Comments by "Orbital_Inclination" (@Orbital_Inclination) on "Mentour Now!" channel.

  1. He sounds like a Brit? Really? You need to travel more. I'd guess German or Scandinavian.
    3
  2. Most people would settle for discomfort if it meant saving money on fares. Larger seats means less passengers, which means more cost per seat.
    2
  3.  @Robert.David.  fuel consumption wouldn't decrease that much, and the cost saving would be significantly offset by having less passengers to split the cost between. It would still work out more expensive. We already have more expensive options available to customers who want more leg room, it's called business class.
    2
  4. Yeah, imagine organising to ensure decent pay and conditions. What a crazy idea.
    2
  5. Yes, but the chance of blade failure is incredibly small, just like existing turboprops
    2
  6. PW can call it whatever they like. It's fairly common for different companies to use different names for the same things
    2
  7. Same as any turboprop, and yet it isn't an issue. That's why preventative maintenance exists.
    2
  8. RISE engines already have variable pitch props, like any turbofan
    2
  9. Germanwings was a good reminder of this exact thing
    1
  10. Airliners fly in the transonic region, as fast as you can reasonably get before fuel consumption spikes massively. Efficiency is the main driver of aviation development, because it means less fuel burn, which means lower fares and more profit for airlines.
    1
  11. More like every generation of aircraft getting more advanced to maximise efficiency, which makes them far more complex, which means more points of potential failure. Engineers left to run the show alone would also be a terrible move, as they'd have no interest in keeping the business actually viable, just in engineering.
    1
  12.  @AnthonyOMulligan-yv9cg  no, not at all, but they work better if they're given a budget to work within, rather than setting their own. Engineers don't tend to be particularly deeply trained in running a viable, sustainable business. In an ideal situation, engineers and accountants work together to balance project profitability/feasibility against the engineering need/timescales, etc, and someone external to both parties makes the final call balancing both sides.
    1
  13. None of this is based in reality
    1
  14. Synthetic fuels exist
    1
  15.  @GeneralKenobi69420  not if you factor in the point you negated, fuel efficiency. Also, vegetables aren't the only source of synthetic fuels, and that field is only going to get more interesting as oil prices creep up.
    1
  16. It's far more of a pain for servicing
    1
  17. Russian jet engines aren't really known for their performance or reliability
    1
  18. They're the future in the timescales that matter, as there is nothing that comes close right now or in the near future.
    1
  19. 😂
    1
  20. There have always been idiots, intelligence distribution tends to follow a bell curve.
    1
  21. This is why preventative maintenance exists..
    1
  22.  @Afrocanuk  that's exactly what it's for. Work on propulsion of any kind requires independent checks, as well as the usual supervisor checks. As for being done on time, there is a deferment process if it makes sense to roll it into an upcoming servicing, but it's strictly bounded to well within the component life, and the person signing it off holds legal accountability. Turboprops have been operating for decades with the same risks, they're just mitigated and managed well.
    1
  23. How often does that happen? Regardless, it could do it the same as any other airliner, the engine blades wouldn't survive impact with the floor, but by that point that's irrelevant
    1
  24. The GermanWings incident is a good example of why single pilot ops might not be too clever
    1
  25. It should eventually pay off, but SAF is currently very expensive vs normal jet fuel, so it's more of a marketing gimmick for now unless passengers are happy to pay more to fly.
    1
  26. Dangerous, yes, but complex to operate? No.
    1
  27. The fact you don't recognise the overwhelming body of evidence of human climate change is pathetic at this stage. It's up there with flat earthers as the most moronic takes out there. The fact we can literally measure and compare atmospheric CO2 levels and compare them with previous centuries, as well as average temperature trends climbing way higher than any natural pattern we can model, should be a good indicator.
    1
  28. The overwhelming majority of accidents today are human error, a far greater percentage than in the past, as mechanical failures are incredibly rare.
    1
  29. We haven't been using pure jet engines in commerical aviation for decades, we use turbofans or turboprops
    1
  30. Never flown on a turboprop? Why not?
    1
  31. Pathetic take.
    1
  32. They could, but it wouldn't be economical to burn that much fuel
    1