Passenger liners.

BrettNortje said:

The state of aviation is a horror story out of the dinosaur era! if we want to have a serious affordable aviation business, we need to have cheaper faster jets, yes? if it stays the way it is, with no money being put into 'research' because nobody sees the value of it, then we are doomed to ride beach buggies for a long time yet.

This is why i am suggesting building the hull of the air craft out of graphene. this will, as well as being cheaper, allow the passengers to live if they crash - apart from the potential fires of the crash.

Then, we should design 'cheaper faster engines.' this can be done by using electric engines, ones that run off a battery, without fuel. this will make the refueling much cheaper, as they will merely recharge from 'the mains.' the types of engines we could build could compliment flying at higher speeds, thus needing the wings to be 'rearranged.' this rearrangement could see the whole aircraft redesigned for a more aerodynamic craft, like a rocket that has 'thrusters,' a few engines coming out the back, merely, or, four wings that are much thicker and smoother off the surface - they will not come straight out to allow for turning, but rather, being made out of graphene, merely require that they are there, as they will not be torn off.

This would mean the wings needn't be so aggressive with their placement and alignment, but rather they could build the air craft in a total triangle, so as to allow for maximum speed due to the strength of the shape of the craft.

Click to expand...

The biggest hurdle for these projects is battery technology, particularly a battery’s specific energy, or the amount of energy it can store for a given amount of weight.

Despite improvements, planes need a lot of lithium-ion batteries to achieve significant range. In electric cars, the main problem was the cost of the batteries, which is starting to come down. In planes, the biggest challenge is weight.

The jet fuel capacity of a Boeing 787 Dreamliner is about 223,000 pounds, according to an airport planning document released in December. The estimated weight of a battery pack with equivalent energy would be 4.5 million pounds, Anderson said.

Click to expand...

BrettNortje said:

The state of aviation is a horror story out of the dinosaur era! if we want to have a serious affordable aviation business, we need to have cheaper faster jets, yes? if it stays the way it is, with no money being put into 'research' because nobody sees the value of it, then we are doomed to ride beach buggies for a long time yet.

This is why i am suggesting building the hull of the air craft out of graphene. this will, as well as being cheaper, allow the passengers to live if they crash - apart from the potential fires of the crash.

Then, we should design 'cheaper faster engines.' this can be done by using electric engines, ones that run off a battery, without fuel. this will make the refueling much cheaper, as they will merely recharge from 'the mains.' the types of engines we could build could compliment flying at higher speeds, thus needing the wings to be 'rearranged.' this rearrangement could see the whole aircraft redesigned for a more aerodynamic craft, like a rocket that has 'thrusters,' a few engines coming out the back, merely, or, four wings that are much thicker and smoother off the surface - they will not come straight out to allow for turning, but rather, being made out of graphene, merely require that they are there, as they will not be torn off.

This would mean the wings needn't be so aggressive with their placement and alignment, but rather they could build the air craft in a total triangle, so as to allow for maximum speed due to the strength of the shape of the craft.

Click to expand...

Fenton said:

Aircraft travel is safest way to travel by far. I think the chances of dying are upwards of 1 and 7 million.

They're safer than cars, busses, trains , etc. One fully loaded 727 jet would have to crash everyday killing everyone on board to equal the number of Highway deaths each year in the US alone

Click to expand...

BrettNortje said:

I didn't know that - good points.

Click to expand...

BrettNortje said:

The problem now seems to be the engines? if we were to use fuel, the refueling would be fast due to a smaller engine, but if we used ion engines, they would disintegrate if flying at too high speeds, and, people would fly off into space! this is why we need to come up with a cheaper practical engine, yes?

Engines need steam to turn from heat. using electricity is more practical than fuels, as fuels need to be converted into steam to apply pressure, so, using oil is preferred. but, if we were to use an electric engine, like in a computer case, translated directly to 'the fan,' we could realize this with huge engines, using just electricity, yes?

Click to expand...

BrettNortje said:

I didn't know that - good points.

Click to expand...

BrettNortje said:

Engines need steam to turn from heat. using electricity is more practical than fuels, as fuels need to be converted into steam to apply pressure, so, using oil is preferred.

Click to expand...

Some people will argue that nobody really needs a civilian supersonic aircraft or has the right to impose its noise on others. Nobody needs a Harley-Davidson, but the flatulent cacophony of a rolling column of Harleys rips through the summer evening across many American suburbs. Maybe advocates for supersonics would have more luck if they painted their proposed airplanes black with chrome accents.

Click to expand...