Hildegarde

What even is the point of this debate? They’ve both had a term in office. We know how both of them actually govern the actual country. What can this debate possibly convey that the past 8 years of governance hasn’t?

I bought an old business monochrome laser printer ten years ago. Still hasn’t needed a new toner cartridge.

Under because that way you can model it by making a cylinder and adding a plane to it, because the plane is attached to the back you don’t have to do the extra work of making sure the textures line up.

Her plane is worse than most. Its one of the last trijets in production. Planes with a small number of large engines are more efficient than planes with many small engines, which is why modern planes are all twinjets with wide high-bypass engines.

Airlines care about fuel efficiency. A minor reduction in fuel burn results in increased profits, and they operate large fleets. A small increase in efficiency across an entire fleet is huge. If you own a private jet, you are spending huge amounts of money to have one, the cost of fuel would only be a minor concern.

The solution to private jets is regulation. Private jets don’t need to exist. They don’t need to be replaced by another kind of airplane. The solution is to replace all planes on overland routes with electrified rail. Let the rich buy private railcars for transport.

I’m not skeptical on the concept of small aircraft. I wanted to give context because very few people will picture bush planes and puddle jumpers from the mention of “commercial aviation.”

PS: My calculations for fuel burn were based on comparing the range to the fuel capacity. Those are the numbers I have ready access. Planes are much less efficient when the tanks are full, and swift’s plane has a longer range, so it’s probably not quite as bad as my calculations indicate on comparable flights.

The carbon comes from the fuel. Burning a ton of jet fuel will release the same amount of carbon regardless of the plane that burns it.

Taylor Swift’s plane is a Dassault Falcon 7X. It weighs around 17 tons and seats 12 to 16 passengers.

Her plane burns 60% less fuel than a 737 MAX 8. However, her plane holds 9% of the passengers of the MAX 8, so its far less efficient per passenger than typical commercial aircraft.

Private planes are not a huge contributor to carbon emissions in comparison to others. They’re bad, obviously. But there are far more commercial airplanes, and they fly much more frequently than private jets.

Private jets get people’s attention. One person being directly responsible for that much carbon is notable is unconscionable. But it’s the scale of transportation overall that is the issue.

I got the number from wikipedia. Following the references, the number came from a BP datasheet about Jet A-1, where it is listed on a typical properties table, and the number is the net specific energy, which means it accounts for the inefficiency of the engines. Or at least that’s my assumption.

All the weights listed were operating empty weight. The battery planes will be even smaller than the planes I listed for comparison.

Weights of planes vary in flight, so I picked the one that disadvantages the point I’m trying to make in the interest of fairness.

Trains don’t need to store the energy at all. Pantographs are a mature technology. High speed renewable long haul transportation is a technologically solved problem for all overland routes, it just requires infrastructure investment.

The plane in the article is a 4 ton airplane, they mention plans to make an 8 ton commercial aircraft.

The Learjet 31 is 4.4 tons. It seats 8 passengers. The Cessna CitationJet CJ3+ is right around 4 tons with a maximum of 9 passengers.

The future 8 ton aircraft is around the size of the 10-ton Dash 8 Q200 with a maximum of 40 seats.

There are commercial uses for aircraft this small, but these jets are significantly smaller than most commercial aircraft.

For context jet fuel is around 9,720 Wh/L. However, energy density(energy per volume) is less important in aviation than specific energy(energy per mass) as weight is far more likely to be the limiting factor.

A standard lithium ion battery has 100-265 Wh/kg

The article claims 500 Wh/kg in this new battery.

Jet fuel has around 12,000 Wh/kg.

Though this is a major improvement in battery tech, batteries are unlikely to ever improve to the point to even approach the energy storage of liquid fuels.

Batteries cannot run commercial aviation as it currently exists. Battery planes will need to fly slower and shorter. There is no other way.

No iron clothes is a lie. They say no iron on the label in the store, but they tell you to iron in on the care label.

If the us supported the two state solution, they wouldn’t have vetoed Palestine’s UN membership.

Research the fuses on the car. The smart systems or modem can most likely be disabled by removing power to them.

I brought up that flight to highlight the importance of these paper trails, as defective titanium can fail catastrophically.

The engine exploded “in part due to” the engine manufacturer’s failure in quality control, but also the airline’s maintenance department failing to find the fatigue cracks during maintenance checks.

Boeing was not involved in flight 232, the plane was a DC-10.

Pretty much yes. Proper documentation is important for safety, but calling the itself titanium fake is incredibly dishonest.

The rest of the headline doesn’t fair any better.

The planes that included components made with the material were… Boeing 737 Max and 787 Dreamliner airliners as well as Airbus A220 jets

Headline only mentions one of the involved manufacturers, misrepresenting it as a boeing problem because they know what will drive clicks.

The issue is not that the parts aren’t titanium, its that there isn’t a paper trail documenting the titanium.

This is an issue, because improperly forged titanium can have issues that makes it unsuitably weak for its intended purpose. Having documentation showing where the materials came from, when it was inspected for defects and when it was manufactured is critical for safety.

United flight 232 had an engine explode in part due to defective titanium. This is a real safety concern.

Though the headline says boeing, the article mentions these undocumented parts being found in airbus planes as well. Its an industry problem, not a Boeing specific one.

MCAS, (must crash airplane system,) the system that caused those crashes is present on all max variants. The involved aircraft were max 8’s because that was the first to enter production.

Every other max variant has the same system. Changes to, and knowledge of MCAS should prevent future crashes but this is an issue that affects every 737 max, despite only max 8’s crashing from it.

According to boeing’s website the last 737 order was in February from “unidentified customer(s).” Hmmmmmmmm

Several years is an understatement. At current rates of production it will take at least 14 years to fulfill all orders.

Those are orders for the 737. Not parts, newly constructed aircraft. Airbus’s similary sized A320 has a backlog of 7197 according to wikipedia.