[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
news

Return ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 19851)
Message
File  []
close
4bzn898.png
198511985119851
>> No. 19851 Anonymous
4th August 2019
Sunday 12:57 pm
19851 Flyboarding Frenchman crosses English Channel
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49225001


Mr Zapata, 40, took off from Sangatte, near Calais, at 06:17 GMT on Sunday and landed in St Margaret's Bay in Dover.

The invention, powered by a kerosene-filled backpack, made the 22-mile (35.4-km) journey in 22 minutes.

Mr Zapata, a former jet-ski champion, had failed in his first attempt to cross the Channel on 25 July after complications with refuelling.

"We made a machine three years ago... and now we've crossed the Channel, it's crazy," he told reporters, before breaking into tears.

"Whether this is a historic event or not, I'm not the one to decide that, time will tell," he added.
Expand all images.
>> No. 19852 Anonymous
4th August 2019
Sunday 2:08 pm
19852 spacer
BLOODY FOREIGNERS COMING OVER HERE ON JETPACKS
>> No. 19854 Anonymous
4th August 2019
Sunday 2:22 pm
19854 spacer
I wonder how fuel efficent a flying board is compared to other flying transport. Is it better than an ultra light or a back pack helicopter?

My intial instict is, it isn't because it looks wholely unaerodynamics, but it also has a lot less weight.
>> No. 19855 Anonymous
4th August 2019
Sunday 2:23 pm
19855 spacer
>>19853
The gliding capability of ultralights probably makes a large difference in fuel used overall. It needs a push to get up but then it can continue a long way without burning. Something like this or a mini-helicopter needs continual burn to not fall out of the sky.
>> No. 19856 Anonymous
4th August 2019
Sunday 2:41 pm
19856 spacer

rtfrgerg.jpg
198561985619856
>>19852

A story like that must feel like a wet dream to ARE Nige.
>> No. 19858 Anonymous
4th August 2019
Sunday 2:48 pm
19858 spacer

dims.jpg
198581985819858
>>19855

A Gryphon system will still be your contraption of choice though, because due to the lift under its wings, it has been proven to be able to glide/fly 200 miles on a single fill up of kerosene. Despite having four, more powerful jet engines.
>> No. 19859 Anonymous
4th August 2019
Sunday 2:52 pm
19859 spacer
>>19858
That's surprising, it doesn't look particularly aerodynamic except in a Hollywood sort of way.
>> No. 19861 Anonymous
4th August 2019
Sunday 3:07 pm
19861 spacer
>>19859

I would guess that a Gryphon also has a bigger fuel tank than a "flyboard".

Really a fascinating piece of kit. But I think it's difficult to launch from the ground, normally when you see people flying them, they have to drop out of airplanes at considerable altitude.

Rumour has it that the U.S. military has been looking into creating a military version for years, the obvious advantage being its small form factor, at least compared to jet fighter planes, and the ability to have airborne troops penetrate deep into enemy territory without jeopardising the safety of the airplane they drop from. Retail price for the civilian version is said to be around £250K per unit, which is small change both compared to the U.S. military's annual budget and the replacement value of an airdrop-capable airplane.
>> No. 19862 Anonymous
4th August 2019
Sunday 3:12 pm
19862 spacer
>>19861
>they have to drop out of airplanes at considerable altitude.
That seems like cheating. If you're weighing them against each other equally then the fuel requirement of getting them up like that should be taken into account too.
>> No. 19863 Anonymous
4th August 2019
Sunday 3:34 pm
19863 spacer
>>19862

indeed, otherwise a glider is obviously the most fuel efficient plane there is having an infinite miles to gallon and range.
>> No. 19864 Anonymous
4th August 2019
Sunday 3:36 pm
19864 spacer
>>19863
Is there no way to launch a glider with a massive catapult?
>> No. 19865 Anonymous
4th August 2019
Sunday 3:46 pm
19865 spacer
>>19859

Well it does have 4 fucking jet engines, doesn't take off from the ground and is less efficent MPG per passanger than any plane I can think of that isn't an intercepter.
>> No. 19866 Anonymous
4th August 2019
Sunday 3:49 pm
19866 spacer
>>19864

That is how they are mostly launched, but that obviously requires energy, and therefore calling that not fuel because it isn't petrol and on board is a bit intellectually dishonest.
>> No. 19867 Anonymous
4th August 2019
Sunday 3:52 pm
19867 spacer
>>19866

You could pull it back with a large system of gears attached to a bicycle contraption of some sort.
There's also this
https://twitter.com/XHscitech/status/1156493788149374978
>> No. 19868 Anonymous
4th August 2019
Sunday 4:14 pm
19868 spacer
>>19864

Funnily enough, that's pretty much the standard way of launching a glider, albeit with a big winch and half a mile of cable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliding#Winch_launching
>> No. 19869 Anonymous
4th August 2019
Sunday 4:17 pm
19869 spacer
>>19868
It would take a while to winch half a mile of cable by hand even if you used some fancy gears to do it but if you're refilling on peaches at 60p for a pound it's still probably cheaper than aviation fuel.
>> No. 19870 Anonymous
4th August 2019
Sunday 4:27 pm
19870 spacer
>>19869

Just don't let monkeys steal your peach.
>> No. 19871 Anonymous
4th August 2019
Sunday 4:34 pm
19871 spacer

dreamsreality.jpg
198711987119871
>>19870


This is singularly the most surreal reply I've ever read here, I don't know what is going on
>> No. 19872 Anonymous
4th August 2019
Sunday 4:37 pm
19872 spacer
>>19871

So you read my post on 60p a pound peaches, but you failed to also take a closer look at the picture I posted with it.


This is why people voted Leave, you know.
>> No. 19873 Anonymous
4th August 2019
Sunday 4:40 pm
19873 spacer
>>19869

Avgas is about £1.90 ish per litre at the moment, while Jet A1 is about 90p per litre. The latter weighs close enough to a gram per millilitre so if my maths is right - it likely isn't - then jet fuel is cheaper than peaches.
>> No. 19874 Anonymous
4th August 2019
Sunday 4:43 pm
19874 spacer
>>19872

>but you failed to also take a closer look at the picture I posted with it

Clearly I must have, pic related.
>> No. 19875 Anonymous
4th August 2019
Sunday 4:43 pm
19875 spacer
>>19872
That was someone else.

>>19873
Jet fuel might be cheaper than peaches by weight but that's irrelevant if we're talking about the price of energy output.
>> No. 19876 Anonymous
4th August 2019
Sunday 4:45 pm
19876 spacer
>>19865

Jet engines are surprisingly efficient at low loads. While huge airliners need tonnes of kerosene to fly, the tank on that thing can't be much bigger than a very small car tank. I'm not saying it's the most efficient thing in the world, but better than a car, probably.
>> No. 19877 Anonymous
4th August 2019
Sunday 4:47 pm
19877 spacer
>>19875

I have to assume 400 odd ml of jet fuel has more potential energy than a pound of peaches.
>> No. 19878 Anonymous
4th August 2019
Sunday 4:48 pm
19878 spacer
>>19877

What if the peaches were used in a cold fusion reactor?
>> No. 19879 Anonymous
4th August 2019
Sunday 4:50 pm
19879 spacer
>>19878

You shouldn't keep your peaches cold, apparently.
>> No. 19880 Anonymous
4th August 2019
Sunday 4:52 pm
19880 spacer
>>19879

I don't even like peaches very much.
>> No. 19881 Anonymous
4th August 2019
Sunday 5:15 pm
19881 spacer
>>19880
If I had my little way, I'd eat peaches everyday.
>> No. 19883 Anonymous
4th August 2019
Sunday 5:51 pm
19883 spacer
>>19881

Just don't let ninjas steal your peach.
>> No. 19884 Anonymous
4th August 2019
Sunday 6:22 pm
19884 spacer
>>19876

>Jet engines are surprisingly efficient at low loads.

"low load" is a relative term here though. I think what they use on the Gryphon kits are beefed up model airplane turbines. Model jets don't normally weigh more than around 30 or 40 lbs, so if you've got four of those modified model jet engines under your wings, then maybe they produce enough thrust for 200 to 250 lbs of total weight. Jet fuel has a density of about 800 grams per litre, so with a 25-litre kerosene tank on your back, that's another 20 kg of weight to consider.

Of course if you strap an engine out of an F-15 on your back, then we're really talking low load.
>> No. 19885 Anonymous
4th August 2019
Sunday 7:01 pm
19885 spacer
>>19884

>Jet fuel has a density of about 800 grams per litre

Does it really? Interesting. I only ever work with it in terms of tonnes, but I'm sure I've heard pilots use weights and litres interchangeably like you would water. This is mildly concerning but I'm sure its fine.
>> No. 19886 Anonymous
4th August 2019
Sunday 7:10 pm
19886 spacer
>>19885

Grams per litre or per cubic centimetre is one of the scientifically correct ways to specify the density of something.


Wikipedia kind of leads you to believe that fuel is measured in gallons in aviation, I wouldnt know, but for example the Boeing 747-8 is listed with a fuel capacity of 63,034 US gal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747#Specifications

Tonnes kind of sounds like you hear it more often though, I agree.
>> No. 19887 Anonymous
4th August 2019
Sunday 7:37 pm
19887 spacer
>>19886

Certainly in the UK, for commercial airliners at least, it's measured in kilograms. A standard fuel order would be spoken or written as 12.8 tonnes (Or is it tons? The kilogram one) or 12800 kg.

Perhaps I'm just second guessing myself at this point, but I swear I've heard people ask for x thousand litres too, I'm sure that's where I made my assumption on the density of the fuel. I worry now that a captain has told me he had 6k litres on board and I've calculated for 6 tonnes. That sort of variance could put a smaller plane out of trim entirely.

I think I've just had a severe lack of sleep and am imagining the litres thing. I hope so anyway. Enjoy your flight, otherlad, it's probably fine.
>> No. 19888 Anonymous
4th August 2019
Sunday 8:20 pm
19888 spacer
>>19887

Hydrocarbon fuels are almost invariably lighter than water though. That's common knowledge, as well as water having a density of 1.

I've made similar calculations for air conditioning refrigerant, except R134a has a density of around 4.25 g per cubic centimetre. It is measured in grams or kilograms when you buy it wholesale, while a shop that I went to here said they would charge me per 100 millilitres to have the AC in my car serviced. One of their mechanics told me, "Ah, grams, millilitres, it's all the same." Which is a bit of a scam, because if my system in my car needs 700 grams of R134a, then that's 164 millilitres of refrigerant, and not 700 millilitres that they said they would charge me for when I asked for a quote.
>> No. 19889 Anonymous
4th August 2019
Sunday 10:13 pm
19889 spacer
>>19888
That sounded like a very high density for R134a - https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/r134a-properties-d_1682.html has it at 1225.5 kg/m^3 , 1.2g/cc

I use this stuff, https://www.solvay.com/en/brands/galden-pfpe and it's weird enough at 1.8 g/cc
4.25 would be fun, Mercury's 13.5g/cc, but that stuff's odd.
>> No. 19890 Anonymous
4th August 2019
Sunday 10:58 pm
19890 spacer
>>19889

You're right and I got it wrong. 1,1,1,2-tetrafluorethane, a.k.a. R134a, has a gas density of 0.00425 g/cc, that's 4.25g per cubic metre in SI, not 4.25 g per cubic centimetre.

So then as you said it's got an SI density of roughly 1.2 g/cc in liquid form, meaning if my system needs 700 grams, that's 583 millilitres of liquid R134a. Not quite the scam I thought it was.

Might be time to top it up regardless, because the place I went to said it is going to be phased out and the price will artificially be driven up because it's a potent greenhouse gas, a few orders of magnitude more potent than CO2.
>> No. 19891 Anonymous
5th August 2019
Monday 2:30 am
19891 spacer
>>19888

>Hydrocarbon fuels are almost invariably lighter than water though. That's common knowledge

I really don't think that's common knowledge. I'd concede that many (most?) people would know that oil floats on water, but most wouldn't necessarily link that to the applied density of fuel.

I also know that 1ml of water being 1g is a miraculous revelation to many I've told.
>> No. 19892 Anonymous
5th August 2019
Monday 3:25 am
19892 spacer
>>19886
>the Boeing 747-8 is listed with a fuel capacity of 63,034 US gal.
That would make sense, as it's the volume of the tank, independent of the density of the fuel that goes inside.
>> No. 19893 Anonymous
5th August 2019
Monday 4:46 am
19893 spacer
>>19891

I never really thought about it before but that mean when they recalibrate against the international kilo the size of a litter changes too or is there a different ability measure for volume and it is just by old convention that the 2 match up and they technically don't now.
>> No. 19895 Anonymous
5th August 2019
Monday 12:23 pm
19895 spacer
>>19893

One litre is always defined as 1000 cc, regardless of units of weight measurement. Water having a density of approximately 1 is just a coincidence.

Also, it's more a rule of thumb that water's density is 1. It's accurate enough for most calculations by and large, but the real figure for water at standard atmospheric conditions is closer to around 0.997 g/cc. And the litre as a unit of volume was not derived from the volume of 1 kg of water, but from the metre's definition of being the precise distance that a beam of light travels in a vacuum in 1/299 792 458 of a second (originally it was assumed to be one ten-millionth the distance from the Equator to the North Pole).

It gets slightly more complicated when you also factor in that water's density on Earth is only what it is because of the specific mix of protium and deuterium hydrogen atoms contained in it. It might be different on other planets where the protium-deuterium relation in the local water is different. Deuterium-enriched water here on Earth is known as heavy water, with a density of around 1.107 g/cc, and it's what is used in some reactor designs of nuclear power stations.
>> No. 19923 Anonymous
9th August 2019
Friday 1:33 am
19923 spacer
>>19895 Isn't water literally the basis for the metric system? It's not coincidence at all.
>> No. 19926 Anonymous
9th August 2019
Friday 2:07 am
19926 spacer
>>19895
>Water having a density of approximately 1 is just a coincidence.
No, it was by definition. The small difference is a combination of better control of standard conditions and the drift in the IPK.
>> No. 19929 Anonymous
9th August 2019
Friday 3:08 am
19929 spacer
>>19926

The original definition was based on the volume of a kilogram of water, but the current definition is fixed at 1000 cm^3 and has no relation to water.
>> No. 19930 Anonymous
9th August 2019
Friday 3:11 am
19930 spacer
>>19929
Yes. You see that "was" in the past tense, right? You know what that means, yeah?

Return ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password