To whom it may concern, a short vocabulary review could be useful in case of (let’s hope you won’t deal with it) either natural disasters or a nuclear powerplant accident.

For instance:

• « Fallout » is used in the headline above, and it means « consequences » but it also means « fallout » like in « radioactive/radiological fallout » (retombees radioactives/radiologiques)
• NRBC (Nuclear, Radiological, Biological, and Chemical) or CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear)
• Meltdown scenario = scenario de fusion du coeur du reacteur
• Plume of smoke = Panache de fumee
• Tidal wave, tsunami = Tsunami
• Earthquake, quake = Tremblement de terre
• Tremor = Secousse, replique
• Shake, shaking = Secousse
• Mud slide (prononcez [meud slaïd])/Land slide = Coulee de boue/Glissement de terrain
• Flood/Flooding (prononcez [fleud] ou [fleuding]) = innondation
• Fire/Arson = Incendie/Incendie criminel

…and so on. Watch, and listen carefully to this PBS News-Hour video:

The post FUKUSHIMA NUCLEAR ACCIDENT FALLOUT appeared first on AVIATION ENGLISH.

The post Nightmare scenario appeared first on AVIATION ENGLISH.

© Photo: National museum of the USAF

As a major oil crisis is looming, airlines are cancelling some less financially viable air links of theirs. The future of aviation as we currently know it, seems to be in jeopardy. Nothing seems to be used as a substitute for any current kind of energy, not even electricity. What about nuclear-powered engines?

Nowadays, nobody would bear any nuclear-powered test flights. However those tests did occur within a USAF-carried-out weapons system (WS 125-A) nuclear-powered bomber aircraft programme. Those tests were performed with a 1,000-kilowatt-nuclear jet engine airborne on a Convair NB-36H. This aircraft named « The Crusader », took-off 47 times during the 50s. The engine was not used for propelling. It only worked at an altitude which was deemed sensible. Those tests allowed to assess the nuclear engine drive performance. Every flight would involve troops deployment in the area to prevent as soon as possible from any accident fallout spreading. The aircraft was modified in order to enhance the five crew member’s safety. The USAF considered the concept not realistic and gave the programme up in late 1956.

However, this technology might be coming back to fly some drones for long-lasting flights. People might be relunctant to see nuclear-powered drones taking-off and flying past over their heads. Who knows? Maybe some day.

Another project to mention: Project Orion should have become a 4,000-ton, long-range spacecraft powered by controlled nuclear pulses, or explosions. For this purpose, a small test vehicle was built. It was dubbed « Hot Rod », and was conventional-explosive-powered craft. Finally, Orion was cancelled in 1965 because it would not have been politically correct and because of technical challenges.

I have not found a piece of information about nuclear-powered craft after the year 2004. By the way, if someone knows further information about nuclear-powered aircraft, they will be welcome if they want to add some comments.

SPECIFICATIONS:
Span: 230 ft. 0 in.
Length: 162 ft. 1 in. (as B-36H, the NB-36H was slightly shorter)
Height: 46 ft. 8 in.
Weight: 357,500 lbs. (max. gross weight)
Armament: None
Engines: Six Pratt & Whitney R-4360-53 radials of 3,800 hp each (takeoff power) and four General Electric J47-GE-19 turbojets of 5,200 lbs. thrust each
Crew: Five ( pilot, copilot, flight engineer and two nuclear engineers)

PERFORMANCE:
Maximum speed: Approx. 420 mph at 47,000 ft.
Cruising speed: 235 mph
Service ceiling: Approx. 47,000 ft.

Sources:
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/

The post Why not fly NUCLEAR AIRCRAFT ? appeared first on AVIATION ENGLISH.