Why can't they make Passenger aircraft

[emmie]

in the same way as say the Harrier jump jet, with a vertical take off. Wouldn't that save on building more runways. Now i am not saying it can be done, i am most certainly not an expert in aviation, but wouldn't a completely different type of airliner be better than this constant battle for more runways.

[237SJ]

Zeuhl - google BA/Solena Group. There are a few answers there.

[emmie]

237j this is not so much how to get the craft to go, more could they not find a way to go up directly, thereby negating the need for ever more runways.

[237SJ]

They wouldn`t have enough thrust to lift a fully laden aircraft that weighs hundreds of tonnes. That would be a rocket, not an aeroplane.

[Zeuhl]

<land is being gobbled up for houses here, and the same surely is true for China, India and many other developing nations.>

em
98% of land in China is 'undeveloped' - they, the Indians (and the cowboys) have oodles of space compared with us.

<up in the air in the same way that .. a Helicopter does. >

That'll be a helicopter then LOL

I assume large helicopters are relatively inefficient over long distance otherwise we'd have them

[emmie]

it's a perfectly serious question, and one idea that perhaps needs looking at for the future, as i said Gatwick are now looking to add another runway, and that is not going to go down well with the locals.

China however is being developed at an astonishing rate, they may have large tracts of land, but with the population growing as it is that won't last forever.

[whiskeryron]

I wish that the Airship had been developed in the way that jet aircraft have. I know that they were much slower but I reckon that with the discovery of Helium airships could have been produced with jet engines for forward thrust.

RW.

[emmie]

not so much the danger Ron but they didn't hold that many passengers, unless i am much mistaken. I know that many people were killed when the R101 went down, but not sure the numbers.

[whiskeryron]

48 of the 54 passengers were killed ( Wikipedia)

WR.

[emmie]

that is what i meant, the people capacity was quite small to the size of the craft.

[Hopkirk]

I wouldn't fancy holding the guy rope of an airship, when a storm passes through.

If you want to put them indoors during a storm, you need some serious structures.

The R100 and R101 hangers are still standing near Bedford

http://farm2.staticfl...9105_e3f0e0fe4f_z.jpg

[deggers316]

your correct in one aspect em10 you know NOTHING about the laws of physics

[jno]

the superjumbos are one answer to the landing slot problem. You still only take one landing slot but unload twice as many people. Airships on the other hand seemed to occupy a huge amount of space in relation to the number of people they carried, as you say.

I'd like to see a superjumbo hover. Not over my house, of course.

[Thatcherite]

It's not just the cost, it's not practical.

[Hopkirk]

.. and probably a tad noisy

[vulcan]

Time for the Flying boat to make a comeback.

[Toureman]

Because of the astronomic fuel use involved, that's why they developed that ski-jump thing off of aircraft carriers - to save fuel

No they didn't jake!

It was so the Harrier could Carry a heavier weapons load!

[emmie]

deggers, good thing you are so polite, just what i enjoy,

[JonnyBoy12]

Because it would be bl**dy expensive, that is why. A Jumbo Jet (Boeing 747) only uses 70mpg per passenger whereas a Harrier jump- jet uses about half of its fuel just taking off and landing.

Does this answer your question?

[emmie]

another polite answer, no it doesn't, and I was talking about the future in case you think of adding anything else. Jesus wept.