/n/ - Transportation » Thread #1375340

[48 / 5 / ?]

93KiB, 1600x978, lineup-boeing-plane-NEWBOEING0617.jpg

Anonymous Tue 13 Aug 2019 19:00:04 No.1375340 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>1375398 >>1375448 >>1375754 >>1375853 >>1376309

Why does aircraft technology rate so slow? Planes in 1950's still look like modern 2010s planes. Seriously we should have VTOL passenger planes like X-Men black bird and TIE fighter by now.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1899-Eagle-full.jpg, 772KiB, 2272x1704

Anonymous Tue 13 Aug 2019 19:11:18 No.1375342 Report

Quoted By: >>1375344 >>1375753

If you think aircraft technology is progressing slowly, wait 'til you learn about bicycles.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Aug 2019 19:14:03 No.1375344 Report

Quoted By:

>>1375342
>comparing human power vs machine power

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Aug 2019 20:28:06 No.1375380 Report

Quoted By: >>1375383 >>1375426 >>1375827

VTOL is is expensive, delicate and requires special training to use, it’s not a good idea for a long passenger plane full of 300 fat fucks in random seats driven by two dudebro pilots, one of them likely hungover and the other a trainee.
Passenger planes are designed for the lowest common denominator, concentrating as many paid tickets as possible into as cheap as possible of a plane, they’re the beach cruisers of the plane world

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Aug 2019 20:35:32 No.1375383 Report

Quoted By:

>>1375380
That being said, just having VTO/Short take-off (and landing the normal way) is a lot easier from a mechanical standpoint, but the big point remains, it’s expensive, and has no good reason. There’s plenty of runways across the world, youre not launching 747’s from a cheap aircraft carrier

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Aug 2019 21:08:58 No.1375398 Report

Quoted By: >>1375809

>>1375340
Because fundamental physics laws.
Aluminum is still aluminum and internal combustion still has 30% maximum efficiency limit.

It's not your fucktoy android where you change app icon color every 5 months and release "revolutionary technology".

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Aug 2019 22:21:07 No.1375426 Report

Quoted By: >>1375674 >>1379234

>>1375380
VTOL is much safer than a gliding thousand ton plane.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 Aug 2019 23:10:58 No.1375448 Report

Quoted By: >>1375733

>>1375340
>Why does aircraft technology rate so slow?
Safety >>> advancement

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Aug 2019 05:13:29 No.1375674 Report

Quoted By:

>>1375426
You have no idea what gliding means.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Aug 2019 09:04:59 No.1375733 Report

Quoted By: >>1375758 >>1375867

>>1375448
VTOL is the epitome of safety. A plane crashing would wish it has VTOL

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Aug 2019 09:28:48 No.1375738 Report

Quoted By: >>1375748

Because commercial flight is a function of speed and cost, and we've very quickly reached the optimal balance, and have only worked on cost optimization and passenger volume accommodation since. Going much quicker or introducing different technology is so excessively complex and expensive that it's simply not worth the effort. Supersonic passenger transport failed even when it was propped up by welfare, there's no point to VTOL because you can just keep utilizing the existing airport network and pilot fleet, and last but not least we're not in the movies and physical laws can't be cheated as if it were Star Wars.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Aug 2019 10:08:41 No.1375748 Report

Quoted By: >>1375767

>>1375738
Star wars ain't cheating physical laws. They just have better technology

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Aug 2019 10:38:32 No.1375753 Report

Quoted By: >>1375836

>>1375342
Eh, bicycles has
1. Changed form factor from gigawheel and small wheel to uniform diamand frames
2. Brake systems has gone from tire brakes, to rim brakes to disc brakes.
3. Internal hub mechanisms used to be popular, due lack of maintenance. Sealed systems in oil and lube, still a thing
4. Frame tech has advanced somewhere, but there is no demand to get Carbon Fiber for normal bikes
5. Wheel tech hasn´t advanced since vulcanized rubber became a thing

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Aug 2019 10:39:12 No.1375754 Report

Quoted By:

>>1375340
The only proper advancement for civilian aviation we can have right now are flying wings, and that won't work for passenger planes because nobody would want to sit 10 meters away from the nearest window.
VTOL needs TWR >1, you'll need massive engines that are too big for the rest of the flight to be efficient.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Aug 2019 11:14:20 No.1375758 Report

Quoted By:

>>1375733
Don't VTOL planes generally have a shitty safety record? Osprey, harrier?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Aug 2019 11:30:09 No.1375767 Report

Quoted By:

>>1375748
>They just have fairy technology

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Aug 2019 14:15:14 No.1375809 Report

Quoted By:

>>1375398
Found the salty I shill. Are you also an homosexual?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Aug 2019 15:11:07 No.1375827 Report

Quoted By:

>>1375380
>VTOL is is expensive, delicate and requires special training to use, it’s not a good idea for a long passenger plane full of 300 fat fucks in random seats driven by two dudebro pilots, one of them likely hungover and the other a trainee.

Sure as hell is. The Harrier Jet was a fucking shitshow as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_V-22_Osprey

Anyway, if you want a fun game to play, download Turboprop Flight Simulator. It's really good and has a similar VTOL plane you can fly(and by "fly", I mean crash).

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Aug 2019 15:39:22 No.1375836 Report

Quoted By:

>>1375753
>4. Frame tech has advanced somewhere, but there is no demand to get Carbon Fiber for normal bikes

It's not that there is no demand, just that carbon bike frames are still labor-intensive and thus costly. As far as i know there's only one startup that seems that have managed to automate carbon frame building and those retards want to use the process for high-end frames while the goal should be to replace alloy at the lower end.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Aug 2019 16:13:36 No.1375853 Report

Quoted By:

>>1375340
1) It takes about 10 years to get a new airliner model from concept to production article. Getting a new aircraft model certificated is a bureaucratic nightmare. Regulation stifles innovation.
2) There hasn't been any significant development of powerplant technology since Frank Whittle. The engines have become more efficient and reliable, but that only reflects evolution of the basic concept.
3) Advanced composite materials are still horrifically expensive to manufacture, and to fabricate things from.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Aug 2019 16:46:55 No.1375867 Report

Quoted By: >>1375903 >>1375941

>>1375733
>engine failure on vertical takeoff/landing
>drops like a brick killing everyone on board
do you even think before clicking 'submit'?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Aug 2019 18:47:06 No.1375903 Report

Quoted By: >>1375932 >>1375945 >>1380695

>>1375867
They can make a 777 with VTOL. If the 777 is crashing then just have the VTOL as backup.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Aug 2019 20:06:13 No.1375932 Report

Quoted By: >>1375933

>>1375903
You're the type of person who would think the S.H.I.E.L.D helicarrier could actually work in reality,

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Aug 2019 20:08:15 No.1375933 Report

Quoted By: >>1375971 >>1375983

>>1375932
It will. Nuclear power is almost unlimited

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Aug 2019 20:18:45 No.1375941 Report

Quoted By:

>>1375867

Solution: put airbags next to the landing gear. Pilot presses a button, they explode out and cushion the impact. NASA did this with one of their Mars rovers. Or just replace the landing gear with an inflatable hovercraft pad entirely.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Aug 2019 20:22:46 No.1375945 Report

Quoted By:

>>1375903
What the fuck am I reading here

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Aug 2019 20:27:42 No.1375949 Report

Quoted By: >>1375951

Believe it or not OP has something in mind. Aviation needs to prioritize safety always. Fear of flying among the top phobias humankind are experiencing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Aug 2019 20:29:20 No.1375951 Report

Quoted By:

>>1375949
this a lot people have died due to unsafe planes

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Aug 2019 21:24:03 No.1375971 Report

Quoted By: >>1375972

>>1375933
The Total energy produced is less than 1000 TWh which is a lot, but the power output isn’t. The power is so far from unlimited.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Aug 2019 21:26:44 No.1375972 Report

Quoted By:

>>1375971
Better than gasoline powered planes lol

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Aug 2019 21:51:49 No.1375983 Report

Quoted By:

>>1375933
Yeah, but nuclear reactors produce comparatively low-quality steam versus combustion boilers. Typical NPP steam generators (SG) produce about 6.5 MPa/280°C steam, which is about as low as a modern steam turbine wants to make power. Combustion boilers are producing 8 MPa/500°C saturated steam. With that input, the steam turbine generator is producing more than double the MW than that of a NPP.

Until we get off the turbine generator bandwagon, we're stuck with low efficiency production from NPPs. We need to find a more direct way of converting the sustained reaction to electricity.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 Aug 2019 23:30:59 No.1376006 Report

Quoted By:

Considering 100 years ago we had a bike mechanic gliding a canvas bag 100 feet as the bleeding edge of aerospace tech I'd say we're doing alright

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 15 Aug 2019 15:44:29 No.1376309 Report

Quoted By:

>>1375340
>Planes in 1950's still look like modern 2010s planes
I wish. While they're similar, it's disappointing to see how much aircraft have homogenised since then as design and manufacturing technologies have improved.
For I have seen the future and it's a smooth-nosed jet airliner with two comically oversized engines mounted underneath the wings. Physics and Economics make it inevitable, but they won't make it any less disappointing.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Sud Aviation Caravelle.jpg, 269KiB, 1024x702

Anonymous Thu 15 Aug 2019 18:28:41 No.1376360 Report

Quoted By: >>1376376 >>1376393 >>1377098 >>1377553

Why are "Caravellian" (2/3 rear-mounted engines, t-tail) designs dying off in favor of 737 clones?

Did passengers develop a grudge against planes with rear mounted engines?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 15 Aug 2019 18:49:05 No.1376376 Report

Quoted By: >>1376379

>>1376360
My (unqualified) understanding is that mounting engines at the back of the plane causes centre of gravity issues and these only get worse as you move from older, lighter low-efficiency engines to newer, heavier but more efficient engines, and that a lot of the reason for mounting engines on the tail in the past was to avoid the engineering challenges of mounting them to pylons on the wings (hence why the Soviet il-62 had 4 tail mounted engines, for example) - as development technologies improved, mounting engines on the wings became easier and more attractive.

The MD-90, 717 and ARJ-21 among a few others are exceptions to the lack of high-bypass rear-engined T-tails though, so I'm not sure if that's the full story.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 15 Aug 2019 19:04:14 No.1376379 Report

Quoted By:

>>1376376
Rear mounted engines are much safer with regards to FOD ingestion so they can operate from poorly maintained runways.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 15 Aug 2019 19:21:16 No.1376393 Report

Quoted By: >>1376414 >>1378953

>>1376360
Mounting the engines on the wings decreases the bending moment at the wing root which means you need less material so it can be lighter. Also, jet bridges are ubiquitous so you don’t need the aircraft door to be low to the ground.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 15 Aug 2019 20:19:33 No.1376414 Report

Quoted By:

>>1376393
Add on that it's easier (meaning cheaper) to service engines mounted lower in wing pods than up on the tail.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1549334746124.jpg, 23KiB, 750x613

Anonymous Sat 17 Aug 2019 04:39:47 No.1377098 Report

Quoted By: >>1377102

>>1376360

You've clearly never flown economy on a 727. You end up sitting literally 2 feet away from the engine disc separated only by the cabin wall.

I don't miss them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 17 Aug 2019 05:12:05 No.1377102 Report

Quoted By:

>>1377098
Don't they work out quieter than sitting behind the engine of (say) a 707 though?
I've heard that everyone being ahead of the engine was an advantage of the 727/DC-9/Caravelle a few times.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 18 Aug 2019 04:01:26 No.1377553 Report

Quoted By: >>1377556

>>1376360

Try and mount a pair of GE90's on the back of a plane without having it fall flat on its ass when it's parked at the gate.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1544916829615.jpg, 201KiB, 1024x767

Anonymous Sun 18 Aug 2019 04:14:11 No.1377556 Report

Quoted By: >>1383358

>>1377553
there's a simple solution to that, tovarisch.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 19:23:54 No.1378953 Report

Quoted By: >>1379224

>>1376393

Would it be possible for the main landing gear assembly to fill that role instead?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Aug 2019 08:44:29 No.1379224 Report

Quoted By:

>>1378953
Extra drag by having lumps of landing gear on wings instead of tucked into fuselage. Also needs wider runways and taxi lanes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Aug 2019 09:27:34 No.1379234 Report

Quoted By:

>>1375426
Hahahaha you are so fucking dumb and now I spat my coffee all over my damn monitor laughing at your comment

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Aug 2019 01:34:02 No.1380695 Report

Quoted By:

>>1375903
This is beyond trolling or retardation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 30 Aug 2019 05:10:52 No.1383358 Report

Quoted By: >>1383839

>>1377556
Gotta love Russian engineering

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 31 Aug 2019 13:05:56 No.1383839 Report

Quoted By:

>>1383358
Yes, no retarded units are allowed there. Only METRICK

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches