3 ms·
Yup, I didn't account for fuel weight going down overtime, in part because I forgot and in part because it complicates the equations. Even not accounting for t
by zaarn 8y ago
Yup, I didn't account for fuel weight going down overtime, in part because I forgot and in part because it complicates the equations.
Even not accounting for that, the fuel tank wins over batteries, which would be like stapling a third engine on the aircraft that doesn't work, yet wanting the same distance and speed performance from the aircraft.
I also tried to figure out how much energy you could pull from solar panels to cover energy usage and reduce the battery use but A) doesn't work for overnight flights and B) the energy output is abysmal for various and dozens of reasons even if you magically doubled the surface area that the sunlight reaches. By over-the-fist estimations, the weight you save on the battery would be lost on the solar panels.
- TheSpiceIsLife 8y agoIf the numbers and units are correct in your earlier comment then it would be like strapping another 1000 engines that don’t work on the aircraft Because you wrote the engine weighs 2700ish kg and the theoretical battery would way 2700ish tons.
- zaarn 8y agoAh, yes, correct. 1000 deadweight engines. But the difference between kg and Ton doesn't matter much, in both cases the aircraft won't fly very far.
- TheSpiceIsLife 8y agoThe difference is dramatic. I mean to say: in the drama of it. An aircraft with a third engine isn’t an altogether uncommon sight, or wasn’t not too long ago. An aircraft with one thousand extra engines goes a long way to dramatically demonstrate how ridiculous battery powered flight is with today’s, or any near-future, battery technology.