Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by rwellner98, Sep 21, 2021.
Yup. Makes sense to me.
By two minutes in there were already so many false premises that I couldn’t take it anymore.
I didn't last even that long.
Who is this buffoon?
Physics is hard. Wishful thinking is easy.
Solar- and wind-generated electricity is free. Yup. Sure.
The Eviation Alice burned up in a fire. What are they doing now?
I fear change and progress.
I fear people that think wishful thinking changes the laws of physics.
This video has almost as much credit as a flat earth video. Almost…
Hate wasting my time watching videos, so didn't view.
That said, electric planes will likely take over ab-initio flight training, just because they'll be so cheap to operate (the certified Pipistrel Velis Electro gives a preview of that), but battery tech will run out of steam — so to speak — long before it reaches the (unattainable) energy density required to match a high-performance ICE single like a Bonanza, Arrow, Mooney, etc.
It's so boring that people try to make things about absolutes.
I'm holding out for windmill powered aircraft.
All autonomous electric transport is suffering from the low energy density problem and ultimately will be the same low margin business, because it will carry battery [dead]weight which doesn't pay money to transport it and therefore should be considered as a lost opportunity profit. No matter what sleek CF airframe one puts around electric propulsion, the end result won't be an economic solution. Powerplant efficiency can be estimated easily:
LiON battery energy density: 265 Wh/kg
Jet-A fuel energy density: 42.8 MJ/kg == 11888.8 Wh/kg
Jet-A power plant and energy source is 44 times more efficient than electric propulsion per unit of mass. On top of this producing batteries is highly energy intensive process on its own. Just read Manhattan institute report on the true cost of "green" energy machines. On top of this batteries will require utilization, where is traditional fuel is directly expendable.
This plane fire remined me a story which started with $465m grant of public money to a company run by a techno swindler and ending up with this:
Interesting. What false premises did you find in the first two minutes?
I've got one!
With 180 HP driving the windmill.
Yes, wind powered aircraft! Think about all that wind when you are flying fast. The faster you fly, the more energy you make. Patent it, quick.
“airlines are pragmatic”
“There are no mom and pop airlines”
Anything that we see about airlines has passed through such a level of scrutiny that it must be valid
Airlines don’t make snap decisions about things, every decision is rationally thought out.
all for profit businesses are immoral and always prioritize profit over morality.
airlines only care about the climate because of good PR
now at the 2 minute mark. I might have missed some.
It seems the thesis is that if airlines don’t go electric, climate change regulations will regulate the industry out of existence. Plus, electricity is cheaper than gas. Therefore, electric airliners are inevitable, at least short haul.
It’s an analysis of the business case, with no regard to the practicality of electric flight. I think we might get there eventually, but we aren’t there yet.
Also, lots of assumptions of fact about “climate change,” previously known as “global warming,” which was previously known as “the coming ice age.”
If these people ever find their Leni Riefenstahl, there will be a thousand years of darkness.
Had to look that one up. Obscure trivia bonus points there.
To him airline profit is bad.
He likes things that lose money
That makes him a loser
Never take advice from a loser.
The answer to the question, “why electric planes are inevitable”, according to this video, is basically because government will mandate “green” regulations, forcing airlines into making electric planes in order to remain profitable. In other words, there’s no real physical or economic reason for it to happen. It’s going to happen because centralized authoritarianism will force it to. They downplay that fact by dressing the video up with a lot of talk about routes and energy density technology. But that’s basically the answer, if you don’t want to bother watching it.
What's the efficiency of the Jet-A powered plane? How much of the Jet-A gets turned into forward movement?
While I don't more than a relatively small number of aircraft will be electrically powered in the near future (possibly never), you may wish to do more than a knee jerk calculation.
And economics will have nothing to do with it? It will be some time, if ever, that an electric plane will cross oceans profitably, and no mandate will change that.
There were only a few people who posited "the coming ice age" and the popular press picked up on it.
We're used to seeing sudden and impressive gains in technology. I scrapped our old TV, it didn't work anymore. The new one was less expensive, lighter, and has a far better picture. Gains in technology. It's what we're used to seeing.
Batteries are different though. Batteries work through fairly basic chemistry. Gains are painfully slow, and likely to stay that way. Improvement by degrees, and small ones at that.
Moreover, generating those quantities of energy is far from straightforward, and will require manipulation of atomic forces, either through fusion or fission. We can't do the latter and don't want to do the former.
There was an energy crisis in the 1970's when those controlling OPEC staged a minor embargo. 50 years later we're just as dependent on fossil fuels as we were then if not moreso.
There was an all electric Cessna eCaravan. When they did the first test flight last year, it had 100 mile range and could carry 0 passengers. The airplane was restored to the standard configuration and put up for sale earlier this year.
They're working on it, but we're not there yet.
Hey, might be abiotic fuel. Just sayin'.
Profits and economics - not government planning - drive innovation and progress.
Call me back when I can replace 600 pounds of avgas and Lycoming with 600 pounds of batteries/motor and still fly 170knots for 5 hours
Unless you count the Manhattan Project, the development of nuclear power, and the Internet.
depends what you mean by the internet. Certainly not what we think of today when we say internet.
I am waiting for a flying machine designed by Bob Lazar
Yes, and Velcro, zippers, GPS, and everything else the space program created.
Batteries are somewhere between electronics and what people have been saying. There's some developments that have the potential make electric cars more usable to many people, and allow light electric planes to be usable to someone who flies like I do. Time will tell if they make it into the market.
In addition to what Cap'n Jack said, "climate change" and "global warming" do not contradict each other, because there is more to climate than just temperature. The long-term increase in global average temperature that has been predicted and observed is not the only way that climate is being affected.
The real problem, in addition to the battery-technology issues that have already been mentioned, is the assumption that electrifying transportation will make it carbon-neutral when almost 60% of our electricity generation is not.
The fact that Internet technology has been advanced in the private sector does not change the fact that it got its start in a government program.
This is the biggest problem for flying under battery power. Fossil fuels are an inexpensive, very dense power source, and aviation requires loads of power to happen, especially for larger aircraft going long distances. The formula is beginning to well work for cars, unless there is a huge break through in battery storage capabilities I think we are stuck with fossil fuels, and a few boutique type electric aircraft for niche applications.
I'm fine with the ICE going by way of the dinosaur for personal ground transportation, can't happen quick enough as far as I'm concerned.
I don't think batteries need to get to the same power density as gasoline. Probably a third of the energy density of Avgas would be more than enough for it to take over IMO.
I see GPS as the same as "building a road". Building a road doesn't mean you get to take credit for the plant someone built next to it. The government didn't create GPS to be used as it is today. It was a military device. That the private sector took it and made something out of it doesn't put a "win" in the column for government controlled economy. Same for the internet.
I've seen examples of government being prescriptive separate of economics and what people want - like CFL light bulbs. Expensive, people didn't like them, and they've been replaced / being replaced by LED's now. All because the old incandescents were "evil".
THUS - because private sector can make use of something that came from a technology that government had involvement with doesn't mean government mandates and directed businesses will be successful.