|
priznat posted:Waiting for a sweaty Nebakenezzer to bust in with an armload of airship statistics saying “I heard someone was talking aircraft fuel efficiency!” Hey guys did you- oh well have I mentioned yet how only Airships can rock hydrogen fuel cells Platystemon posted:
I find this deeply confusing
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 02:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 22:27 |
|
|
Phanatic posted:This is the same nonsense that has Germany burning a shitload of wood because wood is a "renewable" resource. Dude, trees that die and rot release nearly all of the sunk carbon back into the atmosphere. Doesn't matter if you planted them or they were there naturally. You have some strange misunderstandings on carbon sinking, please stop posting about it already.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 02:12
|
|
|
EightBit posted:Dude, trees that die and rot release nearly all of the sunk carbon back into the atmosphere. Doesn't matter if you planted them or they were there naturally. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/349024/BEAC_Report_290814.pdf quote:It is evident that the GHG intensity of electricity generated from North American roundwood and energy crops varies significantly, depending on the carbon stock of the land and the counterfactual. Some scenarios can have very low (even negative) GHG intensities, if they result in increased carbon stored on the land. However, other scenarios can result in GHG intensities greater than electricity from fossil fuels, even after 100 years. In all cases, the energy input required to produce the electricity from North American pellets is greater than electricity from fossil fuels and other renewables(except the most energy-intensive PV systems)and nuclear. But it's renewable, and they have to produce 30% of their energy from renewables, so there you have it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 02:24
|
|
|
fknlo posted:They fly them out of DEN too. Along with Key Lime and Alpine Air with some of the random poo poo they fly. We get a Key Lime J328 that loves to be in the wrong place all the time being all kinds of slow. Isn’t the j328 is a 30 passenger plane? (That just makes it sadder)
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 03:44
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Someone flies a pilatus PC-12 from MSP to Thief River Falls. For work I interact with digikey a lot but they keep coming to the twin cities so I’ve not gotten a chance to try that yet. Seems like it’d be an experience. That was my old company.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 04:13
|
|
|
If we actually wanted to achieve net zero emissions it would be silly to re-engineer the entire aeroplane and airport infrastructure to run on bioavgas. Better to keep running it on dinosaurs and farm the equivalent amount of carbon out of the atmosphere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 04:26
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:*battery-electric, I should say. We could build a DC-9 with a nuclear reactor powering a pair of electric propfans tomorrow if only the dang gubmint would allow it Delta will take 50 +25 options
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 04:57
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:*battery-electric, I should say. We could build a DC-9 with a nuclear reactor powering a pair of electric propfans tomorrow if only the dang gubmint would allow it Unfortunately Nuclear powered aircraft are a terrible idea, for pretty much every reason  Nuclear powered rigid airships though? You could use the hydrogen and alpha emissions to recharge your lifting gas! Mount the gondola on top and reactor on the bottom, radiation field intensity decreases with the square of distance, very little shielding would be required, making for a lighter reactor plant! There's no downside!* *There may be some downsides Also, any reasonable energy policy would attack ships and aircraft last, as they're the most difficult target, but thanks to "environmentalists" being window licking loving morons, nearly as bad as their lignite-worshiping counterparts we'll never have a reasonable energy policy in time and the world's gonna loving burn for it anyways, so why not fly some more while it's cheap?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 05:01
|
|
|
Hell yeah brother *spills a gallon of 100LL*
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 05:04
|
|
|
On that note, incidentally, I learned recently that the prepper nutjobs like to try to get their hands on avgas because it has no ethanol in it and thus keeps longer in their underground bunkers
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 05:08
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Delta will take 50 +25 options This reminded me, I vaguely recalled that part of the Boeing CSeries dumping complaint was that Delta had rejected Boeing’s pitch of E-195s and 717s. Delta rejecting an offer of a DC-9 variant would of course undermine many shitposts in this thread so I looked it up: https://leehamnews.com/2017/05/23/delta-shoots-boeings-cseries-dumping-claim/ quote:May testified that Boeing offered a combination of used aircraft, the Embraer E-190 and Boeing 717s. The 717s weren’t available on the timeline Delta wanted. Delta purchased the E-190s, only to decide afterwards to sell the aircraft itself. Ah, Delta rejected the offer because Boeing couldn’t deliver the DC-9s fast enough!
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 05:17
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:On that note, incidentally, I learned recently that the prepper nutjobs like to try to get their hands on avgas because it has no ethanol in it and thus keeps longer in their underground bunkers You'd, uh, think it would be easier to just call up the local oil company and have them deliver fuel-oil. That stuff stays good for two years or so. Why go through all that trouble and not choose diesel motors?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 05:21
|
|
|
madeintaipei posted:You'd, uh, think it would be easier to just call up the local oil company and have them deliver fuel-oil. That stuff stays good for two years or so. Why go through all that trouble and not choose diesel motors? The fuel is probably meant to be powering a Ford Raptor and an assault chainsaw, as the prepping isn't for hiding in a bunker, but for a manchild's action movie fantasy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 05:28
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:On that note, incidentally, I learned recently that the prepper nutjobs like to try to get their hands on avgas because it has no ethanol in it and thus keeps longer in their underground bunkers For fucks sake, ethanol free premium is widely available, and fuel stabilizer is both cheap and effective at minimizing hygrophillia and separation. Honestly, after seeing fuel lines in NY and NJ after hurricane Sandy, keeping a few hundred gallons of fuel on hand doesn't seem that crazy. I would not keep diesel though, if you get a bad batch it's subject to bacterial contamination, which forms a disgusting, thick, foul film on the diesel that instantly plugs any kind of filter. I've had to exchange tens of thousands of gallons of it, and the smell from the discharge tankers makes an outhouse on a 100 degree day seem pleasant.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 05:29
|
|
|
Yeah my friend lives on a place that frequently loses power so they just use the ethanol free gas you can get at the docks. Avgas will be really bad for almost anything made today.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 05:35
|
|
|
Charles posted:Yeah my friend lives on a place that frequently loses power so they just use the ethanol free gas you can get at the docks. Avgas will be really bad for almost anything made today. Avgas is just really bad, and should be subject to a blanket ban. gently caress your 1962 Cessna 150.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 06:37
|
|
|
madeintaipei posted:You'd, uh, think it would be easier to just call up the local oil company and have them deliver fuel-oil. That stuff stays good for two years or so. Why go through all that trouble and not choose diesel motors? Preppers are, uh, not firing on all cylinders.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 07:29
|
|
|
Elviscat posted:Nuclear powered rigid airships though? You could use the hydrogen and alpha emissions to recharge your lifting gas! Mount the gondola on top and reactor on the bottom, radiation field intensity decreases with the square of distance, very little shielding would be required, making for a lighter reactor plant! There's no downside!* I agree that transportation is the hardest to make carbon free, with aircraft (that aren't airships) the most difficult thing of all. I think a smart CC policy would attack the low hanging fruit first, then move up to more difficult problems, tacking transport (assuming ships with molten salt reactors isn't low hanging fruit) last. Elviscat posted:Nuclear powered rigid airships though? You could use the hydrogen and alpha emissions to recharge your lifting gas! Mount the gondola on top and reactor on the bottom, radiation field intensity decreases with the square of distance, very little shielding would be required, making for a lighter reactor plant! There's no downside!* Makes my hydrogen fuel cells idea look pretty sensible, eh? Eh?  Knowing what a nightmare other nuclear powered aircraft are, I've only thought a little about this. I think that some sort of lower power reactor, like those (currently unbuilt) modular reactors people have been dreaming of could possibly be used to power an airship, but the weight of any sort of system like that would be huge compared to other options. That makes me think that the only way an airship like that could use nuclear is if it was stonk-ingly gigantic even by airship standards, so you could get your payload capability up to where the cost would make it useful.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 17:06
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:That makes me think that the only way an airship like that could use nuclear is if it was stonk-ingly gigantic even by airship standards, so you could get your payload capability up to where the cost would make it useful.    Also available in flying  No-one quite did aeronautical insanity like Soviet speculative fiction writers and propaganda artists. Edit: I know that airship isn't actually that "stonkingly-gigantic". My school library had a 'history of transport' book published in the late 1970s and the final double-page spread was 'The Future' and confidently predicted that, in the post-Energy Crisis world that there would be nuclear-powered bulk carriers plying the oceans, nuclear-powered merchant submarines cruising under the ice caps and nuclear-powered cargo and cruiseliner airships in the skies. There was an artist's impression of a 'Soviet project scheduled for completion by 1990' with a huge trimaran airship where the central hull was something like 1200 feet long. That's what I was hoping to find in my image search, but no luck. BalloonFish fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Sep 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 18:37
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:: And Soviet actual writers and artists. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 18:41
|
|
|
Elviscat posted:For fucks sake, ethanol free premium is widely available, and fuel stabilizer is both cheap and effective at minimizing hygrophillia and separation. This must be region specific, i live 40-50 miles from the nearest body of salt water and that's where the nearest E0 gasoline is. It sucks. I can buy 100LL a lot closer than that, but don't because I suspect it will gunk up valves and I want my kids to retain their brain function.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 18:50
|
|
|
Now the real question is could you design an airship that also used ground effect.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 18:52
|
|
|
Doctor Zaius posted:Now the real question is could you design an airship that also used ground effect. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7jENWKgMPY
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 19:00
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:
We’re basically talking about things that the Ace Combat boss designers would reject as ludicrously oversized aircraft. Hell yeah.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 19:01
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I agree that transportation is the hardest to make carbon free, with aircraft (that aren't airships) the most difficult thing of all. I think a smart CC policy would attack the low hanging fruit first, then move up to more difficult problems, tacking transport (assuming ships with molten salt reactors isn't low hanging fruit) last. Yeah, you'd want to use a molten salt reactor so you don't need a massive pressure vessel, then polyethylene and water to attenuate neutrons, since they tend to make other things both very brittle and very radioactive, then use mostly distance and a little lead to get your gamma levels down to acceptable levels. Until your airship gets struck by lightning and you have a giant hydrogen fire that's also spewing burning radioactive salts over a populated area, then you might have something of an R101 moment. You could certainly use one of the nuclear powered ram-jet designs to power a conventional fixed-wing aircraft, but they tend to have some small reliability and fallout issues. Nuclear powered shipping is obviously feasible, the US Navy has a couple good size nuclear powered vessels, and Russia has the nuke ice breakers, and they'd actually be cheaper to fuel than current bulk carriers, maintenance costs for anything nuclear are ruinous unfortunately, you'd also have to adopt a far higher level of automation than the current regulatory bodies will allow, but realistically everyone who currently holds an engineer's license for big ships could be taught to run one without a crazy amount of extra training.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 19:51
|
|
|
Elviscat posted:Yeah, you'd want to use a molten salt reactor so you don't need a massive pressure vessel, then polyethylene and water to attenuate neutrons, since they tend to make other things both very brittle and very radioactive, then use mostly distance and a little lead to get your gamma levels down to acceptable levels. Until your airship gets struck by lightning and you have a giant hydrogen fire that's also spewing burning radioactive salts over a populated area, then you might have something of an R101 moment. We had a nuclear powered cargo ship for a while, it just wasn't built to be an effective cargo vessel as much as a showpiece with passenger cabins. I imagine a modern container ship with a nuclear reactor would be cheaper than one running on bunker fuel if we charged a fair price for emissions. Those are filthy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 19:58
|
|
|
Put the power infrastructure on the ground and beam it up to the airship. How hard can it be (tm)?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 20:00
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:We had a nuclear powered cargo ship for a while, it just wasn't built to be an effective cargo vessel as much as a showpiece with passenger cabins. I imagine a modern container ship with a nuclear reactor would be cheaper than one running on bunker fuel if we charged a fair price for emissions. Those are filthy. On paper, but when you realize the port of convenience, never inspected, completely dodgy state in general of cargo vessels... you want to put a nuclear reactor in one? Then you have to crew it with a bunch of nuclear engineers, who don't work for peanuts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 21:02
|
|
|
A fusion-powered airship would produce its own Helium
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 21:14
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:A fusion-powered airship would produce its own Helium Any alpha-emitter too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 21:16
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:
Liquid metal coolant!
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 23:04
|
|
|
Elviscat posted:For fucks sake, ethanol free premium is widely available This varies greatly based on your location.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 03:59
|
|
|
Godholio posted:This varies greatly based on your location. Variables include (a) distance to ocean and (b) conservative nature of locality.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 04:54
|
|
|
Godholio posted:This varies greatly based on your location. There are like 3 stations that offer ethanol free gas within 30 minutes of me. 2 of them are 87 only, the one that offers 91 is 15 or 20 minutes north of me in some town I'm never in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 05:20
|
|
|
Godholio posted:This varies greatly based on your location. Shell and Husky have 91 octane ethanol-free across Canada (except Husky in SK apparently) Pretty convenient for my 20 year old bike
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 05:59
|
|
|
NTSB releases first recommendations in the wake of the MAX issues. Some are about what you'd expect, but interesting among them are about studying effect of warnings and indications on pilots across the entire industry, and how to best manage alert overload.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 18:22
|
|
|
NTSB just released the transcript of the east river helicopter crash that killed six. From the report: NTSB posted:“Get Schwifty” – A reference to Season 2, Episode 5 of the television show Rick and Morty. The reference is to a song, “Get Schwifty.” The popculture website
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 22:08
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:NTSB just released the transcript of the east river helicopter crash that killed six. Were they flying a helicopter drunk?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 22:12
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:Were they flying a helicopter drunk? No, just riding in one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 22:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 22:27 |
|
|
It was a pilot and six passengers who had paid for a "door open" flight to take pictures for social media. They were all strapped into harnesses meant to keep them from falling out without quick releases or knives to cut themselves loose. So when there was a water landing, only the pilot made it out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 22:48
|
|