Don't make me laugh: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ1t993-vw0
That said, for intercontinental travel, greater use
of trains IS possible.
Depends on your mission.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 18:58:10 -0600, "Byker" <byker@do~rag.net> wrote:
Don't make me laugh: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ1t993-vw0
Electric trans-oceanic aircraft ? Ridiculous !
Battery tech will not even get your Tesla from
NYC to Chicago without some long layovers
for recharging - and it is not going to improve
very much for a long time. You can recharge
your F-150 with gasohol in about five minutes
and be on your way.
That said, for intercontinental travel, greater use
of trains IS possible. Depends on your mission.
But for the LONG hauls, are they planning to
ressurect the Hindenburg ? Sailing ships ?
London to NYC in six or eight WEEKS, if
you are lucky ???
Sorry, the 20th century created aircraft for a
good reason, we no longer had the time to
dick around on sailing ships, the pace of life
had increased. Cannot go back.
Maybe in the 22nd century they will be able
to "beam" you anywhere or you step through
some dimensional thingie or whatever. But
NOW, no.
"PhantomView" wrote in message >news:giuj4ft5611prgbqbanqa0g40v8gpnht1n@4ax.com...
That said, for intercontinental travel, greater use
of trains IS possible.
Only if you have a LOT of time on your hands. If you have a two-week
vacation and want to travel from NYC to LA, you'll spend half your time just >getting there and back.
Depends on your mission.
New York to Chicago by train is no faster than it was at the turn of the
20th Century: >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_–_New_York_Electric_Air_Line_Railroad
"Trains would run at 100 miles per hour (160 km/h) and complete the journey >between Chicago and New York in 10 hours. At the time the two fastest trains >between New York and Chicago, the New York Central Railroad's 20th Century >Limited and the Pennsylvania Railroad's Pennsylvania Special (forerunner of >the more famous Broadway Limited), each required twenty hours to make the >journey."
Things haven't improved much, if at all:
"Amtrak has one train a day from New York to Chicago. It takes 19 hours, and >you sleep overnight on the train.": https://tinyurl.com/y7dnm6tf
"An average trip on Amtrak from New York to Chicago takes 22 hours and 45 >minutes, while the fastest available Amtrak trip will get you to Chicago in >19 hours and 5 minutes.": >https://www.wanderu.com/en-us/train/us-ny/new-york/us-il/chicago/
Chicago Union Station Amtrak to New York Penn Station via Amtrak = 19 h 53 >min https://www.rome2rio.com/map/Chicago/New-York
It's actually faster to take a Greyhound bus: 17 h 40m >https://www.rome2rio.com/map/Chicago/New-York
But a big touring bike would be much more fun.
An Indian, maybe a Goldwing trike :-)
On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 21:39:04 -0500
PhantomView <pv@PhantomView114.net> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 18:58:10 -0600, "Byker" <byker@do~rag.net> wrote:They tried the battery/solar powered aircraft.
Don't make me laugh: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ1t993-vw0
Electric trans-oceanic aircraft ? Ridiculous !
Battery tech will not even get your Tesla from
NYC to Chicago without some long layovers
for recharging - and it is not going to improve
very much for a long time. You can recharge
your F-150 with gasohol in about five minutes
and be on your way.
That said, for intercontinental travel, greater use
of trains IS possible. Depends on your mission.
But for the LONG hauls, are they planning to
ressurect the Hindenburg ? Sailing ships ?
London to NYC in six or eight WEEKS, if
you are lucky ???
Sorry, the 20th century created aircraft for a
good reason, we no longer had the time to
dick around on sailing ships, the pace of life
had increased. Cannot go back.
Maybe in the 22nd century they will be able
to "beam" you anywhere or you step through
some dimensional thingie or whatever. But
NOW, no.
Carried one crew/pax at a very low speed and required up to a month at
the end of each leg.
Stick to real aviation
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 08:02:01 +1300, George <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 21:39:04 -0500
PhantomView <pv@PhantomView114.net> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 18:58:10 -0600, "Byker" <byker@do~rag.net>They tried the battery/solar powered aircraft.
wrote:
Don't make me laugh:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ1t993-vw0
Electric trans-oceanic aircraft ? Ridiculous !
Battery tech will not even get your Tesla from
NYC to Chicago without some long layovers
for recharging - and it is not going to improve
very much for a long time. You can recharge
your F-150 with gasohol in about five minutes
and be on your way.
That said, for intercontinental travel, greater use
of trains IS possible. Depends on your mission.
But for the LONG hauls, are they planning to
ressurect the Hindenburg ? Sailing ships ?
London to NYC in six or eight WEEKS, if
you are lucky ???
Sorry, the 20th century created aircraft for a
good reason, we no longer had the time to
dick around on sailing ships, the pace of life
had increased. Cannot go back.
Maybe in the 22nd century they will be able
to "beam" you anywhere or you step through
some dimensional thingie or whatever. But
NOW, no.
Carried one crew/pax at a very low speed and required up to a month
at the end of each leg.
Stick to real aviation
I recently saw, I think on the BBC site, some company
that is trying to produce an electric puddle-hopper.
Looks almost exactly like a Piper Cub - probably made
of high-tech composites and carbon fiber weave that
take so much energy to create that it will put a big dent
in the overall "carbon footprint" of the plane. Will not be
very fast and probably has to lug 250 kilos of flammable
lithium-ion batteries around. MY guess ... a 100 mile
range before you have to sit around for 6 hours to
recharge the thing.
Long long back I got in exactly two hours piloting
a Cub. Fun, but SLOW. Think it had a 35hp engine.
Had to start the thing by hand-spinning the prop
too ...... don't forget the wheel chucks ! Switch-OFF,
throttle barely cracked, spin the prop through two
or three times, stop near a compression stroke,
switch-ON and SPIN that sucker hard ... and there
is a technique to that so your arms and body
naturally fall away from the propeller arc. I was 16,
but I still remember how.
For each task there is a best way of doing it. For long
range travel we have jet planes. If you just want to get
to the next town, drive a car (or maybe take that
electric Cub). Zeppelins are death-traps, even using
helium - bad weather snaps them in half. Ships,
especially Greta's favorite ones with sails, are
TOO DAMNED SLOW. They are for vacations,
not practical transport.
So, we await the tech to be "beamed" from 'A' to 'B'
and hope all the bits arrive in the right order ......
"PhantomView" wrote in message >news:cclm4f9hve821j6126qonv38hn4ua1n9v4@4ax.com...
But a big touring bike would be much more fun.
An Indian, maybe a Goldwing trike :-)
I did just fine on a Sportster...
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 22:57:26 -0500
PhantomView <pv@PhantomView114.net> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 08:02:01 +1300, George <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 21:39:04 -0500
PhantomView <pv@PhantomView114.net> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 18:58:10 -0600, "Byker" <byker@do~rag.net>They tried the battery/solar powered aircraft.
wrote:
Don't make me laugh:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ1t993-vw0
Electric trans-oceanic aircraft ? Ridiculous !
Battery tech will not even get your Tesla from
NYC to Chicago without some long layovers
for recharging - and it is not going to improve
very much for a long time. You can recharge
your F-150 with gasohol in about five minutes
and be on your way.
That said, for intercontinental travel, greater use
of trains IS possible. Depends on your mission.
But for the LONG hauls, are they planning to
ressurect the Hindenburg ? Sailing ships ?
London to NYC in six or eight WEEKS, if
you are lucky ???
Sorry, the 20th century created aircraft for a
good reason, we no longer had the time to
dick around on sailing ships, the pace of life
had increased. Cannot go back.
Maybe in the 22nd century they will be able
to "beam" you anywhere or you step through
some dimensional thingie or whatever. But
NOW, no.
Carried one crew/pax at a very low speed and required up to a month
at the end of each leg.
Stick to real aviation
I recently saw, I think on the BBC site, some company
that is trying to produce an electric puddle-hopper.
Looks almost exactly like a Piper Cub - probably made
of high-tech composites and carbon fiber weave that
take so much energy to create that it will put a big dent
in the overall "carbon footprint" of the plane. Will not be
very fast and probably has to lug 250 kilos of flammable
lithium-ion batteries around. MY guess ... a 100 mile
range before you have to sit around for 6 hours to
recharge the thing.
Long long back I got in exactly two hours piloting
a Cub. Fun, but SLOW. Think it had a 35hp engine.
Had to start the thing by hand-spinning the prop
too ...... don't forget the wheel chucks ! Switch-OFF,
throttle barely cracked, spin the prop through two
or three times, stop near a compression stroke,
switch-ON and SPIN that sucker hard ... and there
is a technique to that so your arms and body
naturally fall away from the propeller arc. I was 16,
but I still remember how.
For each task there is a best way of doing it. For long
range travel we have jet planes. If you just want to get
to the next town, drive a car (or maybe take that
electric Cub). Zeppelins are death-traps, even using
helium - bad weather snaps them in half. Ships,
especially Greta's favorite ones with sails, are
TOO DAMNED SLOW. They are for vacations,
not practical transport.
So, we await the tech to be "beamed" from 'A' to 'B'
and hope all the bits arrive in the right order ......
Only Cub I ever flew was the Super Cub.
We adopted them to use as ag aircraft
The rate of climb was astonishing and you could land on a bank note and
have change at the end of the run.
However most of my needs were met by Cessna
"PhantomView" wrote in message >>news:cclm4f9hve821j6126qonv38hn4ua1n9v4@4ax.com...
But a big touring bike would be much more fun.
An Indian, maybe a Goldwing trike :-)
I did just fine on a Sportster...
I had one of those. It was just a little too small,
a little too narrow - and that HURT me. Might
be OK for younger people though.
That relatively large thick-chord wing gave a lot of
lift at low speeds. You did not need a huge engine.
The one I tried out was an original J-3. I looked it
up and I remember the horsepower was in the
30s. The docs say 37hp. The thing would hold
altitude even at about 35 knots - speed of horse.
The military bought lots of Cubs back in WW-2.
They were cheap, they were relatively quiet, they
were stable enough to hang cameras on and could
use almost any short patch of grass as an airfield.
I guess the fabric skin also did not have much of
a signature to what passed as German radar.
I never loved tail-draggers though ... there was too
much risk of hitting a rut during landing and the
thing immediately dumping over on its nose. With
the J-3 the thing between you and the engine was
the fuel tank ......
Still, a hell of a lot of people post-war leared to fly
in surplus Cubs. The Super-Cubs are more "super",
but large numbers of J-3s are still up there too.
Cessna ... good general-avaition planes. Solid
design and I liked the over-wing models because
you could actually see the ground below.
But alas, the death of cheap AvGas put an end to
my flying. Now you can take that 16 and turn the
numbers around and then a bit. Hey, guess I could
buy one of those Gyrocopter kits - but those things
seem to crash a lot. Might be the pilots, might be
something about the mechanicals ......
Ooooh ! How about a hydrogen-powered Gyro ?
Greta might like that ! :-)
"PhantomView" wrote in message >news:eo8p4fptkq4f51g7fajb88fd7eiu7nqesr@4ax.com...
On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 21:38:02 -0600, "Byker" <byker@do~rag.net> wrote:
"PhantomView" wrote in message >>>news:cclm4f9hve821j6126qonv38hn4ua1n9v4@4ax.com...
But a big touring bike would be much more fun.
An Indian, maybe a Goldwing trike :-)
I did just fine on a Sportster...
I had one of those. It was just a little too small,
a little too narrow - and that HURT me. Might
be OK for younger people though.
I'd go on HOG touring rallies, sometimes up to 2,000 miles from home, and >people would say, "You rode THAT all the way from Oklahoma?" I'd reply,
"What do you think 900cc is, a moped?"
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 22:44:12 -0500
PhantomView <pv@PhantomView114.net> wrote:
That relatively large thick-chord wing gave a lot of
lift at low speeds. You did not need a huge engine.
The one I tried out was an original J-3. I looked it
up and I remember the horsepower was in the
30s. The docs say 37hp. The thing would hold
altitude even at about 35 knots - speed of horse.
The military bought lots of Cubs back in WW-2.
They were cheap, they were relatively quiet, they
were stable enough to hang cameras on and could
use almost any short patch of grass as an airfield.
I guess the fabric skin also did not have much of
a signature to what passed as German radar.
I never loved tail-draggers though ... there was too
much risk of hitting a rut during landing and the
thing immediately dumping over on its nose. With
the J-3 the thing between you and the engine was
the fuel tank ......
Still, a hell of a lot of people post-war leared to fly
in surplus Cubs. The Super-Cubs are more "super",
but large numbers of J-3s are still up there too.
Cessna ... good general-avaition planes. Solid
design and I liked the over-wing models because
you could actually see the ground below.
But alas, the death of cheap AvGas put an end to
my flying. Now you can take that 16 and turn the
numbers around and then a bit. Hey, guess I could
buy one of those Gyrocopter kits - but those things
seem to crash a lot. Might be the pilots, might be
something about the mechanicals ......
Ooooh ! How about a hydrogen-powered Gyro ?
Greta might like that ! :-)
Flew a J1 only once the fuel tank was over my knees.
Not the safest machine
And the cylinder heads were hung out in the breeze.
A couple of old blokes in the US I used to talk on a group had
gyrocopters and seemed quite happy with most of the performance
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 08:03:02 +1300, George <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 22:44:12 -0500
PhantomView <pv@PhantomView114.net> wrote:
That relatively large thick-chord wing gave a lot of
lift at low speeds. You did not need a huge engine.
The one I tried out was an original J-3. I looked it
up and I remember the horsepower was in the
30s. The docs say 37hp. The thing would hold
altitude even at about 35 knots - speed of horse.
The military bought lots of Cubs back in WW-2.
They were cheap, they were relatively quiet, they
were stable enough to hang cameras on and could
use almost any short patch of grass as an airfield.
I guess the fabric skin also did not have much of
a signature to what passed as German radar.
I never loved tail-draggers though ... there was too
much risk of hitting a rut during landing and the
thing immediately dumping over on its nose. With
the J-3 the thing between you and the engine was
the fuel tank ......
Still, a hell of a lot of people post-war leared to fly
in surplus Cubs. The Super-Cubs are more "super",
but large numbers of J-3s are still up there too.
Cessna ... good general-avaition planes. Solid
design and I liked the over-wing models because
you could actually see the ground below.
But alas, the death of cheap AvGas put an end to
my flying. Now you can take that 16 and turn the
numbers around and then a bit. Hey, guess I could
buy one of those Gyrocopter kits - but those things
seem to crash a lot. Might be the pilots, might be
something about the mechanicals ......
Ooooh ! How about a hydrogen-powered Gyro ?
Greta might like that ! :-)
Flew a J1 only once the fuel tank was over my knees.
Not the safest machine
Confirm ... a J-ONE ? I did not know there were any
of that model - which was basically a TaylorCraft/Piper
prototype - still in service. Cannot be many J-2s either.
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 22:18:16 -0500
PhantomView <pv@PhantomView114.net> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 08:03:02 +1300, George <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:1963
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 22:44:12 -0500
PhantomView <pv@PhantomView114.net> wrote:
That relatively large thick-chord wing gave a lot of
lift at low speeds. You did not need a huge engine.
The one I tried out was an original J-3. I looked it
up and I remember the horsepower was in the
30s. The docs say 37hp. The thing would hold
altitude even at about 35 knots - speed of horse.
The military bought lots of Cubs back in WW-2.
They were cheap, they were relatively quiet, they
were stable enough to hang cameras on and could
use almost any short patch of grass as an airfield.
I guess the fabric skin also did not have much of
a signature to what passed as German radar.
I never loved tail-draggers though ... there was too
much risk of hitting a rut during landing and the
thing immediately dumping over on its nose. With
the J-3 the thing between you and the engine was
the fuel tank ......
Still, a hell of a lot of people post-war leared to fly
in surplus Cubs. The Super-Cubs are more "super",
but large numbers of J-3s are still up there too.
Cessna ... good general-avaition planes. Solid
design and I liked the over-wing models because
you could actually see the ground below.
But alas, the death of cheap AvGas put an end to
my flying. Now you can take that 16 and turn the
numbers around and then a bit. Hey, guess I could
buy one of those Gyrocopter kits - but those things
seem to crash a lot. Might be the pilots, might be
something about the mechanicals ......
Ooooh ! How about a hydrogen-powered Gyro ?
Greta might like that ! :-)
Flew a J1 only once the fuel tank was over my knees.
Not the safest machine
Confirm ... a J-ONE ? I did not know there were any
of that model - which was basically a TaylorCraft/Piper
prototype - still in service. Cannot be many J-2s either.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 465 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 41:00:55 |
| Calls: | 9,400 |
| Files: | 13,572 |
| Messages: | 6,098,735 |