Re: [Official!] Project Horizons Comment Crew Chat thread.

[Harmony Ltd.]

Well, if they use pneumatic screwdrivers, it means they already have a source of compressed air, right ?

The question you should ask yourself is : How critical is it for you that someone should be able to crank up the engine by "hand" ?


I didn't follow the first part of your exposé about that plane, and probably missed something, but why not just use a good old "car" battery to startup the engine through an alternator, with maybe the option to crank it up inertially mechanically if the battery is dead or the alternator out of commission ?

[Harmony Ltd.]

Anyway, if the compressed air circuit is used only on startup, then it's weight that doesn't help the thing to fly. Dead weight. So you should probably try getting rid of it.

[O. Hinds]

Well, if they use pneumatic screwdrivers, it means they already have a source of compressed air, right ?

The question you should ask yourself is : How critical is it for you that someone should be able to crank up the engine by "hand" ?


I didn't follow the first part of your exposé about that plane, and probably missed something, but why not just use a good old "car" battery to startup the engine through an alternator, with maybe the option to crank it up inertially mechanically if the battery is dead or the alternator out of commission ?

Anyway, if the compressed air circuit is used only on startup, then it's weight that doesn't help the thing to fly. Dead weight. So you should probably try getting rid of it.

Oh, you're thinking that a starter-alternator would be the best solution? Because pretty much any other starter system would only be used on startup.

[Harmony Ltd.]

Yes. And the alternator / battery would then provide all the needed electricity for the plane's circuits.

Especially given alternators constantly provide energy- at least that's what they do on a car : the alternator is mechanically coupled to the motor, and as such is always running once you turn the key ; and it constantly dump the electrical energy it produce into the lead-acid battery, which by nature has the property of "wasting" all the surplus energy it's given when at maximal charge without any problem.


Basically, go with the proven solution, which has also the utility of doing more than just starting up the beast.

[Kippershy]

*snip*
I'm being a retard here, no doubt.

I'm afraid that I don't really get what you mean. Please clarify.

Yeah, sounds like we were on a different page. To me, when you say bf109, I instantaneously think BF-109 as in the Spanish civil war / WW2 era German fighter plane.
It must mean something different to you.

[Harmony Ltd.]

Regarding what I said, just keep in mind it come from someone who has never worked on a mechanic's job and has just recently got his driver license. On the other hand I'm studying in embedded systems so maybe it gives some cred' ? (spoiler : lol nope)


@ Kipper : no, you were right. He was just talking about a specific mechanism from that plane, and not the whole design, AFAIK.

[O. Hinds]

Yes. And the alternator / battery would then provide all the needed electricity for the plane's circuits.

Especially given alternators constantly provide energy- at least that's what they do on a car : the alternator is mechanically coupled to the motor, and as such is always running once you turn the key ; and it constantly dump the electrical energy it produce into the lead-acid battery, which by nature has the property of "wasting" all the surplus energy it's given when at maximal charge without any problem.


Basically, go with the proven solution, which has also the utility of doing more than just starting up the beast.

As I recall, the reason why an electric system wasn't used for reasons of size and weight. Starter-alternators also tend to be more expensive than separate starters and alternators, which is why cars today don't use them. I do like the starter-alternator idea, but I'm still not entirely convinced that a fully electric system would be the most efficient. The ground crews' pneumatic cranks are much less likely to plummet from the sky in flames and need replacement, among other things.

[O. Hinds]

*snip*
I'm being a retard here, no doubt.

I'm afraid that I don't really get what you mean. Please clarify.

Yeah, sounds like we were on a different page. To me, when you say bf109, I instantaneously think BF-109 as in the Spanish civil war / WW2 era German fighter plane.
It must mean something different to you.

Regarding what I said, just keep in mind it come from someone who has never worked on a mechanic's job and has just recently got his driver license. On the other hand I'm studying in embedded systems so maybe it gives some cred' ? (spoiler : lol nope)


@ Kipper : no, you were right. He was just talking about a specific mechanism from that plane, and not the whole design, AFAIK.

Sorry, Kippershy, but I'm still rather baffled regarding what you're trying to say. Also, though it's the starter I'm focusing on at the moment, I am indeed thinking of the whole airplane.

[Harmony Ltd.]

The alternator used to start a diesel engine on a bus is less than 25 centimeters in diameters, and weighs something like 15 kilograms - certainly less than 20 kilograms. And it's the same alternator that also provide energy to the battery.

Market price is around €1500 as a spare part.


I know this because if I didn't work a mechanic's job, I worked in a repair shop for two years.

[O. Hinds]

The alternator used to start a diesel engine on a bus is less than 25 centimeters in diameters, and weighs something like 15 kilograms - certainly less than 20 kilograms. And it's the same alternator that also provide energy to the battery.

Market price is around €1500 as a spare part.


I know this because if I didn't work a mechanic's job, I worked in a repair shop for two years.

Oh, nice! I didn't know that there were buses using starter-alternators. Hm... so you don't see any impediment to using them on the Centnovae?

[Harmony Ltd.]

I don't think that weight, size, or cost is much of an headache if the airplane has the same general dimensions and performance range as the German Bf109. But I'm no authority on the matter so it's for you to decide.

I'll just say that I think even if it proved to be a bit more complex than the other solutions (you have to had a bit of electronic / electromechanics in order to manage the alternator), which I doubt, it would at least have the advantage of not being dead weight once the plane has taken off, and it'd provide energy for things like radio transmitters, etc...

The only thing is that such a thing only produce power in the single digit kilowatt range (example: 24V, 180 A => ~4KW), so you won't be getting much out of it.

[Harmony Ltd.]

Another example : (link)

[O. Hinds]

I don't think that weight, size, or cost is much of an headache if the airplane has the same general dimensions and performance range as the German Bf109. But I'm no authority on the matter so it's for you to decide.

I'll just say that I think even if it proved to be a bit more complex than the other solutions (you have to had a bit of electronic / electromechanics in order to manage the alternator), which I doubt, it would at least have the advantage of not being dead weight once the plane has taken off, and it'd provide energy for things like radio transmitters, etc...

The only thing is that such a thing only produce power in the single digit kilowatt range (example: 24V, 180 A => ~4KW), so you won't be getting much out of it.

Thanks for your help with this.

[Harmony Ltd.]

And even if the starter and the alternator were to be two different, distinct pieces of equipment, would it add more complexity than your other alternatives ?

[Harmony Ltd.]

Yeah, that's pretty much what I saw the mechanics using :

(link)

Though the thing is it's using modern electronics (semiconductors) to function, so maybe it's not thematically adapted to what you want ?

[O. Hinds]

And even if the starter and the alternator were to be two different, distinct pieces of equipment, would it add more complexity than your other alternatives ?

Hm... Probably not, or at least not significantly so.

[Kippershy]

*snip*
I'm being a retard here, no doubt.

I'm afraid that I don't really get what you mean. Please clarify.

Yeah, sounds like we were on a different page. To me, when you say bf109, I instantaneously think BF-109 as in the Spanish civil war / WW2 era German fighter plane.
It must mean something different to you.

Regarding what I said, just keep in mind it come from someone who has never worked on a mechanic's job and has just recently got his driver license. On the other hand I'm studying in embedded systems so maybe it gives some cred' ? (spoiler : lol nope)


@ Kipper : no, you were right. He was just talking about a specific mechanism from that plane, and not the whole design, AFAIK.

Sorry, Kippershy, but I'm still rather baffled regarding what you're trying to say. Also, though it's the starter I'm focusing on at the moment, I am indeed thinking of the whole airplane.

Oh, I get it. You don't understand because you're from over the pond, you damn yank.
Well, me and my frog leg eating friend over here understand the mutual respect for the kraut engineering and its capabilities even if we don't always get along nicely with them.
It's a European thing.

[O. Hinds]

*snip*
I'm being a retard here, no doubt.

I'm afraid that I don't really get what you mean. Please clarify.

Yeah, sounds like we were on a different page. To me, when you say bf109, I instantaneously think BF-109 as in the Spanish civil war / WW2 era German fighter plane.
It must mean something different to you.

Regarding what I said, just keep in mind it come from someone who has never worked on a mechanic's job and has just recently got his driver license. On the other hand I'm studying in embedded systems so maybe it gives some cred' ? (spoiler : lol nope)


@ Kipper : no, you were right. He was just talking about a specific mechanism from that plane, and not the whole design, AFAIK.

Sorry, Kippershy, but I'm still rather baffled regarding what you're trying to say. Also, though it's the starter I'm focusing on at the moment, I am indeed thinking of the whole airplane.

Oh, I get it. You don't understand because you're from over the pond, you damn yank.
Well, me and my frog leg eating friend over here understand the mutual respect for the kraut engineering and its capabilities even if we don't always get along nicely with them.
It's a European thing.

...I guess that that might be why I don't understand? I don't understand what I don't understand, so I can't really appraise possible causes for my lack of understanding.

[Kippershy]

[Guest]

Can anyone recommend a decent, sturdy, relatively cheap pair of headphones? Sounds quality is good but I will be honest, I can't much tell the difference between 320kbps mp3s and flacs and don't know much about the technical side of things beyond that.

[Stringtheory]

Can anyone recommend a decent, sturdy, relatively cheap pair of headphones? Sounds quality is good but I will be honest, I can't much tell the difference between 320kbps mp3s and flacs and don't know much about the technical side of things beyond that.

what kind? earbuds, on-ears, or cans?

[Guest]

Can anyone recommend a decent, sturdy, relatively cheap pair of headphones? Sounds quality is good but I will be honest, I can't much tell the difference between 320kbps mp3s and flacs and don't know much about the technical side of things beyond that.

what kind? earbuds, on-ears, or cans?

On-ear is preferable, I suppose. Not sure what "can" means, though - I'm not up with the nomenclature.

[Stringtheory]

Can anyone recommend a decent, sturdy, relatively cheap pair of headphones? Sounds quality is good but I will be honest, I can't much tell the difference between 320kbps mp3s and flacs and don't know much about the technical side of things beyond that.

what kind? earbuds, on-ears, or cans?

On-ear is preferable, I suppose. Not sure what "can" means, though - I'm not up with the nomenclature.

oh, that just means over-ear

example:

while on-ears are more like this:

example:

[Guest]

Ah, okay! Thanks.

I like both styles, then. Over-ear's best, I guess, just for listening around other people, but I expect it's also more expensive.

[Stringtheory]

Ah, okay! Thanks.

I like both styles, then. Over-ear's best, I guess, just for listening around other people, but I expect it's also more expensive.

unfortunately, I know very little about headphones, so I can't give that much advice, just that from what I've heard Beats aren't that good, mostly riding on brand recognition (or not), same with Bose.

a not shit pair of over-ears will probably set you back at least $100 minimum, while a good pair of earbuds are much cheaper (mine are $60), plus they fit in a pocket, but that's just my preference

[Stringtheory]

here's a good list: 10 best headphones under $500

[Ironmonger]

For robo:

[Guest]

@stringtheory
Thanks, mate! This may well come in handy. :)

[OneMoreDaySK]

T'day's drawfriend:

Spoiler:

[RoboRed]

For robo:

Marvelous.

[Sponsored content]