner
Shorts 330 Regional airliner and utility freighter
Shorts 360 36 seat regional airliner
Shorts Belfast Heavy lift turboprop freighter
Shorts Skyvan & Skyliner STOL utility transport and regional airliner
SIAI-Marchetti S-205/208 Four seat light aircraft
Sikorsky S-55 & Westland Whirlwind Mid size utility helicopter
Sikorsky S-92 Helibus Medium to heavy lift airliner and utility helicopter
Sikorsky S-58 Mid size utility helicopter
Sikorsky S-61L & S61N Medium lift utility helicopter
Sikorsky S-62 Mid size utility helicopter
Sikorsky S-76 Mid size utility helicopter
Sino Swearingen SJ30-2 Light corporate jet
Slingsby T-67 Firefly Two seat basic trainer
Socata GY-80 Horizon & ST-10 Diplomate Four seat light aircraft
Socata MS 180 & MS 250 Morane Four/five seat light aircraft
Socata Rallye Series of two/four seat light aircraft
Socata Tangara & Gulfstream GA7 Four place light twin
Socata TB-9/10/20/21/200 Tampico/Tobago/Trinidad Four/five seat light aircraft
Socata TBM-700 Single engine corporate turboprop
SpaceShipOne Experimental, rocket powered & glider, high altitude, suborbital
Spartan Executive 7W Single-engine radial luxury business aircraft of the 1930s-1940s
Sud SE-210 Caravelle Short range airliner
Sukhoi Su-26 Single and two seat aerobatic light aircraft
Su-29 Single and two seat aerobatic light aircraft
Su-31 Single and two seat aerobatic light aircraft
Sukhoi Superjet-75 Medium range airliner
Sukhoi Superjet-85 Medium range airliner
Sukhoi Superjet-100 Medium range airliner
T
Taylorcraft series Two seat light aircraft
Technoavia SM92 Finist STOL utility transport
Toyota TA-1 Prototype single engine, 4-place aircraft
Transavia Airtruk & Skyfarmer Agricultural aircraft
Tupolev ANT-20 "Maxim Gorky" - Largest aircraft during the 1930s
Tupolev Tu-22
Tupolev Tu-104 Medium range airliner
Tupolev Tu-114 Long range airliner
Tupolev Tu-124 Short range airliner
Tupolev Tu-134 Short range airliner
Tupolev Tu-144 Supersonic airliner - service withdrawn
Tupolev Tu-154 Medium range airliner
Tupolev Tu-204-100 Medium / Long range airliner
Tupolev Tu-204-120 Medium / Long range airliner
Tupolev Tu-204-300 Medium / Long range airliner
Tupolev Tu-214 Medium / Long range airliner
Tupolev Tu-334 Medium / Long range airliner
Tupolev Tu-324 Medium / Long range airliner
Tupolev Tu-414 Medium range airliner
Tupolev Tu-444 supersonic business jets (proposed)
V
Vickers VC10 Medium to long range airliner
Vickers Viscount Turboprop airliner and freighter
Vickers Vanguard turboprop airliner
Victa Aircruiser Four seat light aircraft
Victa Airtourer Two seat light aircraft
VisionAire Vantage Entry level single engine corporate jet
W
Weatherly 201/620 Agricultural aircraft
White Knight Experimental jet; high altitude; carry & launch smaller craft
Y
Yakovlev Yak-18T Four seat light aircraft
Yakovlev Yak-40 Regional jet airliner
Yakovlev Yak-42 Short range airliner
Yakovlev Yak-52 Two seat light training aircraft
Yunshuji 5 Chinese variation of Antonov An-2
Yunshuji 7 Chinese variation of Antonov An-24
Yunshuji 8 Chinese variation of Antonov An-12
Yunshuji 10 Chinese variation of Boeing 707 - Development program aborted.
Yunshuji 12 Chinese variation of De Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter
Z
Zivko Edge 540 Unlimited competition aerobatics aircraft
Zlin Trener & Akrobat One and two seat aerobatic and training light aircraft
Zlin Z 42, Z 43, Z 142, Z 242 & Z 143 Two/four seat light aircraft
Showing posts with label Aircraft Technology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Aircraft Technology. Show all posts
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Thursday, October 2, 2008
IAE celebrates V2500 SelectOne Service with IndiGo Airlines
IAE celebrated its latest milestone on the V2500 SelectOne™ program when the new engine entered into commercial service with launch customer, IndiGo, after being delivered on time on 23-Sep-08. The aircraft, which is leased from Australia’s Allco Finance Group, is being utilised on new round-trip daily services between Jaipur and Ahmedabad, Chennai (via Mumbai) and Guwahati (via Kolkata); between Ahmedabad and Bangalore, Pune and Kolkata, and additional round-trip services between Mumbai and Jaipur.
IAE Executive Vice President – Customer Business, Ian Aitken, said: “Rather than being the end of the road, we view today’s entry into service with IndiGo as the start of a new journey. The airline has backed its engine order with our V2500Select® aftermarket service so we still maintain long-term responsibility for the engines.”
Bruce Ashby, Chief Executive Officer of IndiGo added: “We’re obviously delighted to be the first airline to benefit from the additional advantages that V2500 SelectOne™ offers. We recognized the opportunity for additional savings this new, more fuel-efficient engine could offer us. We are very focused on minimizing operating costs to ensure that our fares remain competitive and we can retain our position as the largest low-fare airline in India.”
IndiGo placed the single largest order for the V2500 in 2005 when it purchased engines for a fleet of 100 A320s, supported by a comprehensive V2500Select® aftermarket agreement.
The 22,000-33,000lb of thrust V2500 is available in seven different thrust settings to power the Airbus A319, A320 and A321 Family of aircraft as well as the Airbus Corporate Jetliner. More than 5,000 V2500 engines are in service or on firm order.
IAE Executive Vice President – Customer Business, Ian Aitken, said: “Rather than being the end of the road, we view today’s entry into service with IndiGo as the start of a new journey. The airline has backed its engine order with our V2500Select® aftermarket service so we still maintain long-term responsibility for the engines.”
Bruce Ashby, Chief Executive Officer of IndiGo added: “We’re obviously delighted to be the first airline to benefit from the additional advantages that V2500 SelectOne™ offers. We recognized the opportunity for additional savings this new, more fuel-efficient engine could offer us. We are very focused on minimizing operating costs to ensure that our fares remain competitive and we can retain our position as the largest low-fare airline in India.”
IndiGo placed the single largest order for the V2500 in 2005 when it purchased engines for a fleet of 100 A320s, supported by a comprehensive V2500Select® aftermarket agreement.
The 22,000-33,000lb of thrust V2500 is available in seven different thrust settings to power the Airbus A319, A320 and A321 Family of aircraft as well as the Airbus Corporate Jetliner. More than 5,000 V2500 engines are in service or on firm order.
Friday, September 26, 2008
China's manned space flight
9:07 pm, Sept.25, the Shenzhou VII spacecraft was lifted off by the Long March II-F carrier rocket from China's northwestern Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center, sending a trio of experienced taikonauts—the Chinese term for astronauts—into space. The launch of the Shenzhou VII is China's third manned space venture since October 2003, when it joined Russia and the United States as the only countries to have sent astronauts into space.
The Shenzhou VII space flight is not only considered a breakthrough in the number of astronauts, but hailed as a major step forward in China's aerospace technology. The three-day mission is expected to include the country's first attempt at a spacewalk. The extra-vehicular activity will also include running tests in space, and taking samples from space. Following the extra-vehicular mission, a small satellite will be launched in the orbit to accompany the craft's journey, which is also China's first attempt. China's first relay satellite, Tianlian I, launched in the first half of the year, will be put into full practice during the Shenzhou VII space fight. The application of relay satellites may well in the future greatly boost the coverage and efficiency of China's monitoring networks.
The national space program is expected to aid China economically by helping to create technological breakthroughs that may some day be applied to computers or other digital equipment. But behind the glorious feats are the unprecedented challenges and risks. Spacewalk is a splendor, but full of risks, which will pose a challenge to anything related to space flight including the complicated and expensive space suit designed and produced in China. Additionally, the astronauts will have to overcome space motion sickness to accomplish the extra-vehicular mission within two days in the orbit. The craft in itself will also face the challenge from its maiden flight carrying the permitted crew number of a trio. Meanwhile, the launch of Shenzhou VII will act as a big test to China's environmental control and life security systems in space.
It takes intelligence as well as courage to make a large step forward in aerospace technology. But the prospects of China's manned space flight have so far proved promising. During the second phase, China plans further breakthroughs in manned space flight beyond spacewalks, such as the docking of the space modules. The ability to do with extra-vehicular activity is essential for China's long-term goals of assembling an orbiting station in the next decade and possibly making a visit to the moon.
Initiated in 1992, China's manned space flight is another milestone for a country that got a late start in space exploration, but now possesses the most advanced space projects and have accomplished splendid feats in its space programs. Over the 16 years, China has made a big jump in both quantity and quality in terms of manned space flight. The Shenzhou VII craft marks a new height to be scaled in the realm of China's aerospace technology, and its triumphant return will be remembered as the national pridenal pride
The Shenzhou VII space flight is not only considered a breakthrough in the number of astronauts, but hailed as a major step forward in China's aerospace technology. The three-day mission is expected to include the country's first attempt at a spacewalk. The extra-vehicular activity will also include running tests in space, and taking samples from space. Following the extra-vehicular mission, a small satellite will be launched in the orbit to accompany the craft's journey, which is also China's first attempt. China's first relay satellite, Tianlian I, launched in the first half of the year, will be put into full practice during the Shenzhou VII space fight. The application of relay satellites may well in the future greatly boost the coverage and efficiency of China's monitoring networks.
The national space program is expected to aid China economically by helping to create technological breakthroughs that may some day be applied to computers or other digital equipment. But behind the glorious feats are the unprecedented challenges and risks. Spacewalk is a splendor, but full of risks, which will pose a challenge to anything related to space flight including the complicated and expensive space suit designed and produced in China. Additionally, the astronauts will have to overcome space motion sickness to accomplish the extra-vehicular mission within two days in the orbit. The craft in itself will also face the challenge from its maiden flight carrying the permitted crew number of a trio. Meanwhile, the launch of Shenzhou VII will act as a big test to China's environmental control and life security systems in space.
It takes intelligence as well as courage to make a large step forward in aerospace technology. But the prospects of China's manned space flight have so far proved promising. During the second phase, China plans further breakthroughs in manned space flight beyond spacewalks, such as the docking of the space modules. The ability to do with extra-vehicular activity is essential for China's long-term goals of assembling an orbiting station in the next decade and possibly making a visit to the moon.
Initiated in 1992, China's manned space flight is another milestone for a country that got a late start in space exploration, but now possesses the most advanced space projects and have accomplished splendid feats in its space programs. Over the 16 years, China has made a big jump in both quantity and quality in terms of manned space flight. The Shenzhou VII craft marks a new height to be scaled in the realm of China's aerospace technology, and its triumphant return will be remembered as the national pridenal pride
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Delivery of the first V2500 SelectOne Powered Airbus A320 to IndiGo Airlines
International Aero Engines celebrated the delivery of the first V2500 SelectOne™ powered Airbus A320 to launch customer, India’s IndiGo.
This new V2500 engine build standard, which delivers an additional 1% fuel burn benefit, was delivered on schedule, maintaining the program’s unparalleled record for meeting its milestones. Aircraft level certification, EASA CS-25, was achieved in Jul-08, following FAR33 engine level certification in Dec-07.
The aircraft, registration VT-INV, which is leased from Australia’s Allco Finance Group, was handed over to IndiGo at the Airbus facility in Toulouse before flying to its new home base in Delhi, India. It is due to make its first commercial flight on 01-Oct-08.
IAE President and CEO, Jon Beatty, said: “In many ways, today is the final chapter in an incredible journey with the SelectOne™ development program, yet it is the start of another as we enter into service. IndiGo is an ambitious and forward-thinking organization that recognized the value that V2500SelectSM and the V2500 SelectOne™ engine would have for airlines, so it is a fitting recipient of the first aircraft.”
In 2005, IndiGo placed the single largest order for the V2500 when it purchased engines for a fleet of 100 A320s, supported by a comprehensive V2500SelectSM aftermarket agreement.
The 22,000-33,000lb of thrust V2500 is available in seven different thrust settings to power the Airbus A319, A320 and A321 Family of aircraft as well as the Airbus Corporate Jetliner. More than 5,000 V2500 engines are in service or on firm order.
The SelectOne™ build standard delivers an additional 1% fuel burn advantage, along with a corresponding reduction in CO2 emissions. It will improve time-on-wing by up to 20%, and demonstrate compliance with the most stringent CAEP/6 NOx standards.
This new V2500 engine build standard, which delivers an additional 1% fuel burn benefit, was delivered on schedule, maintaining the program’s unparalleled record for meeting its milestones. Aircraft level certification, EASA CS-25, was achieved in Jul-08, following FAR33 engine level certification in Dec-07.
The aircraft, registration VT-INV, which is leased from Australia’s Allco Finance Group, was handed over to IndiGo at the Airbus facility in Toulouse before flying to its new home base in Delhi, India. It is due to make its first commercial flight on 01-Oct-08.
IAE President and CEO, Jon Beatty, said: “In many ways, today is the final chapter in an incredible journey with the SelectOne™ development program, yet it is the start of another as we enter into service. IndiGo is an ambitious and forward-thinking organization that recognized the value that V2500SelectSM and the V2500 SelectOne™ engine would have for airlines, so it is a fitting recipient of the first aircraft.”
In 2005, IndiGo placed the single largest order for the V2500 when it purchased engines for a fleet of 100 A320s, supported by a comprehensive V2500SelectSM aftermarket agreement.
The 22,000-33,000lb of thrust V2500 is available in seven different thrust settings to power the Airbus A319, A320 and A321 Family of aircraft as well as the Airbus Corporate Jetliner. More than 5,000 V2500 engines are in service or on firm order.
The SelectOne™ build standard delivers an additional 1% fuel burn advantage, along with a corresponding reduction in CO2 emissions. It will improve time-on-wing by up to 20%, and demonstrate compliance with the most stringent CAEP/6 NOx standards.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Sensor Technology for the Future Aircrafts
Flight tests on NASA's Ikhana, a modified Predator B unmanned aircraft adapted for civilian research, are under way at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base in California. The effort represents one of the first comprehensive flight validations of fiber optic sensor technology.
"Generations of aircraft and spacecraft could benefit from work with the new sensors if the sensors perform in the sky as they have in the laboratory," said Lance Richards, Dryden's Advanced Structures and Measurement group lead.
The weight reduction that fiber optic sensors would make possible could reduce operating costs and improve fuel efficiency. The development also opens up new opportunities and applications that would not be achievable with conventional technology. For example, the new sensors could enable adaptive wing-shape control.
"Active wing-shape control represents the gleam in the eye of every aerodynamicist," Richards said. "If the shape of the wing can be changed in flight, then the efficiency and performance of the aircraft can be improved, from takeoff and landing to cruising and maneuvering."
Six hair-like fibers located on the top surface of Ikhana's wings provide more than 2,000 strain measurements in real time. With a combined weight of less than two pounds, the fibers are so small that they have no significant effects on aerodynamics. The sensors eventually could be embedded within composite wings in future aircraft.
To validate the new sensors' accuracy, the research team is comparing results obtained with the fiber optic wing shape sensors against those of 16 traditional strain gauges co-located on the wing alongside the new sensors.
"The sensors on Ikhana are imperceptibly small because they're located on fibers approximately the diameter of a human hair," Richards explained. "You can get the information you need from the thousands of sensors on a few fibers without the weight and complexity of conventional sensors. Strain gauges, for example, require three copper lead wires for every sensor."
When using the fiber optic sensors, researchers do not require analytical models for determining strain and other measurements on the aircraft because data derived with the sensors include all of the actual measurements being sought.
Another safety-related benefit of the lightweight fiber optic sensors is that thousands of sensors can be left on the aircraft during its lifetime, gathering data on structural health and performance. By knowing the stress levels at thousands of locations on the aircraft, designers can more optimally design structures and reduce weight while maintaining safety, Richards explained. The net result could be a reduction in fuel costs and an increase in range.
Further, intelligent flight control software technology now being developed can incorporate structural monitoring data from the fiber optic sensors to compensate for stresses on the airframe, helping prevent situations that might otherwise result in a loss of flight control.
By extension, the application of the technology to wind turbines could improve their performance by making their blades more efficient.
"An improvement of only a few percent equals a huge economic benefit," Richards said. "The sensors could also be used to look at the stress of structures, like bridges and dams, and possibilities extend to potential biomedical uses as well. The applications of this technology are mind-boggling."
"Generations of aircraft and spacecraft could benefit from work with the new sensors if the sensors perform in the sky as they have in the laboratory," said Lance Richards, Dryden's Advanced Structures and Measurement group lead.
The weight reduction that fiber optic sensors would make possible could reduce operating costs and improve fuel efficiency. The development also opens up new opportunities and applications that would not be achievable with conventional technology. For example, the new sensors could enable adaptive wing-shape control.
"Active wing-shape control represents the gleam in the eye of every aerodynamicist," Richards said. "If the shape of the wing can be changed in flight, then the efficiency and performance of the aircraft can be improved, from takeoff and landing to cruising and maneuvering."
Six hair-like fibers located on the top surface of Ikhana's wings provide more than 2,000 strain measurements in real time. With a combined weight of less than two pounds, the fibers are so small that they have no significant effects on aerodynamics. The sensors eventually could be embedded within composite wings in future aircraft.
To validate the new sensors' accuracy, the research team is comparing results obtained with the fiber optic wing shape sensors against those of 16 traditional strain gauges co-located on the wing alongside the new sensors.
"The sensors on Ikhana are imperceptibly small because they're located on fibers approximately the diameter of a human hair," Richards explained. "You can get the information you need from the thousands of sensors on a few fibers without the weight and complexity of conventional sensors. Strain gauges, for example, require three copper lead wires for every sensor."
When using the fiber optic sensors, researchers do not require analytical models for determining strain and other measurements on the aircraft because data derived with the sensors include all of the actual measurements being sought.
Another safety-related benefit of the lightweight fiber optic sensors is that thousands of sensors can be left on the aircraft during its lifetime, gathering data on structural health and performance. By knowing the stress levels at thousands of locations on the aircraft, designers can more optimally design structures and reduce weight while maintaining safety, Richards explained. The net result could be a reduction in fuel costs and an increase in range.
Further, intelligent flight control software technology now being developed can incorporate structural monitoring data from the fiber optic sensors to compensate for stresses on the airframe, helping prevent situations that might otherwise result in a loss of flight control.
By extension, the application of the technology to wind turbines could improve their performance by making their blades more efficient.
"An improvement of only a few percent equals a huge economic benefit," Richards said. "The sensors could also be used to look at the stress of structures, like bridges and dams, and possibilities extend to potential biomedical uses as well. The applications of this technology are mind-boggling."
Nuclear Propulsion - New Aircraft Technology
The principles behind using atomic energy for the propulsion of aircraft were developed early in the atomic age. As early as 1942 Enrico Fermi and his associates involved with the Manhattan District Project discussed the use of atomic power to propel aircraft.It was in 1946 that a study by John Hopkins University's Applied Physics Laboratory delineated the potentials and problems of using atomic power for aircraft propulsion. Chief amongst the problems at the time was the lack of data on the effects of radiation on materials which would be used in a design. Some of the other basic problems were the possible release of radioactive fission products or isotopes during normal operation or due to any accident, shielding the crew and persons on the ground from radiation, and the selection of test sites and ranges. There was the potential for the release of radioactive materials to the atmosphere and the problems of direct radiation during operational use. The requirements for an operational nuclear aircraft were that, even under the most adverse conditions, the aircraft did not add materially to the general background atmospheric radioactivity and that while in use the aircraft restricted all harmful radiation to within the craft or a predesignated exclusion area.
In 1946 the interest in atomic aircraft developed into a long-lived project know as NEPA, for Nuclear energy for the Propulsion of Aircraft. The NEPA project, which started in May, was controlled by the United States Air Force (USAF) and was therefore oriented towards developing both an atomic- powered long-range strategic bomber and high-performance aircraft. Nuclear power showed promise in both fields because of its dual nature of long-lasting fuel supply and the high temperatures theoretically possible using a reactor. However, in a paper in 1957 Kelly Johnson and F. A. Cleveland, both of Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, wrote, "It appears that the strategic bomber, by requiring both high speed and great endurance and because of the inherent low-altitude potential advantages over similar chemical airplanes, will be the first candidate for a nuclear power plant."
The NEPA contract was with the Fairchild Engine & Airframe Co., and the work was conducted at Oak Ridge. By the end of 1948 the USAF had invested approximately ten million dollars in the program. Extensive studies were conducted under NEPA from 1946 until 1951, at which time it was replaced by the joint Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) / USAF ANP program. The ANP program set forth the ambitious goal of full-scale development of aircraft reactor and engine systems. One of the factors that led to the creation of the ANP program was a study done at MIT by a group convened by the AEC in 1948 to look at the potential uses of atomic powered flight. "This study group, known as the Lexington Project, came to the conclusion that nuclear aircraft (manned) were likely less difficult than nuclear ramjets, which, in turn, would be less difficult than nuclear rockets to develop." Ironically, this turned out to be the reverse of the proper order of difficulty, as later research and development would prove. Although nuclear ramjets, under Project Pluto, and nuclear rockets, under Project Rover, were successfully tested at the levels needed for operational use, an operational level atomic aircraft powerplant was never developed. In 1954, Raymond Clare Briant, who was then the director of the ANP Project stated that "manned nuclear aircraft pose the most difficult engineering development job yet attempted within this century."
Unfortunately the ANP program wasn't very well organized. Instead of trying to develop one aspect of the technology to a working stage the effort was spread out over a number of areas. Part of the problem was that, under the conventional guidelines, the AEC was responsible for reactor development while the Air Force was responsible for development of the remainder of the system. Therefore the project was divided into two parts which needed to work closely together, but these two parts were managed by totally separate entities.
Under the ANP program the General Electric Co., at Evendale, Cincinnati was issued a contract to develop a direct-cycle turbojet, and Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Division of United Aircraft Corp. was authorized to study an indirect cycle and work was started at the Connecticut Aircraft Nuclear Engine Laboratory (CANEL). In the direct air cycle air enters through the compressor stage of one or more turbojets. From there the air passes through a plenum an is directed through the reactor core. The air, acting as the reactor coolant, is rapidly heated as it travels through the core. After passing through the reactor the air passes through another plenum and is directed to the turbine section of the turbojet(s) and from there out through the tailpipe. An indirect system is very similar, except that the air does not pass through the reactor itself. After passing through the compressor the air passes through a heat exchanger. The heat generated by the reactor is carried by a working fluid to this heat exchanger. The air then passes through the turbine and out the tailpipe as above. The working fluid in the indirect cycle is usually a dense fluid, such as a liquid metal, or highly pressurized water. This allows more heat energy to be transfer, thereby increasing the efficiency of the system.
In an article in the SAE Journal, L.W. Credit wrote, "Of three alternatives for achieving flight reliability in nuclear aircraft through component or system redundancy, the single-reactor, all-nuclear aircraft seems to be the optimum design." The other two alternatives were a dual-reactor system and a combination nuclear-chemical (combustion) system. Originally the ANP program was to develop an indirect cycle, single reactor propulsion system. However, a petition by General Electric to the government allowed them to develop the direct cycle system. GE claimed that the direct cycle was simpler and therefore would have a shorter development time. For the indirect cycle system, Pratt & Whitney developed the super-critical water reactor, in which the working fluid is water heated to 1,500 degrees fahrenheit, but kept in a liquid state by pressurizing to 5,000psi. This avoided the problems of using a liquid metal working fluid. The United States has never favored the operational use of liquid metal reactors. To date all military reactors in active service, with the exception of the one liquid sodium reactor on the attack submarine USS Seawolf, have been of the Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) type. Even the USS Seawolf experienced enough problems that the liquid sodium reactor was replaced with one of a PWR design after a few years in service.
Part of the ANP program was the X-6 program. Beginning in 1952, the designated goal of the X-6 program was to produce two flying testbeds powered by atomic energy. The test program started by testing shielding problems. A B-36 was converted for this purpose. This aircraft was referred to as the Nuclear Test Aircraft (NTA). The NTA began its life as a Convair B-36H bomber, but after conversion it was redesignated as an NB-36H. It was modified to carry a small air cooled reactor in the aft bomb bay and to provide shielding for the crew. The NTA incorporated shielding around the reactor itself and a totally new nose section which housed a twelve ton lead and rubber shielded compartment for the crew. There were also water jackets in the fuselage and behind the crew compartment to absorb radiation. The reactor was made critical in flight on several occasions and the aircraft was used for many radiation and shielding experiments.
Convair's successful flight program with the B-36 carrying a flight test reactor (July 1955 - March 1957)" showed that the "aircraft normally would pose no threat, even if flying low. The principal concerns would be: (a) accidents which cause the release of fission products from the reactors, and (b) the dosage from exposure to leakage radioactivity (in the direct cycle concept).
It was decided that the risks caused by radiation were no greater than the risks that had been incurred during the development of steam and electric power, the airplane, the automobile, or the rocket.
The B-36 was also to provide the basis for the actual X-6 aircraft. At the time the B-36 was the only existing, time tested, airframe large and powerful enough to carry the expected engine and shield weight. The engine chosen was the J53 turbojet. At the time the J53 was a conventional turbojet in the planning stage at General Electric. The J53 was a high- performance design and it was felt that conversion to nuclear power would present no more difficulty than any other design then in use. In the early stages of the program, before GE's petition, it was planned to connect the J53 to a liquid-metal reactor for use on the X-6. The original propulsion system was to have weighed 165,000 pounds. This was composed of a 10,000 pound reactor, 60,000 pounds of reactor shielding, 37,000 pounds of crew shielding, and a total engine weight of 18,000 pounds plus an additional 40,000 pounds for ducts and accessories. After experiencing development problems with the J53, GE resorted to the J47 as the powerplant. J47s converted for nuclear testing were referred to as X-39s.
It should be noted that the United States was not the only country working on atomic aircraft in the early years. The Soviet Union had a few projects of their own. One aircraft, a flying boat, proposed in 1950 would have had a flying weight of 1,000 tons.
It was planned to equip the giant airplane with four atomic turbo-prop engines. The wing span was more than 130 meters, and the total power of the engines exceeded one-half million horsepower. This airplane was supposed to carry 1,000 passengers and 100 tons of load at a speed of 1,000 kilometers per hour.
It was planned to surround the reactor with five layers of shielding. The layers were supposed to be as follows: first layer - beryllium oxide reflector; second layer - liquid sodium for removing heat from the walls; third layer - cadmium, for absorbing slow neutrons; forth layer - paraffin wax, for slowing down fast neutrons; fifth layer - a steel shell, for absorbing slow neutrons and gamma-rays. Such multilayer 'armor' permits decreasing the weight and size of the necessary shielding. The coolant was liquid lead.
The Soviets studied many of the same options the United States considered; both direct and indirect cycles, turbo-props, shadow shielding, and the special ground handling needed. One fact that is striking is that in the Soviet design the total weight of the atomic power plant was to be 80 tons. 80 tons is equal to 160,000 pounds, which compared to the original figures for the X-6 propulsion system, which was 165,000 pounds, was practically identical.
The reference to 'shadow shielding' above is to the practice of dividing the shields between the reactor and the crew, the crew being in the 'shadow' created by the shields. This is also referred to as the divided shield concept.
If it were possible to put as much shielding on the reactor as is done on ground reactors, we could reduce the radiation therefrom to a negligible amount. But the total weight of shielding required to do this would be prohibitive; in fact, we are forced to the so-called 'divided shield' concept in order to reduce total shield weight to an acceptable amount. Divided shielding is, of course, simply a division of the shielding between the reactor and the crew compartment in such a fashion as to result in near- minimum total shielding weight.
Distributing the shields lessens the total shield weight, but it also means that the majority of the aircraft would have been exposed to higher levels of radiation. And once on the ground more radiation would penetrate the surrounding area. These problems were to be overcome by newer materials and by designing the aircraft's servicing equipment with the higher radiation levels in mind. Divided the shields also had some other benefits;
The directional nature of the radiation leads also to the fact that aircraft structure and components are useful as shielding material, and judicious use of such things as the wing box, landing gear, pay load, and fuel for landing go-arounds can reduce the thickness of shielding required on the crew compartment rear face.
The problem with shield weight was one of two major problems which surfaced during the program. The other was increasing reactor performance. The ANP program focused a great deal of effort on developing the divided shield concept, decreasing the required shield size by decreasing reactor size via increasing reactor power density, increasing the operating temperature of the reactor to boost efficiency and therefore aircraft performance, and utilizing the reduced shield mass in aircraft design. Although work on an actual airframe never got very far, a great deal of work was accomplished on the power plants.
General Electric ran a series of very successful experiments using the direct cycle concept. These were referred to as the Heat Transfer Reactor Experiment (HTRE) series. The series involved three reactors, HTRE-1 through HTRE-3. HTRE-1 became HTRE-2 at the conclusion of its test program. HTRE-1 (and therefore HTRE-2) successfully ran one X-39 (modified J-47) solely under nuclear power. HTRE-3 was the closest to a flight article the program came. It was solid moderated, as opposed to the earlier reactors which were water moderated, and it powered two X-39s at higher power levels. HTRE-3 was limited by the two turbojets, but it could have powered larger jets at even higher power levels. HTRE-1 was principally a proof of concept reactor. "HTRE-1 achieved a number of full-power runs that demonstrated conclusively the feasibility of operating a jet engine on nuclear power." HTRE-2 was simply HTRE-1 modified to test advanced reactor sections in a central hexagonal chamber. In this way new reactor designs could be tested without the need to build a totally new reactor from scratch. The experience gained from HTRE-1 and HTRE-2 was used in the construction of HTRE-3. HTRE-3 was the final test item designed to prove the feasibility of producing an actual aircraft powerplant. "The design and testing of HTRE-3 has advanced the direct-cycle program beyond the question of feasibility to the problems of engineering optimization."
All three of the HTRE reactors were of the standard direct cycle configuration, with the addition of a chemical combustor just upstream from the turbines. This combustor allowed the jets to be started on chemical power and then be switched over to atomic heat as the reactor was brought up to operating temperatures. The operational system may have also utilized a chemical combustor for use during takeoff and landing, and possibly target penetration, when the reactors relatively slow response time could be a disadvantage.
The HTRE either met or exceeded their goals, but although all had reactor cores of roughly the size needed to fit into an aircraft, none of the HTREs were designed to be a prototype of a flight system; the series showed that it then appeared "possible and practical with the technology in hand to build a flyable reactor of the same materials as HTRE-3 and similar in physical size." Despite the fact that HTRE-3 didn't produce the power that would have been needed for flight, that was mainly because it was not an optimized design; it was designed simply as a research reactor, to prove the concepts needed for a flight article.
At the end of the HTRE run the probability of flying a reactor seemed high. The test runs showed that a reactor using the same materials as HTRE-3, and which could power a gas-turbine powerplant, could have been built at that time. Such a reactor would meet all of the requirements needed for a flight ready unit. In their paper Kelly Johnson and F. A. Cleveland also stated that "when improved materials are available, we would expect the nuclear power plant to advance rapidly in its overall efficiency, with a consequent improvement in ability to install such power plants in airplanes of smaller size than those currently contemplated."
While GE was working on the direct cycle, Pratt & Whitney (P&W) was working on the indirect cycle. However, progress went much slower that it did with the HTREs. P&W never ran a practical test system. In fact their work was limited to component testing. In addition to work on the super-critical water reactor P&W worked with liquid metal coolant designs. It was the latter that received the most attention. The two major designs were a solid core reactor, in which the liquid metal circulated through a solid reactor core, and a circulating-fuel design, in which fuel was mixed with the coolant and critical mass was achieved as the coolant circulated through a central core. After the circulating-fuel design showed promise, work on the super-critical reactor was halted. P&W did accomplish a great deal on the design of liquid metal cooling loops, corrosion prevention, and heat exchanger design. However, P&W work at CANEL never led to a test reactor, much less one which was flight ready. In the long run the indirect cycle showed more promise, but it also required a great deal more developmental work.
While these test programs were successful, there were other programs which weren't. A number of programs were begun at a great cost of time and money, only to be dropped when the program went through one of its many reorientations. The official U.S. government report on the ANP project lists such programs. A Flight Engine Test facility was built in Idaho for use to test the flight engine both on the ground and in the test aircraft. This facility cost over eight million dollars, yet it was never used during the ANP program, other than as a storage building, because the flight program was cancelled. A radiator laboratory was constructed at CANEL for use in studying liquid metal to air heat transfer. After spending over six million dollars the construction was halted with only a shell completed because the Air Force changed its mind. Another laboratory was built at CANEL to study vacuum conditions. This laboratory cost over a million dollars, and it entered use in March 1961, the same month that the ANP program was cancelled. These were only the largest of the wastes. There were numerous instances of wasted time and money, none of which can really be blamed on the technicians, since the leaders changed their minds and the equipment went unused.
In 1946 the interest in atomic aircraft developed into a long-lived project know as NEPA, for Nuclear energy for the Propulsion of Aircraft. The NEPA project, which started in May, was controlled by the United States Air Force (USAF) and was therefore oriented towards developing both an atomic- powered long-range strategic bomber and high-performance aircraft. Nuclear power showed promise in both fields because of its dual nature of long-lasting fuel supply and the high temperatures theoretically possible using a reactor. However, in a paper in 1957 Kelly Johnson and F. A. Cleveland, both of Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, wrote, "It appears that the strategic bomber, by requiring both high speed and great endurance and because of the inherent low-altitude potential advantages over similar chemical airplanes, will be the first candidate for a nuclear power plant."
The NEPA contract was with the Fairchild Engine & Airframe Co., and the work was conducted at Oak Ridge. By the end of 1948 the USAF had invested approximately ten million dollars in the program. Extensive studies were conducted under NEPA from 1946 until 1951, at which time it was replaced by the joint Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) / USAF ANP program. The ANP program set forth the ambitious goal of full-scale development of aircraft reactor and engine systems. One of the factors that led to the creation of the ANP program was a study done at MIT by a group convened by the AEC in 1948 to look at the potential uses of atomic powered flight. "This study group, known as the Lexington Project, came to the conclusion that nuclear aircraft (manned) were likely less difficult than nuclear ramjets, which, in turn, would be less difficult than nuclear rockets to develop." Ironically, this turned out to be the reverse of the proper order of difficulty, as later research and development would prove. Although nuclear ramjets, under Project Pluto, and nuclear rockets, under Project Rover, were successfully tested at the levels needed for operational use, an operational level atomic aircraft powerplant was never developed. In 1954, Raymond Clare Briant, who was then the director of the ANP Project stated that "manned nuclear aircraft pose the most difficult engineering development job yet attempted within this century."
Unfortunately the ANP program wasn't very well organized. Instead of trying to develop one aspect of the technology to a working stage the effort was spread out over a number of areas. Part of the problem was that, under the conventional guidelines, the AEC was responsible for reactor development while the Air Force was responsible for development of the remainder of the system. Therefore the project was divided into two parts which needed to work closely together, but these two parts were managed by totally separate entities.
Under the ANP program the General Electric Co., at Evendale, Cincinnati was issued a contract to develop a direct-cycle turbojet, and Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Division of United Aircraft Corp. was authorized to study an indirect cycle and work was started at the Connecticut Aircraft Nuclear Engine Laboratory (CANEL). In the direct air cycle air enters through the compressor stage of one or more turbojets. From there the air passes through a plenum an is directed through the reactor core. The air, acting as the reactor coolant, is rapidly heated as it travels through the core. After passing through the reactor the air passes through another plenum and is directed to the turbine section of the turbojet(s) and from there out through the tailpipe. An indirect system is very similar, except that the air does not pass through the reactor itself. After passing through the compressor the air passes through a heat exchanger. The heat generated by the reactor is carried by a working fluid to this heat exchanger. The air then passes through the turbine and out the tailpipe as above. The working fluid in the indirect cycle is usually a dense fluid, such as a liquid metal, or highly pressurized water. This allows more heat energy to be transfer, thereby increasing the efficiency of the system.
In an article in the SAE Journal, L.W. Credit wrote, "Of three alternatives for achieving flight reliability in nuclear aircraft through component or system redundancy, the single-reactor, all-nuclear aircraft seems to be the optimum design." The other two alternatives were a dual-reactor system and a combination nuclear-chemical (combustion) system. Originally the ANP program was to develop an indirect cycle, single reactor propulsion system. However, a petition by General Electric to the government allowed them to develop the direct cycle system. GE claimed that the direct cycle was simpler and therefore would have a shorter development time. For the indirect cycle system, Pratt & Whitney developed the super-critical water reactor, in which the working fluid is water heated to 1,500 degrees fahrenheit, but kept in a liquid state by pressurizing to 5,000psi. This avoided the problems of using a liquid metal working fluid. The United States has never favored the operational use of liquid metal reactors. To date all military reactors in active service, with the exception of the one liquid sodium reactor on the attack submarine USS Seawolf, have been of the Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) type. Even the USS Seawolf experienced enough problems that the liquid sodium reactor was replaced with one of a PWR design after a few years in service.
Part of the ANP program was the X-6 program. Beginning in 1952, the designated goal of the X-6 program was to produce two flying testbeds powered by atomic energy. The test program started by testing shielding problems. A B-36 was converted for this purpose. This aircraft was referred to as the Nuclear Test Aircraft (NTA). The NTA began its life as a Convair B-36H bomber, but after conversion it was redesignated as an NB-36H. It was modified to carry a small air cooled reactor in the aft bomb bay and to provide shielding for the crew. The NTA incorporated shielding around the reactor itself and a totally new nose section which housed a twelve ton lead and rubber shielded compartment for the crew. There were also water jackets in the fuselage and behind the crew compartment to absorb radiation. The reactor was made critical in flight on several occasions and the aircraft was used for many radiation and shielding experiments.
Convair's successful flight program with the B-36 carrying a flight test reactor (July 1955 - March 1957)" showed that the "aircraft normally would pose no threat, even if flying low. The principal concerns would be: (a) accidents which cause the release of fission products from the reactors, and (b) the dosage from exposure to leakage radioactivity (in the direct cycle concept).
It was decided that the risks caused by radiation were no greater than the risks that had been incurred during the development of steam and electric power, the airplane, the automobile, or the rocket.
The B-36 was also to provide the basis for the actual X-6 aircraft. At the time the B-36 was the only existing, time tested, airframe large and powerful enough to carry the expected engine and shield weight. The engine chosen was the J53 turbojet. At the time the J53 was a conventional turbojet in the planning stage at General Electric. The J53 was a high- performance design and it was felt that conversion to nuclear power would present no more difficulty than any other design then in use. In the early stages of the program, before GE's petition, it was planned to connect the J53 to a liquid-metal reactor for use on the X-6. The original propulsion system was to have weighed 165,000 pounds. This was composed of a 10,000 pound reactor, 60,000 pounds of reactor shielding, 37,000 pounds of crew shielding, and a total engine weight of 18,000 pounds plus an additional 40,000 pounds for ducts and accessories. After experiencing development problems with the J53, GE resorted to the J47 as the powerplant. J47s converted for nuclear testing were referred to as X-39s.
It should be noted that the United States was not the only country working on atomic aircraft in the early years. The Soviet Union had a few projects of their own. One aircraft, a flying boat, proposed in 1950 would have had a flying weight of 1,000 tons.
It was planned to equip the giant airplane with four atomic turbo-prop engines. The wing span was more than 130 meters, and the total power of the engines exceeded one-half million horsepower. This airplane was supposed to carry 1,000 passengers and 100 tons of load at a speed of 1,000 kilometers per hour.
It was planned to surround the reactor with five layers of shielding. The layers were supposed to be as follows: first layer - beryllium oxide reflector; second layer - liquid sodium for removing heat from the walls; third layer - cadmium, for absorbing slow neutrons; forth layer - paraffin wax, for slowing down fast neutrons; fifth layer - a steel shell, for absorbing slow neutrons and gamma-rays. Such multilayer 'armor' permits decreasing the weight and size of the necessary shielding. The coolant was liquid lead.
The Soviets studied many of the same options the United States considered; both direct and indirect cycles, turbo-props, shadow shielding, and the special ground handling needed. One fact that is striking is that in the Soviet design the total weight of the atomic power plant was to be 80 tons. 80 tons is equal to 160,000 pounds, which compared to the original figures for the X-6 propulsion system, which was 165,000 pounds, was practically identical.
The reference to 'shadow shielding' above is to the practice of dividing the shields between the reactor and the crew, the crew being in the 'shadow' created by the shields. This is also referred to as the divided shield concept.
If it were possible to put as much shielding on the reactor as is done on ground reactors, we could reduce the radiation therefrom to a negligible amount. But the total weight of shielding required to do this would be prohibitive; in fact, we are forced to the so-called 'divided shield' concept in order to reduce total shield weight to an acceptable amount. Divided shielding is, of course, simply a division of the shielding between the reactor and the crew compartment in such a fashion as to result in near- minimum total shielding weight.
Distributing the shields lessens the total shield weight, but it also means that the majority of the aircraft would have been exposed to higher levels of radiation. And once on the ground more radiation would penetrate the surrounding area. These problems were to be overcome by newer materials and by designing the aircraft's servicing equipment with the higher radiation levels in mind. Divided the shields also had some other benefits;
The directional nature of the radiation leads also to the fact that aircraft structure and components are useful as shielding material, and judicious use of such things as the wing box, landing gear, pay load, and fuel for landing go-arounds can reduce the thickness of shielding required on the crew compartment rear face.
The problem with shield weight was one of two major problems which surfaced during the program. The other was increasing reactor performance. The ANP program focused a great deal of effort on developing the divided shield concept, decreasing the required shield size by decreasing reactor size via increasing reactor power density, increasing the operating temperature of the reactor to boost efficiency and therefore aircraft performance, and utilizing the reduced shield mass in aircraft design. Although work on an actual airframe never got very far, a great deal of work was accomplished on the power plants.
General Electric ran a series of very successful experiments using the direct cycle concept. These were referred to as the Heat Transfer Reactor Experiment (HTRE) series. The series involved three reactors, HTRE-1 through HTRE-3. HTRE-1 became HTRE-2 at the conclusion of its test program. HTRE-1 (and therefore HTRE-2) successfully ran one X-39 (modified J-47) solely under nuclear power. HTRE-3 was the closest to a flight article the program came. It was solid moderated, as opposed to the earlier reactors which were water moderated, and it powered two X-39s at higher power levels. HTRE-3 was limited by the two turbojets, but it could have powered larger jets at even higher power levels. HTRE-1 was principally a proof of concept reactor. "HTRE-1 achieved a number of full-power runs that demonstrated conclusively the feasibility of operating a jet engine on nuclear power." HTRE-2 was simply HTRE-1 modified to test advanced reactor sections in a central hexagonal chamber. In this way new reactor designs could be tested without the need to build a totally new reactor from scratch. The experience gained from HTRE-1 and HTRE-2 was used in the construction of HTRE-3. HTRE-3 was the final test item designed to prove the feasibility of producing an actual aircraft powerplant. "The design and testing of HTRE-3 has advanced the direct-cycle program beyond the question of feasibility to the problems of engineering optimization."
All three of the HTRE reactors were of the standard direct cycle configuration, with the addition of a chemical combustor just upstream from the turbines. This combustor allowed the jets to be started on chemical power and then be switched over to atomic heat as the reactor was brought up to operating temperatures. The operational system may have also utilized a chemical combustor for use during takeoff and landing, and possibly target penetration, when the reactors relatively slow response time could be a disadvantage.
The HTRE either met or exceeded their goals, but although all had reactor cores of roughly the size needed to fit into an aircraft, none of the HTREs were designed to be a prototype of a flight system; the series showed that it then appeared "possible and practical with the technology in hand to build a flyable reactor of the same materials as HTRE-3 and similar in physical size." Despite the fact that HTRE-3 didn't produce the power that would have been needed for flight, that was mainly because it was not an optimized design; it was designed simply as a research reactor, to prove the concepts needed for a flight article.
At the end of the HTRE run the probability of flying a reactor seemed high. The test runs showed that a reactor using the same materials as HTRE-3, and which could power a gas-turbine powerplant, could have been built at that time. Such a reactor would meet all of the requirements needed for a flight ready unit. In their paper Kelly Johnson and F. A. Cleveland also stated that "when improved materials are available, we would expect the nuclear power plant to advance rapidly in its overall efficiency, with a consequent improvement in ability to install such power plants in airplanes of smaller size than those currently contemplated."
While GE was working on the direct cycle, Pratt & Whitney (P&W) was working on the indirect cycle. However, progress went much slower that it did with the HTREs. P&W never ran a practical test system. In fact their work was limited to component testing. In addition to work on the super-critical water reactor P&W worked with liquid metal coolant designs. It was the latter that received the most attention. The two major designs were a solid core reactor, in which the liquid metal circulated through a solid reactor core, and a circulating-fuel design, in which fuel was mixed with the coolant and critical mass was achieved as the coolant circulated through a central core. After the circulating-fuel design showed promise, work on the super-critical reactor was halted. P&W did accomplish a great deal on the design of liquid metal cooling loops, corrosion prevention, and heat exchanger design. However, P&W work at CANEL never led to a test reactor, much less one which was flight ready. In the long run the indirect cycle showed more promise, but it also required a great deal more developmental work.
While these test programs were successful, there were other programs which weren't. A number of programs were begun at a great cost of time and money, only to be dropped when the program went through one of its many reorientations. The official U.S. government report on the ANP project lists such programs. A Flight Engine Test facility was built in Idaho for use to test the flight engine both on the ground and in the test aircraft. This facility cost over eight million dollars, yet it was never used during the ANP program, other than as a storage building, because the flight program was cancelled. A radiator laboratory was constructed at CANEL for use in studying liquid metal to air heat transfer. After spending over six million dollars the construction was halted with only a shell completed because the Air Force changed its mind. Another laboratory was built at CANEL to study vacuum conditions. This laboratory cost over a million dollars, and it entered use in March 1961, the same month that the ANP program was cancelled. These were only the largest of the wastes. There were numerous instances of wasted time and money, none of which can really be blamed on the technicians, since the leaders changed their minds and the equipment went unused.
Gravity Powered Aircraft Technology
Former nuclear designer, Robert D. Hunt of Hunt Aviation Corp has come up with a new "gravity powered aircraft technology" that he claims can accomplish sustained fuel-less flight. Hunt has designed a new hybrid aircraft: a "gravity-powered aircraft" which is a fixed wing, ridged skin airplane made of lightweight and modern composite materials. By October 2003, Hunt Aviation Corp had already begun the first phase of prototype construction, assembling a consortium of aviation manufacturers and suppliers that wish to support the revolutionary aircraft technology.
Interestingly, because this hybrid plane uses technology of gliding and aerostatic lift, the idea for sustained flight actually has more in common with the older technology of Leonardo Da Vinci's first primitive hang glider than it does from the Wright Brother's engine powered airplane only a century ago.
The "Gravity-Plane", as Hunt Aviation likes to call it, uses gravity's dual properties - buoyancy which creates an upward motion in order to gain altitude, and gravity acceleration which creates a forward and downward gliding motion. The two motions combined form the heart of Hunt's new gravity powered technology, a technology that could make for a much healthier and cleaner environment.
In the Hunt Aviation's "Gravity-Plane", buoyancy is created by gas bags filled with helium within two large rigid pontoon shaped lifting bodies. This buoyancy lifts the "Gravity-Plane" to high altitudes to create lighter-than-air lift.
Despite being a better "lifting gas" than Helium, Hydrogenhydrogen is generally not used in this way because it is combustible. Inert Helium, widely used in lighter-than-air airships, can now be used to attain altitudes of over 100,000 feet and may be built very large to carry heavy loads of passengers and cargo approaching 1,000 tons according to Hunt. By comparison, a U. S. military C-17 heavy lifter only carries 70 tons.
Even better than Helium , according to Hunt, is the idea to use a vacuum-lift system in the hybrid aircraft. During normal operation of the aircraft, lift is provided by the vacuum contained within rigid cells. As a precautionary measure, the new hybrid aircraft will use a Dual-Aerostatic-Lift system that will include the use of vacuum-lift and the use of a lifting gas. The lifting gas is expanded into collapsible gas bags, in the event of rupture of the vacuum-lift cell wall.
Obvious benefits of the technology are that the aircraft does not require fuel, which is aviation's main cost. This also makes the aircraft safer in terms of fuel burning or exploding. Furthermore, having no waste emissions or noise, the aircraft is extremely environmentally friendly. "Hunt's inventioninvention is the first practical use of gravity to provide a motive force by forming a continuous cycle out of two forces of gravity with the result being, for the first time ever, self-sustained fuel-less flight and this is a tremendous and historic accomplishment", stated Gene Cox, President of Hunt Aviation Corp.
Interestingly, because this hybrid plane uses technology of gliding and aerostatic lift, the idea for sustained flight actually has more in common with the older technology of Leonardo Da Vinci's first primitive hang glider than it does from the Wright Brother's engine powered airplane only a century ago.
The "Gravity-Plane", as Hunt Aviation likes to call it, uses gravity's dual properties - buoyancy which creates an upward motion in order to gain altitude, and gravity acceleration which creates a forward and downward gliding motion. The two motions combined form the heart of Hunt's new gravity powered technology, a technology that could make for a much healthier and cleaner environment.
In the Hunt Aviation's "Gravity-Plane", buoyancy is created by gas bags filled with helium within two large rigid pontoon shaped lifting bodies. This buoyancy lifts the "Gravity-Plane" to high altitudes to create lighter-than-air lift.
Despite being a better "lifting gas" than Helium, Hydrogenhydrogen is generally not used in this way because it is combustible. Inert Helium, widely used in lighter-than-air airships, can now be used to attain altitudes of over 100,000 feet and may be built very large to carry heavy loads of passengers and cargo approaching 1,000 tons according to Hunt. By comparison, a U. S. military C-17 heavy lifter only carries 70 tons.
Even better than Helium , according to Hunt, is the idea to use a vacuum-lift system in the hybrid aircraft. During normal operation of the aircraft, lift is provided by the vacuum contained within rigid cells. As a precautionary measure, the new hybrid aircraft will use a Dual-Aerostatic-Lift system that will include the use of vacuum-lift and the use of a lifting gas. The lifting gas is expanded into collapsible gas bags, in the event of rupture of the vacuum-lift cell wall.
Obvious benefits of the technology are that the aircraft does not require fuel, which is aviation's main cost. This also makes the aircraft safer in terms of fuel burning or exploding. Furthermore, having no waste emissions or noise, the aircraft is extremely environmentally friendly. "Hunt's inventioninvention is the first practical use of gravity to provide a motive force by forming a continuous cycle out of two forces of gravity with the result being, for the first time ever, self-sustained fuel-less flight and this is a tremendous and historic accomplishment", stated Gene Cox, President of Hunt Aviation Corp.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)