81–90 of 149 posts
side note: a few companies are also bringing back zeppelin, so far for freight/cargon (10s of tons) but also but slow public transport. Hindenburg drama aside, I find them superbly peaceful. see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxotOEZCh8g
side note: a few companies are also bringing back zeppelin, so far for freight/cargon (10s of tons) but also but slow public transport. Hindenburg drama aside, I find them superbly peaceful. see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxotOEZCh8g
With a remote work arrangement it would be lovely to travel by Zeppelin (or ship, or train, for that matter).
Norway is in an ideal position; a surplus from oil money and excessive access to hydro power. I would hope they can use their current oil prosperity to prepare for a hydro (and other green energy) powered future, in all kinds of new places. After I typed that I realized that the whole world could be said to be in oil prosperity still, so the same applies to us all: with less evenly distributed oil prosperity, and not…
But that will never happen in the USA due to the influence of the oil industry.
E.g. Uber
As a first step, they could make at least the take off and landing electric, that would help a lot with the noise and pollution around cities, i.e. where people live. I guess the batteries could be recharged during the flight for landing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Takeoff is the hardest part requiring the most power, unfortunately.
> Takeoff is the hardest part requiring the most power, unfortunately. So, we just need a catapult system for commercial aircraft (like used on aircraft carriers, only lower acceleration since you are doing it to reduce the amount of energy needed from the engines, not to shorten the take-off distance.)
This would involve few things on the plane.
The draw back is that airports needs to install this system.
During take off, if there is a problem, the system could be stopped.
Perhaps it's not usable in this context ?
It’s just a question of the energy density of batteries vs. fuel. We need a couple more battery breakthroughs before we get a fully electric commercial airliner.
There is more than that. Planes become lighter as they burn fuel, batteries don't become lighter as they drain. Lighter planes are more efficient, and most airliners are not designed to land with their tanks full. They have a option to jettison their fuel in case of emergency. It means that just matching the energy density of fuel is not enough, batteries must exceed it. Jet engines are also quite efficient: around 4…
Right, but they can be thrown overboard :-)
It’s just a question of the energy density of batteries vs. fuel. We need a couple more battery breakthroughs before we get a fully electric commercial airliner.
You also expel all that burnt fuel reducing weight was you fly. Some aircraft even redistribute fuel between tanks to control stability and performance. [0] [0] https://www.amevoice.com/blog/1058/airbus-a340-fuel-system-d...
Aircraft have been doing that forever. Carefully managing the fuel flow from which tank has always been a task for the pilot.
It’s just a question of the energy density of batteries vs. fuel. We need a couple more battery breakthroughs before we get a fully electric commercial airliner.
side note: a few companies are also bringing back zeppelin, so far for freight/cargon (10s of tons) but also but slow public transport. Hindenburg drama aside, I find them superbly peaceful. see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxotOEZCh8g
In the times of the Hindenburg the zeppelin was already becoming obsolete. If you wanted comfort ships could provide much more because weight was a major issue for zeppelin interiours, and if you wanted speed planes were already several times faster. The high number of crew combined with slow speeds (i.e. long travel times) meant that zepellin tickets weren't cheaper than either of the two alternatives.
With both ships and planes significanlty better than 80 years ago I don't see how economics should be more in favour of zepellins now. There's novelty value, but that didn't keep the Concorde flying either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d actually suggest the opposite. Planes cuuently need overpowered engines just for take off
It will still never make sense until battery energy density increases a lot more. Boost power for takeoff is still going to be cheaper weight-wise burning kerosene than with electric batteries.