Anonymous at Thu, 28 Nov 2024 23:09:59 UTC No. 16496635

>>16496633
LMAO imagine if this much autism went into the ridiculous idea of bernoilis principle having any effect in an open system.

Anonymous at Thu, 28 Nov 2024 23:22:22 UTC No. 16496646

>>16496633
>we stopped using turboprop engines
no we didnt. short flights are still done with turbo props

Anonymous at Thu, 28 Nov 2024 23:32:25 UTC No. 16496656

>>16496646
>short flights still done
half the problem. They could fit international flights with turboprop engines, half the cost of manufacturing and usage, and replace them twice as often so you're not flying some shit tier Boeing piece of crap from thirty years ago because they internationally made them super fucking expensive so they can't be replaced and have to be run into the ground

Anonymous at Fri, 29 Nov 2024 01:11:55 UTC No. 16496722

>>16496633
>>we stopped using turboprop engines
Literally didn't happen, why are you being retarded?

Anonymous at Fri, 29 Nov 2024 01:16:22 UTC No. 16496724

>>16496656
Boeing doesn't make turbofans, and no airline in any western country, nor likely even from any third world country, uses thirty year old turbofans.

You obviously know nothing about airplanes and just learned that turboprops exist five minutes ago from whatever popsci youtube video for retards you're watching.

Anonymous at Fri, 29 Nov 2024 01:40:53 UTC No. 16496756

>>16496633
Government regulations make engine designs stupidly expensive. That’s why most engines are iterative improvements of 1950s jets.

Anonymous at Fri, 29 Nov 2024 02:46:08 UTC No. 16496784

>>16496722
>stopped using it for most commercial travel
pretending to be retarded is the same as being retarded

Anonymous at Fri, 29 Nov 2024 04:12:07 UTC No. 16496855

>>16496633
Noise inside and outside
Cash cow are time sensitive businessmen whose tickets are paid by the company.

Anonymous at Fri, 29 Nov 2024 04:27:23 UTC No. 16496864

>>16496756
why can't they just build the engines and then tell the gubberment when they're done?

Anonymous at Fri, 29 Nov 2024 05:04:18 UTC No. 16496881

>>16496633
based

Anonymous at Fri, 29 Nov 2024 05:07:11 UTC No. 16496883

>>16496633
Props are unfashionable. People want to think they're riding on a fancy modern jet, not something that looks like something from great-grandpa's war photos.

Anonymous at Fri, 29 Nov 2024 05:21:39 UTC No. 16496885

>>16496883
My grandad flew is based pic related. PISTON ENGINE cunts. he ended up half deaf but who needs to hear when you're 80 anyway. Flying used to mean something, now it's shit tier because the planes feel like buses. People used to wear nice clothes to fly ;_;

🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 29 Nov 2024 14:25:57 UTC No. 16497182

>>16496885
your grandfather fought for globohomo and for you to become a minority in your own home you dumb faggot

Anonymous at Sat, 30 Nov 2024 06:29:51 UTC No. 16497993

I want to fly a plane with flappy wings like a birb

Anonymous at Sun, 1 Dec 2024 19:34:08 UTC No. 16499452

>>16497993
The government won't let us build flappy wing engines

Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 04:42:49 UTC No. 16499884

>>16496724
/thread

Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 02:37:31 UTC No. 16501744

>>16496724
You smug cunt are you unaware that Boeing chooses which engines go on their planes even if they're not manufactured in house? Dumbasses always have the most to say

Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 19:02:58 UTC No. 16502473

>>16496633
irrespective of efficiency, having a cowling is a good way to make sure loose propellers don't fly into the fuselage. But also in some sense a turbofan is just a ducted turboprop. both are powered by jet turbines, although bypass ratios are different. Is there a significant difference between them that i'm missing?

Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 19:04:53 UTC No. 16502478

>>16502473
as in does ducting a fan fundamentally change something that allows the plane to fly faster? or will a low bypass turbofan work about as well as a turbofan with the same bypass ratio?

Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 19:33:48 UTC No. 16502521

>>16496633
It's all a business strat by Big Fan

Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 21:41:28 UTC No. 16502725

>>16501744
You dumb fucking nigger, whatever problems Boeing has in their own manufacturing processes do not impugn the quality of what Rolls-Royce, General Electric or Pratt and Whitney make.

Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 22:06:59 UTC No. 16502761

>>16502725
You are so fucking stupid it's unbelievable. The thread is about the CHOICE of engine not the quality. Not surprised that you can't read, given your profound mental retardation.

Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 22:29:30 UTC No. 16502794

>>16502761
There is literally nothing wrong with the engines you giga retard nigger.

Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 22:30:33 UTC No. 16502796

>>16496633
>just and excuse
ESL = nigger

Anonymous at Thu, 5 Dec 2024 12:33:20 UTC No. 16503496

>>16502478
Air foil has one side with higher pressure and the other side lower pressure.
At the tip of the propeller blade, the air on the high pressure side would be allowed to rotate around the tip and flip to the negative side, creating wing tip vortex which creates mainly drag. A cowling separates the high and low pressure area of the propeller.

Barkon at Thu, 5 Dec 2024 12:34:21 UTC No. 16503497

>>16503496
Eat the goyslop
Drink the goypop
Get the Jewish education (academia)

Anonymous at Thu, 5 Dec 2024 12:48:09 UTC No. 16503512

>>16503497
You ok there buck?

Anonymous at Thu, 5 Dec 2024 13:26:09 UTC No. 16503531

>>16496633
I think it's mostly a safety issue, turbofan blades are encased in a jacket, which would stop blades flying into the body.

Anonymous at Thu, 5 Dec 2024 21:19:07 UTC No. 16504198

>>16503531
How common are catastrophic blade failures?

Anonymous at Thu, 5 Dec 2024 21:36:41 UTC No. 16504235

>>16504198
They're rare, but they do happen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbine_engine_failure#Contained_and_uncontained_failures

Anonymous at Thu, 5 Dec 2024 23:39:45 UTC No. 16504343

>>16496635
redpill me on this

Anonymous at Thu, 5 Dec 2024 23:41:52 UTC No. 16504345

>>16499452
bastards

Anonymous at Thu, 5 Dec 2024 23:53:29 UTC No. 16504352

>>16496633
Long-distance flight is more efficient at high altitudes. Turbofans work better at high altitudes. Turboprops are still widely used for low altitude short distance flights

Anonymous at Fri, 6 Dec 2024 00:16:37 UTC No. 16504373

>1952
> Build a million and one random ass planes of all different types and configurations, multiple companies exist that produce engines and planes
>2024
>build ten airplanes a year and they each cost 300mn USD.
I seriously don't understand how this absolute scam can continue to exist. government doesn't want international mobility at cheap prices, they want only themselves to be able to flit around. Democratisation of air travel when fuck space travel that's a psyop to distract you from the fact that they won't let us have cheap planes

Anonymous at Fri, 6 Dec 2024 13:33:48 UTC No. 16504773

>>16496633
fuel consumption and plane production/maintenance isn't the only thing that makes your flight expensive.
there's also the crew, especially the pilots, and they get paid by the hour.
the idea behind the concord was, to complete 2 flights across the atlantic within a single pilot's shift, while subsonic planes could only do one.
the concord's economics didn't work out in the end, but you can imagine there being similar incentives to opt for turbines over props, if it lets you complete more trips.
doesn't matter if your turboprops cost half as much as the turbines and consume less fuel, if you can only use your pilots half as efficiently with them.

the efficiency of an airplane engine also changes with your altitude.
the higher you fly, the thinner the air gets, which results in a better drag to lift ratio.
flying high requires you to fly fast though, and turbines are better at that.

props make sense if flying high and fast for long periods of time isn't feasible.
short inland flights where you spend more time boarding than flying, for example.
if your pilot and crew get to sleep in their home countries every night, you might be able to get them for cheaper than a transatlantic crew as well.

Anonymous at Fri, 6 Dec 2024 15:43:45 UTC No. 16504875

>>16504773
Hella retarded take my guy. You just have to glance and pilot salaries. You can be generous and give the two pilots a thousand dollars a day each. Jet fuel prices are about 2.25 per gallon wholesale. Your pilots take up 2% of a flights cost. If the flight is 10% longer, then they only take up 2.3%, assuming overtime and this already generous payout schedule.
Shorting boeing. All in on textron. Thanks for the play stupid.

Anonymous at Fri, 6 Dec 2024 16:57:23 UTC No. 16504954

>>16504875
joke's on you, i think trains are cooler, and the only reason people pick planes over trains is because planes are faster (at sufficiently long distances).
propeller planes are still faster and obviously more direct than trains, but the margin is smaller than between trains and jets.
some top speeds for comparison:
Boeing 787 (turbofan): 561mph
De Havilland Canada Dash 8 Q400 (turboprop, not sure if this one's a fair pick): 350–410 mph
Amtrak Acela (fastest train in the us): 150 mph
German ICE (this one's for bringing foreigners IN, not OUT): 165 mph

Anonymous at Fri, 6 Dec 2024 17:06:38 UTC No. 16504968

>>16504954
Trains are objectively better, except for hypercope Tesla in tunnels. The cost of speed is a clientele thing, not a provider metric. Wasting 200 or 300 peoples time can easily eclipse regular operating fees. Highly efficient trains could transport thousands of people very long distances for very low rates, but they would waste days in transit.

Anonymous at Sun, 8 Dec 2024 07:54:25 UTC No. 16506494

>>16504968
Trains are also a scam unless you're the Chinese and can truly afford to build more tracks than anyone could ever hope to use at capacity. Not building enough trains and having hyper expensive flights are how you get India tier scenarios where train travel ends up being the shittest method. Ultimately you want more supply than demand but western governments will never build the correct amount of infrastructure or invest in planes

Anonymous at Sun, 8 Dec 2024 22:01:38 UTC No. 16507112

>>16506494
Trains aren't a scam just because bureaucracies are a racket.