News   Nov 14, 2024
 252     0 
News   Nov 13, 2024
 1.2K     0 
News   Nov 13, 2024
 1.1K     4 

'Pocket airports' would link neighborhoods by air

M II A II R II K

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,944
Reaction score
1,061
'Pocket airports' would link neighborhoods by air


December 16, 2010

By Ben Coxworth

Read More: http://www.gizmag.com/pocket-airports-would-link-neighborhoods-by-air/17296/

A little over a year ago, we told you about NASA’s Green Flight Challenge that is offering US$1.6 million in production funds to the winning design for a for low-cost, quiet, short take-off personal aircraft, that require little if any fossil fuel. The competition, to be decided next July, is being run by NASA’s light-aircraft partner CAFE (Comparative Aircraft Flight Efficiency), which envisions the resulting Suburban Air Vehicles (SAVs) taking off and landing at small neighborhood “pocket airports.†At last week’s Future of Electric Vehicles conference, CAFE president Dr. Brien Seeley outlined just how those airports would work.

“The shocking news is, that after a full century of flight, aviation still fails to fulfill the fundamental purpose of moving people fast without need of roads,†he began. “We now believe that green technology can solve this.â€

According to Seeley, by the time travelers have made their way by ground to their city’s one main airport, and then traveled again by ground from the destination airport to their final destination point, the speed with which the waiting airliner will get them there has been negated. The solution, he explained, is 2 to 4-passenger SAVs that could ferry people between the main airports and conveniently-located pocket airports.

The Green Flight Challenge, he explained, is just the first step in NASA’s plan to develop a new aviation infrastructure, in which quiet, auto-piloted aircraft would deliver people and goods on a point-to-point basis, within communities. In order to qualify for the prize, planes will have to get at least 200 mpg (1.18 L/100km), go at least 100 mph (161 kph), emit no more than 78 decibels from a 250-foot (76-meter) distance, and have a take-off distance, clearing a 50-foot obstacle, of less than 2,000 feet (or a 15-meter obstacle at 610 meters).

For its pocket airports concept, however, CAFE would like to see those requirements ultimately taken even further – Seeley said that his group envisions SAVs that get well over 200 mpg, cruise at over 120 mph (193 kph), emit less than 60 dBA from 125 feet (38 meters), and have the ability to take off in a distance of under 100 feet (30.5 meters). Safety would also be a major consideration.

“This is what the SAV would offer you: a fast vehicle with an open road and no traffic,†he said. “The pathway you get through the sky is de-conflicted, so there’s no one else on that road, and you go directly where you want to go.†The various planes’ flightpaths would be coordinated by a central control system, to keep them from flying into one another, and each SAV would be equipped with a parachute.

The basic single-runway pocket airports would be no larger than two acres (0.8 hectares) in size, and located in greenbelts just outside major urban areas. They would be capable of 120 operations per hour, as rows of SAVs/air taxis would wait for their turn to take off, one going every 30 seconds. CAFE also has designs for a 4-acre (1.6-hectare) airport that would have three runways arranged in a triangle, that would be capable of 260 operations per hour, plus an 8-acre (3.2-hectare) version with two end-to-end runways (with a large space in between them), and a 12-acre (4.8-hectare) version with two sets of the end-to-end runways and parking for 320 ground vehicles.




pocketairports.jpg


pocketairports-5.jpg


pocketairports-0.jpg


pocketairports-1.jpg


pocketairports-2.jpg


pocketairports-3.jpg
 
The basic single-runway pocket airports would be no larger than two acres (0.8 hectares) in size, and located in greenbelts just outside major urban areas. They would be capable of 120 operations per hour, as rows of SAVs/air taxis would wait for their turn to take off, one going every 30 seconds.

Or a maximum of 480 people per hour (assuming full four person loads on all 120 operations). Not exactly a high capacity people mover given the land and infrastructure required.
 
A catapult, turned in the direction of travel would require a lot less land and emit zero at-source greenhouse gas emissions. The only information a catapult operator would require compass bearings and a weight table similar to that of a hangman to ensure precise landings into the net at the destination.
 
A catapult, turned in the direction of travel would require a lot less land and emit zero at-source greenhouse gas emissions. The only information a catapult operator would require compass bearings and a weight table similar to that of a hangman to ensure precise landings into the net at the destination.

Sounds very Monty Python-esque...
 
A catapult, turned in the direction of travel would require a lot less land and emit zero at-source greenhouse gas emissions. The only information a catapult operator would require compass bearings and a weight table similar to that of a hangman to ensure precise landings into the net at the destination.

In this day and age, with concerns about the safety of flying, greenhouse gases, and increasing congestion on our roads, how could we afford NOT to do this?
 
Not sure how the average commuter would appreciate having to receive several Gs on take off just to go to work every day like a Navy pilot.

People line up for hours to ride roller coasters to experience the exact same thing. Extreme commuting: there could be a market there :). I for one would pay $20 every now and then to get to work via aircraft carrier-like catapult, it would be a good pick-me-up in the morning.
 
People line up for hours to ride roller coasters to experience the exact same thing.

I presume you already know that the g-forces experienced on roller coasters are not as big or as sustained as navy airplanes whose pilots are physically trained and wearing g-suits.
 
I presume you already know that the g-forces experienced on roller coasters are not as big or as sustained as navy airplanes whose pilots are physically trained and wearing g-suits.

Yes I do. But I can still almost guarantee that if they made a ride that had the same G forces as taking off from an aircraft carrier, that people would be lining up the ride it. I've rode the Shuttle launch simulator at Kennedy Space Center. While the Gs aren't quite as extreme as an actual shuttle launch, it's pretty close. If they had something that simulated an aircraft carrier launch, I'd happily ride that too :).
 
Yes I do. But I can still almost guarantee that if they made a ride that had the same G forces as taking off from an aircraft carrier, that people would be lining up the ride it. I've rode the Shuttle launch simulator at Kennedy Space Center. While the Gs aren't quite as extreme as an actual shuttle launch, it's pretty close. If they had something that simulated an aircraft carrier launch, I'd happily ride that too :).

Until some person has died since their body can't keep up with the amount of Gs involved.
 

Back
Top