Newbie 0 #1 September 7, 2005 When will we have planes that run on clean, sustainable energy and not Jet A, anyone know? "Skydiving is a door" Happythoughts Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 34 #2 September 7, 2005 Probably when the government de-classifies the secret UFO ships they are hiding at Area 51... Not likely in our lifetime..."Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #3 September 7, 2005 http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Fall/onawing.html Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NickDG 23 #4 September 7, 2005 There's several in my area. Bring a BASE rig . . . The first parachute jumps ever made were from fixed objects and so will be, the last ones . . . NickD BASE 194 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newbie 0 #5 September 7, 2005 Quotehttp://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Fall/onawing.html Derek Wow interesting link, thanks. I wonder how that plane is working out. Couldn't find any reports on the test flights. "Skydiving is a door" Happythoughts Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Elisha 1 #6 September 7, 2005 He buddy, here in the states we call it 'gas', not this 'petrol' stuff. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,265 #7 September 7, 2005 QuoteWhen will we have planes that run on clean, sustainable energy and not Jet A, anyone know? I was vaguely wondering about this the other day. Now jet fuel is pretty similar to diesel/parrafin right? And diesel cars can be run on vegetable oil (or similar), so could we ever have a jumpship running on the waste from the local chippy (suitably filtered of course)? If anyone can tell me why this wouldn't work for reasons of weight, energy density or whatever I'd quite like to know.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #8 September 7, 2005 QuoteProbably when the government de-classifies the secret UFO ships they are hiding at Area 51... You know, you're not supposed to talk about that... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
darkwing 4 #9 September 7, 2005 For fuel is is pretty much all about energy per kg of fuel. For engines it is all about power per kg of engine. I'm working on a coal powered turbine. On the side I've got a nuclear option too. Plutonium or neptunium preferably. -- Jeff My Skydiving History Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eule 0 #10 September 8, 2005 QuoteQuoteWhen will we have planes that run on clean, sustainable energy and not Jet A, anyone know? The internal combustion engine is the worst thing you could ever use to propel an aircraft, except for pretty much everything else that's been tried. Like darkwing said, it's all about the energy density. In non-technical terms, batteries weigh a shitload. From http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf : Here are a few common... ENERGY DENSITY COMPARISONS Gasoline 9000 Wh/l 13,500 Wh/Kg LNG 7216 Wh/l 12,100 Wh/Kg Propane 6600 Wh/l 13,900 Wh/Kg Ethanol 6100 WH/l 7,850 Wh/Kg Liquid H2 2600 Wh/l 39,000 Wh/Kg (uncontained) 150 Bar H2 405 WH/l 39,000 Wh/Kg (uncontained) Lithium 250 Wh/l 350 Wh/Kg Flywheel 210 Wh/l 120 Wh/Kg Liquid N2 65 Wh/l 55 Wh/Kg Lead Acid 40 Wh/l 25 Wh/Kg Compr Air 17 Wh/l 34 Wh/Kg STP H2 2.7 Wh/l 39,000 Wh/Kg (uncontained) In practical terms, 50 gallons of 100LL weighs about 300 pounds and has about 1.8 megawatt-hours of chemical energy. The engine throws away something like two-thirds of that, so you actually put about 610 kilowatt-hours into the prop. If you wanted to replace that with an electric motor and batteries, the electric motor would probably be a little lighter than the gasoline engine. The motor, controller, and wiring will be something like 85% efficient, so to put 610 kilowatt-hours into the prop, you need about 720 kilowatt-hours from the batteries. If you used high-dollar lithium batteries, you'd need around 4500 pounds of batteries. If you used plain old lead-acid batteries, you'd need about 63,000 pounds of batteries. My personal opinion, speaking only for myself, is that elemental hydrogen is bogus. If gasoline goes up to one hundred times its current price, hydrogen might be useful, but other than that it's not too great. Nukes won't help aircraft much, but they might make a comeback for feeding the power grid. We have to do something intelligent with the waste, though. QuoteI was vaguely wondering about this the other day. Now jet fuel is pretty similar to diesel/parrafin right? And diesel cars can be run on vegetable oil (or similar), so could we ever have a jumpship running on the waste from the local chippy (suitably filtered of course)? Possibly. I think you'd probably see some mix of biodiesel (veggie oil) and petrodiesel (from crude oil), or at least some additives to the biodiesel to help out at low temperatures. Biodiesel thickens up at higher temperatures than petrodiesel. In cars that run BD100 (100% biodiesel), this is handled one of two ways. When you start up in the morning, you can use a small electric heater to melt a bit of the veggie oil enough so that it can be pumped to the engine. Once you're off and running, the waste heat from the engine (coolant/exhaust) is enough to keep the fuel liquid. The other way is to have a little tank of petrodiesel. Right before you shut the engine down, you switch to the petrodiesel tank and let the engine run for a bit until the lines are full of petrodiesel. Then you shut down. When you come back, you run on petrodiesel until the waste heat has warmed up the biodiesel tank, then you switch back to biodesel. Some people just "cut" their petrodiesel with varying amounts of biodiesel - BD20 (20% bio, 80% petro) seems to be popular. This mix avoids some of the gelling problems, so you don't have to install special hardware on the car. It's not pure renewable, but it makes the nonrenewable stuff go further. The low-temperature problem is worse for jets, because they fly through colder air than most cars ever see. And yes, when a vehicle is running fuel with enough biodiesel in it, the exhaust does smell like French fries or a chip shop. In general, the link I gave above is interesting reading on the basics of energy sources, both for transportation and in general. I don't agree with all of the opinions in it but the facts are pretty sound, I think. EulePLF does not stand for Please Land on Face. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #11 September 8, 2005 QuoteHe buddy, here in the states we call it 'gas', not this 'petrol' stuff. Hey buddy, were this an American website I'm sure Newbie would give a damn. Till then, "gas" can remain a state of matter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #12 September 8, 2005 What about Balloon jumps? ... Wouldn't quite work for a comercial DZ though, not fast enough turn around. Also could you run turbine engines on bio-diesel? (Whoops just saw Jakee's post) (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 561 #13 September 8, 2005 Since jump planes are strictly short-range, you can get by with heavier fuels, just limit fuel tank capacity to 2 hours worth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LongWayToFall 0 #14 September 9, 2005 Its just as easy as dumping grain alcohol into your tank and rejetting. Makes more HP too, just burns about twice as fast. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,448 #15 September 9, 2005 > When will we have planes that run on clean, sustainable energy and not >Jet A, anyone know? Diamond Industries is now selling a Thielert-diesel-powered single and twin, the DA40 and the DA42. Neither is especially good for skydiving, but the technology is certainly there. (Diesels can run on vegetable oil.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skiskyrock 0 #16 September 10, 2005 QuoteNukes won't help aircraft much, but they might make a comeback for feeding the power grid. We have to do something intelligent with the waste, though. Google "Nuclear bomber" sometime. The project got as far as flying a bomber with a functioning reactor aboard. Shielding was a problem, but they envisioned a bomber that stayed airborne continuously and the crews shuttled on and off as they reached their dose limit. Five minutes to altitude, but you'll take 50 rads on the way up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RMURRAY 1 #17 September 12, 2005 Quote> When will we have planes that run on clean, sustainable energy and not >Jet A, anyone know? Diamond Industries is now selling a Thielert-diesel-powered single and twin, the DA40 and the DA42. Neither is especially good for skydiving, but the technology is certainly there. (Diesels can run on vegetable oil.) Thielert will soon have a 350HP twin turbo V8 diesel (runs on JET A) that would be great for a 206. Maybe running on Veg oil it would need to be detuned a bit. Still would probably be a rocket compared to a regular 206 and way more fuel efficient... rm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanglesOZQld 0 #18 September 12, 2005 QUOTE - "Here in the states we call it GAS, not this PETROL stuff......." WELL MOST PEOPLE don't think that a liquid like petroleum is a GAS THEREFORE DON'T CALL IT THAT! Now LPG is another thing........... PETROL IS PETROL PEOPLE! ;) BSBD! -Mark. "A Scar is just a Tattoo with a story!!!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
