Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

User Profile

Collapse

Profile Sidebar

Collapse
Gabriel
Gabriel
Senior Member
Last Activity: Today, 01:01
Joined: 2008-01-18
Location: Buenos Aires - Argentina
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
  • Source
Clear All
new posts

  • "Here you have the speed... eeerrrr... make it angle of attack".

    That would have been a great moment for the red, guarded, GMMFPB button.
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • I know a person whose home "spontaneously" caught fire due to a short in its electric system. The house of another person (this one a direct friend of mine) spontaneously caught fire earlier this year when his water heater malfunctioned. Let's ban all things that can, and ever had, spontaneously caught fire. Don't bother measuring the probability or frequency of such events. That doesn't seem to be relevant.

    Yes, the failure modes that lead to fires are different for electric cars than for gasoline cars. Yet, for whatever failure mode, gasoline cars burn more often than electric cars (as % of the fleet, not just absolute numbers)....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • 2 weeks ago, a man in Algeria put the last gallon of leaded gas in a car. Finally leaded gas is in history forever and now gas in unleaded in all the world (except, you know, in piston airplanes). Seems we know who is going to put the last gallon of gas in a car before the whole world be EVs.
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Yes, gas cars has a much bigger probability of catching fire in a crash. Electric cars have a much lower probability to catch fire in any case included in a crash and when they do catch fire there tends to nobody aboard. So?...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Where are the water tanks? Was it a closed water circuit or an open one? (that could make a huge difference in the quantity, and hence weight, of water needed)...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • I am talking about nuclear power to generate electricity to charge batteries, capture carbon, and make synthetic fuel, among other stuff. So the plane would be "indirectly nuclear".

    I am thinking of fission as a "temporary stop gap" because it is obvious that we will eventually have enough solar, wind, geothermal, hydro (including ocean currents) and tidal (and perhaps[ps fusion), among others, to feed all our needs. But I fear that that will not be soon enough to avoid a severe environmental disaster that will affect millions of humans and many times more individual of other species. It is true that fission generates radioactive waste, but it is very little (compared to the energy generated). Fossil coal also has radioactive isotopes of different elements and I read that we release more radioactivity to the environment by bringing coal and burning it than by producing an equivalent amount of nuclear energy....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Yes, all the renewable energy solutions tend towards carbon neutral (at best). The solutions to capture carbon exist (from forestation to, well, atmospheric carbon capture and putting it in concrete or burring it) but these don't produce energy. On the contrary, they consume energy that better comes from a carbon-neutral source. In for the humans to have a greenhouse gasses neutral footprint, we will NEED carbon capture, because all renewables are not carbon neutral. Not until all the industries get their energy from renewable sources.

    Actually, I think that one of the most powerful and quick tacks to electrification tending to carbon neutral is going nuclear. I really don't understand why the world is moving away from that. It seems to work quite well for example in France, where ~70% of the electrical power comes from nuclear plants.
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • https://www.greencarreports.com/news...s-gas-vehicles...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Again, I don't see much future for hydrogen in aviation (or even in cars). I think that if planes go electric some day, it will be with synthetic liquid fuel feeding fuel cells. But if the synthetic fuel becomes economical feasible (because it's already proven to be technically feasible) then the first step will be to feed regular engines with this fuel. The battery cells will only make sense if tthe combination of makin electricity out of the fuel and then running an electric motor becomes more efficient than using the fuel to run a a gas turbine. If that happens, then you "fuel equivalent to electricity" concern becomes irrelevant....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • What are you talking about? Electric cars are making an amazing progress, there will be no more fuel cars sold in a couple of decades max. Yes, batteries can catch fire, so does gasoline. And the rate at which fuel cars catch fire is greater than the rate at which electric cars catch fire (weighted by population, so its not that there are fewer electric car fires because there are fewer electric cars).

    Other than that, I agree the technology in not anywhere near to be used in commercial planes. The main reason being that the density of energy in the best batteries available (both in terms of energy per unit weight and energy per unit volume) is horribly bad compared with chemical fuels. I even think that hydrogen-based fuel cells will not work (which is the direction that Airbus is going), I think that the primary direction for a greener aviation will be bio and synthetic fuels that don't release the carbon trapped in the fossil fuels but make fuel from carbon in the atmosphere,...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Ok. So you agree 100% with my original comment then. Thank you....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Yes, it is. The assertion that "differences between the spring-loaded, no feedback, not-interconnected sidestick vs the force-feedback, conspicuous, interconnected yokes could have made the difference for the other pilot to realize what the flying pilot was doing" is a fair statement.



    3WE is right, you ARE black-and-white, uh?

    Is it really necessary to feel the other pilot's commands? No. Not necessary. But might it have helped?
    How can the monitoring pilot not recognize what the flying pilot is doing at that point? Well, ask him. Oh, I forgot, he is dead, perhaps because he did not recognize it.
    And, in the event of dual input, is the problem a design problem or a CRM breakdown/absence problem? It is a CRM problem. That doesn't mean that some other thing can't help to address it. The question is really not what caused it but what could have helped.
    If it's not 'your airplane' you don't make control inputs, period. Except...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • The Maximus video is out, and it is quite disappointing. It does focus in the differences between the spring-loaded, no feedback, not-interconnected sidestick vs the force-feedback, conspicuous, interconnected yokes, and how that could have made the difference for the other pilot to realize what the flying pilot was doing, which I think is a fair statement. But other than that, it has simplifications, missing pieces of information and just incorrect information.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hZ_CKYiKv8
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:

No activity results to display
Show More
Working...
X