Boeing 787 Aerodynamic Report

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by Cd

To fly from Austin, Texas to Winnipeg, Canada , I was surprised to see that I had to fly a huge triangle versus a straight line - Austin to Houston to Chicago to Winnipeg.

Airplanes don't nearly fly straight lines to their destinations, that's a common misconception.
They have to follow the airways, which are all but straight lines to their destinations. Not in the least due to military airspace claims.

A friend of mine is working on more economically rerouting commercial transports in Europe.

I'm sure there is a safety related reason for lowering the gear several miles away from the airport, but it still makes me cringe every time it happens.

It's part of their checklist.
You really don't want them to forget it as often as the military types do ...

With continuous descent approach (DCA, essentially gliding / coasting down at or near flight idle) coming in use at more airports instead of the stepped down approaches which require leveling out (and burning more fuel) over and over again, the gear won't be as much of a drag.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by kingsway

Never in the history of the planet have so many people been more affluent and healthy than they are now, and the improvements still keep coming!

Maybe that is simply a consequence of the fact that there have never been more people on the planet? It's also true that there have never been more people living in abject poverty and poor health than now. We could also wonder about incidents like this: Obese UK woman cut out of house - Yahoo! News

[jakobnev]

continuous descent approach

I wonder if aircraft would benefit from P&G. (with altitude variations)

Anyone know if there are Impulse Specific Fuel Consumption-charts for jet engines?

[kingsway]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Maybe that is simply a consequence of the fact that there have never been more people on the planet? It's also true that there have never been more people living in abject poverty and poor health than now. We could also wonder about incidents like this: Obese UK woman cut out of house - Yahoo! News

In general terms, and with obvious exceptions, living standards are rising across the world. African and Asian economies are growing rapidly. Third world countries often adopt new technologies faster than we do in the first-world.

According to many scientists and experts, they should have all starved decades ago - but new developments in Agriculture etc have made it possible to feed ever more people using less land and resources.

If we attempt to go backwards then yes, we are probably doomed. But, if we keep on changing and adapting, the future can continue to be good.

In my lifetime, life expectancy has increased by 30%, 30% fewer children die young, and people are 3 times more affluent than they were in the 1950's.

Without fossil fuels none of this could have happened, and we would probably still be reliant on slave labour!

Writers such as Matt Ridley argue that with ever more people, who are ever more connected via the internet, innovating and inventing new solutions faster than ever before (and the pace is still accelerating.) why should we not be optimistic about the future?

Life isn't always easy - but it is infinitely easier for the majority of us, than it was 100 years ago!!

Have a look on YouTube for Matt Ridley and 'The Rational Optimist' - he offers some very interesting ideas....

[Vman455]

Originally Posted by kingsway

In general terms, and with obvious exceptions, living standards are rising across the world. African and Asian economies are growing rapidly. Third world countries often adopt new technologies faster than we do in the first-world.

According to many scientists and experts, they should have all starved decades ago - but new developments in Agriculture etc have made it possible to feed ever more people using less land and resources.

If we attempt to go backwards then yes, we are probably doomed. But, if we keep on changing and adapting, the future can continue to be good.

In my lifetime, life expectancy has increased by 30%, 30% fewer children die young, and people are 3 times more affluent than they were in the 1950's.

Without fossil fuels none of this could have happened, and we would probably still be reliant on slave labour!

Life isn't always easy - but it is infinitely easier for the majority of us, than it was 100 years ago!!

Yes, much of our progress over the last century has relied on fossil fuels, but the picture for the future is not rosy simply because of that unless you assume that a) fossil fuel reserves are effectively infinite and b) exponential human population growth can be sustained indefinitely. Neither is true, and with a world population forecast to reach 9 billion by the middle of the century and 14 billion by 2100 at the current growth rate at the same time as oil production has remained flat or decreased slightly (or decreased significantly, in the case of US domestic production) and demand is rising--we will hit a wall, sooner or later, and to live in willful ignorance of that fact is to live irresponsibly.

[kingsway]

But it isn't going to end sudddenly any time soon, in my opinion.

I used to live in Zimbabwe, where coal reserves which have not even been touched yet, are reckoned to be enough to keep Europe going for the next 500 years at the present rate of consumption!

Nuclear technology is becoming much safer - the same is true of newer coal-burning power stations. Developments such as LED lighting can reduce our consumption of electricity.

If technology and science really does continue to race ahead ever faster, perhaps the worst case is that we just have to move off-planet one day?

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by kingsway

In my lifetime, life expectancy has increased by 30%, 30% fewer children die young, and people are 3 times more affluent than they were in the 1950's.

Without fossil fuels none of this could have happened...

This is false. First, most of the increase in life expectancy is due to things like vaccination and basic public health measures, which don't depend on fossil fuels at all.

Second, how are you measuring affluence? Even in the USA, one of the most affluent (by the circular definitions of affluence used by the cheerleaders of urbanization) societies, most people are condemned to live in urban or suburban areas, with little if any access to natural outdoor environments. This makes them pretty darned poor by my standard, and adversely affects their mental & physical health.

[niky]

I've always been an advocate of moving off-planet, but sadly, our civilization isn't spending enough in terms of energy resources (for research, building of spacecraft and the development of space-mining) to make that a reality before we run out of both oil and coal.

We might not even make it before we run out of nuclear fuel.

I'm optimistic we'll find a way to make things work, but I'm realistic enough to understand that our current growth trajectory isn't sustainable in any way. The math just doesn't support it. And the amount of resources we need to consume to just move a single person off-planet are so big that moving even a tiny portion of our current population (say... a million people) would likely bankrupt the global economy. (say... 25 trillion dollars to orbit... about 100 trillion dollars to the moon?)

-

Air travel is a waste. Bring on the telefactoring machines...

[kingsway]

Well.... here's another view:


Amory Lovins: A 40-year plan for energy #TED : http://on.ted.com/CNNy

See what you think!

While you are there... Have a quick look at this:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/mat..._have_sex.html

Maybe there is just a glimmer of hope for us yet??


(BTW I agree, Teleworking can make a huge difference, but seldom seems to get talked about - especially in the older, more traditional and hide-bound European countries!)

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by kingsway

In general terms, and with obvious exceptions, living standards are rising across the world.

Agree ... even the poorest person today is better off than the poorest person from 100 or 1,000 years ago.

Originally Posted by kingsway

(and the pace is still accelerating.) why should we not be optimistic about the future?

While I agree there is progress being made and some reason to be optimistic about some things ... I disagree about the pace is still accelerating.

I see it showing signs of slowing ... I bought a PC with the first Pentium I chip in it back in 1995 ... 5 years later by 2000 I bought a Pentium IV ... more ~20x faster than what I could buy just ~5 years before ... today 12 years later they have not yet increased the speed to 20x what is was ~12 years ago back in 2000... there has been improvement ... but from what I see the pace of improvement is slowing not accelerating anymore.

Not just in electronics , but the ICE efficiency improvements are continuing ... but the pace of those improvements is slowing ... harder and harder to squeeze out another 10% efficiency ... etc.

- - - - - - - - - - -

Originally Posted by Vman455

with a world population forecast to reach 9 billion by the middle of the century and 14 billion by 2100 at the current growth rate

Current Trends show the global population of the entire earth is slowing ... yes there are more people , and we are still producing more ... the growth rate is still positive ... but the current rate of growth itself is in decline ... ie reducing / slowing ... and has been for a while now ( sense the late 70's ) ... So I don't see evidence supporting the growth rate will suddenly stop it's current decreasing trend in favor of leveling off.