4 ms·
Probably because it has a third propeller in the tail - not easy to spot in the article's photo, but you can see it better on their site[1]. [1] https://www.ev
by miahi 8y ago
Probably because it has a third propeller in the tail - not easy to spot in the article's photo, but you can see it better on their site[1].
[1] https://www.eviation.co/alice/ https://www.eviation.co/alice/
- amelius 8y agoPhoto? You mean CGI ...
- perilunar 8y agoThat rear propeller will be screwed by anything kicked up by the main gear. And good luck with rotation on take off, and landing flare. Also, the adverse yaw if you lose one of the wingtip motors or propellers will be severe.
- dotancohen 8y agoI agree with you about rotation. The main gear is so far forward of that prop that I'm actually wondering if this thing doesn't rotate, like the B-52. As for landing flare, those wings aren't holding any fuel so they are razor thin. I'm having a hard time deciding about when they stall. But I don't see asymmetrical thrust as being a real problem on this plane. It has far fewer moving parts than the single- or dual- motor props that it aims to replace. This is not an ETOPS aircraft, and even if an outboard motor fails you still have that central pusher to help. Back to those razor-sharp wings: they are quite long and it looks like this plane would have a mighty fine glide ratio.