Making Aircraft Lighter

[foodchain]

there are other ways to reduce weight than removing the advantages of retractable undercarriage systems. one example is, don't paint them. this reduces the weight by quite a bit. you can always look at using lighter fluids in the hydraulics. ways of making the various alloy lighter. using a wireless control system would cut out the need for a LOT of cabling in the aircraft.

 

this can all be done now and doesn't add the complexities of training pilots to land on a platform that they can't even see. also, how would this hold up in foul weather, planes move around a lot then. and emergency landings suddenly become a lot more dangerous.

 

and as capn said, they would need to be able to be used on everything from a cessna to the A380.

 

not an easy thing to do.

 

The paint is needed to protect the aircraft from the elements. I am sure that some kind of material could be developed that would suffice for the need to have the protective coat though, but then again the properties of that material then would probably be desired for a lot of reasons besides reducing weight of an aircraft.

 

If you look on a typical automobile on where the paint has been chipped off the surface below typically rusts. Electronegativty or oxidation, I forget which term is to be used to describe such more accurately.

[insane_alien]

its oxidation. and cars aren't usually made of the same metals that planes are. planes are made of a copper/aluminium alloy (duralium or something i believe) which doesn't corrode under normal conditions.

[cessna7686]

IMO eliminating the paint on aircraft wouldn't be feasible for two reasons. The first is that I'm pretty sure the carriers would not want to lose the name recognition all their planes have right now. A lot of companies are very proud of their liverys and would be pretty upset to lose them. The other reason is that though I am not an air traffic controller I think that unpainted aircraft would be a lot harder to keep track of on the ground than unpainted aircraft. Imagine trying to keep track of all the planes at a major airport (LAX, JFK...) when they all look the same, pretty tough if you ask me.

 

In terms of making the aircraft lighter, I think they're already heading in the right direction. I believe Boeing is working with a lot of composite materials to reduce the weight of the aircraft and I think GE is also using composites to reduce the weight of the engine.

[GutZ]

this is currently the main focus. lighter materials. its a far easier challenge than removing very necessary bits.

 

As being a student of metal casting/metallurgy...I had to throw that in lol.

[JohnF]

The idea for aircraft without landing gear is not really meant to be universal. Light aircraft would probably not see a sufficient increase in fuel efficiency to justify the cost of remote landing gear.

 

Aircraft development of this type would probably focus on specialised cargo carriers initially, where payload is a significant factor. In this way the public would become familiar with the concept and if such an aircraft did crash and show a greatly reduced level of damage this might further increase public confidence.

 

As far as I can see though, the principle is sound, even if the technology to implement it is not yet available. Reducing the weight that needs to be transported is always going to be beneficial; assuming it can be done safely. It may even be possible one day to dispense with carrying the fuel and have the energy transferred wirelessly to the aircraft from satellites or ground stations.

 

Surely if this was feasible in situations where one gear does not come down they would currently have a similar system?

 

Even if it was possible I think it unlikely that for the number of different units you would need at an airport to cover the types of aircraft that land there such a system would be cost effective for very occasional use. Human life has a value that can be measured in whatever currency you care to use.