Reply To: General thought on old coal mines.

[zapkitty]

Tulse wrote:
I’m not convinced the economics and engineering involving in putting FF directly on planes makes a lot of sense. There are a lot of numbers tossed around here, but I’m doubtful that any of them indicate it is better to fly directly with FF rather than using it as a fuel source. Anyone have a convincing analysis (or have I missed a convincing analysis already presented)?

You missed at least one because it’s at the center of your argument… fuel 🙂

What are the savings advantages that accrue to a transport that never has to refuel?

I did not develop the idea much because I was just interested in pointing out that there is indeed at least one set of viable real-world numbers to compare dpf with for fusion-powered flight.

But given the propfan-replacement transport concept (propfans are based on the fancy new propeller concepts that make the huge propeller diameters of the older high-power turboprops unecessary) other savings come to mind… electric engines based on superconductors are lighter and less maintenance intensive than non-sc motors, and motors that use frictionless magnetic bearings have greatly reduced wear and need even less maintenance than motors that use standard bearings.

And it would seem that this is pretty much a very large advance over the wear and subsequent maintenance costs incurred by jet turbines.

So… it doesn’t seem out of line to propose a transport that uses standard airport runways and facilities, that never needs refueling and is only taken out of service one day every 90 days for an electrode change and a general maintenance checkup and fuel top-off while the techs are waiting for the dpf to cool.

If it works then that looks like some very big savings for a standard air transport company.