EasyJet unveils 'ecoJet'

Erik · Post by **Erik** » 14 Jun 2007, 23:28

A bit noisy apparently, but uses half the amount of fuel?? So now Easyjet will be able to double their number of aircraft?!

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 15 Jun 2007, 08:53

No, Eric, you got the wrong picture. That's the loo brush.

(Easy Jet bloke on the radio this morning, when asked about the noise, said they were quieter.)

Billhook · Post by **Billhook** » 15 Jun 2007, 13:26

How many of those blades are expected to penetrate the passenger cabin
when the jet minces a passing flock of gueesw ?

Regards,

Bill

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 15 Jun 2007, 13:34

No, Bill, wrong way round. The frilly bits are at the back.

Post by **mikepepler** » 15 Jun 2007, 13:55

Bill has a good point though - jet engines are designed to withstand the turbines coming apart inside and keep most of the debris inside them, or dump it out the back. This, on the other hand, could spray it everywhere. not into the passenger cabin, but still not a good idea I think.

We've all heard of "slow food"... why not slow travel?

skeptik · Post by **skeptik** » 15 Jun 2007, 14:52

Billhook wrote:How many of those blades are expected to penetrate the passenger cabin
when the jet minces a passing flock of gueesw ?

Regards,

Bill

I think they thought of that, which is whey they're mounted right at the back rather than under the wings. Talking of mincing... they do remind me of some sort of food slicer. of the type beloved by TV shopping channels worldwide. Should do a good job on a flock of seagulls.

bigtoe · Post by **bigtoe** » 15 Jun 2007, 19:00

It looks a bit like one of these things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propfan

Vortex · Post by **Vortex** » 15 Jun 2007, 22:55

Modern aircraft have Kevlar armour in the cabin walls to catch flying turbine blades ...

Billhook · Post by **Billhook** » 15 Jun 2007, 23:46

My preference for international transport is still for mega airships staying aloft,

apart from annual landings for maintenance & certification,

and circling the planet with the force of the jet-stream,

with ancillary power supplied by solar PV for general on board services.

So far, so simple.

At issue is just what is the optimun form of shuttle craft to shift people & freight

to and from the land as the airships pass nearby.

Any ideas ?

The key advantage is that the sole liquid fuel input would be that used by the shuttle craft,

while the main part of the journeys would be wind driven at several hundred miles per hour.

Regards,

Bill

Post by **clv101** » 16 Jun 2007, 00:07

Why can't the airships go up and down themselves?

Billhook · Post by **Billhook** » 16 Jun 2007, 00:44

Chris -

the difficulties of navigating airships through the weather below 25,000 ft has not been widely publicized,
but in the heydays of the craft it was fairly common for them simply to be carried off -

I was told of how one heading for Berlin that was unable to land before being blown to S Italy, and how the captain was fully exonerated as a matter of course.

In addition to which, the craft could not be optimized for continuous sailing if it were in fact just competing with normal air traffic practices.

Which is not to say that I.m convinced of the idea's viability - for a start it may already be too late to get such a system established.

Regards,

Bill

Erik · Post by **Erik** » 16 Jun 2007, 12:14

Billhook wrote:I was told of how one heading for Berlin that was unable to land before being blown to S Italy

That would certainly make travel very exciting! And to think how much people complain nowadays if they are delayed by a few hours at the airport.

Billhook wrote:Which is not to say that I.m convinced of the idea's viability - for a start it may already be too late to get such a system established.

I'm not convinced at all by the airship idea, I just can't see it.
For freight traffic they would have to be enormous to carry any kind of large load, and would never be able to offer any kind of improvement on rail + sea ship combinations. And as for transporting people, I just think everyone will have to get used to travelling less often, and shorter distances. I think the only planes left flying in a few decades will be military ones.

isenhand · Post by **isenhand** » 18 Jun 2007, 05:59

Billhook wrote:My preference for international transport is still for mega airships staying aloft,

I love airships as well but I was wondering what you thought they would use as gas to hold them aloft?

isenhand · Post by **isenhand** » 18 Jun 2007, 06:02

Erik wrote: I'm not convinced at all by the airship idea, I just can't see it.
For freight traffic they would have to be enormous to carry any kind of large load, and would never be able to offer any kind of improvement on rail + sea ship combinations.

Erik wrote: And as for transporting people, I just think everyone will have to get used to travelling less often, and shorter distances. I think the only planes left flying in a few decades will be military ones.

Fuel? They wouldn?t need any fuel other than what they could generate themselves using solar. Even if they can?t take the heaviest of loads they can still be used for transporting a lot of goods world wide.

Other transport systems could include maglev trans.

Billhook · Post by **Billhook** » 18 Jun 2007, 08:42

Isenhand -

I suspect you may know far more than I about these craft, but I'd assumed that Helium was now the standard choice for fixed envelope LtA vessels,
given that superbly photogenic Hindenburg event.

Are there better options ?

Regards,

Bill