3 ms·
This is an underappreciated factor, particularly for long-haul flights. For transatlantic/transpacific flights the fuel can be over a third of the total takeoff
by CrazyStat 6y ago
This is an underappreciated factor, particularly for long-haul flights. For transatlantic/transpacific flights the fuel can be over a third of the total takeoff weight of a modern airliner. Burning that mass off as you go means you get more efficient the longer you've been flying.
Even if/when batteries match the energy density of aviation fuel (appropriately adjusted for motor/engine efficiency), they will still be at a substantial disadvantage for long flights.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- arcticbull 6y agoThe efficiency is worse the further you go, because you have to burn extra fuel just to carry extra fuel the whole way, so that it be used for the incremental distance travelled. It's why the A340-500 flying gascan is such a disaster from a unit economics perspective. It's also why Emirates, Etihad and Qatar did such good business for so many years connecting east and west with a stop in the Gulf as compared to eastern and western carriers who had to go the whole distance without stopping.
- CrazyStat 6y agoThat's a different efficiency comparison. You are correct that for a given type of plane, efficiency is worse for father distances. When comparing battery vs. hydrocarbon-fueled planes, however, hydrocarbon does relatively better the longer the distance, for the reasons discussed above. Battery-powered planes may soon be practical for regional short-haul flights but they're not going to be competing on transatlantic routes anytime soon.