RE: If You Could Go Back In Time…..

Barak

I’m sorry but I have no idea of the film’s availability on line. Occasionally I see a copy on sale in Aus but wherever you live, who knows?

The film actually involves a factual element in its story line concerning a missing US senator of the day, which only makes the storyline more fascinating. One of the most humourous scenes is where two F-14s, fully armed, come across two Zeros. The Tomcat pilots approach from the rear, and have to extend their wings fully and lower flaps just to fly as slow as the Zeros, but when they fly over the two Jap planes, the expressions on the Jap pilots’ faces is priceless.

It is definitely worth pursing – perhaps you could check with a local video store to see if a copy is still available.

Good luck.

Regards

Wombat

RE: Concorde in trouble again!

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 24-07-02 AT 07:19 AM (GMT)]Rabie

You’d have to remember that the cost for a Concorde flight to Sydney would probably be three or four times that of the London-New York flight, if not more. Then you have to fill the aircraft to ensure the viabilility of the service. I don’t think there would be too many people prepared or able to stump up that sort of money, which means the flights would probably not be economic.

I think, if it was ever going to happen, it would have happened by now. Remember there is also still the noise issue at Aus airports.

Wombat

RE: If You Could Go Back In Time…..

Harry

On the subject of time travel being impossible, have you ever seen the movie “Final Countdown”, made in 1980 starring Kirk Douglas and Martin Sheen? That movie raised the enigma you referred to, when a modern, fully armed US carrier (Nimitz) was transported back to December 7. 1941. Once the crew realised what had happened, the captain was faced with the quandary of whether to change history or not by attacking the Japanese fleet before it had actually attacked Pearl Harbour.

This is one of the most fascinating movies I have ever seen and one which I frequently re-watch on video. The whole concept is fascinating, as the destructive capability of the Nimitz would easily have been sufficient to anhilate the entire Jap fleet before it could launch the first attack. Only a freak of nature could save history being changed.

With regard to my choice of time travel, I am a bit more modest in my wishes than some of the other posts. I’d just like to return to the area where I spent my first years, 50 years ago, which has been subject to so much change since, and see it as it was back then. I’d love to see my family members as they were then, and look at the cars which haven’t been on the roads for many years, see DC-3’s, DC-4’s, Short Solent Class flying boats (I think that’s what they were) operating from Rose Bay in Sydney Harbour and Super Constellations fly overhead, and the occasional RAAF Mustang or Meteor.

I have lived through enough significant historical moments in time that I don’t feel the need to go back to any others. My early days in Manly would do me fine.

Interesting post – makes one think back a bit.

Wombat

RE: Concorde in trouble again!

I read about the sonic cruiser a few months ago and it made me think of “my” project. Similar concept, but not as fast. I think the cruiser was about the same size in terms of passenger load, but was not much faster than conventional aircraft. I think Boeing had the idea that supersonic travel wasn’t worth the trouble or cost.

I think the cruiser is the way thing will go until aircraft like I described yesterday become a reality. The 747 has to be nearing the end of its production life – it first entered service around 1968 or ’70, didn’t it?

Regarding the range of the Concorde, I’m not sure what it is, but from what little I do know, it was insufficient to cope with trips like Sydney to London without a number of stops. Landings/take offs are one part of international flight which passengers seldom enjoy and to offer a flight at supersonic speed is less appealing if you know you are going to face at least three landings. Another point is that the Concorde is getting old too, it first flew around 1968 as well, didn’t it? As I pointed out in my first post, the noise level exceeds that allowed at Sydney, and probably other Aussie airports as well, so it’s pretty well a dead duck as far as flights to this country are concerned.

Another advantage to my project which I forgot to add to my original post would have been the dramatic reduction in operating costs arising from the need to refuel only occurring every six to eight flights, so the cost of international travel could also be dramatically reduced.

Imagine being the first international airline to operate aircraft like I described. I have evolved the idea further, with an obvious “pro-Australian” flavour, whereby Qantas was the first and only operator for about the first 12 months, giving it an enormous advantage over its competitors. Sydney to London – 7-8 hours, non stop. Travel above all normal weather patterns, so no thermals, storms or air turbulence to worry about (they scared the s..t out of me when I flew to London a couple of years ago), and tickets costing up to 50% less than other airlines. I don’t know how much the cost of fuel accounts for as a percentage of a single airline ticket, but I’ll bet it is substantial.

I feel sure that development of the sythetic isotopes is the key to the aircraft of the future. I have thought out the manner in which the isotopes would be brought into operation and the basic principle of the engine itself. Believe me, it’s not rocket science – it’s just the fuel itself that presents the problem. The rest of the engine would follow pretty closely on existing jet engine principles. I am absolutely certain that the day of the oil-based fuel for aviation is close to dead, as the cost and availability of oil becomes increasingly expensive and restricted. Too much of the world’s oil reserves are in the hands of unstable or unreliable nations, or those who will look after themselves first at the expense of those nations less fortunate. Nuclear power, at this stage, cannot be safely or practically applied to aviation and I doubt that it ever will. Whatever fuel eventually is used, it has not been developed yet.

RE: Concorde in trouble again!

I think the Concorde’s limitations prevented the concept from more general acceptance. Supersonic transport must have a future, because although we talk about the world being a smaller place, it still takes 23 hours travel from Sydney to London via 747, with one intermediate refuelling stop. I imagine that Wellington/Auckland to London would be a couple of hours more – in fact, from New Zealand, you are pretty much exactly half way round the world from the UK and could fly via Honolulu/San Fran/New York I guess. These are big distances for us in the Antipodes, about six times the distance across the Atlantic.

Obviously, the Concorde can’t do that sort of distance on one refuelling stop, and its noise levels are too much to enable it to land at Kingsford Smith – don’t know about other Aussie airports. However, I believe that future development must centre around aircraft capable of carrying about 300-350 pax, Sydney to London, in around 8 hours, with NO refuelling stop. I expect that will happen within 20 years. Cruising speed around 2,500 – 3000 km/h, cruising altitude around 50-65,000 ft, to put it well above normal weather patterns. I will be over 70 years of age by then, but I reckon I will see it in my lifetime.

Power will be provided by two opposing synthetic isotopes producing extreme temperatures through thermal reaction, not fusion. The heat produced will exceed that produced by conventional jets, with atmospheric air drawn, compressed and superheated in the same manner as jet engines. These synthetic fuels will provide the aircraft with exceptional range, in much the same manner as nuclear powered ships. There will be no radioactive reaction, therefore no danger of radiation to humans or the environment. The fuel rods or blocks will cost about the same as one refuel of aviation kerosene, but will last for many flights before needing replacing.

Without the weight of massive fuel tanks, fuel pumps, electronics and computers necessary to monitor fuel systems, there would be no need for balancing of centre of gravity necessary with conventional aircraft as fuel is consumed during flight. The aircraft would be much smaller than a 747, much lighter, require less airfield to take off and land, and would present no danger of fire in flight or during emergency landings. The fuel isotopes would not be flammable, and would be non-radioactive, so again, no radiation dangers.

I know this sounds like science fiction, but I have thought of this engine for many years, and have refined the concept over those years. My problem is I am no engineer and there are bound to be problems which I can’t even imagine (like developing the isotopes).

But I can dream and one day, an aircraft somewhere in this world will be the first to fly with power cells like I have dreamed of.

I just wish it could be an Australian aircraft, designed and built here. I’m sick of us buying every body else’s inventions.

The (dreaming) Wombat

RE: Another dumb question

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 20-07-02 AT 03:38 AM (GMT)]Michael

Thank you – that’s pretty much what I thought it meant. Some of those topics are incredibly popular, they must give an enormous degree of satisfaction to those who originally post them.

I hope one day that I might think up something that’s of that much interest to so many.

Regards

Wombat

RE: What happened to….?

Saab

Many thanks. I’d love to know what happened to this thread since yesterday, though. Anyway, I appreciate the opportunity. Sure are some strange people out there, aren’t there?

Regards

Wombat

RE: Pets

Three dogs here. A malamute (Shadow) – beautiful animal, gentle, devoted, follows you around like a bad smell, and talks to you in this loud, howling voice. Only another malamute owner would know what I mean.
Chloe, a shepherd, quiet, devoted, but jealous as buggery! Try to pat Shadow and Chloe’s there, shoving her bloody long snout in trying to get some attention. Typical bloody female!
The third “dog” is actually my father in law’s chihuahua. Dumb as dogs**t. I’m convinved the only reason god created this breed was to provide fresh food for cats.