A. The Problem With Today’s Airports

Air travel status quo with larger and larger airports has become a “fitness” test for all air travelers. On arrival at the airport, passengers must be capable of walking a mile or more from the parking lot with baggage, and another mile after security clearance with carry-on baggage to get to the airline gate. And they repeat the process with baggage on the return flight. In the North, walking to and from a parking lot with baggage can be hazardous in winter weather. With the surge in air travel, airport terminals will be even more extended.

The “crisis” in air traffice does not by and large, occur in the air, but on the ground. There is a traffic jam in the skies only in and around large airports, where multiple airplanes are waiting their turn to land, or when landed await an unoccupied gate. Airplanes on the ground also await an available runway when ready for take-off. The format for airports since the 1930’s has been to taxi airplanes up to the airport terminal. The philosophy was then, and still prevails is to bring the airplanes to the passengers rather than bringing the passengers to the airplanes, as will be herein proposed by Aeromobile Inc.

 By bringing the airplanes to the terminal, the wingspans of the large airplanes, determine the width of the gates and the length of the concourses. The passengers now have to walk many, many wide wing spans in concourses A, through Z, and gates, 1, through 100, to board and deplane. Not incidentally, getting the passengers quickly to and from the airplanes is part of the solution to rapid airplane movement. The economics and humanity of the passenger’s expeditious boarding and deplaning are of no little concern.

Access of passengers to airplanes in existing airports is now approaching the limit of human endurance. That will only be aggravated by the inevitable expansion of existing airports for more and even larger planes, and by new airports designed for adequate fight operations. The boarding and deplaning of 555 to 800 passengers at exiting airports, for the new Airbus A-380, in the already over extended concourses will increase costly ground time, passenger fatigue, costs, and exasperation.

B. The Solution

As pioneers in air cushion vehicles, ACV’s, Aeromobile Inc. proposes several ways  the frictionless, amphibious, high speed, and massive load carrying qualities of ACV’s in Aeroduct guideways to transport passengers, baggage and freight to and from the airplanes. For an in depth presentation on the Aeromobile-Aeroduct System (A-A System), please follow this link.

Out first proposal integrates air cushion borne Aeromobiles in Aeroducts to transport people with baggage around existing airports all over the world. The second is a proposal for revolutionary redesigning of airports and relocating the airplanes for simplification of transportation of people to and from their cars, the gates, and the airplanes. The third proposal is to take passengers or freight in complete aircraft interior modules, from remote sites, transport the modules on air cushions at high-speed long distances in all weather and “plug-them-in” to the airplane. This is far more sophisticated, but analogous to the way freight containers are handled. All three proposals incorporate the unique attributes of the air cushion vehicle for safe, economical, efficient, non-polluting, all weather operation, with total automation and at very low capital and operating costs. The AAAAD System will vastly accelerate passenger and airplane movement for the expected doubling and tripling of air traffic, while saving millions of hours of airplane ground time.

C. Further Discussion on the Automated Aeromobile-Aeroduct Airport Design (AAAAD)

We have two documents that offer comprehensive information on this unique way of making airports far more accessible and far more efficient. One document is a formal paper that Dr. Bertelsen wrote for the AIAA Air Traffic Management Committee and the other is a slide show presentation derived from that paper. Both documents are in PDF format.

1. Formal Paper 2. Slide Show

D. Use of Hydrogen Fuel with Airplanes Redesign of Airports is all important. Creating airplanes that in themselves are safer and more economical is also important. To that end, Dr. Bertelsen has these thoughts about aviation fuel: Hydrogen powered airplanes use a safer fuel than Jet A or other hydrocarbon fuels in any accident, because: a. Hydrogen has an invisible flame with no carbon to become incandescent when aflame to burn passengers and others by thermal radiation. b. Hydrogen is lighter than air and will immediately rise from the scene of any spill or massive leakage and will be quickly dissipated.  Whereas, liquid hydrocarbon fuel flows by gravity around the scene of the spill, and if in flames, will spread the carnage.  c. In the case of the terrorist attack on World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001, the burning jet fuel with 2000 degree temperatures flowed down the shafts, weakening the steel structure causing collapse of both towers. Converting to hydrogen fuel in large airplanes will eliminate the need for redesign of high-rise structures because the hydrogen, as liquid or gas, alight or not, quickly vacates the scene. d. As an ecological bonus, the conversion of airplanes to hydrogen fuel will eliminate their significant contribution to CO2 emissions, and possible increase of global warming. e. Hydrogen fueled jet engines will be smaller in diameter and create less drag.  f. There can be one or more fuel modules located on top of the airplane, at the center of gravity and center of lift of the airplane. This has several interesting ramifications: i.) Liquid hydrogen has twice the volume, and half the weight of hydrocarbon fuel, and will require more space in the airframe. Liquid hydrogen fuel modules can be better accommodated in the Dewar like insulated modules at the center of gravity and center of lift on the top of the airplane. ii.) In the event of an accident, or incident, to further reduce the hazard of hydrogen or hydrocarbon fuel fire in the event of an accident in flight, or on the ground, the fuel modules can be ejected at high speed similar to the ejection seats of fighter aircraft. Parachutes can bring the fuel modules safely to the ground on air bags along with the other modules. This will prevent one of the most dangerous consequences of air crashes, fuel fire. iii.) There will be only momentary ground time delay in refueling the airplane. Exchanging empty for full fuel modules will further decrease the turn-around time on the ground. The fast, automated exchange of fuel modules prevents the hazards and the consequent delay in transferring thousands of gallons through fillers on the ground. There will be great economy for airports and airlines in that no fueling “trucks” are needed, eliminating the airport apron paving therefor.  And, no fuel piping need to be installed underground all the way from the fuel farm to each airplane gate.  The fuel modules will only be refueled at the remote “fuel farm” and brought by fast, automated Aeroduct to the airplane. iv.) The airplane aerodynamic design will be benefited by modules in that there will be no fuel tanks in the wings, effecting a very slim and lower drag airfoil, possibly raising the cruise speed to higher sub-Mach numbers. In addition, there will be no multiple internal pipes from the fillers to all tanks; only those pipes from the dorsal fuel tanks to the engines remain. The removal of the mass and space occupied by the filler pipes and decrease gross weight and increase internal space. Fewer internal fuel pipes will reduce the chance of fuel leakage and fire. v.) Either kind of refueling will preferably be done remotely from the airplane at the fuel farm. If airplanes are hydrogen fueled, it will no doubt be Dewar cryogenic liquid hydrogen, and require very special handling.

Last update: July 15, 2008