51–60 of 64 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Presenting raw LLM output as your own writing in a human-to-human context is rude and antisocial, not to mention incredibly transparent.
I was oblivious - how did you tell? There are a lot of commas.
> Gate on a hot day, doors open, no ram air, warm soak: that's the worst case, and where the compressor has to work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>In my dreams, my ultra-advanced car would open the windows when braking to get two benefits in one. Or use those triangular vent windows / wing windows, as seen on old trucks and classic cars. https://www.fastlanecars.com/blog/wing-windows-history-and-c... https://www.ccjdigital.com/trucks/article/15749837/the-story... You could quickly flip it open with a servo when braking, controlled by a differential thermostat…
Planes generally avoid braking. Many are equipped with explicit "speed brakes" and all can use their control surfaces to create inefficient aerodynamic configurations, but fuel is expensive so they avoid it unless there's a situation like getting cleared for a shorter approach than expected. Ordinarily, they plan a descent path which can be accomplished naturally with a lower than normal thrust. The standard is three…
> flight times of up to 22 hours Making flight connections is never fun, but this sounds absolutely brutal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Planes generally avoid braking. Many are equipped with explicit "speed brakes" and all can use their control surfaces to create inefficient aerodynamic configurations, but fuel is expensive so they avoid it unless there's a situation like getting cleared for a shorter approach than expected. Ordinarily, they plan a descent path which can be accomplished naturally with a lower than normal thrust. The standard is three…
For cars not planes, but apparently you're an LLM so....
Punchy sentences. Stupid metaphors. No substance. 100% pure LLM slop delivered straight to your retina.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've traveled UK to Australia a few times. Not nonstop, but with stops in SE Asia, basically 2x13 hours plus a few hours airport time. It sucks, but you get over it because how else are you going to get there? If you don't suffer blood clots or something, it isn't really actively dangerous.
>2x13 hours plus a few hours airport time. That sounds like pure torture
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Especially on the same routes where you’d think about using this kind of airliner... https://www.airnewzealand.com/economy-skynest
You just know this is going to be 2-3 times the price of an economy seat, which means you're going to buy the economy seat anyway. In flights, price beats everything else.
If I recall correctly they’re not certified for use during taxi takeoff and landing, I’d imagine due to orderly-evacuation kinds of requirements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also bad for fuel economy (and/or take a hit on cargo/pax/luggage carrying capacity): You have to take off with all that fuel even though you only need X / hr. Increased weight = more flying at a lower altitude (+ air resistance) until the fuel burn makes it safe to fly higher. On shorter flights, you still have the weight impact from that empty tank and its infra. If they had to make a bump out on the fuselage, you…
You're still cutting a take off and landing so I can't imagine it'd be too hard to break even for flights where this increased capacity is helpful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assuming you can regularly land with your fuel tanks half-full. You could overbuild everything to support that, but usually airlines don't want to pay for a niche design to support that. I'd bet military aircraft do get that treatment though.
It is actually rather common. Many airlines running shorter flights will not refuel at every stop. It saves time on the ground, which can be more valuable then fuel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're still cutting a take off and landing so I can't imagine it'd be too hard to break even for flights where this increased capacity is helpful.
Not only do take-offs spend large amounts of fuel; the fact of a landing and the servicing and refueling in the airport also cost the airlines. Not having to land but instead having to carry some extra fuel while the engines work in their most efficient mode, and the air drag is low at a high altitude, should make airlines money. Else they won't try that :)
Armchair experts won't correctly estimate all of these incidental costs nor the value of the saved time and overhead for everyone involved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>2x13 hours plus a few hours airport time. That sounds like pure torture
Isn't everything, really? A dentist's appointment for example. It has an end, and then you're glad you had the courage to go through it.
Being cooped up in a metal tube for 13 hours, knowing you had to do the same thing tomorrow, and then the same thing two more fucking times on your way home, is not worth any vacation to me.