Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Nuclear Powered Planes: Feasibility? Message-ID: <11151@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 6 Nov 89 05:03:34 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Lines: 26 Approved: military@att.att.com From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: "Stephen D. Grant" >it was mentioned that back in the 60's the concept of a nuclear powered >aircraft was on the drawing board. However there seemed to be some problem >with putting a reactor aboard an aircraft... The idea continues to percolate in a small way. A few years ago I saw a design sketch of a nuclear-powered fighter (!). The problems are still roughly the same as they were when the original nuclear-aircraft ideas were abandoned. Adequate shielding for the crew weighs an awful lot. Keeping shielding weight within the bounds of sanity requires shielding *only* the crew, i.e. the nose, which makes servicing etc. very awkward. There are serious problems with the aftermath of crashes... and *all* military aircraft crash sometimes. And in general, the complications and weight penalties don't seem worth the range and endurance increase. Back in the 40s and 50s, the idea did look worth pursuing. But more conventional jet aircraft got a lot better pretty quickly, and flight refuelling extended their range quite effectively. Turbofan engines were the death blow; the B-52H, with early turbofans, has endurance of 24+ hours and range of 12000+ miles *without* refuelling. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu