GROUP BUILDS > The Prototypes G.B.

Handley Page HP.80N Victomic - Finished Pics Page 19.

<< < (2/62) > >>

PR19_Kit:

--- Quote from: McColm on June 28, 2020, 04:44:09 am ---
Looks like the Martin SeaMaster with twin engines.


--- End quote ---

That's because it is, but with nuclear engines.

NARSES2:

--- Quote from: zenrat on June 27, 2020, 06:02:03 pm ---
Not sure on the mechanics of the reactor yet.  Some reading is required.

--- End quote ---

Admittedly I've not really tried, but I've never got my brain to even begin to understand the principals of nuclear powered aircraft. Looking forward to seeing what you do with it.

zenrat:
AFAIUI instead of heating and expanding the air by mixing it with fuel and igniting it you put it in close proximity to nuclear fission.
One could either pump the nuclear fuel through the engine so the air passed over it or, direct the air through a reactor so the air passed over the fissionable material before being directed back to the engine.
Or some in-between version where something else was heated by the reaction and this third substance transferred the heat to the engines where it heated the air.  But this way strikes me as adding unnecessary losses.
The trick would be to make sure the exhaust was not too radioactive.


The Convair NB-36H did not have working nuclear engines but was at test aircraft to prove it was possible to fly around with a working nuclear reactor inside an aircraft.
It was escorted everywhere by a B-50 carrying a squad of Paratroopers whose job it was, if the Atomic Peacemaker went down, to establish an exclusion zone around the crash site.

PR19_Kit:

--- Quote from: zenrat on June 28, 2020, 06:21:36 am ---
AFAIUI instead of heating and expanding the air by mixing it with fuel and igniting it you put it in close proximity to nuclear fission.
One could either pump the nuclear fuel through the engine so the air passed over it or, direct the air through a reactor so the air passed over the fissionable material before being directed back to the engine.
Or some in-between version where something else was heated by the reaction and this third substance transferred the heat to the engines where it heated the air.  But this way strikes me as adding unnecessary losses.
The trick would be to make sure the exhaust was not too radioactive.


--- End quote ---

One of the 'Secret Projects' books goes into various proposed nuclear engines in some detail, and both the methods you mention were planned. The second version, which may have cost more to do, but was less dangerous, was the preferred option apparently. Sadly I'm 120 miles away from my copy of the book, but I bet someone else on here has one too.

Weaver:
That's pretty much straight up.

Primary cycle.
Pass the intake air straight through the core of the reactor.
Upside: lighter and simpler.
Downside: radioactive exhaust (this is basically Project Pluto)

Secondary cycle.
Pass the intake air through heat exchangers that are heated by fluid from the reactor cooling system.
Upside: much less radioactive exhaust (not zero though).
Downside: increased complexity and weight. How much weight depends on what the cooling fluid is:
 - water cooling = heavy but well understood
 - closed cycle air cooling = lighter but developmental and high volume

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version