> There's a TON of complexity in a catapult system.
But it's all on the ground.
But it's all on the ground.
The airframes would have be heavier, beefed up to take that load. FWIW, the Navy version of the F-35 weighs ~5000lbs more than the AF version's 29000 dry weight (granted, that's also additional folding wing changes). It also costs about 20% more per unit.
Anyways, it's all certainly possible. Just impractical without a real need.
But catapult launch ballistic passenger gliders would be pretty cool.
Airport crew could do it based on calculated weight comunicated by pilots. With current technology it could even be automated - pull the airplane 10 m at a fixed (low) power setting, determine how fast it accelerated, calculate mass, increase power accordingly for the rest of the takeoff distance. Even an Arduino could do it.
Or simply apply the maximum force supported by the airplane's attachment point (front landing gear) no matter what the weight is.
Airframes would probably not need much strenghtening. I expect that the forces from wheel breaks are aprox. the same.
PS: With a catapult / winch launch, the MTOW could probably be increased a little - more passengers and cargo for the same flight costs.
But realistically you're either imparting 2G and hurting 10% of the passengers, or you may as well not bother with one. The "JATO-like" solution of a modular prop+battery unit giving you a takeoff+climb boost for 10 minutes and then heading back to the airport seems less objectionable.
But, regardless, it's actually shorter than I thought! Although 1G forward acceleration is still quite a bit. Imagine elderly passengers with osteoporosis... and the lawsuits.