Why a persistently airborne nuclear-powered fortress isn’t feasible.

787 views

Similar to the Ausmerzer in Wolfenstein II: New Colossus or the Helicarrier in the Avengers universe.

In: Engineering

11 Answers

Anonymous 0 Comments

It’s possible, just highly impractical.

The US and Soviet air forces actually did experiment with nuclear aircraft during the early Cold War. The simplest way is to build a conventional jet engine and remove the combustion chamber. Instead, compressed air is funneled through a pipe to the reactor, which heats it. It’s then directed through a turbine, then out the back where it expands and generates thrust. The turbine powers the compressor, like a normal jet engine.

The problem with nuclear reactors though is they need to be shielded. If you were to install this in an airplane, you wouldn’t want it belching out radioactive gases out the back, nor would you want radiation leaking into the cabin. Those shields are typically made out of lead, thick steel, or concrete, which are very heavy. The heavier a plane is, the more powerful the engine needs to be to get it airborne. Which means even bigger engines, which means even more weight, which means more power is needed. This quickly eliminates any advantage nuclear power would have in an aircraft.

Speaking of size, most larger planes have their power plants separate from the fuselage. Usually attached to the wings on pylons. While they have internal fuel tanks, a lot of it is also stored inside the wings. Freeing up more room inside the fuselage for passengers, cargo, or ordinance. A nuclear reactor would have to be built inside the fuselage just due to its sheer size. Which means less room for other things. Again limiting practicality.

You are viewing 1 out of 11 answers, click here to view all answers.