inherit
N7
289
0
Sept 21, 2024 0:54:11 GMT
8,016
Terminator Force
4,314
August 2016
terminatorforce
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
TerminatorForce2
|
Post by Terminator Force on Jun 14, 2019 16:44:42 GMT
You're no Google's customers. You're their product: Soylent Green. Typical myopic, shortsighted, virtue signalling, evil SJW technology. Well, if they're going to do that, they'd better switch to hydrogen (will increase leakage) ASAP, because Helium is a non-sustainable, finite and much too precious resource to waste on balloons. Also, keep all that plastic away from the oceans, please. Take it you're not aware NASA highest purchasers of helium?
|
|
inherit
802
0
Sept 29, 2024 23:40:32 GMT
5,540
B. Hieronymus Da
Unapologetic Western Chauvinist. Barefoot. Great Toenails
3,752
August 2016
bevesthda
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by B. Hieronymus Da on Jun 14, 2019 20:12:14 GMT
You're no Google's customers. You're their product: Soylent Green. Typical myopic, shortsighted, virtue signalling, evil SJW technology. Well, if they're going to do that, they'd better switch to hydrogen (will increase leakage) ASAP, because Helium is a non-sustainable, finite and much too precious resource to waste on balloons. Also, keep all that plastic away from the oceans, please. Take it you're not aware NASA highest purchasers of helium? Exactly. There are much better use of Helium than Google's useless propaganda balloons (also useless, recreational party balloons ). Google should at least start using Hydrogen instead. Most of NASA's uses of Helium can be evolved to reclaim the Helium, and that work is underway.
|
|
inherit
N7
289
0
Sept 21, 2024 0:54:11 GMT
8,016
Terminator Force
4,314
August 2016
terminatorforce
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
TerminatorForce2
|
Post by Terminator Force on Jun 14, 2019 20:16:04 GMT
Take it you're not aware NASA highest purchasers of helium? Exactly. There are much better use of Helium than Google's useless propaganda balloons (also useless, recreational party balloons ). Google should at least start using Hydrogen instead. Most of NASA's uses of Helium can be evolved to reclaim the Helium, and that work is underway. Reclaim helium, how?
|
|
inherit
802
0
Sept 29, 2024 23:40:32 GMT
5,540
B. Hieronymus Da
Unapologetic Western Chauvinist. Barefoot. Great Toenails
3,752
August 2016
bevesthda
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by B. Hieronymus Da on Jun 14, 2019 20:26:38 GMT
Exactly. There are much better use of Helium than Google's useless propaganda balloons (also useless, recreational party balloons ). Google should at least start using Hydrogen instead. Most of NASA's uses of Helium can be evolved to reclaim the Helium, and that work is underway. Reclaim helium, how? NASA use Helium for deep cooling, pressurizing systems, technical welding and purging unwanted other gasses from various systems (typically satellite & rocket related). Helium that goes up in rockets or balloons is lost, but Helium used in lab/workshop processes can be collected.
|
|
cribbian
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Posts: 902 Likes: 2,413
Member is Online
inherit
259
0
Member is Online
Sept 30, 2024 13:25:01 GMT
2,413
cribbian
902
August 2016
cribbian
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
|
Post by cribbian on Jun 20, 2019 14:35:09 GMT
|
|
Obadiah
N5
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem
Origin: Obadaya
XBL Gamertag: ObadiahPearce
Posts: 2,677 Likes: 3,624
inherit
658
0
3,624
Obadiah
2,677
August 2016
obadiah
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem
Obadaya
ObadiahPearce
|
Post by Obadiah on Jul 10, 2019 16:40:06 GMT
Twitter post from the Economist on flying cars...
|
|
inherit
2400
0
Sept 30, 2024 10:09:13 GMT
17,021
frosted
12,200
Dec 14, 2016 15:08:22 GMT
December 2016
frosted
|
Post by frosted on Jul 16, 2019 4:37:41 GMT
|
|
inherit
2044
0
Nov 10, 2016 16:47:07 GMT
10,271
AnDromedary
4,444
Nov 10, 2016 16:30:09 GMT
November 2016
andromedary
|
Post by AnDromedary on Jul 18, 2019 21:18:57 GMT
Usually, these guys make some nice videos on SciFi space ships but in honor of the 50 aniversary of the launch of Apollo 11, they made a video about a real spaceship for once. You kinda have to like their style of spewing out technobabble fast but I really enjoyed this. Even gets pretty inspiring at the end I thought.
|
|
Obadiah
N5
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem
Origin: Obadaya
XBL Gamertag: ObadiahPearce
Posts: 2,677 Likes: 3,624
inherit
658
0
3,624
Obadiah
2,677
August 2016
obadiah
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem
Obadaya
ObadiahPearce
|
Post by Obadiah on Jul 21, 2019 17:57:39 GMT
|
|
inherit
N7
289
0
Sept 21, 2024 0:54:11 GMT
8,016
Terminator Force
4,314
August 2016
terminatorforce
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
TerminatorForce2
|
Post by Terminator Force on Jul 27, 2019 12:08:44 GMT
Only need to watch first minute for two demonstrations.
|
|
inherit
802
0
Sept 29, 2024 23:40:32 GMT
5,540
B. Hieronymus Da
Unapologetic Western Chauvinist. Barefoot. Great Toenails
3,752
August 2016
bevesthda
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by B. Hieronymus Da on Jul 28, 2019 20:12:49 GMT
Only need to watch first minute for two demonstrations. It's a good thing you said "only watch first minute" , and a good thing he keeps saying "I don't know", "what I believe", "my theory (hypothesis)", etc, because his "intuitive explanations" are wrong. In all cases the air pressure (normal atmospheric pressure) from the underside suspends the object. The blender in the beginning works like this: It's an impeller pump that creates a radial pressure difference. The peripheral pressure drives the water upwards along the sides. This pressure lifts up the cylinder of spinning water. The weight of that water cylinder, over the cylinder cross section area, corresponds to the pressure difference over the impeller. But the impeller's underside covers a larger area, which means a greater suction force. In the case of the water jet and bottom, it's the absence of air pressure on the top side that provides the unbalance. There is only water. And that water has a low pressure. He has only one small hole open for the water. This means there is a large pressure drop passing this hole. While the waterjet through that hole may look impressive, the pressure is all on the inside of that hole. The pressure drop is what accelerates the water jet. Placing the cap on the underside divides the pressure drop somewhat, making the pressure drop over the hole itself somewhat less. Some of the pressure drop is now over the water flow out from the center towards the edge. It's not enough to matter. In the last case, everybody shouting Bernoulli would have been right. (And that's what you should be shouting). If you want an "intuitive" explanation, you need to look at the kinematic nature of gases and gas pressure (gas molecules which are traveling sideways, have a lesser impact vector downwards, thus the pressure on the top of the bottom styrofoam sheet is less). His first animation that shows air going slower towards the edges, is the correct one. The second, that shows a higher density of air in the center, is mainly false.
|
|
inherit
N7
289
0
Sept 21, 2024 0:54:11 GMT
8,016
Terminator Force
4,314
August 2016
terminatorforce
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
TerminatorForce2
|
Post by Terminator Force on Jul 31, 2019 0:28:57 GMT
|
|
inherit
N7
289
0
Sept 21, 2024 0:54:11 GMT
8,016
Terminator Force
4,314
August 2016
terminatorforce
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
TerminatorForce2
|
Post by Terminator Force on Jul 31, 2019 20:31:25 GMT
|
|
inherit
2044
0
Nov 10, 2016 16:47:07 GMT
10,271
AnDromedary
4,444
Nov 10, 2016 16:30:09 GMT
November 2016
andromedary
|
Post by AnDromedary on Jul 31, 2019 21:52:57 GMT
Yep, and that doesn't even account for the underside of the disc.
|
|
inherit
802
0
Sept 29, 2024 23:40:32 GMT
5,540
B. Hieronymus Da
Unapologetic Western Chauvinist. Barefoot. Great Toenails
3,752
August 2016
bevesthda
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by B. Hieronymus Da on Aug 3, 2019 22:27:12 GMT
Possibility 1: Artifacts originating inside the IR imaging device used to track these. Particularly how the object rotates when it passes an angle have me thinking of the gimbal mechanism. (There's a good probability the Chilean helicopter used similar American equipment.)
Possibility 2: Unknown natural phenomenon.
Possibility 3: Unknown, top secret, ground breaking American 'black' drone program. Not likely IMO.
Possibility 4: Well, you know what. Not likely IMO, though I have to say these videos make me consider.
Not possible: Secret program by a foreign power. Nah, if anyone has such technology, it'd be USA, and I still don't think so.
|
|
inherit
N7
289
0
Sept 21, 2024 0:54:11 GMT
8,016
Terminator Force
4,314
August 2016
terminatorforce
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
TerminatorForce2
|
Post by Terminator Force on Aug 13, 2019 18:03:53 GMT
|
|
inherit
Mr. Rump
46
0
Sept 29, 2024 2:16:59 GMT
8,995
Lavochkin
6,793
August 2016
lavochkin
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Lavochkin on Aug 15, 2019 13:45:13 GMT
The very practical reason behind the bottom of a ship's hull is painted red.
And transitioning from sea to air, the merits of forward-swept wings.
|
|
inherit
802
0
Sept 29, 2024 23:40:32 GMT
5,540
B. Hieronymus Da
Unapologetic Western Chauvinist. Barefoot. Great Toenails
3,752
August 2016
bevesthda
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by B. Hieronymus Da on Aug 18, 2019 1:06:30 GMT
And transitioning from sea to air, the merits of forward-swept wings. Well, forward swept wings don't really exist, now do they? A couple of experimental planes were built. That's all. Why? The Ju 287 had forward swept wings in order to keep the wing box and bomb bay separated and still retain the bomb bay in the center of gravity. This is correctly accounted in the video. The actual reason the X-29 had forward swept wings, was the discovery that supersonic wave drag could be reduced, if the wings trailing edges were more swept than the leading edges. There are only two ways to accomplish this, making the wing chord wider towards the tip, which substantially increases both induced drag and weight, and for that reason is not acceptable, or sweeping the wings forward. I would make the guess that the Russians explored the exact same thing with their Su-47. This reason is never mentioned in the video. Instead, the video introduces and conflates a lot of different things that have nothing directly to do with it. It mentions swept wings and their stall characteristics. It is true that sweeping the wing forward would largely solve the swept wing's nasty stall characteristics. But I don't know that there ever was a plane designed with forward swept wings for that reason? Maybe the Hansa Jet? Or some early Soviet experiment? I don't know. There are other ways. You still need to sweep edges and thickest section in order to keep wave drag down, but otherwise you control compressibility and shock waves with the wing profile. You don't need to sweep the wing so much. Highly swept wings are heavy and inefficient anyway. Then you twist the wing towards the tip and/or vary the profile. This helps to reduce induced drag as well. And, of course, you employ some sort of stall warning system. And then it goes into unstable design and canards, as if that was something forward swept wings required. It's not. It has little to do with it. X-29 was an experimental aircraft that was supposed to research multiple things, including how an unstable canard design would work. The X-29 wasn't unstable because it had forward swept wings. It was unstable because it was deliberately designed to be unstable. Another false impression, though it's never claimed in the video, is that the Germans built swept wings during WW2 because they delayed and reduced shock wave effects at high speeds. They did discover this advantage with swept wings, as mentioned correctly in the video, but no aircraft was completed or flew according to such design during WW2. The wing of the Me 262 was originally slightly swept because it was designed to be not torsionally stiff enough to be straight. After a change in planned engine, the wing was swept more, to correct for the balance change. A number of other aircraft, American and German, flying wings and canard designs, flew with swept wings during WW2, all of them having swept wings because of control and stability reasons. The video falsely claims that the Messerschmidt P.1101 had a swing wing (variable sweep) and was completed by the Americans after the war. Nope. The P.1101 was a normal fixed wing design. Bell did complete it, but then designed and built an entirely new aircraft, the X-5, which was not the P.1101, only inspired by it, but did have variable sweep to research sweep angles. The reason you don't see forward swept wings, is that they become too heavy to offer any net gain. Maybe with some active flutter control. Who knows what the future will bring. But geometrically, they're kinda anti-stealth, so I don't hold my breath.
|
|
inherit
Now with HESH rounds!
912
0
6,637
The Biotic Trebuchet
Stolen by inquisition forces.
2,616
Aug 11, 2016 22:59:51 GMT
August 2016
thebioticbread
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Trebuchet_MkIV
[(e^x )- 4]
69
|
Post by The Biotic Trebuchet on Aug 20, 2019 0:10:54 GMT
The future (2030s) is (for airliners at least) longer and thinner wings (like a glider), slighty slower speeds (transition from jet engines back to rotor engines), lower mass by using more composite materials, increased ranges and less greenhouse gases emitions.
For the distant future (2050s) the focus is pointing in how the fuselage can stop inducing drag, and how can it help with the lift (flying wing designs, like the B-2).
|
|
inherit
802
0
Sept 29, 2024 23:40:32 GMT
5,540
B. Hieronymus Da
Unapologetic Western Chauvinist. Barefoot. Great Toenails
3,752
August 2016
bevesthda
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by B. Hieronymus Da on Aug 20, 2019 20:52:47 GMT
The future (2030s) is (for airliners at least) longer and thinner wings (like a glider), slighty slower speeds (transition from jet engines back to rotor engines), lower mass by using more composite materials, increased ranges and less greenhouse gases emitions. For the distant future (2050s) the focus is pointing in how the fuselage can stop inducing drag, and how can it help with the lift (flying wing designs, like the B-2). Yes to slightly longer wings. This development will continue to slowly creep forward as structural technology slowly advances. Though higher aspect ratio (= longer, narrower wings) is an exercise in diminishing returns, while a number of problems escalate violently. Aircraft designers have almost always designed and built wings with as great span as they've thought possible, or the perceived optimum. There are a number of things which limit span. Weight, torsional stiffness and structural strength for instance. The aircraft should preferably also be safely flyable. Turning or rolling, the outer sections of long wings have to move very fast. You'll never see as slim wings as on a glider. It's simply a case of size. Weight and loads increase by the cube of the scale, structural strength only by the square of the scale. (This is why Ants seem so awesome, while Elephants can't jump. Same principle apply to small and big planes). Then we have airport limitations. The reason you see aircraft with winglets or foldup wing tips (instead of longer wings) is that they try to stay inside a standardized span limit for airport gates. Then we have flutter. This is a direct limiter on speed and long wings. I don't think we'll see active flutter control on civilian airliners. Just like unbalanced aerodynamics, this is a feature that will immediately lead to total loss of aircraft and all souls, the second it malfunctions for whatever reason. The military guys can always eject in their fancy rocket chairs. Airliners, otoh, depend on being able to make an emergency landing if there is a technical problem. The 787 is 50% composite materials. We don't know quite how it will age. The vast majority of all DC3/C-47 ever built still fly in commercial service. Those are 75 year old aircraft. Airliners fly pretty much nonstop, every day. And the old aluminum generations can still last at least 50 years, like a number of 727 and other demonstrate. 25, 30 year old aircraft are routine in air traffic. The military intends to keep the B-52 in service for like 90 years. And they have chosen aluminum again for the new Poseidon and Pegasus aircraft. But increasing the span of the 787 from 60.12 m to, lets say 65 m, would reduce drag, at cruising speed at 10,700 m, with guesstimate (Okay, I calculated it, but I'm a coward so I say "Guesstimate") 3.6 % (if everything else remained the same). 3.6% is not bad. It would definitely change the profitability. Because, as a long range aircraft, the 787 carries a lot of fuel. Expending less fuel would mean carrying less fuel. Carrying less fuel would mean lighter,.. would mean expending less fuel,.. would mean carrying less fuel,.. - Hey, lets build a smaller, lighter aircraft with smaller tanks,.. would mean expending less fuel... ... If everything else could stay the same. But it can't. Those wings would be heavier. Heavier still to avoid aeroelastic problems. Heavier wings would mean heavier, would mean more drag,.. would mean expending more fuel,.. would mean carrying more fuel... And the 65 m wing 787 would need the same airport services as the A380 and 747, which is probably not an advantage. Flying wings normally suffer higher drag than conventional designs. Quite contrary to what Jack Northrop and the Horten brothers believed, not to mention a great number of journalists and aviation writers. There actually is a reason why you haven't seen any flying wings around since WW2. The reason for that is that at the end of the day you pay for stability with drag. And a flying wing pays way more for its stability than a conventional body and tail. The only way to make the wing competitive is to make it unstable.
|
|
inherit
Mr. Rump
46
0
Sept 29, 2024 2:16:59 GMT
8,995
Lavochkin
6,793
August 2016
lavochkin
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Lavochkin on Aug 21, 2019 22:01:23 GMT
On how sewage is handled on a ship, which contrary to what some might think, isn't simply flushed into the ocean.
And if you ever wondered why pages turned yellow over time...
|
|
inherit
2400
0
Sept 30, 2024 10:09:13 GMT
17,021
frosted
12,200
Dec 14, 2016 15:08:22 GMT
December 2016
frosted
|
Post by frosted on Aug 22, 2019 4:21:36 GMT
The best non-fiction book I've read in quite a while! Phage therapy is only available at this time in the US with special permission from the FDA. But hopefully, it will become a widely available weapon against antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Check out #PhageTherapy on Twitter for more interesting links! Phage therapy: An alternative to antibiotics in the age of multi-drug resistancewww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5547374/
|
|
inherit
2400
0
Sept 30, 2024 10:09:13 GMT
17,021
frosted
12,200
Dec 14, 2016 15:08:22 GMT
December 2016
frosted
|
Post by frosted on Aug 25, 2019 2:16:01 GMT
|
|
inherit
1086
0
Jan 25, 2017 20:52:04 GMT
2,601
nanotm
a tidy workspace is the sign of a deranged mind
3,879
Aug 20, 2016 19:53:16 GMT
August 2016
nanotm
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
nanotm
nanotm
|
Post by nanotm on Aug 26, 2019 0:28:31 GMT
The future (2030s) is (for airliners at least) longer and thinner wings (like a glider), slighty slower speeds (transition from jet engines back to rotor engines), lower mass by using more composite materials, increased ranges and less greenhouse gases emitions. For the distant future (2050s) the focus is pointing in how the fuselage can stop inducing drag, and how can it help with the lift (flying wing designs, like the B-2). Yes to slightly longer wings. This development will continue to slowly creep forward as structural technology slowly advances. Though higher aspect ratio (= longer, narrower wings) is an exercise in diminishing returns, while a number of problems escalate violently. Aircraft designers have almost always designed and built wings with as great span as they've thought possible, or the perceived optimum. There are a number of things which limit span. Weight, torsional stiffness and structural strength for instance. The aircraft should preferably also be safely flyable. Turning or rolling, the outer sections of long wings have to move very fast. You'll never see as slim wings as on a glider. It's simply a case of size. Weight and loads increase by the cube of the scale, structural strength only by the square of the scale. (This is why Ants seem so awesome, while Elephants can't jump. Same principle apply to small and big planes). Then we have airport limitations. The reason you see aircraft with winglets or foldup wing tips (instead of longer wings) is that they try to stay inside a standardized span limit for airport gates. Then we have flutter. This is a direct limiter on speed and long wings. I don't think we'll see active flutter control on civilian airliners. Just like unbalanced aerodynamics, this is a feature that will immediately lead to total loss of aircraft and all souls, the second it malfunctions for whatever reason. The military guys can always eject in their fancy rocket chairs. Airliners, otoh, depend on being able to make an emergency landing if there is a technical problem. The 787 is 50% composite materials. We don't know quite how it will age. The vast majority of all DC3/C-47 ever built still fly in commercial service. Those are 75 year old aircraft. Airliners fly pretty much nonstop, every day. And the old aluminum generations can still last at least 50 years, like a number of 727 and other demonstrate. 25, 30 year old aircraft are routine in air traffic. The military intends to keep the B-52 in service for like 90 years. And they have chosen aluminum again for the new Poseidon and Pegasus aircraft. But increasing the span of the 787 from 60.12 m to, lets say 65 m, would reduce drag, at cruising speed at 10,700 m, with guesstimate (Okay, I calculated it, but I'm a coward so I say "Guesstimate") 3.6 % (if everything else remained the same). 3.6% is not bad. It would definitely change the profitability. Because, as a long range aircraft, the 787 carries a lot of fuel. Expending less fuel would mean carrying less fuel. Carrying less fuel would mean lighter,.. would mean expending less fuel,.. would mean carrying less fuel,.. - Hey, lets build a smaller, lighter aircraft with smaller tanks,.. would mean expending less fuel... ... If everything else could stay the same. But it can't. Those wings would be heavier. Heavier still to avoid aeroelastic problems. Heavier wings would mean heavier, would mean more drag,.. would mean expending more fuel,.. would mean carrying more fuel... And the 65 m wing 787 would need the same airport services as the A380 and 747, which is probably not an advantage. Flying wings normally suffer higher drag than conventional designs. Quite contrary to what Jack Northrop and the Horten brothers believed, not to mention a great number of journalists and aviation writers. There actually is a reason why you haven't seen any flying wings around since WW2. The reason for that is that at the end of the day you pay for stability with drag. And a flying wing pays way more for its stability than a conventional body and tail. The only way to make the wing competitive is to make it unstable. I doubt they would go from jet to turboprop for the simple reason that turboprop is actually producing more pollutants to the atmosphere than jet engines do... as for the longer wings, there pointless unless your running off lower speed electric propellers, the added drag and structural stress on even a turbo prop (never mind a jet engine) actually makes things 10 times worse than they currently are... another reason why they wont switch back to slower engines is of course the trade losses.... long flight times means more crew per aircraft and fewer flights per route.... nobody would do this willingly, not even the customers who already cant stand how long there cooped up in a tiny space.... so whilst things like solar powered flight is a niche for the rich and trendy unless they figure it out it will never end up as a mainstream production far more likely they will figure out microscale nuclear reactors and have pure electric airframes by 2050 than any of the other stuff
|
|
inherit
802
0
Sept 29, 2024 23:40:32 GMT
5,540
B. Hieronymus Da
Unapologetic Western Chauvinist. Barefoot. Great Toenails
3,752
August 2016
bevesthda
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by B. Hieronymus Da on Aug 26, 2019 20:52:43 GMT
Yes to slightly longer wings. This development will continue to slowly creep forward as structural technology slowly advances. Though higher aspect ratio (= longer, narrower wings) is an exercise in diminishing returns, while a number of problems escalate violently. Aircraft designers have almost always designed and built wings with as great span as they've thought possible, or the perceived optimum. There are a number of things which limit span. Weight, torsional stiffness and structural strength for instance. The aircraft should preferably also be safely flyable. Turning or rolling, the outer sections of long wings have to move very fast. You'll never see as slim wings as on a glider. It's simply a case of size. Weight and loads increase by the cube of the scale, structural strength only by the square of the scale. (This is why Ants seem so awesome, while Elephants can't jump. Same principle apply to small and big planes). Then we have airport limitations. The reason you see aircraft with winglets or foldup wing tips (instead of longer wings) is that they try to stay inside a standardized span limit for airport gates. Then we have flutter. This is a direct limiter on speed and long wings. I don't think we'll see active flutter control on civilian airliners. Just like unbalanced aerodynamics, this is a feature that will immediately lead to total loss of aircraft and all souls, the second it malfunctions for whatever reason. The military guys can always eject in their fancy rocket chairs. Airliners, otoh, depend on being able to make an emergency landing if there is a technical problem. The 787 is 50% composite materials. We don't know quite how it will age. The vast majority of all DC3/C-47 ever built still fly in commercial service. Those are 75 year old aircraft. Airliners fly pretty much nonstop, every day. And the old aluminum generations can still last at least 50 years, like a number of 727 and other demonstrate. 25, 30 year old aircraft are routine in air traffic. The military intends to keep the B-52 in service for like 90 years. And they have chosen aluminum again for the new Poseidon and Pegasus aircraft. But increasing the span of the 787 from 60.12 m to, lets say 65 m, would reduce drag, at cruising speed at 10,700 m, with guesstimate (Okay, I calculated it, but I'm a coward so I say "Guesstimate") 3.6 % (if everything else remained the same). 3.6% is not bad. It would definitely change the profitability. Because, as a long range aircraft, the 787 carries a lot of fuel. Expending less fuel would mean carrying less fuel. Carrying less fuel would mean lighter,.. would mean expending less fuel,.. would mean carrying less fuel,.. - Hey, lets build a smaller, lighter aircraft with smaller tanks,.. would mean expending less fuel... ... If everything else could stay the same. But it can't. Those wings would be heavier. Heavier still to avoid aeroelastic problems. Heavier wings would mean heavier, would mean more drag,.. would mean expending more fuel,.. would mean carrying more fuel... And the 65 m wing 787 would need the same airport services as the A380 and 747, which is probably not an advantage. Flying wings normally suffer higher drag than conventional designs. Quite contrary to what Jack Northrop and the Horten brothers believed, not to mention a great number of journalists and aviation writers. There actually is a reason why you haven't seen any flying wings around since WW2. The reason for that is that at the end of the day you pay for stability with drag. And a flying wing pays way more for its stability than a conventional body and tail. The only way to make the wing competitive is to make it unstable. I doubt they would go from jet to turboprop for the simple reason that turboprop is actually producing more pollutants to the atmosphere than jet engines do... as for the longer wings, there pointless unless your running off lower speed electric propellers, the added drag and structural stress on even a turbo prop (never mind a jet engine) actually makes things 10 times worse than they currently are... another reason why they wont switch back to slower engines is of course the trade losses.... long flight times means more crew per aircraft and fewer flights per route.... nobody would do this willingly, not even the customers who already cant stand how long there cooped up in a tiny space.... so whilst things like solar powered flight is a niche for the rich and trendy unless they figure it out it will never end up as a mainstream production far more likely they will figure out microscale nuclear reactors and have pure electric airframes by 2050 than any of the other stuff Longer wings have less drag. ...If everything else stayed the same, which it won't. Stiffer wings have less drag. ...If everything else stayed the same, which it won't. Lighter wings have less drag. ...If everything else stayed the same, which it won't. Structural engineering doesn't scale. In fact, no engineering or physics scale. Going slower takes less energy/fuel. Longer flight times requires more passenger comfort. More passenger comfort means bigger and heavier and more energy/fuel. Turboprops don't pollute more. Don't know where you got that from? As a technology, they pollute less, because they use less fuel, but fly slower. Electric aircraft is a sort of fraud. My take is that the primary interest is in getting lots of investor money to fool around with. The "technology" is primarily focused on making ridiculously flimsy, light and slow aircraft with short range. That's fine. If you tolerate and want to pay for that, you can do it anyway, and then skip the weight of the batteries and electric engines, for better performance and fly with very little fuel instead. Batteries and electric engines won't become much lighter than they are today. And battery economy and environment friendliness is not good and not sustainable, which is why electric cars is also a bad idea. Microscale nuclear reactors to power aircraft in 30 years? Nah, I don't believe that. If you have an energy source, like nuclear power plants or solar power, you can just as well use it to synthesize fuel as charge batteries. The conversion and utilization efficiency is less, but the weight is also less and it's far more practical.
|
|