Jump to content

Practically Cut off from the World


Mr. Gayle

Recommended Posts

Imagine my friend was meant to fly to LA on saturday to go to an awards ceremony to collect an award.

Paid for flights for her and her partner. £1300

Firstly pissed that she couldn't actually go there to collect it

Secondly pissed at absolutely no refund.

why no refund though? if her flight has been cancelled most airlines are offering refunds, plus if she paid by credit card couldn't she claim it back?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No plane has ever crashed cause of ash and planes have gone through much intense ash clouds and come out with nothing more than 4 stalled engines and exterior damaged to the paint work

Only the BA 747 flight.

That landed safely

The engines were super f*cked though, the spools were f*cked, compressor and even the combustion chamber. DO NOT WANT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well for starters non air breathing propulsion which wouldnt get damaged by the ash in the air?

they could easily develop rocket based propulsion from commercial use, its just that it probably wouldnt be economically viable.

then theres all the stuff thats still in research which could sway to atmospheric propulsive use, i.e. electromagnetic propulsion, etc

then theres all the kind of stuff thats on the front of modern physics and hasnt/cant be implemented to engineering applications. (nuclear, antimatter, superconducter associated propulsion).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laws of physics won't allow us to create anything to fly up without the use of air within earth

air passing through the wings causing high pressure on the bottom of the wing is what keeps a plane in the air

and the amount of thrust needed to gain speed wouldn't be enough on electrically powered engines so naturally aspirated engines are needed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL. ye dunno why your saying that. thats pretty obvious that if you want to fly in the atmosphere your gonna face the laws of aero and fluid dynamics. nobody is disputing that...

but what im saying is that this whole problem of the volcanic ash messing up engines wouldnt be a problem if we had rocket engines or other internal engines that dont use the air in the atmosphere (i.e NON AIR BREATHING) for "propulsion" (but obviously they would use the air for aerodynamics.) get it?

and for the record the amount of thrust we can get from electric propulsion maybe limited with conventional methods today, but given research and new developments we will one day be able to produce more efficient power delivary and have a better mastery of magnetic and electric fields. there isnt a defined limit yet on the amount of thrust per unit mass of fuel (or ISP) that we can get from electric/magnetic propulsion so it is definately a key area to move towards. magnetic fields are extremely powerful and valuable, and we have only really scratched the surface on them imo. after all its the huge magnetic field generated by this planet that has prevented the solar wind from stripping the earth of its atmosphere and allowed life to even grow in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erm... ok

but going back to the problem with the volcanic ash, it does more than damage engines, it scratches and damages the exterior of of a plane causing a St elmo's fire which would occur even if you use a rocket engines travelling at 500 mph

examine the properties of volcanic ash, and you'll soon have a method of combatting the above

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are probably some material scientists working on better material generally. they mite incorporate the consideration of ash, but i highly doubt they would design something that case specific. the greater concern is for generally better materials, and the aviation industry is definately moving towards more and more composites.

i dunno exactly how extensive tbe exterior damage would be but it is a secondary concern really, the main issue is with the engines failing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well for starters non air breathing propulsion which wouldnt get damaged by the ash in the air?

they could easily develop rocket based propulsion from commercial use, its just that it probably wouldnt be economically viable.

then theres all the stuff thats still in research which could sway to atmospheric propulsive use, i.e. electromagnetic propulsion, etc

then theres all the kind of stuff thats on the front of modern physics and hasnt/cant be implemented to engineering applications. (nuclear, antimatter, superconducter associated propulsion).

Since I'm almost a qualified Aerospace Engineer, Nuclear power isn't a good thing when it comes to flying, antimatter is basically thermonuclear energy and crack (but they are super hard to collect) and super conducter isn't plausible for flying at the moment. Using electroomagnetism propulsion is in initial development, but it will be a very, VERY long time where it could be useful, but I'm talking hundreds of years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well for starters non air breathing propulsion which wouldnt get damaged by the ash in the air?

they could easily develop rocket based propulsion from commercial use, its just that it probably wouldnt be economically viable.

then theres all the stuff thats still in research which could sway to atmospheric propulsive use, i.e. electromagnetic propulsion, etc

then theres all the kind of stuff thats on the front of modern physics and hasnt/cant be implemented to engineering applications. (nuclear, antimatter, superconducter associated propulsion).

Since I'm almost a qualified Aerospace Engineer, Nuclear power isn't a good thing when it comes to flying, antimatter is basically thermonuclear energy and crack (but they are super hard to collect) and super conducter isn't plausible for flying at the moment. Using electroomagnetism propulsion is in initial development, but it will be a very, VERY long time where it could be useful, but I'm talking hundreds of years.

shut up you waceman, you been "studying" aeronatical engineering since 2004.

reading Airline at WHsmith every Wednesday = degree in aeronatics

you electromagnetic static c*nt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well for starters non air breathing propulsion which wouldnt get damaged by the ash in the air?

they could easily develop rocket based propulsion from commercial use, its just that it probably wouldnt be economically viable.

then theres all the stuff thats still in research which could sway to atmospheric propulsive use, i.e. electromagnetic propulsion, etc

then theres all the kind of stuff thats on the front of modern physics and hasnt/cant be implemented to engineering applications. (nuclear, antimatter, superconducter associated propulsion).

Since I'm almost a qualified Aerospace Engineer, Nuclear power isn't a good thing when it comes to flying, antimatter is basically thermonuclear energy and crack (but they are super hard to collect) and super conducter isn't plausible for flying at the moment. Using electroomagnetism propulsion is in initial development, but it will be a very, VERY long time where it could be useful, but I'm talking hundreds of years.

shut up you waceman, you been "studying" aeronatical engineering since 2004.

reading Airline at WHsmith every Wednesday = degree in aeronatics

you electromagnetic static c*nt.

But the truth is:

1. Your mums a Tai Bride

2. Your dads jewish from Germany

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL. ye dunno why your saying that. thats pretty obvious that if you want to fly in the atmosphere your gonna face the laws of aero and fluid dynamics. nobody is disputing that...

but what im saying is that this whole problem of the volcanic ash messing up engines wouldnt be a problem if we had rocket engines or other internal engines that dont use the air in the atmosphere (i.e NON AIR BREATHING) for "propulsion" (but obviously they would use the air for aerodynamics.) get it?

and for the record the amount of thrust we can get from electric propulsion maybe limited with conventional methods today, but given research and new developments we will one day be able to produce more efficient power delivary and have a better mastery of magnetic and electric fields. there isnt a defined limit yet on the amount of thrust per unit mass of fuel (or ISP) that we can get from electric/magnetic propulsion so it is definately a key area to move towards. magnetic fields are extremely powerful and valuable, and we have only really scratched the surface on them imo. after all its the huge magnetic field generated by this planet that has prevented the solar wind from stripping the earth of its atmosphere and allowed life to even grow in the first place.

Would have said ramjets, no moving parts, just squirt the fuel in the combustion chamber & watch them ignite. BUT, it still has a chamber & you need to be at Mach 3+.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL. ye dunno why your saying that. thats pretty obvious that if you want to fly in the atmosphere your gonna face the laws of aero and fluid dynamics. nobody is disputing that...

but what im saying is that this whole problem of the volcanic ash messing up engines wouldnt be a problem if we had rocket engines or other internal engines that dont use the air in the atmosphere (i.e NON AIR BREATHING) for "propulsion" (but obviously they would use the air for aerodynamics.) get it?

and for the record the amount of thrust we can get from electric propulsion maybe limited with conventional methods today, but given research and new developments we will one day be able to produce more efficient power delivary and have a better mastery of magnetic and electric fields. there isnt a defined limit yet on the amount of thrust per unit mass of fuel (or ISP) that we can get from electric/magnetic propulsion so it is definately a key area to move towards. magnetic fields are extremely powerful and valuable, and we have only really scratched the surface on them imo. after all its the huge magnetic field generated by this planet that has prevented the solar wind from stripping the earth of its atmosphere and allowed life to even grow in the first place.

Would have said ramjets, no moving parts, just squirt the fuel in the combustion chamber & watch them ignite. BUT, it still has a chamber & you need to be at Mach 3+.

lol ramjet is still airbreathing tho so you would get the ash coming in and causing possible inlet unstart problems. the main problem though is the hypersonic aspect would just bring too many economic and design issues with current resources which wouldnt make it viable commercially. if concorde cant fly theres no way a hypersonic vehicle is gonna be a commercial possibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...