Conversation

Notices

1. Woggy's Zeonic Frolicks (washedoutgundampilot@poa.st)'s status on Monday, 04-Sep-2023 03:23:26 JST Woggy's Zeonic Frolicks

   • Woggy's Zeonic Frolicks

   A buddy always laughed at the industry when he’d see these things on the ramp, he always says he wants to talk to the engineers of something like the cessna 152 just to see the look on their face when they learn that little guy made in 1965 is STILL flown as a daily flight trainer almost 3/4s of a century later. And those are actually somewhat safe, if you want REAL nightmares, there are more than a few twins that really show their age w/ exhaust routing accelerating corrosion on their own spars. (That’s why the old 310s are so cheap, they’re deadly)

   Imagine a VW beetle being used that long. Driven every day, all day from sunup to sundown. Now imagine it’s parked on the florida coast. People don’t think about planes the same way, for whatever reason. YOu have 100-hr inspections done that will catch a whole lot of problems (cessna’s better for this than piper, from what I gather) but not every aircraft was designed to be flayed open and inspected to that degree. Why design an easy system to inspect the main spar when all your life as a plane drafter has seen your designs end up in a junkyard within 20 years no matter how advanced you make them?

   They never knew they were making infrastructure we’d be using for 100 years without replacement. https://youtu.be/KmlXj6NFKIs
   
   RT: https://poa.st/objects/bdecda3c-49c5-4753-9417-00b844f364a9

   • veff :trash: (veff@poa.st)'s status on Monday, 04-Sep-2023 03:35:42 JST veff :trash:

     in reply to

     @WashedOutGundamPilot What’s your opinion on the ultra-thin wing innovation to reduce fuel cost? Do you think it’ll see real use or are we still using 1960s planes in the next decade?

   • Woggy's Zeonic Frolicks (washedoutgundampilot@poa.st)'s status on Monday, 04-Sep-2023 03:35:42 JST Woggy's Zeonic Frolicks

     in reply to

     • veff :trash:

     @veff I don’t have a whole lot of optimism, NASA always comes up with these fun projects and programs only to cancel them in the end anyways. The ecosystem for the narrowbody fleet is well distributed and well-known, it’s a very steep hill to clim to wipe the slate clean and start from scratch with a whole new roster of unknowns if it only offers a 5% increase in fuel efficiency. Even w/ the last re-engine, they got 3% fuel economy and 30% emission reductions OTOMH.

     If they can make it work on the 737/a320 then it has a shot, at least. Most realistically? It’s canceled and forgotten, and the tech surfaces in some H2 hybrid commuter in about 10-20 years

   • Rayfield (rayfield@poa.st)'s status on Monday, 04-Sep-2023 03:35:50 JST Rayfield

     in reply to
     @WashedOutGundamPilot >They just tell you to inspect what you can and paste over it w/ anticorrosive compounds
     That's actually terrifying and hilarious because my mind immediately went to my first car before I finished reading.
     I always imagined they used reallllly long flexible inspection cameras to get a good look at that stuff.
     Woggy's Zeonic Frolicks likes this.
   • Tyler (tyler@1611.social)'s status on Monday, 04-Sep-2023 04:10:58 JST Tyler

     in reply to

     • Jens_Rasmussen
     • veff :trash:
     The 1960s was the last good decade in American engineering where your engineers all had a solid foundation.
     
     No way would I trust 2010's DEI riddled engineering companies.
     Woggy's Zeonic Frolicks likes this.
   • Jens_Rasmussen (jens_rasmussen@gleasonator.com)'s status on Monday, 04-Sep-2023 04:10:59 JST Jens_Rasmussen

     in reply to

     • veff :trash:
     @veff @WashedOutGundamPilot If not in the wings, where should the plane store fuel then?
   • Woggy's Zeonic Frolicks (washedoutgundampilot@poa.st)'s status on Monday, 04-Sep-2023 11:13:32 JST Woggy's Zeonic Frolicks

     in reply to

     • veff :trash:
     • marlin

     @marlin @veff If it needs a new plane, it’s going nowhere. Boeing got the contract, they don’t pay out of pocket on any of this crap. You can tell they don’t have high hopes for it by looking at the plane they got for it, a ragged old MD trijet.

     If they develop it like it’s an STC for existing jets then you could see it, but it would have to provide astounding fuel benefits to be doable for carriers, and that’s leaving out the typing process, performance, etc. They have little interest in having to get everyone checked out on some new boutique wing, add a nightmare in scheduling, all so they can cut fuel burn by 8% (while hedging remains so popular, at least)

   • marlin (marlin@poa.st)'s status on Monday, 04-Sep-2023 11:13:33 JST marlin

     in reply to

     • veff :trash:
     @veff @WashedOutGundamPilot This high aspect-ratio demonstrator has more buy-in since Boeing is putting up more money than NASA and major US airlines are involved as well. Here's a good overview that touches on various aspects (hehe) of it:
     
     youtube.com/watch?v=Xm5LYkGHkTc