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 21:21:19 GMT
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. exactly shorter wings are more cost efficient than longer ones, turbo props are more pollution heavy for 2 reasons, 1stly they have around 40% efficiency (jet engines have a much higher efficiency in comparison) 2ndly they suffer from the same problems as normal car or truck engines -incomplete combustion- meaning you get twice as much pollution when compared to a jet engine pound for pound in fuel... jet engines might suck it in faster but theres no reason why you cant use plant based fuels instead of oil based ones (indeed several airlines figured this out back in the 90's) there are many types of nuclear reactor and some of the "portable" prototypes would if they become economically viable be perfect for the job, of course to make it viable you probably want to make something twice the size of the c5 galaxy and thats likely going to need some sort of vtol capability lol (but hey drones can do it so why not just add more electric motors lol)
|
|
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 22:24:43 GMT
turbo props are more pollution heavy for 2 reasons, 1stly they have around 40% efficiency (jet engines have a much higher efficiency in comparison) 2ndly they suffer from the same problems as normal car or truck engines -incomplete combustion- meaning you get twice as much pollution when compared to a jet engine pound for pound in fuel... jet engines might suck it in faster but theres no reason why you cant use plant based fuels instead of oil based ones (indeed several airlines figured this out back in the 90's) Efficiency figures for both jet engines and turboprops is a complicated chapter. There's both the thermodynamic efficiency and the propulsive efficiency (the real efficiency is the product of these), and both of them vary with speed and altitude. You're probably correct, given an actual comparison between existing engines, but technologywise, they're the same. Particularly now that some very efficient reduction gear and advanced blades have been invented. The turboprop has higher propulsive efficiency at lower speeds and lower altitudes, and turbofan higher propulsive efficiency at high speeds and high altitudes. The thermodynamic efficiency can be the same. The thing is just that there's no bleeding edge ultra-technology turboprop developed for the market, due to low demand. There is however crazy advanced turbofans in service.
|
|
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 27, 2019 10:14:59 GMT
turbo props are more pollution heavy for 2 reasons, 1stly they have around 40% efficiency (jet engines have a much higher efficiency in comparison) 2ndly they suffer from the same problems as normal car or truck engines -incomplete combustion- meaning you get twice as much pollution when compared to a jet engine pound for pound in fuel... jet engines might suck it in faster but theres no reason why you cant use plant based fuels instead of oil based ones (indeed several airlines figured this out back in the 90's) Efficiency figures for both jet engines and turboprops is a complicated chapter. There's both the thermodynamic efficiency and the propulsive efficiency (the real efficiency is the product of these), and both of them vary with speed and altitude. You're probably correct, given an actual comparison between existing engines, but technologywise, they're the same. Particularly now that some very efficient reduction gear and advanced blades have been invented. The turboprop has higher propulsive efficiency at lower speeds and lower altitudes, and turbofan higher propulsive efficiency at high speeds and high altitudes. The thermodynamic efficiency can be the same. The thing is just that there's no bleeding edge ultra-technology turboprop developed for the market, due to low demand. There is however crazy advanced turbofans in service. sure they could invest in better propulsion tech but where is the market for it with turboprops ? commercially speaking there is zero value for the R&D expenditure, the turbofan engines havent really changed at all in the last 50 years, even the materials in use have mostly stayed the same
|
|
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 27, 2019 19:28:37 GMT
Efficiency figures for both jet engines and turboprops is a complicated chapter. There's both the thermodynamic efficiency and the propulsive efficiency (the real efficiency is the product of these), and both of them vary with speed and altitude. You're probably correct, given an actual comparison between existing engines, but technologywise, they're the same. Particularly now that some very efficient reduction gear and advanced blades have been invented. The turboprop has higher propulsive efficiency at lower speeds and lower altitudes, and turbofan higher propulsive efficiency at high speeds and high altitudes. The thermodynamic efficiency can be the same. The thing is just that there's no bleeding edge ultra-technology turboprop developed for the market, due to low demand. There is however crazy advanced turbofans in service. sure they could invest in better propulsion tech but where is the market for it with turboprops ? commercially speaking there is zero value for the R&D expenditure, the turbofan engines havent really changed at all in the last 50 years, even the materials in use have mostly stayed the same (?) You either misspoke (turbofan ?) or are trolling me. "Turbofan" is a jet engine and there's been a colossal development the last 50 years. Turboprops are much the same technology, and the cores of turboprops benefit from the developments in turbofans, though they're lagging somewhat behind.
|
|
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 28, 2019 9:01:44 GMT
sure they could invest in better propulsion tech but where is the market for it with turboprops ? commercially speaking there is zero value for the R&D expenditure, the turbofan engines havent really changed at all in the last 50 years, even the materials in use have mostly stayed the same (?) You either misspoke (turbofan ?) or are trolling me. "Turbofan" is a jet engine and there's been a colossal development the last 50 years. Turboprops are much the same technology, and the cores of turboprops benefit from the developments in turbofans, though they're lagging somewhat behind. really your telling me that in the last 50 years other than size and control circuits much has changed in the construction of turbofans? the biggest difference between various engines is actually based on the airframe its attached too, following the basic idea of balancing thrust to prevent catastrophic failure... they might tweak the position of various parts in order to achieve this but they aren't changing the basic design or method of production, the improvements in construction techniques might be improving the metallurgy and thus improving it generationally but again nothing special, they are still cone shaped they still have one or more centrifugal fans a fuel injection system an ignition system, an accessory gearbox and an exhaust.... even ram jets havent changed much (tweaked for efficiency and size)
|
|
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 28, 2019 18:45:37 GMT
(?) You either misspoke (turbofan ?) or are trolling me. "Turbofan" is a jet engine and there's been a colossal development the last 50 years. Turboprops are much the same technology, and the cores of turboprops benefit from the developments in turbofans, though they're lagging somewhat behind. really your telling me that in the last 50 years other than size and control circuits much has changed in the construction of turbofans? the biggest difference between various engines is actually based on the airframe its attached too, following the basic idea of balancing thrust to prevent catastrophic failure... they might tweak the position of various parts in order to achieve this but they aren't changing the basic design or method of production, the improvements in construction techniques might be improving the metallurgy and thus improving it generationally but again nothing special, they are still cone shaped they still have one or more centrifugal fans a fuel injection system an ignition system, an accessory gearbox and an exhaust.... even ram jets havent changed much (tweaked for efficiency and size) So you are trolling me. Basically, your opinion is that since turbofans are still turbofans, and not something unspecified other, there's been no development. Meanwhile, looking at the high-bypass-turbofan, life cycle costs and maintenance requirements, have seen like tenfold improvements. Power and thrust, have doubled. Fuel efficiency has been improved by like 50%. A measure of state of technology, the compression ratio, has increased by 240%. Materials have changed several times.
|
|
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 28, 2019 21:54:14 GMT
really your telling me that in the last 50 years other than size and control circuits much has changed in the construction of turbofans? the biggest difference between various engines is actually based on the airframe its attached too, following the basic idea of balancing thrust to prevent catastrophic failure... they might tweak the position of various parts in order to achieve this but they aren't changing the basic design or method of production, the improvements in construction techniques might be improving the metallurgy and thus improving it generationally but again nothing special, they are still cone shaped they still have one or more centrifugal fans a fuel injection system an ignition system, an accessory gearbox and an exhaust.... even ram jets havent changed much (tweaked for efficiency and size) So you are trolling me. Basically, your opinion is that since turbofans are still turbofans, and not something unspecified other, there's been no development. Meanwhile, looking at the high-bypass-turbofan, life cycle costs and maintenance requirements, have seen like tenfold improvements. Power and thrust, have doubled. Fuel efficiency has been improved by like 50%. A measure of state of technology, the compression ratio, has increased by 240%. Materials have changed several times. none of which is actually a fundamental change, for instance the original turbo fan engines produced back in the 1940's were capable of far more compression, greater thrust and higher fuel efficiency however they had to be massively scaled back since they caused massive deformations to the airframes of the time period, there was even a project that attached such engines to a surface ship destroyer, and it actually managed to take off unfortunately even its substantial frame was shattered thanks to the power of such engines, in fact other than a couple of flukes that allowed project aurora project blackbird and concord to be produced most of the minor tweaks that improve performance are actually down to improvements in airframe construction that is permitting them to increase the output, hell you can take something like the astazou3 turbofan adjust the fuel nozzles and you get a 200% improvement on fuel economy and power output, of course doing so means it would literally destroy the aircraft it was mounted on but hey its progress right? never mind that you would also need to rebalance the entire airframe to account for changes and start the design work all over again, change the gearbox's and improve all the other ancillaries alongside it, your exhaust would also be increased in temperature enough that you would melt the surrounding superstructure and of course the metallurgy of the various engine components would deform due to the pressures and temperature involved.... so yes every generational improvement is a minor tweak and is directly linked to the requirement of the airframe its mounted on, they are still taken from the same original blueprints created during the various experiments of the 1940's and tweaked to fit the new requirement and then the materials are tweaked to suit the service cycle... no point making an engine out of materials that give it a 500 year working cycle when it means your going to miss out on spares and servicing contracts.... most of the time your making more out of the parts trade than you are the original purchase price!!! and no they really havent done much in terms of actual discovery they have just been using the same formulaic process to determine manufacturing tolerances for a desired outcomes in terms of thrust to weight ratio, if they really wanted too those giant engines bolted onto 777's could be 1/3rd of the size and still give the same thrust, the problem is the airframe couldn't handle the torsion effect from doing it that way at the time...
|
|
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 29, 2019 7:32:23 GMT
So you are trolling me. Basically, your opinion is that since turbofans are still turbofans, and not something unspecified other, there's been no development. Meanwhile, looking at the high-bypass-turbofan, life cycle costs and maintenance requirements, have seen like tenfold improvements. Power and thrust, have doubled. Fuel efficiency has been improved by like 50%. A measure of state of technology, the compression ratio, has increased by 240%. Materials have changed several times. none of which is actually a fundamental change, for instance the original turbo fan engines produced back in the 1940's were capable of far more compression, greater thrust and higher fuel efficiency however they had to be massively scaled back since they caused massive deformations to the airframes of the time period, there was even a project that attached such engines to a surface ship destroyer, and it actually managed to take off unfortunately even its substantial frame was shattered thanks to the power of such engines, in fact other than a couple of flukes that allowed project aurora project blackbird and concord to be produced most of the minor tweaks that improve performance are actually down to improvements in airframe construction that is permitting them to increase the output, hell you can take something like the astazou3 turbofan adjust the fuel nozzles and you get a 200% improvement on fuel economy and power output, of course doing so means it would literally destroy the aircraft it was mounted on but hey its progress right? never mind that you would also need to rebalance the entire airframe to account for changes and start the design work all over again, change the gearbox's and improve all the other ancillaries alongside it, your exhaust would also be increased in temperature enough that you would melt the surrounding superstructure and of course the metallurgy of the various engine components would deform due to the pressures and temperature involved.... so yes every generational improvement is a minor tweak and is directly linked to the requirement of the airframe its mounted on, they are still taken from the same original blueprints created during the various experiments of the 1940's and tweaked to fit the new requirement and then the materials are tweaked to suit the service cycle... no point making an engine out of materials that give it a 500 year working cycle when it means your going to miss out on spares and servicing contracts.... most of the time your making more out of the parts trade than you are the original purchase price!!! and no they really havent done much in terms of actual discovery they have just been using the same formulaic process to determine manufacturing tolerances for a desired outcomes in terms of thrust to weight ratio, if they really wanted too those giant engines bolted onto 777's could be 1/3rd of the size and still give the same thrust, the problem is the airframe couldn't handle the torsion effect from doing it that way at the time... ...and disengaging.
|
|
Beerfish
N7
Little Pumpkin
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Origin: Beerfish
XBL Gamertag: Beerfish77
Posts: 15,177 Likes: 36,346
inherit
Little Pumpkin
314
0
Sept 30, 2024 2:41:10 GMT
36,346
Beerfish
15,177
August 2016
beerfish
https://bsn.boards.net/user/314/personal
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Beerfish
Beerfish77
|
Post by Beerfish on Aug 29, 2019 13:24:59 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 30, 2019 0:53:51 GMT
Vids on potential new building types that might get built in the future.
Ones below ground...
And below sea.
|
|
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 Sept 15, 2019 12:13:32 GMT
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. They pollute less, because they use less fuel, but fly slower. exactly shorter wings are more cost efficient than longer ones, No they're not. It depends. Longer and narrower wings reduce drag for subsonic flight. That's why gliders have them and why evolution gave Albatrosses them. To start with, drag is reduced rather dramatically, but as wings become longer and longer, it produces diminishing returns in drag reduction, while it produces growing penalties in weight and structural problems. These returns and penalties do not scale proportionally with dimensions and speed, which is why it's unlikely we will see big airplanes with as long and narrow wings as gliders. That does not mean this property won't be pushed as construction technologies and practical airport logistics allow it. Going back to the example of the Boeing 787, which has a wingspan of 60.12 m, that gives it a drag reduction at cruising speed and cruising altitude of about 30% compared to if it had a wingspan of 40 m. The progression looks like this, from span = 40 m: 40 to 45 m -> 11% drag reduction. 45 to 50 m -> 9.4% further reduction. 50 to 55 m -> 7.3% reduction. 55 to 60.12 m -> 6.1% reduction. (The percentages always refer to the immediate former drag, so of course don't add up. That sequence would be 11%, 8.1%, 5.9%, 4.6%). (Also, I was forced to guesstimate a number of things about the 787; I intend to get away with that by not stating what fuel- and payload I assumed). If the 787's wing would have an aspect ratio similar to standard class gliders, it would have a wingspan of more than 156 m, which is not particularly realistic for a variety of reasons, some obvious, others rather obscure. * * * For 'reasons' (active anti-flutter technologies and new materials), we may see military fighter class aircraft with longer wings in the future (the F-18 tries). But as we can also see on the aerodynamic abomination that is the F-35, some people don't think aerodynamic efficiency is important any longer.
|
|
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 Sept 15, 2019 14:38:37 GMT
exactly shorter wings are more cost efficient than longer ones, No they're not. It depends. Longer and narrower wings reduce drag for subsonic flight. That's why gliders have them and why evolution gave Albatrosses them. To start with, drag is reduced rather dramatically, but as wings become longer and longer, it produces diminishing returns in drag reduction, while it produces growing penalties in weight and structural problems. These returns and penalties do not scale proportionally with dimensions and speed, which is why it's unlikely we will see big airplanes with as long and narrow wings as gliders. That does not mean this property won't be pushed as construction technologies and practical airport logistics allow it. Going back to the example of the Boeing 787, which has a wingspan of 60.12 m, that gives it a drag reduction at cruising speed and cruising altitude of about 30% compared to if it had a wingspan of 40 m. The progression looks like this, from span = 40 m: 40 to 45 m -> 11% drag reduction. 45 to 50 m -> 9.4% further reduction. 50 to 55 m -> 7.3% reduction. 55 to 60.12 m -> 6.1% reduction. (The percentages always refer to the immediate former drag, so of course don't add up. That sequence would be 11%, 8.1%, 5.9%, 4.6%). (Also, I was forced to guesstimate a number of things about the 787; I intend to get away with that by not stating what fuel- and payload I assumed). If the 787's wing would have an aspect ratio similar to standard class gliders, it would have a wingspan of more than 156 m, which is not particularly realistic for a variety of reasons, some obvious, others rather obscure. * * * For 'reasons' (active anti-flutter technologies and new materials), we may see military fighter class aircraft with longer wings in the future (the F-18 tries). But as we can also see on the aerodynamic abomination that is the F-35, some people don't think aerodynamic efficiency is important any longer. because there still confidant that energy shielding emitter formations will allow for even bricks to become aerodynamic through shaped bubble production, the primary reason why it hasn't been implemented is they still havent figured out how to fully implement the magneto drive field limiter(s) that would prevent such craft from shearing itself in half when you try to perform manoeuvres, rest assured the second they do some bright spark is going to start strapping multiple tank hulls together with a mini nuke power plant and maximising offensive capabilities and of course making things the size of cruise liners that move as fast as concord for maximal cargo conversion capabilities...
|
|
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 Sept 15, 2019 19:47:11 GMT
No they're not. It depends. Longer and narrower wings reduce drag for subsonic flight. That's why gliders have them and why evolution gave Albatrosses them. To start with, drag is reduced rather dramatically, but as wings become longer and longer, it produces diminishing returns in drag reduction, while it produces growing penalties in weight and structural problems. These returns and penalties do not scale proportionally with dimensions and speed, which is why it's unlikely we will see big airplanes with as long and narrow wings as gliders. That does not mean this property won't be pushed as construction technologies and practical airport logistics allow it. Going back to the example of the Boeing 787, which has a wingspan of 60.12 m, that gives it a drag reduction at cruising speed and cruising altitude of about 30% compared to if it had a wingspan of 40 m. The progression looks like this, from span = 40 m: 40 to 45 m -> 11% drag reduction. 45 to 50 m -> 9.4% further reduction. 50 to 55 m -> 7.3% reduction. 55 to 60.12 m -> 6.1% reduction. (The percentages always refer to the immediate former drag, so of course don't add up. That sequence would be 11%, 8.1%, 5.9%, 4.6%). (Also, I was forced to guesstimate a number of things about the 787; I intend to get away with that by not stating what fuel- and payload I assumed). If the 787's wing would have an aspect ratio similar to standard class gliders, it would have a wingspan of more than 156 m, which is not particularly realistic for a variety of reasons, some obvious, others rather obscure. * * * For 'reasons' (active anti-flutter technologies and new materials), we may see military fighter class aircraft with longer wings in the future (the F-18 tries). But as we can also see on the aerodynamic abomination that is the F-35, some people don't think aerodynamic efficiency is important any longer. because there still confidant that energy shielding emitter formations will allow for even bricks to become aerodynamic through shaped bubble production, the primary reason why it hasn't been implemented is they still havent figured out how to fully implement the magneto drive field limiter(s) that would prevent such craft from shearing itself in half when you try to perform manoeuvres, rest assured the second they do some bright spark is going to start strapping multiple tank hulls together with a mini nuke power plant and maximising offensive capabilities and of course making things the size of cruise liners that move as fast as concord for maximal cargo conversion capabilities... Nah, we'll leave that shit to the little grey men with big black eyes. The F-35 is not a brick. It's fine for drag, flying fast, not too high, and in a straight line. The drag comes with the high lift attitude. The problem is that it had to be derived from a Marine Corps VTOL fighter. The solution is that stealth will take care of defense and weapons will take care of offense.
|
|
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 Sept 15, 2019 20:42:39 GMT
I hear the Navy is concerned about encountering "Tic Tac" shaped UFOs?
|
|
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 Sept 16, 2019 21:04:12 GMT
|
|
inherit
535
0
4,330
clips7
MiNd...ExPaNsIoN....
1,827
August 2016
clips7
Blackgas7
|
Post by clips7 on Sept 20, 2019 4:26:52 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 Sept 20, 2019 18:40:13 GMT
Related vid:
|
|
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 Oct 1, 2019 3:27:21 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 Oct 1, 2019 3:33:43 GMT
A look at the cremation process. And of waste to power incineration. Wonder if you could combine the two.
|
|
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 Oct 2, 2019 11:53:42 GMT
A look at the cremation process. And of waste to power incineration. Wonder if you could combine the two. there were similar schemes operated in the Europe in the past, Denmark had 3 different types of waste processing facilities, one of which was also a pig farm the waste from which actually was used for 5 different industries including power generation in both Bristol and Southampton there were waste incinerator power stations that produced compressed ash composite blocks for building purposes... so many different options have been used in small scale in the past and nearly all of them have been curtailed or shutdown in favour of mass pollution educing dump sites (of which ocean dumping is but one) under the guise of reducing air pollution (what a crock of shit, you want to reduce air pollution put a fucking filter on the end of the chimney and plant more trees) all of these things have been damaged in the past by nefarious political gambits claiming there doing it to save the planet, funny how they never mention the damages that all the fake recycling makes....
|
|
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 Oct 9, 2019 9:45:13 GMT
This vid explains how Earth's climate and landscape would drastically change if it rotated in the opposite direction.
|
|
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 Oct 16, 2019 14:58:56 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 Oct 16, 2019 17:07:14 GMT
Love the flight suits. They give me a real Armageddon vibe. Hope they'll sing "leaving on a jet plane" when they first launch with them.
On a more serious note though, it's great to see manned deep space exploration finally take shape.
EDIT: But reading the article, I just realize how little mobility the Apollo astronauts had actually. Almost no mobility in the waist and shoulders. Imagine one of them just fell over on the moon. Even with 1/6th gravity and help from the other guy, it would have been really hard to get back up, I can imagine. Also it must have been really claustrophobic ... but then, I guess if you are willing to be stuck in that 2x2 meter tin can for a couple of days with nothing but vacuum around you, you'd better not struggle with that in the first place.
|
|
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 Oct 18, 2019 1:31:34 GMT
Love the flight suits. They give me a real Armageddon vibe. Hope they'll sing "leaving on a jet plane" when they first launch with them.
On a more serious note though, it's great to see manned deep space exploration finally take shape.
EDIT: But reading the article, I just realize how little mobility the Apollo astronauts had actually. Almost no mobility in the waist and shoulders. Imagine one of them just fell over on the moon. Even with 1/6th gravity and help from the other guy, it would have been really hard to get back up, I can imagine. Also it must have been really claustrophobic ... but then, I guess if you are willing to be stuck in that 2x2 meter tin can for a couple of days with nothing but vacuum around you, you'd better not struggle with that in the first place.
|
|
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 Oct 25, 2019 8:13:33 GMT
The most recent (regular) Vsauce vid.
|
|