| Page 4 of 4 |
[ 47 posts ] |
Airplane bias?
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
Moderator  
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 2:25 am
Posts: 161 Location: DFW, Texas 
|
 Posted on: Mon Nov 24, 2003 4:42 pmIf the goal is to reduce costs, then VTOL is very likely not a solution. There are numerous examples of VTOL aircraft being much expensive than regular aircraft. Here's one example. The V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor is more efficient in many respects than helicopters, but the operating and maintenance costs are approximately 3 times that of similar size turboprop aircraft.
In any case, mixing unpowered spacecraft traffic and commercial airline traffic, is not something the FAA could easily contemplate. |
| Back to top |
 |
|
Moderator 
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:06 am
Posts: 147
|
Posted on: Fri Nov 28, 2003 5:09 am traveler wrote: If the goal is to reduce costs, then VTOL is very likely not a solution. There are numerous examples of VTOL aircraft being much expensive than regular aircraft. Here's one example. The V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor is more efficient in many respects than helicopters, but the operating and maintenance costs are approximately 3 times that of similar size turboprop aircraft. In any case, mixing unpowered spacecraft traffic and commercial airline traffic, is not something the FAA could easily contemplate. In general, the goal is to reduce costs over current VTOL systems...ELVs and the Space Shuttle. Maintenance costs for VTOL craft are generally higher also due to limited production runs. Compare maintenance costs for say the AV-8 Harrier to the F-18. I agree that unpowered traffic would be problematice for the FAA. As mentioned, solutions like the SS1, daVinci, Black Armadillo, Canadian Arrrow and StarChaser are at least one generation away. Which teams have anounced plans for crafts with powered landings in the future? |
| Back to top |
 |
  |
Page 4 of 4 |
[ 47 posts ] |
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests |
Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.