Gravity-Powered Aircraft: Myth or Possibility?

  • Thread starter rolls
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Aircraft
In summary, the concept of a gravity-powered aircraft using buoyancy as its main driving force has sparked debate among experts. Some believe it is just an overly complicated sailplane and not a true violation of physics, while others argue that it would require additional energy and supplies to maintain its buoyancy. Some also suggest that the term "gravity-powered" may be misleading and it is essentially just a combination of a hot-air balloon and a feather. There have been proposals for similar aircraft in the past, but they have not been fully explored due to practical limitations. However, there
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
rolls said:
http://www.damninteresting.com/the-gravity-powered-aircraft

Does someone feel like debunking this? Surely it can not work, it is essentially a perpetual motion machine.

They seem to have skipped over the fact that it needs energy and/or additional supplies of compressed air and/or helium to be able to change the buoyancy in a cyclic pattern.
 
  • #3
In principle, it's just an overly complicated sailplane, so there is no violation of physics, but it seems awkward to call a sailplane a "gravity powered airplane", even though it kinda is.

Operating without thermals, though, would not be possible.
 
  • #4
russ_watters said:
In principle, it's just an overly complicated sailplane, so there is no violation of physics, but it seems awkward to call a sailplane a "gravity powered airplane", even though it kinda is.

Operating without thermals, though, would not be possible.

Not awkward at all. Clearly a method of performing a smooth transition of cash from an investor's pocket to the inventor's pocket.
 
  • #5
There used to be an Air Force saying that when the weight of the contract paperwork exceeded that of the airframe - the plane would fly.

Perhaps that's what they mean by gravity powered?
 
  • #6
I think one of the posters at the end of the article nailed it. It was an April Fools joke.
 
  • #7
This is just a combination of a hot-air balloon and a feather.
 
  • #8
It would take more energy compressing and releasing the gas than it takes to scoot it along via jet fuel.
 
  • #9
mgb_phys said:
There used to be an Air Force saying that when the weight of the contract paperwork exceeded that of the airframe - the plane would fly.

Perhaps that's what they mean by gravity powered?

Ha! I love that quote, its so true.
 
  • #10
loseyourname said:
This is just a combination of a hot-air balloon and a feather.

I say it is nothing but just hot air
 
  • #11
boit said:
I say it is nothing but just hot air

I believe you're correct.

One proposal I'd like to see fully examined is a study on the variation of airframe designs between traditional airframes to fully-suspended airframes.

Questions:

1. Is there even a break-even point, or are fully inertial-supported airframes the answer? Seventy years of improvements in commercial aviation seems to indicate that the goal of getting the cargo from point A to B is best served by conventional means i.e. the latter. But that preliminary conclusion seems to be based on a time expectancy (getting pax or cargo to destination in a shorter time - air shipments overseas still cost way more than ground/sea).

2. Various http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_vehicle" have not only demonstrated serious advances in efficiency, even over high-altitude cargo craft, but certainly over train or roadway transportation which either have not or cannot be built.

Personal case in point: I wanted to visit a friend in England in 2009, and was living in Germany at the time. Chunnel? Too expensive. The sleeper ferry then in existence (it probably still is) was more akin with my budget, but for traveling just a few hundred km, was way beyond what I could afford to expend.

Anything involving going over the Channel at that time blew my budget totally out of the water.

Yet... I could afford to fly over the entire Atlantic ocean, at will, to see my son, at least once each year, and for significantly less.

I don't know what to say, except consider it as an input.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
I’m no master of physics but may I make an observation as a man of limited brain power, to me it should be called an Troposphere submarine as it uses ballast tanks either side to rise and fall much the same way as a submarine does with the added advantage of wings to alow it to glide once it reaches the height needed for flight
 
  • #14
obiously submarine is descriptive of its position below water so in this case it should be called a subtroposphere machine if you get my drift
 
  • #15
one more thing if they just pumped the helium back out of the ballast tanks into a compression tank increasing its density possibly even into liquid form venting the ballast tanks underneath to allow air to fill the tanks controlling its weight not so much a hot air balloon more a helium controlled glider
Sorry if I am spouting rubbish as I said before I know nothing of physics.
 
  • #16
djsuttie01 said:
I’m no master of physics but may I make an observation as a man of limited brain power, to me it should be called an Troposphere submarine as it uses ballast tanks either side to rise and fall much the same way as a submarine does with the added advantage of wings to alow it to glide once it reaches the height needed for flight

djsuttie01 said:
obiously submarine is descriptive of its position below water so in this case it should be called a subtroposphere machine if you get my drift

djsuttie01 said:
one more thing if they just pumped the helium back out of the ballast tanks into a compression tank increasing its density possibly even into liquid form venting the ballast tanks underneath to allow air to fill the tanks controlling its weight not so much a hot air balloon more a helium controlled glider
Sorry if I am spouting rubbish as I said before I know nothing of physics.

[*]There is merit to your idea; the problem with gases that are significantly lighter than air (i.e. helium) is that they tend to permeate most surfaces (sic. mylar balloons); it is not a closed system.

Edit by Ivan
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
I agree helium is lighter than air just as air is lighter than water in submarine ballast, so it means you obviously need the right density of material as not to allow the helium to escape.
so as you rightly pointed out due to its porosity a skin from a helium balloon is no good, but I’m sure in this age of complex alloys, Thermoplastics and thermosetting polymers a skin could be found that is both light and dense enough as to contain the helium effectively enough as to create a closed system or closed enough to be a viable option.

Again please forgive my feeble attempts to speak on this subject as I am uneducated never passed an exam in my life (could not even pass a blood test lol).
 

1. How does the gravity-powered aircraft work?

The gravity-powered aircraft harnesses the energy of gravity to generate lift and propulsion. It works by using the potential energy of an object at a higher altitude to power its movements. As the aircraft descends, the potential energy is converted into kinetic energy, which allows it to move forward.

2. What are the advantages of a gravity-powered aircraft?

One of the main advantages of a gravity-powered aircraft is that it does not require any fuel to operate, making it a more sustainable and cost-effective mode of transportation. It also has a lower carbon footprint compared to traditional aircraft, making it an environmentally-friendly option.

3. How high can a gravity-powered aircraft fly?

The maximum altitude a gravity-powered aircraft can reach depends on various factors, such as its weight, design, and air density. However, it is limited by the amount of potential energy it can harness from gravity, so it may not be able to reach the same altitudes as traditional aircraft.

4. Can a gravity-powered aircraft be used for commercial flights?

While gravity-powered aircraft have been successfully tested and used for short-distance flights, they are not currently suitable for commercial flights. The technology is still in its early stages and requires further development and testing before it can be used for larger-scale transportation.

5. What are the potential future applications of gravity-powered aircraft?

Gravity-powered aircraft have the potential to revolutionize the field of aviation and transportation. They could be used for short-distance flights, such as regional or cargo transportation, as well as for emergency or military purposes. In the future, with advancements in technology, they may also be used for longer and more complex flights.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
662
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
4
Views
256
  • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
597
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
22
Views
947
Replies
47
Views
9K
Replies
63
Views
6K
Back
Top