Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

JetZero

jetzero.aero

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 277 posts

Re: JetZero

#161

Post by lavela »

dash2 wrote: post #160
kubafu wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of us is avoiding more by choosing not to fly.

I hope I'm not overinterpreting, but I get the sense that you think that's morally better than simply avoiding contrails. If so then this is surely a mistake! While an individual who imposes heavy costs on himself to do something socially valuable is certainly demonstrating commitment to the cause, the best solution for society is the one with the lowest costs.

Please explain how more flights with optimal routing are environmentally cheaper than less flights with optimal routing.

Re: JetZero

#162

Post by JumpCrisscross »

amluto wrote: post #82
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In a blended wing body design you can have off-axis motion that can increase motion sickness This sounds fixable in avionics and training. (Shallow, gradual banks.) Note, too, that a larger lifting body needs to bank less to execute the same turn as a craft with more loading.

> Note, too, that a larger lifting body needs to bank less to execute the same turn as a craft with more loading. This is not really helpful for passenger comfort. For a turn to be comfortable, you want the turn to be such that the effective force the passengers feel has no sideways (relative to the passengers) component, and the required roll angle is only a function of the velocity and turning radius. The aircraft…

Coördination stops lateral passenger movement. It does nothing for up and down. (Coördination is also about more than comfort. It keeps the flow attached to the wing. If your passengers are slipping, so is your wing.) In a roll, with a tubular fuselage, everyone—pilot and passengers—feel about the same vertical Gs. OP’s point is in a flying wing, the folks on the tips will lift up or drop down relative to the pilot and thus experience extra Gs.

My response is (a) this can be controlled in avionics and training, i.e. don’t do that, and (b) now that I think about it, vertical Gs aren’t as sickening as lateral ones.

Specify a maximum roll rate in training and normal-law software and this problem is solved

Re: JetZero

#163

Post by carabiner »

calmbonsai wrote: post #145
stickfigure wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As someone who has 31 hours towards their single-engine ppl cert, FFS, have some self-awareness! This is the Dunning-Kruger Effect in practice.

I don't see how having a marginal amount of single-engine aviation flight experience is relevant to Dunning-Kruger. If anything, it's taught me how little I know about "real flying" compared to CFD and systems engineering. Commercial aviation is conservative because aviation is "hard" and mistakes in aviation are "extremely costly".

It's a lot like saying, "as someone 5 hours into driver's ed in my mom's honda civic, I believe that future stability control algorithms in self-driving cars..."

Or the difference between a (noob) software user and a software engineer.

Re: JetZero

#164

Post by amluto »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #162
amluto wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Note, too, that a larger lifting body needs to bank less to execute the same turn as a craft with more loading. This is not really helpful for passenger comfort. For a turn to be comfortable, you want the turn to be such that the effective force the passengers feel has no sideways (relative to the passengers) component, and the required roll angle is only a function of the velocity and turning radius. The aircraft…

Coördination stops lateral passenger movement. It does nothing for up and down. (Coördination is also about more than comfort. It keeps the flow attached to the wing. If your passengers are slipping, so is your wing.) In a roll, with a tubular fuselage, everyone—pilot and passengers—feel about the same vertical Gs. OP’s point is in a flying wing, the folks on the tips will lift up or drop down relative to the pilot a…

> Specify a maximum roll rate in training and normal-law software and this problem is solved

I’m wondering whether there are major airfields with traffic patterns that require roll rates that would exceed whatever maximum is desired for comfort. My intuition is that the situation would be tolerable at most airfields but that normal-law limits that are too restrictive could be dangerous.

Re: JetZero

#165

Post by trueno »

margalabargala wrote: post #87
trueno wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

theres just some serious serious challenges here i dont think any of them are impossible to overcome but it would span so many more years and so much more funding to get thru. fuselage pressurization which they claim to have worked around (sus) is one of the spookiest imo. traditional looking commercial jets, their designs, their manufacturing processes, their innovations (yes boeing/airbus do innovate and have for a…

If some letters were capitalized it would be easier to read but without this gets downvoted as wordsalad. Almost illegible. Punctuation exists for a reason.

the misery it takes to make these types of comments lmao. behold lifes hidden fruits of simply scrolling past something that makes you irritable

Re: JetZero

#166

Post by shrubby »

orphereus wrote: post #136
kubafu wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of us is avoiding more by choosing not to fly.

I don't think that not travelling is the solution. A lot of people cannot avoid flying.

Most people on the planet can avoid flying alright.

The addicts cannot? Or who cannot? Anyone with money cannot?

Homo fricking economicus for you alright.

Re: JetZero

#167

Post by shrubby »

johanvts wrote: post #150
orphereus wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that not travelling is the solution. A lot of people cannot avoid flying.

Just stop subsidizing flying, maybe even tax the fuel a fraction of the value it’s destroying and I bet most of flying will suddenly turn out to actually be completely avoidable.

Yup. Make the flyers pay the infrastructure costs based on the environmental effects. It's not too complicated.

Re: JetZero

#168

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

johanvts wrote: post #150
orphereus wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that not travelling is the solution. A lot of people cannot avoid flying.

Just stop subsidizing flying, maybe even tax the fuel a fraction of the value it’s destroying and I bet most of flying will suddenly turn out to actually be completely avoidable.

I think advances in remote work tech have had a huge impact on business travel.

Zoom beats Boom.

Re: JetZero

#169

Post by decimalenough »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #162
amluto wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Note, too, that a larger lifting body needs to bank less to execute the same turn as a craft with more loading. This is not really helpful for passenger comfort. For a turn to be comfortable, you want the turn to be such that the effective force the passengers feel has no sideways (relative to the passengers) component, and the required roll angle is only a function of the velocity and turning radius. The aircraft…

Coördination stops lateral passenger movement. It does nothing for up and down. (Coördination is also about more than comfort. It keeps the flow attached to the wing. If your passengers are slipping, so is your wing.) In a roll, with a tubular fuselage, everyone—pilot and passengers—feel about the same vertical Gs. OP’s point is in a flying wing, the folks on the tips will lift up or drop down relative to the pilot a…

> Coördination

A few years ago, I would your use of diaeresis an admirable quirk. But now, especially given the em-dashes, I'm wondering if you're an LLM overtrained on the New Yorker.

Post reply on HN