Recent Topics
This summers common ac repairs.
by Chris142
08/15/18 10:48 PM
Food for cats with kidney disease.
by montero1
08/15/18 09:23 PM
Land pride 5615 rotary cutter gearbox oil?
by Jmoney7269
08/15/18 09:20 PM
Are these factory Ford lug nuts pure garbage?
by Blaze
08/15/18 09:15 PM
Amsoil Signature vs OE?
by buck91
08/15/18 09:02 PM
Chev Trailblazer thermostat replacement
by BrianF
08/15/18 07:37 PM
Stabil Ethanol treatment
by mjk
08/15/18 07:01 PM
Windows Update Strategy?
by MONKEYMAN
08/15/18 06:49 PM
Motorcraft PCMO reformulation
by LotI
08/15/18 06:45 PM
Front rotor recomendations - 1993 F-150 4x4
by BrocLuno
08/15/18 06:07 PM
Premium Gas Prices
by Zee09
08/15/18 05:47 PM
Electrical Problem
by dishdude
08/15/18 05:47 PM
Remove tape adhesive from upholstery
by Walmill
08/15/18 05:37 PM
Subaru Legacy 2.5 review
by Cujet
08/15/18 05:11 PM
Steve Perry has a new song out
by Jimmy9190
08/15/18 04:51 PM
Idemitsu 0w20 5 QT for $15.73
by dmiko
08/15/18 04:47 PM
Valvoline Advanced Synthetic (SynPower) 12K OCI - Ford 2.5L
by dogememe
08/15/18 04:22 PM
Tire Date Code
by Building3
08/15/18 03:53 PM
Bridgestone Dueler - Great tire
by StevieC
08/15/18 01:39 PM
Corvette 5.7L LT-1 Engine. M1 0w-40?
by JosephH1
08/15/18 01:24 PM
Newest Members
RockerSwitches, Jmoney7269, Charly_gt, tryamu, Twizzler
65721 Registered Users
Who's Online
59 registered (1JZ_E46, 01rangerxl, Artem, 1.8Tango, ag_ghost, Aero540T, 4 invisible), 1122 Guests and 30 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
65721 Members
67 Forums
288781 Topics
4816565 Posts

Max Online: 3590 @ 01/24/17 08:07 PM
Donate to BITOG
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#4683789 - 03/04/18 06:00 AM G.E. on nuclear aviation propulsion
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 40473
Loc: 'Stralia

Top
#4683894 - 03/04/18 09:02 AM Re: G.E. on nuclear aviation propulsion [Re: Shannow]
bubbatime Offline


Registered: 03/18/08
Posts: 5759
Loc: South Florida
I love military history and this is the first time Ive ever heard that the US had an actual nuclear powered aircraft that could stay in the air for 1000 hours before needing refueling. WOW. Amazing. Too bad they the president cut the budget. That would have been neat to see.
_________________________
17 Chrysler Pacifica Mobil 1 5W30
13 Yamaha XT250 Valv MC 10W40
12 Suzuki S40 Rotella 15W40
10 Acura TSX 2.4 PZL Plat 5W30
06 GMC Sierra Nextgen 10W30



Top
#4683955 - 03/04/18 10:08 AM Re: G.E. on nuclear aviation propulsion [Re: Shannow]
mk378 Offline


Registered: 09/27/15
Posts: 1486
Loc: USA
No nuclear powered aircraft were actually built or flown. The program was cancelled at the stage of testing engines on the ground.

This was mostly because of advances in ICBM technology. The "Minuteman" missile was fast accurate and reliable. It downplayed the importance of having bomber aircraft fly on constant standby near Russia.


Edited by mk378 (03/04/18 10:10 AM)

Top
#4683983 - 03/04/18 10:47 AM Re: G.E. on nuclear aviation propulsion [Re: Shannow]
JLawrence08648 Offline


Registered: 01/20/17
Posts: 274
Loc: NJ
With current technology TODAY, this is impossible, back then a waste of money to even do a proposal, and stupid for thinking it would work. Nuclear needs a water source for two things, for cooling off the rods to prevent a meltdown, then for propulsion to create steam to run an impeller to drive a shaft that drives a generator to create electricity.

Top
#4684018 - 03/04/18 11:25 AM Re: G.E. on nuclear aviation propulsion [Re: Shannow]
simple_gifts Offline


Registered: 07/26/04
Posts: 12011
Loc: Middlesex County CT
Apologize if this is considered a thread hijack; but PWA's Middletown CT facility (a few miles from my house) was once the center of their focus on nuclear powered aircraft

I'm adding for additional content only

http://coldwar-ct.com/CANEL_-_Middletown.html
_________________________
2004 Prius; 97K ML Syn 5W-30
2007 Yaris 71K 0w-40 Castrol
2006 B2300;130K;ALM


Was driving an ox cart; Now on the USS Enterprise

Top
#4684055 - 03/04/18 11:59 AM Re: G.E. on nuclear aviation propulsion [Re: mk378]
kschachn Offline


Registered: 12/26/05
Posts: 9665
Loc: Upper Midwest
Originally Posted By: mk378
No nuclear powered aircraft were actually built or flown. The program was cancelled at the stage of testing engines on the ground.

This was mostly because of advances in ICBM technology. The "Minuteman" missile was fast accurate and reliable. It downplayed the importance of having bomber aircraft fly on constant standby near Russia.

Correct, but aircraft did fly with a fueled nuclear reactor onboard without powering the flight itself.
_________________________
1994 BMW 530i, 228K
1996 Honda Accord, 263K
1999 Toyota Sienna, 398K
2000 Toyota ECHO, 267K

Top
#4684063 - 03/04/18 12:12 PM Re: G.E. on nuclear aviation propulsion [Re: JLawrence08648]
jhellwig Offline


Registered: 07/01/13
Posts: 1595
Loc: Ottumwa, Iowa
Originally Posted By: mk378
No nuclear powered aircraft were actually built or flown. The program was cancelled at the stage of testing engines on the ground.

This was mostly because of advances in ICBM technology. The "Minuteman" missile was fast accurate and reliable. It downplayed the importance of having bomber aircraft fly on constant standby near Russia.
They did fly one of the reactors and had it operational during the flight to test shielding.
Originally Posted By: JLawrence08648
With current technology TODAY, this is impossible, back then a waste of money to even do a proposal, and stupid for thinking it would work. Nuclear needs a water source for two things, for cooling off the rods to prevent a meltdown, then for propulsion to create steam to run an impeller to drive a shaft that drives a generator to create electricity.
It isn't impossible. They had a complete working setup ready to go into the aircraft.
_________________________
Sparks fly from my fingers.

1995 Chevy K2500 Suburban lt 5.7
2014 Toyota Sienna
1983 Chevy K5 350

Top
#4684156 - 03/04/18 02:06 PM Re: G.E. on nuclear aviation propulsion [Re: Shannow]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 40473
Loc: 'Stralia
Yes, they flew with working reactors, to explore shielding.

According to this, the Russians ended up flying one at the end, by dropping their shielding simply to be the first ones to do it...(surprise)...go to 39:30


Russia Reckons that they've now got a nuclear POWERED missile that can travel 10 times further than traditional propulsion.

here

Top
#4684242 - 03/04/18 03:58 PM Re: G.E. on nuclear aviation propulsion [Re: Shannow]
BusyLittleShop Offline


Registered: 12/09/11
Posts: 873
Loc: Ca USA
The NB-36H was a modified Convair B-36 Peacekeeper that was used as a
testbed for an American nuclear powered bomber. In 1950 it made a
number of flights carrying a nuclear reactor... the crew hide in a
lead shield cockpit...








Edited by BusyLittleShop (03/04/18 04:05 PM)
_________________________
Larry L
Have a Wheelie NICE day
94 RC45 #2 58,000 on 30 weights Currently Mobil 1 5W30
2002 Camaro Mobil 1 0W30
1952 De Havilland Chipmunk




Top
#4684539 - 03/04/18 08:07 PM Re: G.E. on nuclear aviation propulsion [Re: Shannow]
compratio10_5 Offline


Registered: 12/07/15
Posts: 89
Loc: Pocatello, Idaho
Interesting topic on a lube blog site. For anyone interested, there are two atomic aircraft test reactors mounted on railroad cars at the EBR-1 atomic museum in eastern Idaho. I believe that these may be the General Electric direct air cooled reactors mentioned in the film. They look too big and heavy to fly, and any plane leaving a trail of radioactivity should have been easy to detect and track. This museum is open to the public between Memorial Day and Labor Day and is the location of the first electric power generated by a nuclear reactor.
_________________________
It's not what you don't know that hurts, it's what you think you know that ain't so. Will Rogers

Top
#4684631 - 03/04/18 09:25 PM Re: G.E. on nuclear aviation propulsion [Re: compratio10_5]
Linctex Offline


Registered: 12/31/16
Posts: 6189
Loc: Waco, TX
Originally Posted By: compratio10_5
..... any plane leaving a trail of radioactivity should have been easy to detect and track.


Rendering it useless VERY quickly....
_________________________
"The evidence demands a verdict".
(Re:VOA)"it's nearly impossible to actually know the particular additives that are in there at what concentrations."

Top
#4685231 - 03/05/18 01:43 PM Re: G.E. on nuclear aviation propulsion [Re: compratio10_5]
BusyLittleShop Offline


Registered: 12/09/11
Posts: 873
Loc: Ca USA
Originally Posted By: compratio10_5
any plane leaving a trail of radioactivity should have been easy to detect and track.


Radioactivity detection would have not been the enemy's choice to
track due to 100% of it was sealed in a container needed to protect
its crew... the enemy's eye balls could easy track an incoming NB36 by
its corkscrew contrails or alerted over head by its signature droning
sound made possible by the pusher propellers shock waves...


_________________________
Larry L
Have a Wheelie NICE day
94 RC45 #2 58,000 on 30 weights Currently Mobil 1 5W30
2002 Camaro Mobil 1 0W30
1952 De Havilland Chipmunk




Top
#4685241 - 03/05/18 01:54 PM Re: G.E. on nuclear aviation propulsion [Re: BusyLittleShop]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 40473
Loc: 'Stralia
Originally Posted By: BusyLittleShop

Radioactivity detection would have not been the enemy's choice to
track due to 100% of it was sealed in a container needed to protect
its crew...


You haven't read the linked papers, nor watched the video, have you ?

There were two ways of making a nuclear powered gas turbine (jet engine)...transport the reactor coolant/heat transfer fluid to a heat exchanger where the jet's combustion chamber would otherwise be to heat the gasses, or the "direct method" where the compressed air was passed through the reactor to be heated, and returned to the engine to the turbine section of the engine.

Here's a Russian version of the latter.


The reactor could be close placed, or the air transported to it.

In the direct method, the air, having passed through the reactor core itself would have been radioactive, and leaving a radioactive plume across the skies...even the indirect method would have a small elevation in radioactivity.

And per the "shielding", they stated that they couldn't shield the reactors in the traditional method, as that would have been too heavy to get off the ground...they shielded the occupants from the radiation, not the reactors from the world.

Top
#4685247 - 03/05/18 01:59 PM Re: G.E. on nuclear aviation propulsion [Re: Shannow]
kschachn Offline


Registered: 12/26/05
Posts: 9665
Loc: Upper Midwest
Originally Posted By: Shannow
And per the "shielding", they stated that they couldn't shield the reactors in the traditional method, as that would have been too heavy to get off the ground...they shielded the occupants from the radiation, not the reactors from the world.

Which refers to my favorite illustration from the post simple_gifts made:

Quote:
Artists Conception of a nuclear powered bomber. The crew compartment can be separated from the rest of the plane to allow to crew to get on and get off without being exposed to radiation.


_________________________
1994 BMW 530i, 228K
1996 Honda Accord, 263K
1999 Toyota Sienna, 398K
2000 Toyota ECHO, 267K

Top
#4685839 - 03/06/18 12:31 AM Re: G.E. on nuclear aviation propulsion [Re: Shannow]
BusyLittleShop Offline


Registered: 12/09/11
Posts: 873
Loc: Ca USA
Originally Posted By: Shannow


You haven't read the linked papers, nor watched the video, have you ?

I saved the paper and I scanned the video... but I have a growing aviation
library so what do you want to know about the NB36???

Originally Posted By: Shannow

And per the "shielding", they stated that they couldn't shield the reactors in the traditional method, as that would have been too heavy to get off the ground...they shielded the occupants from the radiation, not the reactors from the world.


NB36 ASTR reactor featured 60,000 pounds of reactor shielding and
37,000 pounds of crew shielding. The reactor shield was 60 feet long
and 12 feet in diameter... additional side shielding around the
reactor was provided by a 2.5 thick layer of polyethylene sandwich
between two sheets of aluminum, one which was the exterior skin...
This shielding system lowered the exposure rate from the 1 Roentgen
per hour down to 0.25 Roentgen per hour... so technically speaking the
USAF went to great expense to protect the world... after all we are
the good guys...

If you were the squiring enemy sweating our bombers your 1st line of
defense would be radar... follow up by visual contrails and droning
sound... by time it would take you sniff out 0.25 Roentgens worth of a
radioactive signature you could be pharting Peacekeeper's bombs...

_________________________
Larry L
Have a Wheelie NICE day
94 RC45 #2 58,000 on 30 weights Currently Mobil 1 5W30
2002 Camaro Mobil 1 0W30
1952 De Havilland Chipmunk




Top
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >