|
Arson Daily posted:The bosses set out to rewrite these manuals and they really did a good job. The new manuals were concise, well written, and contained lots of new language regarding safety procedures. Procedural compliance: NUMMI, old you
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 16:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 09:40 |
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:I need a clip of someone who was on board describing what that sounded like, immediately About 2 minutes in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 17:08
|
|
|
E. Wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 17:45
|
|
|
Elviscat posted:When the SSN 688 class submarine USS San Francisco, SSN-711 smashed into an underwater mountain at good speed, she smashed a large part of her forward structure. The USAF took a very hard look at trying to take the front end of a retired KC-135 and graft it onto the E-3 that skidded 4500' down the runway at Nellis without a nose gear. They ultimately decided against it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 18:09
|
|
|
Godholio posted:The USAF took a very hard look at trying to take the front end of a retired KC-135 and graft it onto the E-3 that skidded 4500' down the runway at Nellis without a nose gear. They ultimately decided against it. Yah, after that JAL flight had the back end fall off, getting Boeing to sign off on full-diameter pressure vessel repairs has been pretty difficult.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 18:37
|
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:Yah, after that JAL flight had the back end fall off That's not very typical, I'd like to make that point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 18:43
|
|
|
PT6A posted:That's not very typical, I'd like to make that point. Usually it's the front.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 18:44
|
|
|
Elviscat posted:When the SSN 688 class submarine USS San Francisco, SSN-711 smashed into an underwater mountain at good speed, she smashed a large part of her forward structure. At flank speed. I'm still amazed she made it to surface
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 18:44
|
|
|
Yeah you can tell from the deformation it was a glance rather than a splat but that's still 6000 tons going 60kph into a rock.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 19:50
|
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:Yah, after that JAL flight had the back end fall off, getting Boeing to sign off on full-diameter pressure vessel repairs has been pretty difficult. 123? Wasn't it because they didn't actually repair it properly?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 20:45
|
|
|
Chaotic Airport Construction Simulator "This game is a simulation of the largest permanent construction site of our time (we assume that and did not research it for security reasons)"
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 22:25
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:At flank speed. Yeah, at that depth a tiny hole would have doomed that boat with no forward ballast tanks left, fortunately submarine pressure hulls are absurdly thick and strong to handle the pressures they see.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 22:46
|
|
|
They are built with submarine steel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 23:03
|
|
|
Charles posted:123? Wasn't it because they didn't actually repair it properly? Oh I looked it up, it was Boeing techs themselves who did the faulty repair. For some reason I thought it was JAL who didn't follow instructions (I might be thinking of another incident?). I also didn't remember that initially the pilots experienced hypoxia and never put on oxygen masks. How horrible. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 23:07
|
|
|
Godholio posted:The USAF took a very hard look at trying to take the front end of a retired KC-135 and graft it onto the E-3 that skidded 4500' down the runway at Nellis without a nose gear. They ultimately decided against it. I might be remembering this wrong, but isn't the KC-135 fuselage different from the 707, and all other 707 based aircraft in some significant way?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 23:10
|
|
|
Fun fact, the KC135 is technically a 717, before Boeing reserved the 7x7 moniker for civilian aircraft. It’s why there was no 717 until they bought out Douglas and slapped the name on it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 23:31
|
|
|
Plastic_Gargoyle posted:I might be remembering this wrong, but isn't the KC-135 fuselage different from the 707, and all other 707 based aircraft in some significant way? The 707 is 4" wider. I imagine that there are some segments toward the nose that are the same width but that still makes it very iffy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2020 23:37
|
|
|
If I remember the kc135s were all dash80 airplanes and the 707 is what came out of the dash80 program after pan am told Boeing they wanted the fuselage to be bigger. Edit: Idk ask godholio he was a plumber on that those things I think
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 02:14
|
|
|
Manufacturing processes and QMS systems only exist to have some poo poo to bamboozle the auditors with every year, otherwise they're mere guidelines to be ignored whenever convenient (why yes, we do make parts for Boeing, I guess that kind of culture flows downhill)
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 02:39
|
|
|
Arson Daily posted:Edit: Idk ask godholio he was a plumber on that those things I think Lmao
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 03:48
|
|
|
Arson Daily posted:Edit: Idk ask godholio he was a plumber on that those things I think A BM is usually what plumbers fix
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 04:14
|
|
|
Plastic_Gargoyle posted:I might be remembering this wrong, but isn't the KC-135 fuselage different from the 707, and all other 707 based aircraft in some significant way? The 135 is slightly narrower...this is probably the fundamental reason the attempt wasn't made. Both the 135 and 707 are based on the Dash 80 testbed, but prior to 707 production being ramped up, Pan Am told Boeing to widen the fuselage by a few inches. I don't know how far forward that difference carries, like if there's a certain point in the tapered front end that the two designs line back up. edit: I really should've caught up before responding edit2: Here, have some concept art as penance: 
Godholio fucked around with this message at 06:31 on Sep 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 06:27
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:This is The Quality Connection, a video made in 1977 by British Leyland, when it was at the absolute nadir of both its quality and its industrial relations.  Thank you so much for this 
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 07:27
|
|
|
rscott posted:Manufacturing processes and QMS systems only exist to have some poo poo to bamboozle the auditors with every year, otherwise they're mere guidelines to be ignored whenever convenient (why yes, we do make parts for Boeing, I guess that kind of culture flows downhill) And quality managers are appointed for their talent to bamboozle the auditors rather than their abilities to enforce the processes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 08:18
|
|
|
Much like how naming things is the only problem in computer science, getting people to follow the god drat directions is the only problem in manufacturing
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 12:08
|
|
|
It takes a lot of people and a lot of time and effort to make the top tier components and assemblies for aerospace. It only takes one person having a personal crisis to throw millions of dollars of parts and months of effort into the dust bin while the customer is screaming for schedule and cost under threat of massive penalties. The QA process, at the basic level is based on integrity. "This thing is different, stop and lets figure out why?" It's an all or nothing kind of thing and it requires commitment at all levels. It's not just the techs and engineers and QA people but also management to make sure training is budgeted, tools are kept in good order that the environment is open to people questioning things that they don't understand. When it's working well, it's very robust and will produce very high quality work. When it's half-assed it can be a complete poo poo show, especially due to the false sense of security from a clean process sheet with all the steps that were supposed to be done all filled out and signed and witnessed and nearly worthless.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 14:28
|
|
|
Murgos posted:It takes a lot of people and a lot of time and effort to make the top tier components and assemblies for aerospace. It only takes one person having a personal crisis to throw millions of dollars of parts and months of effort into the dust bin while the customer is screaming for schedule and cost under threat of massive penalties.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2020 18:47
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:Some interesting information tidbits: This is probably apocryphal as well, but I heard that Packard helped Rolls Royce with some of these things in particular. The way Rolls Royce made a lot of these parts was basically like a job shop. There was a lot of time that was spent in setup for the machining, that's where the "skilled craftsmanship" came in. Packard and resident engineers from Rolls Royce worked together to developed fixturing, tooling, processes to cut down on manufacturing time. This was an anecdote told as part of GD&T training in regards to design for manufacturability. I've never been able to verify it because anything I can find is just the "Brits don't know about tolerances" story.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 03:34
|
|
|
SNiPER_Magnum posted:This is probably apocryphal as well, but I heard that Packard helped Rolls Royce with some of these things in particular. The way Rolls Royce made a lot of these parts was basically like a job shop. There was a lot of time that was spent in setup for the machining, that's where the "skilled craftsmanship" came in. Packard and resident engineers from Rolls Royce worked together to developed fixturing, tooling, processes to cut down on manufacturing time. This is much more believable. Those numbers in my earlier post (from a 1946 issue of Flying magazine) also says that Packard suggested, and Rolls-Royce implemented, various changes to both the production process and the design of some components and assemblies. The quoted example is a change to the camshaft drive which reduced the parts count by 21 and made servicing in the field easier. There were also parts such as the carburettor which Rolls-Royce sourced from external suppliers but which, when starting production from scratch on the other side of the Atlantic, it made more sense for Packard to make in-house. There's not much that Rolls-Royce in the 1930s needed to learn about engineering, but American industry's mastery of mass-production was equally undeniable. It's also interesting to compare the Merlin and the Allison V-1710. Allison itself may have been a tiny company but it could draw on all of GM's design-for-production expertise. The Allison was essentially the same size and basic design of engine, making (when they were designed) the same power and intended for the same roles. The Allison had 63% of the parts count as the Merlin and took only two-thirds the time to overhaul. The Merlin had one of the longest overhaul times of all the major Allied aero-engines, second only to the turbo-supercharged R-2800. The Merlin also required a much larger number of special tools, even for fairly routine jobs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 11:29
|
|
|
Its funny that Rolls Royce is still in business and Packard isn't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 11:32
|
|
|
tactlessbastard posted:Its funny that Rolls Royce is still in business and Packard isn't. Always a good (if snarky) response! Serious talk: Packard was stuck in an awkward position post-war, being caught between Cadillac (mass-produced with GM's resources and reach) and the likes of Rolls-Royce (low-volume, hand-crafted luxury). As the Big Three grew and waged their price war Packard (and all the other independent US automakers) were squeezed out of the market. Packard made some bad decisions like putting a huge amount of resources into designing and building their own automatic transmission while still offering only flathead straight-eight engines in a market dominated by new OHV V8s. Packard also relied heavily on repeate customers rather than attracting new clientel in the changed (and changing) post-war world and, to some extent, their customer base simply died off. Packard also lacked the native talent and experience to stay in the aero-engine business - for all they brought to the V-1650/Merlin project they were ultimately just license-builders and couldn't have developed the engine by themselves. Rolls-Royce had the advantage of being gifted the front-line spot in the new jet engine technology (after direct government intervention) and they were able to transition to the post-war world much better. They didn't have to deal with an attack on their core market by GM and Ford and there were still plenty of princes, presidents, dictators, army generals, movie stars and captains of industry wanting to buy Rolls-Royces to keep their high-price/low-volume business model afloat while they also saw the way the wind was blowing and introduced (relatively) smaller and cheaper models which could be bought complete from the factory rather than needing to have a separate coachbuilt body put on by the buyer. The jet engine work was directly and indirectly subsidied by the British government and R-R had similar 'guaranteed' work by providing standardised engines for the British Army's post-war armoured vehicle fleet and diesel engines for many of British Railway's new railcars in the 1950s. R-R had enough capital, enough revenue and enough talent to modernise - by the time Packard had folded Rolls-Royce had introduced a brand new V8 engine because it was becoming embarassing that a Rolls-Royce car only had a straight-six when you could buy a cheap Chevy with a V8 and an automatic transmission. They spent most of the 1950s designing a car that would redefine what 'a Rolls-Royce' was, which ended up as the Silver Shadow with unibody construction, fully independent self-levelling suspension, power-hydraulic four-wheel disc brakes and so on. It was the aero side of the business which sank Rolls-Royce in 1971 when the development costs (and ongoing problems) with the RB211 engine burnt through the firm's finances, requiring nationalisation and the splitting of the car and aero divisions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 12:14
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:Less politically, the R101 is dogged by the same factors that I outlined in my effortpost in this thread about how British industry (aviation and otherwise) spent most of the 20th century trying to do brilliant things with a fraction of the resources necessary to do them properly. Why build two prototype airships at once? Why decide to put All The New Ideas into one airship all at once to launch your globe-spanning air transport network rather than just applying yourself to getting each idea working at a time (see also: almost every British aircraft built after 1945). To nudge back to the political, it's important to note that the R101 was a project of Britain's first ever Labour (and so first ever vaguely socialist) government, so a lot of those in charge of it at a political level had no direct experience of governance, had a lot of well-intentioned but over-optimistic ideas about how capable government was at doing things like building airships and a very strong desire to prove that their system worked better than that which had gone before. Combine that with the cultural admiration for bumbling amateurs, plugging on against the odds, making the best out of a bad situation and complete deferrence to your social betters and it's a dangerous mixture. People making decisions that they are unqualified to make I think is a significant factor in the whole sorry saga. Even at the start, you had Air Ministry officials saying "you built the R38 too weak, this time we're going to OVERSIGHT the physical structure" which was not the cause of the R38 wreck. At the same time, the people in the Royal Airship Works who built the R38 while not bothering to think about "aerodynamic forces on the hull" were sent on to the next project. Then you have the fuckery of "let's have a contest, but the judges are also one of the two contestants who for political reasons are unable to concede failure or mistakes in any way." It's very similar to why Canada is surreal in its badness to mil procurement: people with Privilege and Authority are making decisions that in a sensible world they wouldn't have been allowed anywhere near. Google the Hero-class coast guard cutters for this process in action. (TL;DR Canada bought an off-the-shelf design from the Danes that has been used all over the world. Then, they had a bunch of generals and people from the three loving government departments who manage these things make several hundred changes to the design, driving up the cost enormously. Then, when all these changes made the ships overweight, these same geniuses began deleting *other things* from the design, including the ship's stabilizers, which made the resulting boats unusable.) If you read Neville Shute's autobiography, immediately after finishing his account of the R100/R101, he launches into an impassioned defense of the privilege of vast aristocratic wealth in the UK. One argument he makes is that government bureaucrasts that actually need to worry about their jobs can't be put in positions of great authority, as they just bow to political pressures. It takes someone of immense ancestral wealth in those roles to insist we're doing this the right way, and gently caress you if you fire me, I have a manor house to return to. It boils down to leaning on noblise oblige to make the system work. The thing that sorta haunts me about Shute's arguments is that he might be right, insofar as the authors of the Westminster Parliamentary democracy are concerned. I don't think it's any sort of stretch that the framers assumed noblise oblige as the grease to make the whole machine work. So when looking at the trumpster fire that is Brexit, or unbelievably dumb poo poo in Canada, I can totally understand why the political systems are malignant and awful: without the assumed 'good people' in the system, and lacking a real democracy, it can only do crash after crash as long as the biggest minority in X number of ridings don't give a poo poo. BalloonFish posted:Edit: A quick mental survey suggests you can draw endless parallels between almost any of the great British industrial/political failures. R101. The Groundnuts Scheme. The bungling of the transition from steam to diesel by British Railways (sensibly decide to order a range of loco designs in small numbers to see which features work best so you can standardize them for the mass-produced versions, then before the first of these 'test' designs is even delivered decide that the railways need to improve their public image so just expand the existing pilot orders to hundreds of locos per design, most of which haven't even left the drawing board and some of which are being produced by companies that have never built a diesel locomotive before, with predictably bad results), the collapse of the car and motorcycle industries, the failure of the Hawker-Siddeley Trident. The Millenium Dome. And so on. It would be interesting to see if other similar project failures have happened for similar reasons in other countries, or if it's a uniquely British problem, and if so if it's cultural/social or just baked in due to our economic circumstances. While you know I love hearing about these fuckups (the rail thread educated me on dumb things in British locomotives) I wouldn't say it's endemic to the UK. For one, I'd say a major component of British industrial failures have to do with far too much money being held by the 0.01% and above, where it is free to be invested overseas instead of at home, resulting in severe undercapitalization. (See this thread discussing shed-based jet airliner manufacture.) Another is that the political class and those same 0.01% are one and the same. If you look at the wilting of Bombardier, I think a major factor of it was knowing (on the part of the people who own Bombardier) that High-Value jobs + the political connection meant the Government was going to protect their investment no matter what. In a world where PM Trudeau tries to get the Justice Minister to interfere in a case where the firm in question has been **banned from doing business internationally**, it seems a safe bet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 15:24
|
|
|
Isn't there awfully big assumption in Schute's argument that the nobles actually DO know "the right way" to do something? It's not like Canadian procurement was somehow Good when the aristos were running the show.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 16:23
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Isn't there awfully big assumption in Schute's argument that the nobles actually DO know "the right way" to do something? It's not like Canadian procurement was somehow Good when the aristos were running the show. Oh, it is, most def. It's not really any argument he makes that worries me. What worries me is that the Westminster government might've been designed with questionable assumptions like these held as true.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 17:02
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Google the Hero-class coast guard cutters for this process in action. (TL;DR Canada bought an off-the-shelf design from the Danes that has been used all over the world. Then, they had a bunch of generals and people from the three loving government departments who manage these things make several hundred changes to the design, driving up the cost enormously. Then, when all these changes made the ships overweight, these same geniuses began deleting *other things* from the design, including the ship's stabilizers, which made the resulting boats unusable.) Well to give an example from a non-Westminster country, the Mirage III in Switzerland are interesting. The short is that they selected the Mirage among other planes on cost and performance parameters, then proceeded to build them locally and change everything about it. Airframe? Let's adapt it so that the aircraft can be lifted out of a underground bunkers by a crane. Radar and weapon systems? Let's integrate US stuff instead. So they nearly doubled the cost of the aircraft with these shenanigans, which meant they had to slash the orders to compensate, which means they no longer had enough aircraft, which means they had to order a new batch of aircraft. This time, they took the F-5 and they went for an off-the-shelf purchase instead of ruining it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 17:35
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:People making decisions that they are unqualified to make I think is a significant factor in the whole sorry saga. Even at the start, you had Air Ministry officials saying "you built the R38 too weak, this time we're going to OVERSIGHT the physical structure" which was not the cause of the R38 wreck. At the same time, the people in the Royal Airship Works who built the R38 while not bothering to think about "aerodynamic forces on the hull" were sent on to the next project. Then you have the fuckery of "let's have a contest, but the judges are also one of the two contestants who for political reasons are unable to concede failure or mistakes in any way." I think the bolded bit here is very apt, and was repeated throughout the decades-long period of industry (pick one - cars, planes, trains, ships, space rockets, computers, machine tools, steel, coal mining...) either being large-scale directed by interventionist government policy or directly controlled by nationalisation. Like the BR locomotive debacle, where six private equipment manufacturers were invited to submit trials design for consideration, which were to be tested against designs from BR's own in-house workshops. Nebakenezzer posted:If you read Neville Shute's autobiography, immediately after finishing his account of the R100/R101, he launches into an impassioned defense of the privilege of vast aristocratic wealth in the UK. One argument he makes is that government bureaucrasts that actually need to worry about their jobs can't be put in positions of great authority, as they just bow to political pressures. It takes someone of immense ancestral wealth in those roles to insist we're doing this the right way, and gently caress you if you fire me, I have a manor house to return to. It boils down to leaning on noblise oblige to make the system work. I have read Shute's autobiography, and virtually all his novels - I'd count him as one of my favourite authors and I'd recommend them (especially his aviation-themed ones*) to everyone ITT. But his social/political views were...weird. He was a social (small c)onservative, verging on a sort of proto-Randian libertarian. His experience at Vickers with the R100/101 mess and his tribulations trying to found and run Airspeed made him absolutely detest any sort of government interference and gave him the firm belief that 'men who do' - especially engineers - were best left to their own devices when it came to business and enterprise, which would always shake out as being for the greater good even if it seemed morally dubious. He loathed the post-war Labour government and moved to Australia to avoid it, from where he wrote a string of novels about poor, downtrodded, over-taxed Brits who, stifled by the oppressive welfare state, move to Australia and find it a sunny paradise of free-enterprise individualism where they can fulfill their dreams. His novel Ruined City is all about a rich London banker who decided to single-handedly save a bankrupt shipyard in the northeast of England (and thus the community that depends on it). Of course the government bureaucrats hate that he'll make them look bad, and in the end the only way to float the new business is with some underhand deals with a shady Balkan dictatorship and lying on the business prospectus. The fraud is discovered, the noble banker takes sole responsibility, goes to jail and when he gets out he returns to the (now thriving) shipbuilding town to the adoration of the population. * So Disdained, An Old Captivity, Landfall, Pastoral, Round The Bend and No Highway are the main ones - the latter is about a great new British airliner which, the main character discovers, will suffer catastrophic fuselage failure due to an unforseen type of metal fatigue after a certain amount of flight hours. This was written three years before the DH Comet entered service... Nebakenezzer posted:Oh, it is, most def. It's not really any argument he makes that worries me. What worries me is that the Westminster government might've been designed with questionable assumptions like these held as true. Nebakenezzer posted:The thing that sorta haunts me about Shute's arguments is that he might be right, insofar as the authors of the Westminster Parliamentary democracy are concerned. I don't think it's any sort of stretch that the framers assumed noblise oblige as the grease to make the whole machine work. So when looking at the trumpster fire that is Brexit, or unbelievably dumb poo poo in Canada, I can totally understand why the political systems are malignant and awful: without the assumed 'good people' in the system, and lacking a real democracy, it can only do crash after crash as long as the biggest minority in X number of ridings don't give a poo poo. As was badly exposed last year when it turned out that the Prime Minister can suspend democracy at will and there's no political or legal mechanism to stop him, beyond the implicit assumption that no British PM would be inclined to do so. And that, in the absence of a written constitution, the UK's only protections are conventions, politicians not wanting to look bad and 'it's tradition'. When you have a PM and a party who don't give a drat about any of those things they can do pretty much whatever they want. BalloonFish fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Sep 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 17:49
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:As was badly exposed last year when it turned out that the Prime Minister can suspend democracy at will and there's no political or legal mechanism to stop him, beyond the implicit assumption that no British PM would be inclined to do so. And that, in the absence of a written constitution, the UK's only protections are conventions, politicians not wanting to look bad and 'it's tradition'. When you have a PM and a party who don't give a drat about any of those things they can do pretty much whatever they want. Yeah, watching that whole thing last year, I remember thinking "isn't this the point where literally the Queen is supposed to step in and start locking people up in the tower?" As it turns out, the Queen as ultimate authority is very much of a piece with the electoral college in the states: when finally given a chance to justify itself in a crisis, it resolutely ran away from that crisis, proving it was an entirely hollow and useless institution. BalloonFish posted:I have read Shute's autobiography, and virtually all his novels - I'd count him as one of my favourite authors and I'd recommend them (especially his aviation-themed ones*) to everyone ITT. But his social/political views were...weird. He was a social (small c)onservative, verging on a sort of proto-Randian libertarian. His experience at Vickers with the R100/101 mess and his tribulations trying to found and run Airspeed made him absolutely detest any sort of government interference and gave him the firm belief that 'men who do' - especially engineers - were best left to their own devices when it came to business and enterprise, which would always shake out as being for the greater good even if it seemed morally dubious. I can sort of forgive Shute for this. The R100/R101 affair was practically scripted by Andrew Ryan. I've read "On the Beach"  and "Trustee from the Toolroom" a novel where an old British master machinist takes on the adventure of smuggling a small hoard of traesure to Australia, where he hooks up with a good-natured native Hawaiian dude who built his own sailboat in Oregon (?) and they sail across the Pacific ocean.Turns out weevils are snackable protean you get with sacks of cornmeal Speaking of aviation competition, my facebook feed keeps popping up the news that Airbus is trying out hydrogen turbine powered airliners. Details were a little light, but they seem to have a short range [~1500 km]. The three competition configurations are conventional turboprop, conventional jet, and cool as heck flying wing design.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 18:49
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Speaking of aviation competition, my facebook feed keeps popping up the news that Airbus is trying out hydrogen turbine powered airliners. Details were a little light, but they seem to have a short range [~1500 km]. The three competition configurations are conventional turboprop, conventional jet, and cool as heck flying wing design. That seems ..unnecessary? Can't you just biofuel a regular jet?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 18:58
|
|
|
Xakura posted:That seems ..unnecessary? Can't you just biofuel a regular jet? Biofuel is still CO2.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 19:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 09:40 |
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Biofuel is still CO2. Spoiler warning: to get pure hydrogen, you need to separate it from whatever other stuff is glued to it (such as oxygen), and to do that you need energy, and to get energy you emit CO2. Unless you live in a glorious nuclear paradise, of course.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 20:23
|
|