181–190 of 252 posts
The idea of being stuck in a plane for hours with no windows is...odd.
This is the future of airplanes. Windows add cost and reduce the structural integrity of the plane. Commercial airlines are already removing them. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44383220
Earlier quoted context omitted.
TFA did not say maximum speed 450mph, it said "maximum cruising speed of at least 450mph" Still doesn't mean it gets 18-25mpg at 450. If it can realistically do half of 4500 miles at 450mph, there are a lot of interesting routes (Gets you as far as Tel-Aviv from London, Boston to Phoenix, or Los Angeles to Miami). Using that completely-pulled-out-of-my-ass number of half the range at 450, and assuming quadratic drag,…
$5k plus pilots (I’d want two for a transatlantic flight). And you’d still be stuck inside a very small space for 12 hours, with what’s likely to be a porta-potty level lavatory and minimalist galley. Oh, and a single piston engine, which is less reliable than turbines, over a lot of very cold water. Not sure that would be the best use case for this plane.
I have high hopes for the future efforts
For some perspective, the Scaled Composites Catbird (powered by a 210-hp V6) achieved just over 20 mpg at 200 mph with close to 1000 lbs of payload (it could carry a pilot and four passengers) in the late '80s and early '90s. Amateur-built experimentals have achieved upwards of 50 mpg in realistic flying conditions, but they generally tended to be tandem-seat designs with minimal frontal area and low-powered engines.…
For some perspective, the Scaled Composites Catbird (powered by a 210-hp V6) achieved just over 20 mpg at 200 mph with close to 1000 lbs of payload (it could carry a pilot and four passengers) in the late '80s and early '90s. Amateur-built experimentals have achieved upwards of 50 mpg in realistic flying conditions, but they generally tended to be tandem-seat designs with minimal frontal area and low-powered engines.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only if they don't replace them with even larger digital "windows." There's also been work towards electronic windows in aircraft.
Yeah but it'd be cooler if the sides were completely digital "windows". What should these be called? Dindows? Digidows? Digdows? I live in the arctic and I was thinking of building a home without windows but with same idea. It allows you to remove convective heat loss from windows almost entirely. Not to mention it's much cheaper than shipping up glass windows.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A single engine plane is most likely not going to be used for ocean crossings regularly, for safety reasons, even if it is technically capable of it. Additionally, I'm not sure it has enough spare fuel reserves to make the trip with enough margin for error or unforeseen circumstances.
Single engine aircraft with a range of around 800 miles are regularly ferried across the Atlantic. Now, I'm not for a minute suggesting that this is an everyday pleasure flight, it's something which takes planning, preparation and additional equipment. However, all I'm pointing out is that range would be the least of your problems if any of the claims prove true. If you are interested this site gives a good overview…
How would single-engine craft comply with ETOPS - the relevant standard for passenger flights, or equivalent?
It's still a GA aircraft though... so you still have to deal with all the BS. If you don't own it yourself then you need to pay a pilot (though with the recent downturn there's no shortage of pilots). There is absolutely no way many people will try and get their pilot's license. The FAA written test for a PPL may be easy compared to IR but it's still not a walk in the park. The checkrides are very strict nowadays too…
I think the point is more that this kind of tech could be scaled up to make commercial airliners more fuel efficient too?
"The design of the Celera fuselage takes advantage of an optimum length-to-width ratio to maximize laminar flow. These benefits will not scale for large jet transports and are therefore well suited for an aircraft like the Celera."
Ok... lifting body, clean efficient wing, rear-mounted propeller to avoid disturbing the laminar flow - I get all of that. But what are the two gizmos mounted on the top of the fuselage between wing and tail? They look a bit big to just be the air intake for the engine?!