|
I'm far from any kind of electrical convert, but I imagine any purely electrical solution to air travel would have to be a combination of high-efficiency batteries and solar technology in zeppelins, like the Airlander. I forsee the flying phallus to be used extensively for cargo. I imagine it will be great for delivering a load. As for jet engine fuel, I imagine a refined Butanol-Ethanol mixture is a likely fuel for turbine aircraft, being also one of the cheapest alternative biofuels available. Still a lot of development needed on that one though.
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 17:44 |
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I'm an electrical energy and am excited about all this stuff but it does nobody good if you ignore that we're orders of magnitude away. Oh no, I'm well aware, but at the same time, R&D into Super Capacitors has spiked.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:I'm far from any kind of electrical convert, but I imagine any purely electrical solution to air travel would have to be a combination of high-efficiency batteries and solar technology in zeppelins, like the Airlander. Skylander = much better name You could also use hydrogen fuel cells in Airships. The main advantage would be that it is one of the few vehicles that could use gaseous hydrogen as a fuel at normal pressures, because space isn't an issue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Skylander = much better name Pretty real possibility that ain't happening, though  can't for the life of me think of a reason, but
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:It's kind of like electric vehicles in that way, people THINK 'Oh look how green I am' while ignoring the ecological damage done by the coal or natural gas plant generating their electricity to charge the car. I actually did the math on this one recently in a thread here, probably the EV thread, and a Model S running purely off of power from a dirtier than average coal plant still beats its gasoline competition as far as CO2 per mile. The P85D ends up roughly equivalent to a smaller direct injected four cylinder. To compare to BMWs it's basically like driving a 550i (4.4L turbo V8) for the CO2 cost of a 320i (2.0L turbo I4). Other pollutants are a lot harder to get information on and I'm lazy, so I have no idea about that. It's close enough that a really dirty power plant and/or comparing to an alternative combustion vehicle running on CNG, hydrogen, or maybe even simple E85 could probably even things up pretty well, but the flip side of it is that if you have a very clean power source like renewables or nuclear the electric car's effective pollution per mile can become practically zero. That's all of course ignoring everything about the construction of the vehicles, the power plants, and the distribution of the various fuels which takes it way out of the league of "bored on the internet" research. There's also arguably the benefit of concentrating the pollution in a few specific places per region rather than spreading it everywhere, though how much that matters to really anything other than particulates I again don't know. As far as electric planes go I have to imagine the simplicity of the drivetrain would be a very good thing as far as regular maintenance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
wolrah posted:As far as electric planes go I have to imagine the simplicity of the drivetrain would be a very good thing as far as regular maintenance. Regular (well, piston) planes actually have very simple "drivetrains" too. Theres no transmission, the prop is attached directly to the crankshaft.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
Guys. GUYS! Did you miss this? Because OHMAGAWDITSF19STEALTHFIGHTERIMSOEXCITED!!!!!!!! But it doesn't run on OS X 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
sofullofhate posted:Guys. GUYS! Did you miss this? Because OHMAGAWDITSF19STEALTHFIGHTERIMSOEXCITED!!!!!!!! I wonder why, they must just be using dosbox which runs fine on OSX.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
sofullofhate posted:Guys. GUYS! Did you miss this? Because OHMAGAWDITSF19STEALTHFIGHTERIMSOEXCITED!!!!!!!! This was my first flight sim! I started playing it when I was like 8, during the first Gulf war. I didn't understand why I got marked down on mission debriefings for bombing the poo poo out of Baghdad.  In this version of the game, the ME enemy is Iran, Iraq is neutral.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Regular (well, piston) planes actually have very simple "drivetrains" too. Theres no transmission, the prop is attached directly to the crankshaft. The engine/motor itself is a lot simpler. Electric motors have basically a bearing at each end and sometimes brushes or similar. Compared to a combustion engine they're practically maintenance free.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
bitcoin bastard posted:This was my first flight sim! I started playing it when I was like 8, during the first Gulf war. I didn't understand why I got marked down on mission debriefings for bombing the poo poo out of Baghdad. My second flight sim ever. I was super super stoked to play it again. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
I know DOSbox runs on Macs, perhaps you can "source" your F-19 install from a "local" "artisan" and it'll run? I might give it a go, I played it without a joystick for many years, should be fine on the laptop in the sofa. Maybe I'll finally get promoted past Lt Col now that I know how to dodge radars.hobbesmaster posted:Regular (well, piston) planes actually have very simple "drivetrains" too. Theres no transmission, the prop is attached directly to the crankshaft. A jet engine is much simpler. No pistons, valves, cams, valve rockers, head gaskets etc etc. Just a spinning axle with some turbine disks attached and hot air shooting out the back. However, all the auxiliary and support systems does make it a bit complicated. "Drivetrain" isn't perhaps the right word for it, there should be a word for the entire propulsion system that somehow encompasses complex management and fuel logistics. Battery electric can hardly be beat for simplicity - although I'm sure the cruel goddess of aviation will summon some previously unknown gotchas. edit: how does the copy protection work in the Steam version? PDF of the plane recognition? Check out this guy at 1:25, the plane nerds of this thread should have no problems defeating it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IorWtC1FyhQ (I learnt most of my US-related trivia breaking the Leisure Suit Larry age verification quiz) e: god dammit that's can't be a Su-24, that's an F-111! Bug! How do I get in touch with Microprose management?! Ola fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Apr 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:I'm far from any kind of electrical convert, but I imagine any purely electrical solution to air travel would have to be a combination of high-efficiency batteries and solar technology in zeppelins, like the Airlander. quote:Top Speed 150km/h Hello, Airplanes? It's blimps. You win. quote:Payload 50 tonnes Hello, Boats? It's blimps. You win. But seriously, outside of niche applications blimps/zeppelins are probably not going to take off.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
SgtMongoose posted:But seriously, outside of niche applications blimps/zeppelins are probably not going to take off. Yeah, I'd say they're just full of hot air.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
SgtMongoose posted:
It's probably fantastic for sightseeing and tourism currently served by helicopters, perhaps small scale transport, but I agree, for major transport of people or goods it's no good. There is a certain something about airships of course, if someone hasn't read Nebakenezzer's fantastic posts on WW1 Zeppelins, do so with the schnellness. It begins here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3276654&userid=84040&perpage=40&pagenumber=4 Hmmm. It just might work in small scale transport. It would be very strange to see a 400x100 foot airship showing up instead of a helicopter when I wanted to lift 1500 lbs of planks to build a mountain cabin, but it could be carbon neutral, much quieter and probably safer. And while it doesn't fit many fields, it doesn't have to. It fits in the sky and it can carry a winch.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
SgtMongoose posted:Hello, Airplanes? It's blimps. You win. Nice pre-post-peak oil mindset 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
The publicity thing says it can operate unmanned, so if it could ever get approved for actually operating that way, I could see it carving out a niche doing cargo hauling on routes that are under-served by other transport methods due to a pretty low cost to operate if flight crew aren't needed. Lots of complications that would have to be ironed out before something like that could be viable or approved to operate I imagine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
The Locator posted:The publicity thing says it can operate unmanned, so if it could ever get approved for actually operating that way, I could see it carving out a niche doing cargo hauling on routes that are under-served by other transport methods due to a pretty low cost to operate if flight crew aren't needed. Lots of complications that would have to be ironed out before something like that could be viable or approved to operate I imagine. Absolutely. Imagine one salaried guy on the ground operating a giant airship in the sky, instead of, say, a crane with all its transport issues. It's wind sensitive though and also tech sensitive. The reasons for changing function X to be done by a blimp is basically this: 1) A blimp seller is doing the talking 2) It's easier to turn green 3) A misplaced sense of nostalgia Factor 2) is pretty easily defeated if the current function is also easy to turn green. Helicopters - perhaps not, but biofuels can make it trivial. Cranes = super duper easy. Still, read or re-read Nebakenezzer's Zeppelin posts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Ola posted:Absolutely. Imagine one salaried guy on the ground operating a giant airship in the sky, instead of, say, a crane with all its transport issues. I was thinking more along the line of one salaried guy on the ground operating a 'fleet' of mostly automated airships - so eliminating a lot of people power - and they could have end-points basically anywhere that there is a spot large enough for them to hover and drop cargo. I agree that this is a long way from happening (if ever), but I could see an enterprising company figuring out a viable niche market for it. And Neb's posts are awesome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
Don't forget the teamsters and dockworkers unions, and boat based shipping megacorps. Imagine a ship that doesn't have to dock in a port, doesn't need to be unloaded and reloaded onto trains and trucks... A shipping method with no middlemen but the operator between shipper and receiver. Am I selling it hard enough?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Airships as home base 'warehouses' for Amazon drones. We are through the looking glass people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Linedance posted:Doesn't have to be your wings. You can distribute them around like you can't do with a liquid fuel tank. You can optimize your design around them, and that may work out more efficient than having fuel tanks. Not to mention the accumulated weight savings in wing bracing, access panels, hardware, sealant, pumps, drains, filling ports and caps, densitometers, cadensicons, high and low level sensors, etc etc.. I also love the irony of an 80s game needing a minimum 1Ghz processor and 512MB of RAM.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
slidebite posted:The repeated cycling of the super cold temps of high-altitude cruising isn't going to be nice on batteries unless they're somewhat climate controlled themselves. Works ok-ish in hybrid and electric cars that go from heated garages to -20 all winter. Probably good enough for the operating range of the engine. It's not likely to be cruising around at 30k feet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
I am sitting on the taxiway 2nd in line to take off here at ORD, the captain said something to the effect that the plane in front of us doesn't have a flight plan, or the FAA's system broke? Does that sound at all plausible?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:I am sitting on the taxiway 2nd in line to take off here at ORD, the captain said something to the effect that the plane in front of us doesn't have a flight plan, or the FAA's system broke? Does that sound at all plausible? The person stuck in the small metal tube with you blamed someone not in the small metal tube with you? Shocking. As a bonus its blaming someone that you didn't pay money to!* *of course, playing the odds would say the fuckup is United's fault and you're on a United flight so
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
To be fair we are 2nd in line on the taxiway behind another small metal tube. It is a little disconcerting that the fuel budget is tight enough that they had to shut down the engines to conserve fuel. Then again these engines weren't designed to idle for long periods of time. Edit, as I hit send they spooled up the engines. Off to hong Kong in a 777 over the North Pole... Hadlock fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Apr 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:I am sitting on the taxiway 2nd in line to take off here at ORD, the captain said something to the effect that the plane in front of us doesn't have a flight plan, or the FAA's system broke? Does that sound at all plausible? Flight plans generally stay in the system for 2 hours after the proposed time. If you don't update the time before the 2 hours are up the plan drops out of the system. I would be surprised that would happen at an operation like ORD, but you never know. At the small tower I work at we've had plans fall out when the plane was on takeoff roll. Had to enter it into the system manually before they left my airspace 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
Linedance posted:Works ok-ish in hybrid and electric cars that go from heated garages to -20 all winter. Probably good enough for the operating range of the engine. It's not likely to be cruising around at 30k feet.  cold.Sure they car will function fine at -25C, but they will lose around 50% of its expected range on batteries alone at -15C or something. You don't need to be at 30K to encounter really cold temperatures, temperature can drop surprisingly quickly as altitude increases. Even in the summer, it can be significantly below freezing at less than 10K.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Zochness posted:Flight plans generally stay in the system for 2 hours after the proposed time. If you don't update the time before the 2 hours are up the plan drops out of the system. I would be surprised that would happen at an operation like ORD, but you never know. At the small tower I work at we've had plans fall out when the plane was on takeoff roll. Had to enter it into the system manually before they left my airspace I dunno, enough flight delays at a busy airport (aka every day at O'Hare) and it seems reasonable to me!
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
This looks like fun e: I don't know where part 2 went https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkLUriZPqIM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sr7Y65quulU
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
If you don't make your take off time in busy airspace you can be hosed. There are some commercial pilots here who can explain.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
Tsuru posted:This looks like fun What happened here? Gear failure or coming in just a little too hot?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:What happened here? Gear failure or coming in just a little too hot? People are saying it overshot the runway and then the front gear collapsed. Based on the video that seems suspect as you can see the piano keys before they touch down, and the collapse happens almost instantly. If they were still airborne over the numbers at the other end of the runway it would have been a much worse crash. The front gear definitely did collapse, though. Anyone else get a Half-Life vibe from the 2nd video, looking at the plane through the fog?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:People are saying it overshot the runway and then the front gear collapsed. Based on the video that seems suspect as you can see the piano keys before they touch down, and the collapse happens almost instantly. If they were still airborne over the numbers at the other end of the runway it would have been a much worse crash. And considering the guy videoing it was walking about on the runway that the airplane stopped next to. quote:Anyone else get a Half-Life vibe from the 2nd video, looking at the plane through the fog? Those poor souls must now face the langoliers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
Linedance posted:Don't forget the teamsters and dockworkers unions, and boat based shipping megacorps. Imagine a ship that doesn't have to dock in a port, doesn't need to be unloaded and reloaded onto trains and trucks... A shipping method with no middlemen but the operator between shipper and receiver. Am I selling it hard enough? I work for a shipping midsizecorp. If we think someone screwed up a calculation and undercharged a customer by 200 metric tons, we don't bother doing anything about it. In shipping, 200 metric tons is a rounding error. That airship isn't an order of magnitude off from a small cargo ship, it's two orders of magnitude from being close to something too small to bother with for oceanic shipping. You can charter a boat that carries 150,000 metric tons (that's 750 airships!) bulk carrier for less than 10k USD a day plus fuel (figure another 20 grands for fuel a day) these days. That thing goes about 310 miles a day, can an airship beat $0.000645 per ton-mile? Cause this is the scale we're talking about here. Loading and unloading and intermodal is expensive but... Not that expensive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
^^ e: Yeah, I don't think airships would ever compete with cargo ships. It would be air cargo, just more affordable and flexible air cargo. Nice piece of fish posted:Pretty real possibility that ain't happening, though Stereotypes. The language of hate. Also I said fuel, not lifting gas, I mean c'mon slidebite posted:The repeated cycling of the super cold temps of high-altitude cruising isn't going to be nice on batteries unless they're somewhat climate controlled themselves. Fuel cells are also sensitive to cold. Solution: keep the batteries/fuel cell in a big thermos? Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 05:01 on Apr 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
Oh my gently caress yes. I will finally get a second chance to blow up that Russkie carrier off North Cape. drat you damaged floppy disks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:^^ e: Yeah, I don't think airships would ever compete with cargo ships. It would be air cargo, just more affordable and flexible air cargo. Problem with that is that, again, it's nowhere near as fast as air cargo. So it's "more affordable sort of faster than ship cargo"-you won't be getting poo poo halfway across the world in 12 hours or anywhere near that. Way I'm seeing it is that it's really nowhere near fast enough to justify using it over ship cargo (for large amounts of poo poo) or fast enough to use it to ship small but time-critical stuff over using planes on the fast end or overland shipping on the slow end.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
Naturally Selected posted:Problem with that is that, again, it's nowhere near as fast as air cargo. So it's "more affordable sort of faster than ship cargo"-you won't be getting poo poo halfway across the world in 12 hours or anywhere near that. I think the big argument that sealed it last time was more or less that, at the moment, there isn't a lot of things that are too critical to be shipped by freighter, but not critical enough to be shipped by airplane. I also believe someone calculated it out that a 747-8F or something similar, could do two round trips from NYC to London, and be about half way or almost towards the end of a third trip to London by the time the airship would be reaching London for the first time (error given to not including loading/unloading times).
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 17:44 |
|
|
YF19pilot posted:I think the big argument that sealed it last time was more or less that, at the moment, there isn't a lot of things that are too critical to be shipped by freighter, but not critical enough to be shipped by airplane. I also believe someone calculated it out that a 747-8F or something similar, could do two round trips from NYC to London, and be about half way or almost towards the end of a third trip to London by the time the airship would be reaching London for the first time (error given to not including loading/unloading times). But we need to get these X to our office in London sort-of fast-ish or sometime in the next week but faster than it'd take by boat! SORT OF RIGHT NOW! Basically, this: SgtMongoose posted:Hello, Airplanes? It's blimps. You win. It's a solution looking for a problem, outside of very few very synthetic scenarios.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 06:05
|
|