If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Can aviation go "green"?
Don't make me laugh: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ1t993-vw0
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Can aviation go "green"?
On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 18:58:10 -0600, "Byker" wrote:
Don't make me laugh: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ1t993-vw0 Electric trans-oceanic aircraft ? Ridiculous ! Battery tech will not even get your Tesla from NYC to Chicago without some long layovers for recharging - and it is not going to improve very much for a long time. You can recharge your F-150 with gasohol in about five minutes and be on your way. That said, for intercontinental travel, greater use of trains IS possible. Depends on your mission. But for the LONG hauls, are they planning to ressurect the Hindenburg ? Sailing ships ? London to NYC in six or eight WEEKS, if you are lucky ??? Sorry, the 20th century created aircraft for a good reason, we no longer had the time to dick around on sailing ships, the pace of life had increased. Cannot go back. Maybe in the 22nd century they will be able to "beam" you anywhere or you step through some dimensional thingie or whatever. But NOW, no. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Can aviation go "green"?
"PhantomView" wrote in message
... That said, for intercontinental travel, greater use of trains IS possible. Only if you have a LOT of time on your hands. If you have a two-week vacation and want to travel from NYC to LA, you'll spend half your time just getting there and back. Depends on your mission. New York to Chicago by train is no faster than it was at the turn of the 20th Century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicag..._Line_Railroad "Trains would run at 100 miles per hour (160 km/h) and complete the journey between Chicago and New York in 10 hours. At the time the two fastest trains between New York and Chicago, the New York Central Railroad's 20th Century Limited and the Pennsylvania Railroad's Pennsylvania Special (forerunner of the more famous Broadway Limited), each required twenty hours to make the journey." Things haven't improved much, if at all: "Amtrak has one train a day from New York to Chicago. It takes 19 hours, and you sleep overnight on the train.": https://tinyurl.com/y7dnm6tf "An average trip on Amtrak from New York to Chicago takes 22 hours and 45 minutes, while the fastest available Amtrak trip will get you to Chicago in 19 hours and 5 minutes.": https://www.wanderu.com/en-us/train/...us-il/chicago/ Chicago Union Station Amtrak to New York Penn Station via Amtrak = 19 h 53 min https://www.rome2rio.com/map/Chicago/New-York It's actually faster to take a Greyhound bus: 17 h 40m https://www.rome2rio.com/map/Chicago/New-York |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Can aviation go "green"?
On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 21:39:04 -0500
PhantomView wrote: On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 18:58:10 -0600, "Byker" wrote: Don't make me laugh: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ1t993-vw0 Electric trans-oceanic aircraft ? Ridiculous ! Battery tech will not even get your Tesla from NYC to Chicago without some long layovers for recharging - and it is not going to improve very much for a long time. You can recharge your F-150 with gasohol in about five minutes and be on your way. That said, for intercontinental travel, greater use of trains IS possible. Depends on your mission. But for the LONG hauls, are they planning to ressurect the Hindenburg ? Sailing ships ? London to NYC in six or eight WEEKS, if you are lucky ??? Sorry, the 20th century created aircraft for a good reason, we no longer had the time to dick around on sailing ships, the pace of life had increased. Cannot go back. Maybe in the 22nd century they will be able to "beam" you anywhere or you step through some dimensional thingie or whatever. But NOW, no. They tried the battery/solar powered aircraft. Carried one crew/pax at a very low speed and required up to a month at the end of each leg. Stick to real aviation |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Can aviation go "green"?
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 09:49:19 -0600, "Byker" wrote:
"PhantomView" wrote in message .. . That said, for intercontinental travel, greater use of trains IS possible. Only if you have a LOT of time on your hands. If you have a two-week vacation and want to travel from NYC to LA, you'll spend half your time just getting there and back. Depends on your mission. New York to Chicago by train is no faster than it was at the turn of the 20th Century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicag..._Line_Railroad "Trains would run at 100 miles per hour (160 km/h) and complete the journey between Chicago and New York in 10 hours. At the time the two fastest trains between New York and Chicago, the New York Central Railroad's 20th Century Limited and the Pennsylvania Railroad's Pennsylvania Special (forerunner of the more famous Broadway Limited), each required twenty hours to make the journey." Things haven't improved much, if at all: "Amtrak has one train a day from New York to Chicago. It takes 19 hours, and you sleep overnight on the train.": https://tinyurl.com/y7dnm6tf "An average trip on Amtrak from New York to Chicago takes 22 hours and 45 minutes, while the fastest available Amtrak trip will get you to Chicago in 19 hours and 5 minutes.": https://www.wanderu.com/en-us/train/...us-il/chicago/ Chicago Union Station Amtrak to New York Penn Station via Amtrak = 19 h 53 min https://www.rome2rio.com/map/Chicago/New-York It's actually faster to take a Greyhound bus: 17 h 40m https://www.rome2rio.com/map/Chicago/New-York Planes or airports ... you STILL waste a lot of time at the terminal ends of the journey. Then you have to get a taxi or rent a car to get you from the airport/station to where you really need to be. I can believe Greyhound is a bit faster sometimes. Less BS to slow things down. The utility of trains -vs- planes is also dependent on how FAR you need to go. For a shorter hop, scheduled train travel may be superior. Airport delays negate the speed advantage of planes. Now 500+ miles, then the plane is surely better. One factor of note is beginning to have an effect. The actual NEED to have an actual human being go from NYC to LA in a day has diminished. Teleconferences can replace a lot of that - and the younger generation is more comfy with 'virtual' meetings (though maybe they should not be). Now I would not mind a three-day train trip across country in a VACATION scenerio. The trip would be part of the vacation itself, kind of like a cruise ship or one of those barge excursions a lot of people like. However the condition of the rail network is iffy in a lot of places. I would have a little worry about the thing coming off the tracks. But a big touring bike would be much more fun. An Indian, maybe a Goldwing trike :-) Now across oceans ... even powered ships are too damned slow - and Greta wants to get rid of all those and go back to sails. You can see the messianic fevor in her eyes .......... never trust a zealot. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Can aviation go "green"?
"PhantomView" wrote in message
... But a big touring bike would be much more fun. An Indian, maybe a Goldwing trike :-) I did just fine on a Sportster... |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Can aviation go "green"?
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 08:02:01 +1300, George wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 21:39:04 -0500 PhantomView wrote: On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 18:58:10 -0600, "Byker" wrote: Don't make me laugh: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ1t993-vw0 Electric trans-oceanic aircraft ? Ridiculous ! Battery tech will not even get your Tesla from NYC to Chicago without some long layovers for recharging - and it is not going to improve very much for a long time. You can recharge your F-150 with gasohol in about five minutes and be on your way. That said, for intercontinental travel, greater use of trains IS possible. Depends on your mission. But for the LONG hauls, are they planning to ressurect the Hindenburg ? Sailing ships ? London to NYC in six or eight WEEKS, if you are lucky ??? Sorry, the 20th century created aircraft for a good reason, we no longer had the time to dick around on sailing ships, the pace of life had increased. Cannot go back. Maybe in the 22nd century they will be able to "beam" you anywhere or you step through some dimensional thingie or whatever. But NOW, no. They tried the battery/solar powered aircraft. Carried one crew/pax at a very low speed and required up to a month at the end of each leg. Stick to real aviation I recently saw, I think on the BBC site, some company that is trying to produce an electric puddle-hopper. Looks almost exactly like a Piper Cub - probably made of high-tech composites and carbon fiber weave that take so much energy to create that it will put a big dent in the overall "carbon footprint" of the plane. Will not be very fast and probably has to lug 250 kilos of flammable lithium-ion batteries around. MY guess ... a 100 mile range before you have to sit around for 6 hours to recharge the thing. Long long back I got in exactly two hours piloting a Cub. Fun, but SLOW. Think it had a 35hp engine. Had to start the thing by hand-spinning the prop too ...... don't forget the wheel chucks ! Switch-OFF, throttle barely cracked, spin the prop through two or three times, stop near a compression stroke, switch-ON and SPIN that sucker hard ... and there is a technique to that so your arms and body naturally fall away from the propeller arc. I was 16, but I still remember how. For each task there is a best way of doing it. For long range travel we have jet planes. If you just want to get to the next town, drive a car (or maybe take that electric Cub). Zeppelins are death-traps, even using helium - bad weather snaps them in half. Ships, especially Greta's favorite ones with sails, are TOO DAMNED SLOW. They are for vacations, not practical transport. So, we await the tech to be "beamed" from 'A' to 'B' and hope all the bits arrive in the right order ...... |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Can aviation go "green"?
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 22:57:26 -0500
PhantomView wrote: On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 08:02:01 +1300, George wrote: On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 21:39:04 -0500 PhantomView wrote: On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 18:58:10 -0600, "Byker" wrote: Don't make me laugh: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ1t993-vw0 Electric trans-oceanic aircraft ? Ridiculous ! Battery tech will not even get your Tesla from NYC to Chicago without some long layovers for recharging - and it is not going to improve very much for a long time. You can recharge your F-150 with gasohol in about five minutes and be on your way. That said, for intercontinental travel, greater use of trains IS possible. Depends on your mission. But for the LONG hauls, are they planning to ressurect the Hindenburg ? Sailing ships ? London to NYC in six or eight WEEKS, if you are lucky ??? Sorry, the 20th century created aircraft for a good reason, we no longer had the time to dick around on sailing ships, the pace of life had increased. Cannot go back. Maybe in the 22nd century they will be able to "beam" you anywhere or you step through some dimensional thingie or whatever. But NOW, no. They tried the battery/solar powered aircraft. Carried one crew/pax at a very low speed and required up to a month at the end of each leg. Stick to real aviation I recently saw, I think on the BBC site, some company that is trying to produce an electric puddle-hopper. Looks almost exactly like a Piper Cub - probably made of high-tech composites and carbon fiber weave that take so much energy to create that it will put a big dent in the overall "carbon footprint" of the plane. Will not be very fast and probably has to lug 250 kilos of flammable lithium-ion batteries around. MY guess ... a 100 mile range before you have to sit around for 6 hours to recharge the thing. Long long back I got in exactly two hours piloting a Cub. Fun, but SLOW. Think it had a 35hp engine. Had to start the thing by hand-spinning the prop too ...... don't forget the wheel chucks ! Switch-OFF, throttle barely cracked, spin the prop through two or three times, stop near a compression stroke, switch-ON and SPIN that sucker hard ... and there is a technique to that so your arms and body naturally fall away from the propeller arc. I was 16, but I still remember how. For each task there is a best way of doing it. For long range travel we have jet planes. If you just want to get to the next town, drive a car (or maybe take that electric Cub). Zeppelins are death-traps, even using helium - bad weather snaps them in half. Ships, especially Greta's favorite ones with sails, are TOO DAMNED SLOW. They are for vacations, not practical transport. So, we await the tech to be "beamed" from 'A' to 'B' and hope all the bits arrive in the right order ...... Only Cub I ever flew was the Super Cub. We adopted them to use as ag aircraft The rate of climb was astonishing and you could land on a bank note and have change at the end of the run. However most of my needs were met by Cessna |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Can aviation go "green"?
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 21:38:02 -0600, "Byker" wrote:
"PhantomView" wrote in message .. . But a big touring bike would be much more fun. An Indian, maybe a Goldwing trike :-) I did just fine on a Sportster... I had one of those. It was just a little too small, a little too narrow - and that HURT me. Might be OK for younger people though. Also, seemed I could not go out for a days ride on the thing without *something* breaking ............ An Indian Chief looks good. My legs are a tad too short to safely hold up a Goldwing at a slippery intersection, so the trike comes to mind (but they cost as much as a Escalade). Hondas are reliable. The late great Victorys were reliable. Kawasakis are mostly reliable. BMWs ... depends. One bike that intrigued me was the Triumph Rocket-III ... never rode one but I sat on one and it was a surprisingly light-feeling bike. They have an updated model this year - about 25% more power :-) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Can aviation go "green"?
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 08:14:35 +1300, George wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 22:57:26 -0500 PhantomView wrote: On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 08:02:01 +1300, George wrote: On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 21:39:04 -0500 PhantomView wrote: On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 18:58:10 -0600, "Byker" wrote: Don't make me laugh: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ1t993-vw0 Electric trans-oceanic aircraft ? Ridiculous ! Battery tech will not even get your Tesla from NYC to Chicago without some long layovers for recharging - and it is not going to improve very much for a long time. You can recharge your F-150 with gasohol in about five minutes and be on your way. That said, for intercontinental travel, greater use of trains IS possible. Depends on your mission. But for the LONG hauls, are they planning to ressurect the Hindenburg ? Sailing ships ? London to NYC in six or eight WEEKS, if you are lucky ??? Sorry, the 20th century created aircraft for a good reason, we no longer had the time to dick around on sailing ships, the pace of life had increased. Cannot go back. Maybe in the 22nd century they will be able to "beam" you anywhere or you step through some dimensional thingie or whatever. But NOW, no. They tried the battery/solar powered aircraft. Carried one crew/pax at a very low speed and required up to a month at the end of each leg. Stick to real aviation I recently saw, I think on the BBC site, some company that is trying to produce an electric puddle-hopper. Looks almost exactly like a Piper Cub - probably made of high-tech composites and carbon fiber weave that take so much energy to create that it will put a big dent in the overall "carbon footprint" of the plane. Will not be very fast and probably has to lug 250 kilos of flammable lithium-ion batteries around. MY guess ... a 100 mile range before you have to sit around for 6 hours to recharge the thing. Long long back I got in exactly two hours piloting a Cub. Fun, but SLOW. Think it had a 35hp engine. Had to start the thing by hand-spinning the prop too ...... don't forget the wheel chucks ! Switch-OFF, throttle barely cracked, spin the prop through two or three times, stop near a compression stroke, switch-ON and SPIN that sucker hard ... and there is a technique to that so your arms and body naturally fall away from the propeller arc. I was 16, but I still remember how. For each task there is a best way of doing it. For long range travel we have jet planes. If you just want to get to the next town, drive a car (or maybe take that electric Cub). Zeppelins are death-traps, even using helium - bad weather snaps them in half. Ships, especially Greta's favorite ones with sails, are TOO DAMNED SLOW. They are for vacations, not practical transport. So, we await the tech to be "beamed" from 'A' to 'B' and hope all the bits arrive in the right order ...... Only Cub I ever flew was the Super Cub. We adopted them to use as ag aircraft The rate of climb was astonishing and you could land on a bank note and have change at the end of the run. However most of my needs were met by Cessna That relatively large thick-chord wing gave a lot of lift at low speeds. You did not need a huge engine. The one I tried out was an original J-3. I looked it up and I remember the horsepower was in the 30s. The docs say 37hp. The thing would hold altitude even at about 35 knots - speed of horse. The military bought lots of Cubs back in WW-2. They were cheap, they were relatively quiet, they were stable enough to hang cameras on and could use almost any short patch of grass as an airfield. I guess the fabric skin also did not have much of a signature to what passed as German radar. I never loved tail-draggers though ... there was too much risk of hitting a rut during landing and the thing immediately dumping over on its nose. With the J-3 the thing between you and the engine was the fuel tank ...... Still, a hell of a lot of people post-war leared to fly in surplus Cubs. The Super-Cubs are more "super", but large numbers of J-3s are still up there too. Cessna ... good general-avaition planes. Solid design and I liked the over-wing models because you could actually see the ground below. But alas, the death of cheap AvGas put an end to my flying. Now you can take that 16 and turn the numbers around and then a bit. Hey, guess I could buy one of those Gyrocopter kits - but those things seem to crash a lot. Might be the pilots, might be something about the mechanicals ...... Ooooh ! How about a hydrogen-powered Gyro ? Greta might like that ! :-) |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fwench Pwess Weview 09/30/2010: "French taxpayer is going to besqueezed, wrung-out, spin dried...put through a mangle", "Bread and waterwill be the new 'haute cuisine'...","Social injustice strangled growth","Pakist | PJ Himselff | Europe | 1 | September 30th, 2010 02:04 PM |
DC rally by conservatives: "tens of thousands?" "three hundredthousand?" "five hundred thousand?" "A million people came?" The only thingagreed upon was that it was a "vast crowd" and it spells big tr | O'Donovan, PJ, Himself | Europe | 16 | August 31st, 2010 04:16 AM |
"liberalism" to "socialism" to "communism": The "end" justifies the "means" in America | PJ O'Donovan[_1_] | Europe | 5 | February 24th, 2007 04:57 PM |