Using diesel will gain you a bit of efficiency, but remember that diesel is a denser fuel which takes more crude to produce
Diesel is a byproduct of refining oil for gas. Diesel, in of it self, is actually dirt cheap to produce.
And already, there is trouble with the refiners trying to keep up with demand.
Here is the rub and the reason why diesel has gone up. New requirements for low sulfur diesel is the single reason diesel is expensive. In the US, only TWO (or is it three) refineries can process and remove sulfur to meet requirements. This has the effect of increasing demand (by law), and reducing supply (limited refineries).
If the government would fine the oil companies a billion/yr, or more, for failing to meet demand, the economic picture would change. Technically speaking, highly processed diesel (low sulfur) should cost about 1/2 what is paid for gas at the pump. Any price much over that is strictly due to price/market manipulations by the oil companies.
I've also never known a water pump in a gas engine to last more than about 4 years.
That was true some two decades ago. These days, water pumps easily last 150,000+ miles on high load, high HP motors. It is not unreasonable to expect, on average, you'll get 8 years out of a water pump these days.
a deflection system designed to make the car ride up and over in an accident
I keep reading this. To me this means much higher likelihood of a rollover, despite the lower CG. Until extensive data can support this is a positive, I'm forced to believe this is actually a negative.
I have little reason to disbelieve auto manufacturers when they say it is impossible to build a 100 MPH automobile
Actually it is very possible to build this vehicle and the auto companies will tell you as much. In fact, they could make this vehicle today. The problem is, they do not believe there is a market for an underpowered, tiny vehicle, which is more expensive to purchase than current cars. In the US, most buyers still equate vehicle size (and weight; see below) with: power, safety, strength, utility, and penis size. In the US, people that buy alternative cars are considered whack-job oddities (tree hugging hippies), that is, up until only recently.
On the other hand, right now, there exists plastics which are stronger than steel commonly used in vehicles today. If they used this, the weight of a vehicle would roughly half overnight. Research is also underway to use these materials for engine blocks too; potentially replacing very expensive and energy intensive aluminum. These plastics have been around for a decade now and have been proved through industrial testing, specifically targeting automotive applications. Much of this testing has been done, or directly funded by, the auto makers themselves.
Long story short, if they wanted to, vehicle weight could have dropped over 60% (plastics plus other innovations) today. Best of all, vehicle repair costs would also significantly drop. With these materials, cars can be made the same sizes buyers actually want. A 60% weight savings alone can translate into huge gas savings.
Granted, there are some significant logistical issues associated with such drastic market/product changes (plastics), but they are addressable. And these technologies are only the tip of the iceberg. Obviously, this represents a huge industry shift, which explains a big part of the industries resistance.
The real story is, if the auto makers really wanted to make a 100mpg vehicle five years ago, people would be driving it today. The real question is, market acceptance. Granted, five years ago, given how they were caught with their SUV pants down, it's doubtful they could have anticipated the current market realities ($115+/barrel for oil).
The reality is, a 100mpg safe vehicle is easily doable with technology available today. Reality comes in two flavors, underpowered go-carts, or high tech cars of tomorrow. Anyone that says otherwise is either ignorant or lying. The trick pony is, how many people will actually buy it, how much will it cost to manufacture and support it, and how much is the customer willing to spend?
Many of the above questions are often ignored. Sure, you can have your 100mpg vehicle, but who is going to support it when breaks? Who is going to service it? Who is going to repair it after a collision? The equation is much, much bigger than getting a 100mpg vehicle on the road. And a big part of that equation is $$$$.
- What if JK Rowling was *already* working-on an encylopedia, with plans to publish it in 2009? In effect, somebody else stole her idea and her labor and her profit. She has every right to get sue the other person for devaluing Rowling's own official 2009 encyclopedia. She has no such right. This is not called stealing. This is called a free market. You are incorrect on every count.
Congress needs to speak to the American corporations moreso than the American people.
You are correct, but that is only a drop in the bucket. Office buildings typically leave theirs lights on to ensure they use MORE energy so they can qualify for various bulk discounts. In other words, for most office buildings in the US, it is actually cheaper to use more energy than it is to conserve.
If Congress needs to speak to anyone, it's the power companies and their huge efforts to ensure corporate conservation does not happen.
Lawyers have made the concept of a flying car all but impossible because of liability concerns. As is, they are the cause of aviation costing *double* what it should.
or another kind of artist, is to share the art, not to make a profit.
This must be why artists seem to resent and completely miss the boat with open licensing. Take a look at projects like PlaneShift where, according to the artists, only the art has value and the code is worthless, therefore worthy to be shared and made available.
I can't tell you how many times I've chatted with artists who feel everything should be free and shared so long as it is not their stuff freely shared. After all, nothing has value unless it is their own.
I am starting to see/read about more artists starting to "get it". Projects like Blender are certainly helping to change their minds. But for now, by in large, I don't artists tend to agree with your position.
In the US, 100LL is closer to $4/g. Training under the FAA tends to require 70-hours on average (expect $3K-6K in training costs). Many airports have curtesy cars and others have rentals. From a maintenance perspective, that mostly depends on the type of aircraft but your point is legitimate.
Nonetheless, it is possible to fly your own plane for less than commercial travel, which was the original point. Other factors will largely determine if you believe it is worth it.
No, the quoted text from TechReport doesn't say anything about how well the CPU works. It suggests that some applications were coded with performance hacks for two- or four-core systems and didn't deal too well with having three.
That can't be. At worst, the application would run slower as one CPU would be forced to work double duty. The problem was likely simple hardware incompatibility. For example, the documentation on most SMP capable BIOSs specifically state to not mix CPU types (e.g. SMP capable/non-capable). By mixing a SMP capable CPU and one non-capable CPU, it very likely broke things. And even if the hardware was capable, it likely confused the hell out of the BIOS. And a confused BIOS is likely to confuse the hell out of the OS when it attempts to determine the state and capabilities of the hardware.
Based on hardware capabilities, the OS may or may not perform specific initializations. This in turn may lean the OS in an unexpected state as the combination is likely not valid or simply never been properly tested. After all, who wants to spend time testing invalid hardware configurations?
No, my money is on the author being clueless, mistaken, misinformed, or all the above.
Being scorched by molten metal at high velocity is not how I'd want to go. Then you are fully qualified to be a tank driver. About the only way you die is blow up, have molten copper go through you, get splatted against the inside from an over pressure strong enough to throw tens of tons hundreds of feet into the air, or a secondary explosion (your ammo) set off from one of the above.
I wonder if this would be ruled inhumane. As if it's any worse than a nuke, just on a smaller scale. Nope. Doubtful. Such deaths already happen on the battlefield.
Maybe there are things that could be considered, " Flying cars", but, certainly nothing as cost effective, convenient, or safe as to be accessible to the common man. Let's face it: The flying cars are fail. Right now I'd be happy with a car that was cheaper than taking a commercial airline on a mile for mile basis. That's already available in airplanes, so long as you ignore the initial investment in the plane.
Something to keep in mind is that most cars produce a lifting body action because of the shape of their under carriage. At really high speeds, this is often enough to cause problems ranging from minor loss of steering to flipping a vehicle.
If you will allow me to *play* with some *imaginary* numbers, let's say the upward force, from the lifting action is 200lbs and the downward force on the rear is 100lbs. You are still at a net loss of 100lbs. Worse, while traction may be improved, it likely further reduced steering effectiveness because the increased angle of attack.
Obviously, a net loss of 100lbs is far better than a net loss of 200lbs, but it is still not a net gain. Once you experience a net gain, you now have an effective spoiler. 100lbs to the negative is not an effective spoiler.
You, like so many supposedly "rational" people, have fallen into the aerodynamics trap.
LOL. *sigh* What I stated is from a car designer specializing in aerodynamics. But I sure his math has fallen into your superior trap. Should I roll my eyes now or latter? LOL.
Rally cars rarely top 100 mph, and yet feature prominent wings and other aero devices
Your own statement indicates you've missed the boat. The wings on rally cars are prominent and they normally lift them higher so as to move them INTO the slipstream of the car (remember, like all wings, air must actually move OVER it to be effective). While the air is unstable, it still can produce a downward force. Given their speeds, an unstable downward force is still better than no downward force. By moving it higher, they are effectively reducing the speed required for the wing to become effective.
I suggest you find some videos of cars being aerodynamically tested with smoke. Notice at highway speed tests, the smoke is generally no where near the rear wing on a normal production car. For the wing to be effective, the smoke must be traveling directly over it, or under it (meaning it is outside the vehicle's slip stream, which is ideal placement; excluding drag).
The rest of your comment can be ignored because it is not about production streets cars, as was the topic. The body of F1 cars are specifically designed, including the under carriage to produce suction (sucking it to the ground) and are completely off topic, as is the rest of your post. Production cars are too high off the ground to benefit from this strategy, which then allows them to use small, more strategically placed wings to great effect.
As for the 200mph club, actually, HP is the easy part of the equation. It's well known how to roughly calculate the required HP to overcome estimated drag. The biggest problem people have is aerodynamic stability and traction on the salt flats...which is why wings and aerodynamics are important. As more and more production sports cars break the ~600hp (generally considered the rule of thumb lower limit), and are more and more aerodynamic, more production sports cars are joining the 200mph club.
I suggest you go out and do some more reading on the subject. By in large, wings on production vehicles are there strictly for cosmetics as the vehicle will normally never see an effective speed. Once poster did point out that they may be there to aid aerodynamic efficiency (fuel economy, and he was right). Yes, there may be exceptions as with any rule of thumb...but it seems you still missed the boat.
I believe most will disagree with you. It is directly because of the FAA that awesome airplanes like the Starship have been relegated to bone yards. The FAA is the source of much stupidity and significant expense for general aviation. The FAA is largely the reason much of general aviation is still flying with circa-1950s technology. They are also the second largest reason improved products are slowly introduced to the general aviation community.
Lawyers are the reason most large corporations have exited the General Aviation (GA) market. This in turn drove up the price of aviation because of lot of cross-over technologies no longer enter the GA cockpit. Lawyers are the reason all things aviation cost twice what they would otherwise. The FAA adds an extra 20%-100% to the cost of all things aviation; before it gets double for liability. If the FAA simply did their job product costs could drop 15% - 70% before it gets doubled. In turn, the market would naturally adopt products with safer histories...which simply does not happen today because innovation is not allowed.
That's correct. You'd be amazed how slowly a jet engine takes to spin back up. To go from idle to full throttle can take several seconds and then the aircraft still requires time to accelerate. A rocket engine allows for idle to full throttle almost instantaneously. Jet engines basically suffer from a kind of "turbo lag."
So not only can a rocket engine produce more thrust for its size, it can also produce that thrust much more quickly.
People can take what, 9G's of continuous acceleration?
Only for short periods of time. You find the upper limit is around 6Gs for your "typical" (fighter jock) person. Some can take 7 or perhaps 8Gs for short durations. With a G-suit, 9Gs become possible, but again, only for very short durations. Of course, a G-suit makes taking lessor Gs easier.
Resisting 8Gs-9Gs is one of the hardest workouts you can imagine.
I for one would certainly feel safe in a vehicle built and flown by someone who didn't realise that an airplane is generally bigger than a doorway
I know you're joking but the reason for this is because people often take a decade to build their plane. This means they build it in their garage. Otherwise, they'd be paying for a very expensive hangar at an airport for the entire build. While that likely means they would build it faster, it also means it would be a second jobs rather than a labor of love.
Even after saying that, it is extremely rare for walls to have to be removed to get the aircraft out of their garage. More often than not, it is because someone built it inside their home because they didn't have a garage or room in their garage to spare.
I'm curious to know how that's possible. Last I heard, the FAA (in the US at least) have very tight regulations and certification requirements.
That's the magic word, "certification". Experimental aircraft are just that...and they are not certified. This does not necessarily mean they are dangerous. The words, "experimental" must be visibly placard and all passengers must be notified of aircraft's experimental status.
It can take years and hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars just to break through all the legal red tape. In fact, I hear these expenditures dwarf that of R&D and material costs combined for a small company. Let's not forget that it also takes years just to pass certification on new designs.
And that is exactly why certified generation aviation is so far behind modern technology. This is also why an engine designed in the 1950s or perhaps the 1960s costs $25,000 - $75,000 to replace. If it were not for the FAA's certification process and scummy lawyers in general who literally double the cost of all things aviation related, that same engine would cost $10,000 - $30,000 and be far more safe and reliable. And keep in mind, with these engines, the pilot must still manually control basic things like air/fuel mixture. Heck, just fuel injection is still considered a big step up in economy and performance. If you want electronic control (FADEC), expect to add an extra $40,000 - $80,000 to the cost of your engine; if it is even available for your engine/aircraft combination.
Once you step outside of the certified arena, suddenly a whole new gambit of newer, better, and safer level of modern technology becomes available. Yet the vast majority of this technology is strictly prohibited in a certified aircraft.
As an example, thanks to the FAA, instrument rated aircraft must purchase certified clocks. This made sense forty years ago when reliable, electro-mechanical clocks were hard to find. These days, $100-$400 dollars buys you a clock which may lose seconds to minutes in a day, assuming it stays running for the entire flight. Yes, that very expensive and unreliable clock the FAA requires is actually less reliable and less accurate than the average, cheap watch people wear today. Yet, non-certified aircraft get the pleasure of a modern, highly reliable, highly precise clock for $20-$100; depending on the number of cool extras (timers, count down/up) thrown in. And if you wonder how important a clock is, watch "Hunt for Red October" and take note of them maneuvering the sub by stop-watch. It is the same for planes flying by instruments.
Don't forget, the FAA's moto is, "We're not happy until you're not happy." Even worse is, in the last decade, the FAA was been working hard to actually endanger the skies (recent inspections in the news is the tip of the iceberg) rather than actually improve public safety. The FAA is working hard to avoid Congressional oversight would allows them to publicly be seen in bed with the airlines. For the last decade, they've been forced to meet in cheap motel rooms.
If it were not for inspectors breaking the news, the public would have continued to fly un-inspected and dangerous aircraft, with the FAA's unofficial wink and nod.
Lastly, don't think that plane owners are rich, wealthy men with top hats and cigars. The majority of pilots make less than $40,000 a year. You can actually own a nice, certified plane, for less than the price of a new SUV or less. Granted, this will be a used aircraft, but it is important to remember, aircraft are maintained far better than cars and in most cases, better than homes. The older aircraft fleet's safety record is on par with newer aircraft.
On your typical car, rear wings are completely ineffective unless speeds of 120-150MPH are reached. And at that point, it only starting to exert any significant down pressure. On production sports cars, the effective speed is somewhat lowered to 100-125.
In reality, the rear wing on most any streetable car is there strictly for cosmetics.
What's even more funny are the cars that have wings that pop up and down (some Porches and Crossfire, for example). The mechanism can't support more than 200lbs of downward force yet were supposed to believe it helps the handling of the vehicle. To be effective, these things really need to exert many, many hundreds, if not thousands of lbs of downward force. Remember, it needs to counteract the forces which are attempting to lift the vehicle off the ground. This is one of many reasons why breaking 200mph is so dang hard. It also explains why the 200-club is still so small, even at point in time.
Now, contrast that with wings on dragsters. Make note of where the wings are typically placed and the overall scale of it. Notice it is placed directly into or above the slipstream of the vehicle; which is in stark contrast to most production vehicles, where it is placed well under the slipstream of a vehicle at any legal street speed.
The ship was doomed before it ever left the shipyards. It seems the steel used for the hull was also substandard. In the cold, icy waters, it seems the low grade steel becomes extremely brittle. This is believed to have made the collision damage much, much worse. It is also believed to be the cause of the ship breaking up.
Many Merchant vessels used during WWII are also believed to have been lost in the Atlantic because of the same low grade steel used to speed construction. During the way, at least it was a decision made out of necessity; because of material availability.
Slashdot Mirror
Using diesel will gain you a bit of efficiency, but remember that diesel is a denser fuel which takes more crude to produce
Diesel is a byproduct of refining oil for gas. Diesel, in of it self, is actually dirt cheap to produce.
And already, there is trouble with the refiners trying to keep up with demand.
Here is the rub and the reason why diesel has gone up. New requirements for low sulfur diesel is the single reason diesel is expensive. In the US, only TWO (or is it three) refineries can process and remove sulfur to meet requirements. This has the effect of increasing demand (by law), and reducing supply (limited refineries).
If the government would fine the oil companies a billion/yr, or more, for failing to meet demand, the economic picture would change. Technically speaking, highly processed diesel (low sulfur) should cost about 1/2 what is paid for gas at the pump. Any price much over that is strictly due to price/market manipulations by the oil companies.
I've also never known a water pump in a gas engine to last more than about 4 years.
That was true some two decades ago. These days, water pumps easily last 150,000+ miles on high load, high HP motors. It is not unreasonable to expect, on average, you'll get 8 years out of a water pump these days.
I'm sorry, but that's far from a fair comparison.
a deflection system designed to make the car ride up and over in an accident
I keep reading this. To me this means much higher likelihood of a rollover, despite the lower CG. Until extensive data can support this is a positive, I'm forced to believe this is actually a negative.
Well, it's actually 55 m.p.h. freeway traffic
I assumed he was talking about actual traffic speeds rather than posted limits.
I have little reason to disbelieve auto manufacturers when they say it is impossible to build a 100 MPH automobile
Actually it is very possible to build this vehicle and the auto companies will tell you as much. In fact, they could make this vehicle today. The problem is, they do not believe there is a market for an underpowered, tiny vehicle, which is more expensive to purchase than current cars. In the US, most buyers still equate vehicle size (and weight; see below) with: power, safety, strength, utility, and penis size. In the US, people that buy alternative cars are considered whack-job oddities (tree hugging hippies), that is, up until only recently.
On the other hand, right now, there exists plastics which are stronger than steel commonly used in vehicles today. If they used this, the weight of a vehicle would roughly half overnight. Research is also underway to use these materials for engine blocks too; potentially replacing very expensive and energy intensive aluminum. These plastics have been around for a decade now and have been proved through industrial testing, specifically targeting automotive applications. Much of this testing has been done, or directly funded by, the auto makers themselves.
Long story short, if they wanted to, vehicle weight could have dropped over 60% (plastics plus other innovations) today. Best of all, vehicle repair costs would also significantly drop. With these materials, cars can be made the same sizes buyers actually want. A 60% weight savings alone can translate into huge gas savings.
Granted, there are some significant logistical issues associated with such drastic market/product changes (plastics), but they are addressable. And these technologies are only the tip of the iceberg. Obviously, this represents a huge industry shift, which explains a big part of the industries resistance.
The real story is, if the auto makers really wanted to make a 100mpg vehicle five years ago, people would be driving it today. The real question is, market acceptance. Granted, five years ago, given how they were caught with their SUV pants down, it's doubtful they could have anticipated the current market realities ($115+/barrel for oil).
The reality is, a 100mpg safe vehicle is easily doable with technology available today. Reality comes in two flavors, underpowered go-carts, or high tech cars of tomorrow. Anyone that says otherwise is either ignorant or lying. The trick pony is, how many people will actually buy it, how much will it cost to manufacture and support it, and how much is the customer willing to spend?
Many of the above questions are often ignored. Sure, you can have your 100mpg vehicle, but who is going to support it when breaks? Who is going to service it? Who is going to repair it after a collision? The equation is much, much bigger than getting a 100mpg vehicle on the road. And a big part of that equation is $$$$.
- What if JK Rowling was *already* working-on an encylopedia, with plans to publish it in 2009? In effect, somebody else stole her idea and her labor and her profit. She has every right to get sue the other person for devaluing Rowling's own official 2009 encyclopedia. She has no such right. This is not called stealing. This is called a free market. You are incorrect on every count.
Congress needs to speak to the American corporations moreso than the American people.
You are correct, but that is only a drop in the bucket. Office buildings typically leave theirs lights on to ensure they use MORE energy so they can qualify for various bulk discounts. In other words, for most office buildings in the US, it is actually cheaper to use more energy than it is to conserve.
If Congress needs to speak to anyone, it's the power companies and their huge efforts to ensure corporate conservation does not happen.
Hehehe. Cute.
Lawyers have made the concept of a flying car all but impossible because of liability concerns. As is, they are the cause of aviation costing *double* what it should.
or another kind of artist, is to share the art, not to make a profit.
This must be why artists seem to resent and completely miss the boat with open licensing. Take a look at projects like PlaneShift where, according to the artists, only the art has value and the code is worthless, therefore worthy to be shared and made available.
I can't tell you how many times I've chatted with artists who feel everything should be free and shared so long as it is not their stuff freely shared. After all, nothing has value unless it is their own.
I am starting to see/read about more artists starting to "get it". Projects like Blender are certainly helping to change their minds. But for now, by in large, I don't artists tend to agree with your position.
In the US, 100LL is closer to $4/g. Training under the FAA tends to require 70-hours on average (expect $3K-6K in training costs). Many airports have curtesy cars and others have rentals. From a maintenance perspective, that mostly depends on the type of aircraft but your point is legitimate.
Nonetheless, it is possible to fly your own plane for less than commercial travel, which was the original point. Other factors will largely determine if you believe it is worth it.
Ya, I started to provide a little more detail but was rushed.
History shows the original comment is correct until religion it self becomes the reason for violence.
No, the quoted text from TechReport doesn't say anything about how well the CPU works. It suggests that some applications were coded with performance hacks for two- or four-core systems and didn't deal too well with having three.
That can't be. At worst, the application would run slower as one CPU would be forced to work double duty. The problem was likely simple hardware incompatibility. For example, the documentation on most SMP capable BIOSs specifically state to not mix CPU types (e.g. SMP capable/non-capable). By mixing a SMP capable CPU and one non-capable CPU, it very likely broke things. And even if the hardware was capable, it likely confused the hell out of the BIOS. And a confused BIOS is likely to confuse the hell out of the OS when it attempts to determine the state and capabilities of the hardware.Based on hardware capabilities, the OS may or may not perform specific initializations. This in turn may lean the OS in an unexpected state as the combination is likely not valid or simply never been properly tested. After all, who wants to spend time testing invalid hardware configurations?
No, my money is on the author being clueless, mistaken, misinformed, or all the above.
(Yes, I'm an engineer. And, I admit, I'm slacking.)
Sorry, but you are wrong. The lack of flying cars is the failure of lawyers.History shows you are likely correct.
Something to keep in mind is that most cars produce a lifting body action because of the shape of their under carriage. At really high speeds, this is often enough to cause problems ranging from minor loss of steering to flipping a vehicle.
If you will allow me to *play* with some *imaginary* numbers, let's say the upward force, from the lifting action is 200lbs and the downward force on the rear is 100lbs. You are still at a net loss of 100lbs. Worse, while traction may be improved, it likely further reduced steering effectiveness because the increased angle of attack.
Obviously, a net loss of 100lbs is far better than a net loss of 200lbs, but it is still not a net gain. Once you experience a net gain, you now have an effective spoiler. 100lbs to the negative is not an effective spoiler.
*sigh*
You, like so many supposedly "rational" people, have fallen into the aerodynamics trap.
LOL. *sigh* What I stated is from a car designer specializing in aerodynamics. But I sure his math has fallen into your superior trap. Should I roll my eyes now or latter? LOL.
Rally cars rarely top 100 mph, and yet feature prominent wings and other aero devices
Your own statement indicates you've missed the boat. The wings on rally cars are prominent and they normally lift them higher so as to move them INTO the slipstream of the car (remember, like all wings, air must actually move OVER it to be effective). While the air is unstable, it still can produce a downward force. Given their speeds, an unstable downward force is still better than no downward force. By moving it higher, they are effectively reducing the speed required for the wing to become effective.
I suggest you find some videos of cars being aerodynamically tested with smoke. Notice at highway speed tests, the smoke is generally no where near the rear wing on a normal production car. For the wing to be effective, the smoke must be traveling directly over it, or under it (meaning it is outside the vehicle's slip stream, which is ideal placement; excluding drag).
The rest of your comment can be ignored because it is not about production streets cars, as was the topic. The body of F1 cars are specifically designed, including the under carriage to produce suction (sucking it to the ground) and are completely off topic, as is the rest of your post. Production cars are too high off the ground to benefit from this strategy, which then allows them to use small, more strategically placed wings to great effect.
As for the 200mph club, actually, HP is the easy part of the equation. It's well known how to roughly calculate the required HP to overcome estimated drag. The biggest problem people have is aerodynamic stability and traction on the salt flats...which is why wings and aerodynamics are important. As more and more production sports cars break the ~600hp (generally considered the rule of thumb lower limit), and are more and more aerodynamic, more production sports cars are joining the 200mph club.
I suggest you go out and do some more reading on the subject. By in large, wings on production vehicles are there strictly for cosmetics as the vehicle will normally never see an effective speed. Once poster did point out that they may be there to aid aerodynamic efficiency (fuel economy, and he was right). Yes, there may be exceptions as with any rule of thumb...but it seems you still missed the boat.
More importantly, they figured out where they could re-enforce the super structure with additional, higher quality steel AND those improved welds. ;)
FAA certification really isn't that onerous.
I believe most will disagree with you. It is directly because of the FAA that awesome airplanes like the Starship have been relegated to bone yards. The FAA is the source of much stupidity and significant expense for general aviation. The FAA is largely the reason much of general aviation is still flying with circa-1950s technology. They are also the second largest reason improved products are slowly introduced to the general aviation community.
Lawyers are the reason most large corporations have exited the General Aviation (GA) market. This in turn drove up the price of aviation because of lot of cross-over technologies no longer enter the GA cockpit. Lawyers are the reason all things aviation cost twice what they would otherwise. The FAA adds an extra 20%-100% to the cost of all things aviation; before it gets double for liability. If the FAA simply did their job product costs could drop 15% - 70% before it gets doubled. In turn, the market would naturally adopt
products with safer histories...which simply does not happen today because innovation is not allowed.
they also have a much higher impulse?
That's correct. You'd be amazed how slowly a jet engine takes to spin back up. To go from idle to full throttle can take several seconds and then the aircraft still requires time to accelerate. A rocket engine allows for idle to full throttle almost instantaneously. Jet engines basically suffer from a kind of "turbo lag."
So not only can a rocket engine produce more thrust for its size, it can also produce that thrust much more quickly.
People can take what, 9G's of continuous acceleration?
Only for short periods of time. You find the upper limit is around 6Gs for your "typical" (fighter jock) person. Some can take 7 or perhaps 8Gs for short durations. With a G-suit, 9Gs become possible, but again, only for very short durations. Of course, a G-suit makes taking lessor Gs easier.
Resisting 8Gs-9Gs is one of the hardest workouts you can imagine.
I for one would certainly feel safe in a vehicle built and flown by someone who didn't realise that an airplane is generally bigger than a doorway
I know you're joking but the reason for this is because people often take a decade to build their plane. This means they build it in their garage. Otherwise, they'd be paying for a very expensive hangar at an airport for the entire build. While that likely means they would build it faster, it also means it would be a second jobs rather than a labor of love.
Even after saying that, it is extremely rare for walls to have to be removed to get the aircraft out of their garage. More often than not, it is because someone built it inside their home because they didn't have a garage or room in their garage to spare.
I'm curious to know how that's possible. Last I heard, the FAA (in the US at least) have very tight regulations and certification requirements.
That's the magic word, "certification". Experimental aircraft are just that...and they are not certified. This does not necessarily mean they are dangerous. The words, "experimental" must be visibly placard and all passengers must be notified of aircraft's experimental status.
It can take years and hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars just to break through all the legal red tape. In fact, I hear these expenditures dwarf that of R&D and material costs combined for a small company. Let's not forget that it also takes years just to pass certification on new designs.
And that is exactly why certified generation aviation is so far behind modern technology. This is also why an engine designed in the 1950s or perhaps the 1960s costs $25,000 - $75,000 to replace. If it were not for the FAA's certification process and scummy lawyers in general who literally double the cost of all things aviation related, that same engine would cost $10,000 - $30,000 and be far more safe and reliable. And keep in mind, with these engines, the pilot must still manually control basic things like air/fuel mixture. Heck, just fuel injection is still considered a big step up in economy and performance. If you want electronic control (FADEC), expect to add an extra $40,000 - $80,000 to the cost of your engine; if it is even available for your engine/aircraft combination.
Once you step outside of the certified arena, suddenly a whole new gambit of newer, better, and safer level of modern technology becomes available. Yet the vast majority of this technology is strictly prohibited in a certified aircraft.
As an example, thanks to the FAA, instrument rated aircraft must purchase certified clocks. This made sense forty years ago when reliable, electro-mechanical clocks were hard to find. These days, $100-$400 dollars buys you a clock which may lose seconds to minutes in a day, assuming it stays running for the entire flight. Yes, that very expensive and unreliable clock the FAA requires is actually less reliable and less accurate than the average, cheap watch people wear today. Yet, non-certified aircraft get the pleasure of a modern, highly reliable, highly precise clock for $20-$100; depending on the number of cool extras (timers, count down/up) thrown in. And if you wonder how important a clock is, watch "Hunt for Red October" and take note of them maneuvering the sub by stop-watch. It is the same for planes flying by instruments.
Don't forget, the FAA's moto is, "We're not happy until you're not happy." Even worse is, in the last decade, the FAA was been working hard to actually endanger the skies (recent inspections in the news is the tip of the iceberg) rather than actually improve public safety. The FAA is working hard to avoid Congressional oversight would allows them to publicly be seen in bed with the airlines. For the last decade, they've been forced to meet in cheap motel rooms.
If it were not for inspectors breaking the news, the public would have continued to fly un-inspected and dangerous aircraft, with the FAA's unofficial wink and nod.
Lastly, don't think that plane owners are rich, wealthy men with top hats and cigars. The majority of pilots make less than $40,000 a year. You can actually own a nice, certified plane, for less than the price of a new SUV or less. Granted, this will be a used aircraft, but it is important to remember, aircraft are maintained far better than cars and in most cases, better than homes. The older aircraft fleet's safety record is on par with newer aircraft.
On your typical car, rear wings are completely ineffective unless speeds of 120-150MPH are reached. And at that point, it only starting to exert any significant down pressure. On production sports cars, the effective speed is somewhat lowered to 100-125.
In reality, the rear wing on most any streetable car is there strictly for cosmetics.
What's even more funny are the cars that have wings that pop up and down (some Porches and Crossfire, for example). The mechanism can't support more than 200lbs of downward force yet were supposed to believe it helps the handling of the vehicle. To be effective, these things really need to exert many, many hundreds, if not thousands of lbs of downward force. Remember, it needs to counteract the forces which are attempting to lift the vehicle off the ground. This is one of many reasons why breaking 200mph is so dang hard. It also explains why the 200-club is still so small, even at point in time.
Now, contrast that with wings on dragsters. Make note of where the wings are typically placed and the overall scale of it. Notice it is placed directly into or above the slipstream of the vehicle; which is in stark contrast to most production vehicles, where it is placed well under the slipstream of a vehicle at any legal street speed.
The ship was doomed before it ever left the shipyards. It seems the steel used for the hull was also substandard. In the cold, icy waters, it seems the low grade steel becomes extremely brittle. This is believed to have made the collision damage much, much worse. It is also believed to be the cause of the ship breaking up.
Many Merchant vessels used during WWII are also believed to have been lost in the Atlantic because of the same low grade steel used to speed construction. During the way, at least it was a decision made out of necessity; because of material availability.