this post was submitted on 28 Mar 2025
0 points (50.0% liked)

Technology

69098 readers
2881 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Wait aren't all airplane wings bid inspired?

all 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 3 points 3 weeks ago

If you listen to the actual talk the bird they are talking about is an albatross and they are simply saying that to improve efficiency you need to make the wings longer and slimmer but then the plane will not fit in current aiport gates so they are working on folding wings.

[–] murmelade@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Wait, so what has been inspiring wings up to this?

[–] milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago

Bumble bees are actually inspiring wing designs now. For a long time our best theories on aerodynamics couldn't explain how Bumblebees could fly. Given the relative mass and wing size the bumble bee they couldn't explain how a bumble bee could fly.

In the last decade or so they figured it out after putting enough bumble bees into wind tunnels. Bumblebees generate additional lift by creating little vortexes in the air. So now wing designers are trying to incorporate that effect into their designs.

[–] xorollo@leminal.space 2 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)
[–] HiTekRedNek@lemm.ee 3 points 3 weeks ago

Depends how bad the turbulence is.

[–] turmacar@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes actually.

(They fold like a Navy carrier plane so they will fit at existing airport gates.)

[–] xorollo@leminal.space 1 points 3 weeks ago

Neat! But not quite the ornithopter I was hoping for.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

deleted by creator

[–] a9249@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

So, they are building a DeHavaland-Canada Dash-7 ?

[–] Enceladus@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago

Yes, frozen gas powered Dash-7!

[–] yuki2501@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Plot twist: And they'll still pack their passengers like sardines.

[–] MintyFresh@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)
[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago

Never heard it called the birch bitch.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 0 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Airbus explained that it ran the numbers and found that, while it could build a successful hydrogen airliner, the plane would be successful in the same way that Concorde was successful. In other words, a technological triumph, but a commercial failure.

Just like any other hydrogen powered... Anything.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 0 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

It's because hydrogen is a terrible fuel. In theory it could work, but there were so many practical problems with compressing the hydrogen into storage tanks and then keeping it in those storage tanks but the amount of effort you have to go through to make it work completely negates any performance benefits.

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

also most hydrogen now is not green at all, the production of it uses methane and releases CO2. only a small percent of hydrogen is truly green, and very expensive.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

But its only exhaust is PuRe wATeR!! /s

It still makes me LOL to see people tout this, when battery EVs don’t exhaust anything.

[–] milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Alas, battery EV passenger jets are a long way off.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

It’s true, but so is retooling aviation around hydrogen. This is just a prediction but I think before that ever happens, EITHER we’ll have light batteries that are safer and more effective that Lithium OR we’ll have carbon-neutral ways to produce hydrocarbon fuels that can be used with conventional aircraft.

Hydrogen has struck out on personal electronics and ground transportation. Now it’s angling for aviation where its energy density may matter more. But it hasn’t been losing because of energy density.

[–] Nighed@feddit.uk 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

....then there should be regulatory actions to help make them viable

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Subsidising an inherently flawed technology isn't the way to go.

[–] Nighed@feddit.uk 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

What are the other 0 carbon flight options? They are all flawed.

We can engineer our way through flaws with enough effort though.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 1 points 3 weeks ago

Yes, but hydrogen has significantly more flaws than most other options. It's been around for 50 years, has never been a commercial success, and just inherently kinda sucks.

[–] AI_toothbrush@lemmy.zip 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

I guess this is why so many boeing airplanes have been falling out the sky nowadays. They forgot and accidentally based their aiplanes on land dwelling vetrebrates.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Lol.

Lead engineer: "oh did you say bird, okay I thought you said bear."

[–] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

How many blades do you have to add to a turboprop before it's promoted to an open turbofan and touted as a major new innovation?

[–] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

Based on my image search engineering, the answer to your question is 2.

Based on my one semester of air breathing propulsion that I took 25 years ago, I'm guessing there is more going on inside the turbine part of the engine that both allows sustainable fuels that current turbofans can't and also allows compression ratios at lower fan speeds that allows an open fan with fewer blades. Again, I barely passed air breathing propulsion back then and haven't used ANY of that knowledge since, so I'm mostly talking out of my ass.

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago

So not the picture in the thumbnail but a generic jet