Tuxer

9 ms·

1.
by Tuxer 3y ago
Correct. Fuel is around 16/36th of the CO2 mass it emit when being burnt. A 777 carries around 120 tons of fuel for a SF/LON flight, so that's around 300 tons of emissions per flight.
2.
by Tuxer 5y ago
There is a ballistic chute on the cirrus SF50 (their single-engine jet). It's a 7 seater IIRC (6 minimum), and roughly the same weight (2.7T for the cirrus, 3.1 for the lilium).
3.
by Tuxer 5y ago
This type of antiscientific/clickbait reporting shouldn't be on HN. ITER (whatever you think of its results, its competition with more modern approaches like commonwealth fusion systems, and fusion in general) has never been desig
4.
by Tuxer 5y ago
Thats not exactly right. It’s simply that you cannot sell something built >51% by the factory under experimental rules, you’d need to have it FAA certified which this isn’t ( for thousands of reasons ). The 51% rule is extremely common i
5.
by Tuxer 6y ago
Transoceanic aircraft need lots of ETOPS time. For example the boeing 777 (twin-engine, transoceanic) has an ETOPS of 330 minutes, so it always needs to be 330 min away from an airport (which is 11 hours of flight from airport A to airport
6.
by Tuxer 6y ago
Yeah agreed, even on the GA market, the eFlyer 2 is a much more aerodynamic design (low wing, wheel pants, lower windshield height) which is already claiming 36kW cruise at 100kts.
7.
by Tuxer 6y ago
I'm surprised nobody talked about the potential implications of effectively embedding, now that the device is standalone, a lithium ion battery into your skull. I'm not a battery hater whatsoever but in the case of a thermal runof
8.
by Tuxer 6y ago
those aren't super hornets by the way (no civilian would get an authorization to fly a super hornet). They're the A/B, original hornet version, and any superhornet would fly circles around one.
9.
by Tuxer 6y ago
Apple does the same thing, where they claim iMessage is ETE encrypted, but the keys (so capabilities to read) are stored on their servers.
10.
by Tuxer 7y ago
hi it's me caltrain, serving santa clara and growing 2x in 15 years https://nationaltransitdatabase.org/california/peninsula-cor...
11.
by Tuxer 7y ago
absolutely nothing. If the cost of carbon removal was 5$/ton, we wouldn't be having this climate change problem whatsoever.
12.
by Tuxer 7y ago
If we're in nitpick land, it truly is important (especially in that 737 case) to remember that stalls on wings has nothing to do with speed, and everything to do with angle of attack (the angle between the wing and the apparent wind).
13.
by Tuxer 7y ago
> Driving has been made impossible Sorry you can't drive a 2-ton vehicle through one of the most dense cities in the world, that also has a very extensive public transportation system.
14.
by Tuxer 7y ago
For what it's worth, there is a BIG difference between 22 million tons to orbit (LEO), and the Sun-Earth L1 point, in terms of delta-v.
15.
by Tuxer 7y ago
Tesla moved to 21700 on model 3 and newer models
16.
by Tuxer 7y ago
Space isn't like a highway where you can move from A to B at minimal expense. Switching orbits, both orbit heights but mainly orbit inclinations, comes at a very high delta-V expense and therefore propellant expense, which this craft s
17.
by Tuxer 7y ago
"common type" is what people usually use.
18.
by Tuxer 7y ago
92kWh
19.
by Tuxer 7y ago
I was unclear in my weight explanations. The OP’s point was that one of the advantages of fossil fuel aircraft was its ability to shed weight during flight from its fuel source burning away, and I claimed that was irrelevant for GA ( which
20.
by Tuxer 7y ago
Hehe I also fly a super decathlon for aerobatics. 0.3mile finals! ;) For a VFR aircraft I don't mind an iPad-type device for nav. I did my initial training on a 6pack 152 and I was fine with that. I'm mostly interested (and they&#
21.
by Tuxer 7y ago
I would WAY rather lose my engine and instruments in VFR conditions (where I can see the ground and see where I'm going) compared to IFR, where I can't see where I'm going and I'm relying on my instruments to navigate. T
22.
by Tuxer 7y ago
This is wrong on many levels: 1) General aviation doesn't rely at all on the weight difference from fuel burn for flight planning (I am IFR certified and fly Cirrus SR22s). My fuel not burning in my wings wouldn't change anything,
23.
by Tuxer 8y ago
High compression ratio / turbo gas engines definitively do. Try pushing a BMW M3 ( competition for the model 3 perf ) on 87 and you’ll see how long the engine lasts. Look up engine knock.
24.
by Tuxer 8y ago
Jet-A at airfields isn't a valid measure of how much airlines. I read that most airlines pay around 1.10$/gal for Jet-A.
25.
by Tuxer 8y ago
Well if you're investing a lot in newer plane tech, yeah I'd like them to think about the externalities of what they do and find alternative solutions. For example on high-flying airliners (I expect this plane to, like concorde, f
26.
by Tuxer 8y ago
Given the current emissions of air travel I find fairly repulsive to spend that much money designing a new airplane going completely in the wrong direction in terms of fuel efficiency. There is no way ( regardless of altitude, unless you’re
27.
by Tuxer 8y ago
It is. 40% of french emissions are due to personal transportation (cars), 8% airplanes.
28.
by Tuxer 8y ago
https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/ As you can see, the US response is critically deficient.
29.
by Tuxer 8y ago
did no one see armageddon, seriously?
30.
by Tuxer 8y ago
I'd send denis villeneuve :)

More ›