We Must
- Thread starter maltrab
- Start date
Marianna
Dedicated Member
From the Facebook Physicist Page:
"A Swiss aerospace company has unveiled the SiriusJet, a revolutionary luxury VTOL aircraft powered by hydrogen. Refueling for maximum range costs a mere $500. The aircraft features 28 ducted fans, including 20 along the wings and 8 in the canard, each powered by an electric motor, minimizing noise to less than 60 dB. This 3-seater aircraft boasts an impressive range of 1150 miles (1850 km), far surpassing typical electric eVTOLs. The SiriusJet offers a pressurized cabin, zero emissions, and a top speed of 323 mph (520 km/h), reaching altitudes of 30,000 feet. It takes off and lands like a helicopter but flies as fast as an airplane, making it a game-changer in the aviation industry."
Needs further work to scale it up to carry as many passengers as a trans-Atlantic jet, and to drastically increase the range, but this is a good start.
"A Swiss aerospace company has unveiled the SiriusJet, a revolutionary luxury VTOL aircraft powered by hydrogen. Refueling for maximum range costs a mere $500. The aircraft features 28 ducted fans, including 20 along the wings and 8 in the canard, each powered by an electric motor, minimizing noise to less than 60 dB. This 3-seater aircraft boasts an impressive range of 1150 miles (1850 km), far surpassing typical electric eVTOLs. The SiriusJet offers a pressurized cabin, zero emissions, and a top speed of 323 mph (520 km/h), reaching altitudes of 30,000 feet. It takes off and lands like a helicopter but flies as fast as an airplane, making it a game-changer in the aviation industry."
Needs further work to scale it up to carry as many passengers as a trans-Atlantic jet, and to drastically increase the range, but this is a good start.
Which one of those yellow planes is yours?
The one in reverse Barry
Marianna
Dedicated Member
By 9 AM, my flight would already have landed at MAN, if it was a the ELM to DTW to JFK to MAN. Otherwise, it would have been ELM to DTW to AMS to MAN, arriving a bit later. Then rail to Manchester Piccadilly and shanks mare to the Premier Inn Manchester City, around the corner on Dale Street, where I would have collapsed for a few hours' recovery.
It's quite inadequate, but I try to pay for the damage to the climate with donations to the Nature Conservancy and to Holme Valley Connections. I'd much rather travel to England and Europe via non-polluting transport, though.
It's quite inadequate, but I try to pay for the damage to the climate with donations to the Nature Conservancy and to Holme Valley Connections. I'd much rather travel to England and Europe via non-polluting transport, though.
I'm no expert but I'm sure you could simply plant some trees in your garden which would more than offset the carbon of their flight over their lifetime?
I do hope you get the chance to visit the UK again soon, we could perhaps meet up in Yorkshire if you do make it!
Marianna
Dedicated Member
My "garden" would have long ago become a forest, and the neighbors would have been complaining. The Nature Conservancy calculator shows 3 tons of CO2 for that round trip. While I had full use of my legs, I made that trip annually, starting in 1993. Between 31 and 46 trees are needed to offset 1 ton of CO2 (https://www.encon.eu/), so I'd need much more land than my ordinary village lot to offset just the carbon footprint from a single trip.
Despite having passed my 80th birthday, I hope to recover from sepsis and from damage to various joints, so I can travel again. I'm working on it!
You're younger than your President and he seems to fly everywhere, so I'm really looking forwards to you being well enough to visit Holmfirth again and posting some photos
Brian Johns
Dedicated Member
Grrrr...sorry but this has triggered my OCD. I am going to TRY and keep of the main soapbox here but need to point out a few things.
Before I start, I am NOT a climate change denier and I Do believe we need to reduce carbon emissions, but the "Sound-Bite" news reporting and politician speak we get these days, coupled with click-bait advertising completely ignores FACTS and the vast majority of people (and I include myself here) do NOT have the relevant education or knowledge to challenge a lot of the very misleading rubbish that is presented.
If you don't know what questions to ask, it is very easy to make things sound "AMAZING!" when in fact they either are not, OR, the inherent problems are not presented.
As an example...from here, and this is NOT meant as any criticism Marianna but I will take just 1 point from your initial post.
" It needs further work to scale it up to carry as many passengers as a trans-Atlantic jet, and to drastically increase the range, but this is a good start."
This is a case where what is presented sounds great and it is only a "simple" problem to scale it up. I very confidently can state this WILL NOT HAPPEN. Just a basic understanding of aeronautics will show that scaling just the physical side of this project up alone (not even considering any other problems that will occur...and even I can see several that would prevent it) will cause considerably more problems than it will solve. Just look at Thrust and drag, induced drag, parasitic drag, and a host of other inconvenient facts that will prevent this idea from being commercially viable. I am not saying it is impossible to build such a machine, just that it will be so hideously inefficient and expensive to do so that it will not be commercially viable.
Producing, storing and transport of Hydrogen is not cheap, easy, green or even potentially safe. Please don't use the "HYDROGEN is the most common element" argument. That is another of the "sound-bite" arguments that when you actually look into it, or even, and here is a novel idea!, TALK to an engineer or scientist that ACTUALLY knows what they are talking about!, turns out to be MUCH more involved than presented.
In the case of the SiriusJet, I will admit I know very little about it. It is no doubt a wonder of engineering and the specs they sprout sound impressive but I know the "specs" of a number of aircraft, and have actually FLOWN some of these and all I can say is any relationship between the specs and the ACTUAL performance is at best "loose". They also of course do not specify any negative aspects! How many of these things have they ACTUALLY produced/sold?
I know, for example of an aircraft type that I flew regularly. The "SPECS" stated it was a 6 seater aircraft and could carry "X" amount of cargo at a top speed of 175knots. In reality, if you put 6 big guys in it, with NO cargo and operated under COMMERCIAL flight rules, the aircraft could not carry sufficient fuel (due to weight) to legally START THE ENGINES!!! Under Private flight rules you could legally fly, but the range was cut back so severely that it would be cheaper and easier to use a bus! Also that magical 175knots....try 130...or again, the range is non existent.
This was a twin engined aircraft and one of the selling points, clearly aimed at the NON pilot bean counters who actually bought the piece of rubbish, was the fact that on 1 engine it could maintain a density altitude of 5000ft! Now to a non pilot that sounds great. I mean 5000ft is pretty high...yes??
NO! for a start 5000ft in a lot of countries is ground level, but even if it isn't, the spec stated "DENSITY" altitude, something that probably means nothing to non pilots. This is the height which the aircraft "thinks" it is at and takes into account things such as actual height, air pressure, temperature etc. Here in West Australia that pretty much means on a hot day for most of the state that ONE engine has to be producing FULL POWER just to stop sinking through the tarmac when sitting on the runway! As we pilots say, in a light twin, if you lose an engine, the 2nd one will take you to the scene of the crash! and guess what, you will beat ALL the emergency vehicles there!
My point being do not just take information fed to you as being the whole truth. As I stated, if you do not even know what are the right questions to ask, it is very easy to be "baffled by bullsh*t" as we say here!
By the way "Bullsh*t" may baffle brains but it does not necessarily simply mean lying. Like statistics, it is the manipulation of how things are presented! I am not looking to burst anyone's bubble or cause arguments with keyboard warriors, everyone is free to say and think what they wish, I just wish that people (in general) looked at things more critically and didn't just leap on every bit of "green" news! (NOTE: I use green as it is the current flavour of the month, the topic itself is interchangeable) and again this is NOT a "dig" at you Marianna, it is just that your post triggered me...blame Depression, PTSD or just a general sense I have of being "fed-up" with the world today!
ANYHOW....I hope your conditions improve enough Marianna to travel again the LOTSW country. I envy your many visits. I had ONE and it was not enough!
Before I start, I am NOT a climate change denier and I Do believe we need to reduce carbon emissions, but the "Sound-Bite" news reporting and politician speak we get these days, coupled with click-bait advertising completely ignores FACTS and the vast majority of people (and I include myself here) do NOT have the relevant education or knowledge to challenge a lot of the very misleading rubbish that is presented.
If you don't know what questions to ask, it is very easy to make things sound "AMAZING!" when in fact they either are not, OR, the inherent problems are not presented.
As an example...from here, and this is NOT meant as any criticism Marianna but I will take just 1 point from your initial post.
" It needs further work to scale it up to carry as many passengers as a trans-Atlantic jet, and to drastically increase the range, but this is a good start."
This is a case where what is presented sounds great and it is only a "simple" problem to scale it up. I very confidently can state this WILL NOT HAPPEN. Just a basic understanding of aeronautics will show that scaling just the physical side of this project up alone (not even considering any other problems that will occur...and even I can see several that would prevent it) will cause considerably more problems than it will solve. Just look at Thrust and drag, induced drag, parasitic drag, and a host of other inconvenient facts that will prevent this idea from being commercially viable. I am not saying it is impossible to build such a machine, just that it will be so hideously inefficient and expensive to do so that it will not be commercially viable.
Producing, storing and transport of Hydrogen is not cheap, easy, green or even potentially safe. Please don't use the "HYDROGEN is the most common element" argument. That is another of the "sound-bite" arguments that when you actually look into it, or even, and here is a novel idea!, TALK to an engineer or scientist that ACTUALLY knows what they are talking about!, turns out to be MUCH more involved than presented.
In the case of the SiriusJet, I will admit I know very little about it. It is no doubt a wonder of engineering and the specs they sprout sound impressive but I know the "specs" of a number of aircraft, and have actually FLOWN some of these and all I can say is any relationship between the specs and the ACTUAL performance is at best "loose". They also of course do not specify any negative aspects! How many of these things have they ACTUALLY produced/sold?
I know, for example of an aircraft type that I flew regularly. The "SPECS" stated it was a 6 seater aircraft and could carry "X" amount of cargo at a top speed of 175knots. In reality, if you put 6 big guys in it, with NO cargo and operated under COMMERCIAL flight rules, the aircraft could not carry sufficient fuel (due to weight) to legally START THE ENGINES!!! Under Private flight rules you could legally fly, but the range was cut back so severely that it would be cheaper and easier to use a bus! Also that magical 175knots....try 130...or again, the range is non existent.
This was a twin engined aircraft and one of the selling points, clearly aimed at the NON pilot bean counters who actually bought the piece of rubbish, was the fact that on 1 engine it could maintain a density altitude of 5000ft! Now to a non pilot that sounds great. I mean 5000ft is pretty high...yes??
NO! for a start 5000ft in a lot of countries is ground level, but even if it isn't, the spec stated "DENSITY" altitude, something that probably means nothing to non pilots. This is the height which the aircraft "thinks" it is at and takes into account things such as actual height, air pressure, temperature etc. Here in West Australia that pretty much means on a hot day for most of the state that ONE engine has to be producing FULL POWER just to stop sinking through the tarmac when sitting on the runway! As we pilots say, in a light twin, if you lose an engine, the 2nd one will take you to the scene of the crash! and guess what, you will beat ALL the emergency vehicles there!
My point being do not just take information fed to you as being the whole truth. As I stated, if you do not even know what are the right questions to ask, it is very easy to be "baffled by bullsh*t" as we say here!
By the way "Bullsh*t" may baffle brains but it does not necessarily simply mean lying. Like statistics, it is the manipulation of how things are presented! I am not looking to burst anyone's bubble or cause arguments with keyboard warriors, everyone is free to say and think what they wish, I just wish that people (in general) looked at things more critically and didn't just leap on every bit of "green" news! (NOTE: I use green as it is the current flavour of the month, the topic itself is interchangeable) and again this is NOT a "dig" at you Marianna, it is just that your post triggered me...blame Depression, PTSD or just a general sense I have of being "fed-up" with the world today!
ANYHOW....I hope your conditions improve enough Marianna to travel again the LOTSW country. I envy your many visits. I had ONE and it was not enough!
Brian Johns
Dedicated Member
In an effort to at least appear fair and balanced, I just viewed several of the official video's/press releasees of the Sirius Jet.
I am even MORE convinced that this is a niche "gimmick". Without even trying, just as a lay person with basic knowledge I can see MASSIVE problems in trying to get this thing upscaled or even being commercially viable in anything other than tiny numbers.
The inconvenient matter of FACTS again interferes with belief and feeling!
To make this more LOTSW related, it is IRRELEVANT whether you love or hate the show (as far as facts are concerned). It matters not whether you think a scene of character "works" or not, or whether someone should have done this or that, the FACTS are things are exactly as they are/were and your feelings and beliefs are not going to change anything 1 iota!
You can have feelings and thoughts and beliefs...for example I think the show helped me tremendously in combatting some of my PTSD and depression. I believe it is a great show and I feel it is a very underappreciated show.
NONE of that however changes ANYTHING about the show. It is gone and been and left!
.
I am even MORE convinced that this is a niche "gimmick". Without even trying, just as a lay person with basic knowledge I can see MASSIVE problems in trying to get this thing upscaled or even being commercially viable in anything other than tiny numbers.
The inconvenient matter of FACTS again interferes with belief and feeling!
To make this more LOTSW related, it is IRRELEVANT whether you love or hate the show (as far as facts are concerned). It matters not whether you think a scene of character "works" or not, or whether someone should have done this or that, the FACTS are things are exactly as they are/were and your feelings and beliefs are not going to change anything 1 iota!
You can have feelings and thoughts and beliefs...for example I think the show helped me tremendously in combatting some of my PTSD and depression. I believe it is a great show and I feel it is a very underappreciated show.
NONE of that however changes ANYTHING about the show. It is gone and been and left!
.