Jump to content

'Flight shaming' and the ethics of recreational flying?


Recommended Posts

...all the nanby panby do gooders who want to change the world and change it NOW. 

 

What a disappointing attitude and quite insulting to the many thoughtful people who actually care about our future.

 

...There is way too much money being earnt by the climate change screamers its a pure economy by itself...

 

Crikey Mark, where do you get this guff? The fossil fuel lobby outspends the climate change movement by miles.

 

...most people forget that around the world there are plenty of cities that have the population of australia in them..we are just a dot on the map...

 

True, but the world takes notice of small countries that use their brains.

 

 Greater Sydney has more people than the globally-influential nation of Singapore.

 

Israel, Sweden, Finland and Switzerland are tiny compared to Australia, yet the world listens to them.

 

...Why totally wreck our economy...

 

Innovative, intelligent blokes like you will prosper when Australia breaks free of the corrupt hold over us held by the cashed-up coal lobby, dependent as it is on the near monopoly of the amoral Murdoch media empire.

 

We will be far better off when our economy diversifies away from dependence on selling fossil fuels- a market that has a very bleak future.

 

 

  • Like 5
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 217
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

DOG (Diesel on gas) is probably still about but has dropped off the horizon a bit. The engine runs cleaner and oil stays cleaner and with less diesel knock and delivers more power so the  cooling system may be under  what is required, at the output limit. Often the turbo is dialled back to  (near) the original output. The gas % is quite low.  so the savings may not be a lot. . TOWN gas may be an option if you have  a large volume available as it's not compressed much. Gas prices have gone upwards of what they used to be, but near Melbourne it's still giving some of the best $/Km I can achieve with anything for getting me around.. GAS doesn't suit all engines. It's harder on valve seats. if they aren't made of reasonable material. Nev 

 

That might have been the case in the 1970s, and might still be the case with someone driving an older vehicle on LPGas but the NOx and PM emission levels will be of a ratio of 100 vs 3 for today's engines.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's only one simple solution for light aircraft power, and it follows car design - hybrid power.

 

I personally believe there will be a time, soon, where a hybrid power alternative will provide a viable option to pure IC engine power for aircraft.

 

The hybrid option will also offer a lower emissions level, thus playing a part in cleaning up our atmosphere.

 

Parallel hybrid architecture offers immediate gains via electrification, but series architecture may overtake parallel in the distant future.

 

What is going to happen, I believe, is that hybrid power will lead to a range totally new and innovative light aircraft designs, that will take advantage of hybrid power unit design, ducted props power gains, and various other technologies, to raise efficiencies to entirely new levels.

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181127171416.htm

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
What a disappointing attitude and quite insulting to the many thoughtful people who actually care about our future.

 

Not at all... its a difference of opinion on how others want it now and dont think about the time required or the dollars required to get it as soon as you can to help the problems we are faced with. If more of these "screamers" out there actually looked at what is behind every solution they would realise it cant happen now. I am just over totally all this. All they want to do is glue themselves to the roads and bridges and totally screw up functioning of a city when their efforts would be better to go back to school or university and actually learn something to help try to solve the problems

 

Crikey Mark, where do you get this guff? The fossil fuel lobby outspends the climate change movement by miles.

 

Its not guff at all...I agree the coal lobby and media is powerfull but you are not going to overcome them so it has to be done by other means...I dont see Al Gore spending his hundreds of millions of dollars putting his money where his mouth is either not to mention all the grubby scientists out there accepting money from both sides just to feather their nests instead of getting to solve these issues

 

True, but the world takes notice of small countries that use their brains.

 

 Greater Sydney has more people than the globally-influential nation of Singapore.

 

Israel, Sweden, Finland and Switzerland are tiny compared to Australia, yet the world listens to them

 

Sydney 5.3 million

 

Singapore 5.8 million

 

Israel 8.7 million

 

Sweden  10.2 million

 

Finland  5.5 million

 

Switzerland 8.57 million

 

All of the above countries are way advanced in front of us in doing research and development and their basic educations are far better than ours. A huge amount of new tech comes from those places because they do spend the money to make smarter people....not sure about what you see down there but our country is becoming dumbed down by the "do gooders" who want all the lovey feely crap at school. Those above countries push their populations to be better .. we dont. I really dread whats happening here I see it every single day in the people I deal with due to my work. Engineers are dumb now. What happens when all of us older generation with experience are gone. You can not tell these smart arses what will work and what wont because they know better than you they read it in a book. I get so frustrated at this you would not believe how much...probably because I see it almost every day

 

Innovative, intelligent blokes like you will prosper when Australia breaks free of the corrupt hold over us held by the cashed-up coal lobby, dependent as it is on the near monopoly of the amoral Murdoch media empire.

 

We will be far better off when our economy diversifies away from dependence on selling fossil fuels- a market that has a very bleak future.

 

I agree totally on this. I have never said at all we shouldnt be doing it...I do design and development where I work now and the product we make is blowing everyone away and we are increasing our output by 35% per year for the last 4 years. The reason is I try to innovate..I dont copy and come up with new methods and ideas to make the product better. My problem is I dont see this happening in the industries that we need to be advanced. I said before if you have a problem throw money at it. My development budget at work literally has no limits on me what I want to achieve. The rewards are shown in what goes out the door. I see this as my normal and I dont see why it should not be the normal to solve the issues we have now with climate change and how to at least slow it. The world cash pot needs to be redirected to do this. But it doesnt happen NOW and all the wokes want it NOW..this is the bit that gets right up my ribs. Innovation takes time you cant rub a teapot and the genie pops out. I am a realist not a dreamer

 

Sorry for the drift on this thread but I get worked up about this...I do yell at the idiot box too I am afraid when I see the stuff the media sensationalizes all the time just to have a story.

 

Electric is the way it will all go but the power source is the problem. There is not enough being put into this to get it done. I could go on for hours about this as I am passionate too about it but the obstacles standing in the way of getting it done are just too huge the way our country is structured and run

 

Sorry for the venting... I am going back to work on Mabel

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mark there is a quite a bit we agree on. Let's continue this debate on the WUA site, under the title

 

How can Australia become the Innovative Nation as once promised?

 

Good idea

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"when Australia breaks free of the corrupt hold over us held by the cashed-up coal lobby, "

 

Thatcher did a major killing on the English coal industry. LOTS of victims emigrated,  Welcome to this wonderful Warm country. are we to be moved on again ?.

 

"The hybrid option will also offer a lower emissions level, thus playing a part in cleaning up our atmosphere. "

 

SO, 5 HP petrol donkey, making 35HP electric motor to drive my HummelBird, Sounds too good to be True.

 

OR 

 

A 5 mile long, (8.04672 klmtrs)  electric lead, (Like tethered control line models)  should be OK for circuit training in a electric powered aircraft ?.

 

( Put the wind sock in the centre for the power-pole)

 

spacesailor

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
There's only one simple solution for light aircraft power, and it follows car design - hybrid power.

 

I personally believe there will be a time, soon, where a hybrid power alternative will provide a viable option to pure IC engine power for aircraft.

 

The hybrid option will also offer a lower emissions level, thus playing a part in cleaning up our atmosphere.

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181127171416.htm

 

Hybrid works for cars in traffic because there are long periods of low or no power consumption and energy can be recovered thru regen braking. Aircraft as you would know Onetrack operate at 65% or better of rated power 99% of the time, there will never be any energy saving from the extra weight of generator, motor and battery regardless of how efficient these systems (battery) become.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Thatcher did a major killing on the English coal industry. LOTS of victims emigrated,  Welcome to this wonderful Warm country. are we to be moved on again ?.

 

And in the first quarter of 2019, coal was only 3.5% of the UK's energy mix. (source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/812626/Press_Notice_June_19.pdf)

 

Like John Howard, Thatcher was a destructive conservative who got one thing right in their life.  Howard's was gun control, Thatcher's was putting environmental issues in the public mind.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
We don’t need to read ridiculous posts from amateur politicians, or leftist catch cries about non-existent “lobbies”. They belong on What’s Up.

 

 

 

Is that the royal "we"?

 

Signed, your local leftist amateur politician.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If there's going to be a punch-up on this thread, please let me know. I'll grab some popcorn and watch because there is sweet FA on tele, that's for sure.....

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thruster, the hybrid system works, Diamond have proven the concept with one of the new small Wankels producing 30Kw, and driving a generator. 

 

A 70Kw electric motor is provided with power via a battery pack, plus the Wankel power, for takeoff.

 

Once in cruise, the Wankel recharges the battery, while the electric motor provides the propulsion.

 

And of course, you have regenerative charging power on descent - plus the chances of an electric motor failure is much less than an IC engine.

 

https://www.machinedesign.com/markets/energy/article/21831674/hybrid-aircraft-proves-gaselectric-flight-is-practical

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Read about this recently   http://hy4.org/

 

Can cross the Atlantic on 8 kgs of Hydrogen.  1 kg of hydrogen costs 9 Euro per kilogram (Euro).  The only byproduct is water when the aircraft is in operation

 

The hydrogen is generated by wind turbines of a night-time when there is lower electricity demand.  Ideally it would be an ocean wind turbine generating the hydrogen because it can use the saltwater for the process (I don't pretend to know how this works on just repeating what I read)

 

Expected to cross the Atlantic for under €100 before the end of 2020.

 

More.  https://hydrogeneurope.eu/aviation-0

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
It’s all hypothetical and pointless. 

The  big thing is that Australia’s total CO2 production is about 1 % of the earths anthropogenic total (which needs to be dropped by 45% to make any difference. )

This includes the minuscule amount made by the negligible number of recreational aircraft.  ( And no one should be allowed to bring up that STUPID statement that Aussie have the highest per capital production. That’s a scientifically idiotic statement because the climate is changed by the total mass of greenhouse gases not by how many people made it. It doesn’t care whether one person, or twenty million make the  amount only the total amount present. ) 

 

 

So even if we ceased ALL production of CO2 instantly it would make zero difference because it would only drop the rest world CO2 lowered production requirement from 45 to 44% of total. And make exactly no difference at all. 

Throw into the mix that the three biggest emitters ( USA, China and India) make more CO2 in a week than we make in a year and all their emissions are rising - and the elephant in the room that no one in Australia wants to mention is that there is nothing we can do to change anything - beyond hold the high moral ground ( and remember that apart from us here in Australia here, (we think we a big players in the world ) in fact most of the rest of the world has no clue who we are, where we are, and much more couldn't give a stuff what we say or do) 

 

Sure we can hold some moral position based on the glowing halos we have over our heads but we shouldn’t beat ourselves up, nor allow ourselves to be beaten up by others, because we have toys that emit probably less gases than the collective lawn mowers of the rest of the population. 

 

Very well said, I agree completely -:) Climate Change has been happening since the Earth was formed, we are but a spec (time wise) in its evolvement! We can do zip about it! Hydrocarbon machines (planes for us) will be around well beyond everyone reading these pages! EP is evolving yes but in a very small limited capacity. For now though it's 100 oct all the way?

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Thruster, the hybrid system works, Diamond have proven the concept with one of the new small Wankels producing 30Kw, and driving a generator. 

 

A 70Kw electric motor is provided with power via a battery pack, plus the Wankel power, for takeoff.

 

Once in cruise, the Wankel recharges the battery, while the electric motor provides the propulsion.

 

And of course, you have regenerative charging power on descent - plus the chances of an electric motor failure is much less than an IC engine.

 

https://www.machinedesign.com/markets/energy/article/21831674/hybrid-aircraft-proves-gaselectric-flight-is-practical

 

Yes it can be done but is it a good commercial idea. It would make no sense to me putting a range extender (30kw Wankel) in an aircraft like a Pipestrel alpha electro, you would be back to fuel oil and servicing plus extra wieght complexity and cost. Why not just throttle a Rotax 912 back to 30kw if the aircraft is that efficient. I doubt that a small engine driving a generator to power a electric motor will have a lower BSFC than the Rotax 912 at 30kw.  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
It’s all hypothetical and pointless. 

The  big thing is that Australia’s total CO2 production is about 1 % of the earths anthropogenic total (which needs to be dropped by 45% to make any difference. )

This includes the minuscule amount made by the negligible number of recreational aircraft.  ( And no one should be allowed to bring up that STUPID statement that Aussie have the highest per capital production. That’s a scientifically idiotic statement because the climate is changed by the total mass of greenhouse gases not by how many people made it. It doesn’t care whether one person, or twenty million make the  amount only the total amount present. ) 

 

 

So even if we ceased ALL production of CO2 instantly it would make zero difference because it would only drop the rest world CO2 lowered production requirement from 45 to 44% of total. And make exactly no difference at all. 

Throw into the mix that the three biggest emitters ( USA, China and India) make more CO2 in a week than we make in a year and all their emissions are rising - and the elephant in the room that no one in Australia wants to mention is that there is nothing we can do to change anything - beyond hold the high moral ground ( and remember that apart from us here in Australia here, (we think we a big players in the world ) in fact most of the rest of the world has no clue who we are, where we are, and much more couldn't give a stuff what we say or do) 

 

Sure we can hold some moral position based on the glowing halos we have over our heads but we shouldn’t beat ourselves up, nor allow ourselves to be beaten up by others, because we have toys that emit probably less gases than the collective lawn mowers of the rest of the population. 

 

 

 

 

9852E9B9-38AA-4F1F-AB65-E588D2D505BC.thumb.jpeg.d1bf1fa551a3c92c0dcaf2a7edbb939a.jpeg

  • Haha 1
  • Winner 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi folks!

 

A tough one here.

 

Recent  events have placed climate change concerns front and centre of the political agenda. As somebody who lives on the land, my observation of recent weather and climatic conditions in the far north has been cause for concern...

 

Im no greenie,  but I recognize the need to be more environmentally aware  in our lives, if not for our sakes, then for future generations.  And my wife and I have tried hard to translate intent into action. Im not going to list the things we do to try and reduce our environmental impacts, as am sure that most responsibly minded people do likewise...

 

I guess the most gratuitous emissions we produce are from aviation. This is an unresolved question in our minds. Ive got no idea how emissions from a light aero engine compare with other emissions sources (can somebody here tell me?), but I suspect that as time passes private flying is not only going to be perceived as an expensive luxury but also an environmentally selfish one.  For now the focus of Flygskam  angst  is commercial jet travel which obviously account for the bulk of aviation emissions. But sooner or later somebody is going to pick up on all the little Cessna's, Pipers and Jabirus buzzing around, and the dirty two-strokes screaming behind ultralights.  How does flying in a light aircraft compare with emissions per capita/mile in a commercial aircraft? Im assuming even higher.

 

Personally I'd love to have an electric aircraft. Since all my power is solar, it would be good and cheap to run  although Im not sure how useful current models would be for bush flying...  The range is a big concern.

 

But other than putting the plane on bricks, growing a beard,  wearing sandals and eating mung beans,  is there anything we can actually do to make our passion more environmentally responsible?   Gliding? 

 

Has anybody yet given this much thought? I guess its a personal accommodation we each need to make....

 

Alan

 

I got interested in one of these, but I ended up thinking it was not practical for me at the time.  But would be a lot of fun:-)

 

https://ruppert-composite.ch/en/

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I guess the most gratuitous emissions we produce are from aviation. This is an unresolved question in our minds. Ive got no idea how emissions from a light aero engine compare with other emissions sources (can somebody here tell me?), "

 

Next summer, have a trip to the "Summer-Nats"

 

THEN you will have No guilt over your aircraft's little pollution .

 

Only went once & choked on the smoke & fumes. have a look at their videos.

 

        " https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=summer-nats&ru=%2fsearch%3fq%3dsummer-nats%26form%3dEDNTHT%26mkt%3den-au%26httpsmsn%3d1%26msnews%3d1%26plvar%3d0%26refig%3d33ad3fe54c9749b6c475be7799f9fe15%26sp%3d-1%26pq%3dsummer-nats%26sc%3d8-11%26qs%3dn%26sk%3d%26cvid%3d33ad3fe54c9749b6c475be7799f9fe15&mmscn=vwrc&view=detail&mid=674556DE7B7322D0ED10674556DE7B7322D0ED10&rvsmid=78436C7A000F57061D8678436C7A000F57061D86&FORM=VDQVAP   "

 

Don't forget your ear-muffs

 

spacesailor

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Congratulations for gratuitous use of strawman argument to abdicate all responsibility.

 

No one is saying we alone have to do that. Nor that if we did the rest of the planet would do nothing.

 

That is plain stupid.

 

There was no straw man argument here. It was plain from the post that they were talking hypothetically, and not saying that anyone was arguing for a complete stop to carbon production. It is a central paradox of climate change that none of us can achieve anything individually but the same people can achieve things as a group. With Trump in power, China and India are not going to do massively heavy lifting for the environment. 

 

 

To answer the original question, I think light aircraft are fine. Stopping flying would be a disproportionate impact on lifestyle compared to how much carbon it would save.  *If* you are really bothered, you could plant trees, or whatever, to draw the same amount of carbon out of the atmosphere. Qantas lets you do that when you fly. I expect that there are organisations who you can pay to offset your carbon production. 

 

 

It might be possible for you to decrease your carbon production by flying and doing aerial tree planting - but I doubt it. Maybe someone has a more creative idea. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
There's only one simple solution for light aircraft power, and it follows car design - hybrid power.

 

I personally believe there will be a time, soon, where a hybrid power alternative will provide a viable option to pure IC engine power for aircraft.

 

The hybrid option will also offer a lower emissions level, thus playing a part in cleaning up our atmosphere.

 

Parallel hybrid architecture offers immediate gains via electrification, but series architecture may overtake parallel in the distant future.

 

What is going to happen, I believe, is that hybrid power will lead to a range totally new and innovative light aircraft designs, that will take advantage of hybrid power unit design, ducted props power gains, and various other technologies, to raise efficiencies to entirely new levels.

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181127171416.htm

 

No. Way. You have to carry around two power sources. And regenerative braking is not a thing for airplanes. Actually, on reflection, you could have an electric airplane and add a petrol-driven generator for longer trips. The generator would only need to produce, say, 50% of takeoff power to maintain the battery charge in cruise. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
No. Way. You have to carry around two power sources. And regenerative braking is not a thing for airplanes. Actually, on reflection, you could have an electric airplane and add a petrol-driven generator for longer trips. The generator would only need to produce, say, 50% of takeoff power to maintain the battery charge in cruise. 

 

The hybrid car as we know it was partially designed to take account of amortising of existing tooling which is always the killer in automotive manufacturing, and what has made it so hard for Tesla to get off the ground. A key part of it was to have a conventional transmission to the wheels and either an electric motor driving a shaft into the transmission, or electric motors in the wheels, plus thye generator, plus all the on/off regen control. If you redesign for an aircraft with an engine driving a generator only, and an electric motor with rpm limited for direct connection to prop, a lot of the weight comes out of the equation, and then you can look at a small bank of batteries and a high capacity generator or vice versa and optimise them for performance and range. A few years ago you would also have bonded printed solar generator material to the top surfaces, but it appears this either didn't work or didn't last out in the open.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thruster & APenNameAndThatA - I think you're misunderstanding proposed future hybrid layouts for aircraft.

 

I didn't say regenerative braking, I said regenerative power production - the system that turns the electric motor into an alternator, to recharge the batteries as you're descending.

 

In cars, it is used for braking purposes, in aircraft it doesn't need to act to help stop the aircraft - it merely uses the energy on descent to develop charging power.

 

As regards having an IC engine with an electric motor and batteries - what's wrong with that? Isn't that normally called redundancy?

 

How many pilots who crashed in "tiger country" would have liked a battery-powered electric motor to fall back on, to extend the glide substantially, after their IC engine failed completely and disastrously?

 

As far as the IC engine power and BSFC is concerned, it's pointless having a 912ULS throttled back to 30Kw, when the engine weighs 77Kg?

 

A new design Wankel, AIE (UK) or a LiquidPiston engine will now produce 30Kw from 10kg to 12Kg all-up engine weight.

 

This leaves a lot of available weight for batteries and electric motor. An IC motor rated at 30Kw coupled with an electric motor of 60Kw gives a combined 90Kw available for takeoff and climb. 

 

Once in cruise, power requirement is much lower, allowing the electric motor to provide propulsion, whilst the 30Kw IC Wankel/AIE/LiquidPiston engine charges the batteries, providing a range as good as, if not better than, the average 912ULS-powered aircraft.

 

An electric motor is exceptionally efficient, has no reciprocating power losses, and only has one shaft and two bearings, which generally give substantial indication of pending failure, unlike IC engines.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Winner 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
but it appears this either didn't work or didn't last out in the open.

 

This seems to be common with a lot of the new technologies. There's a lot of spruiking going on and not a lot of actual progress.

 

In 2006 Boeing was going to have hydrogen fuel cell powered stuff on the market next year. The reckoned they we're that close to cracking it.

 

I really look forward to a good breakthrough ( and I hope it's soon) when it happens, but until then I'm not parting with cash for a half arxed attempt.

 

An electric motor is exceptionally efficient, has no reciprocating power losses, and only has one shaft and two bearings, which generally give substantial indication of pending failure,

 

Unfortunately it's not usually the motor that fails, but the control circuitry, especially with variable speed controllers. Once that smoke gets out, it's not working any more.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...