3 ms·

Here is Elon idea to 'fix' this issue. Some interesting ideas. https://youtu.be/MBItc_QAUUM?t=2422 https://youtu.be/MBItc_QAUUM?t=2422 - Going higher - Using

by nickik 6y ago

Here is Elon idea to 'fix' this issue. Some interesting ideas. https://youtu.be/MBItc_QAUUM?t=2422 https://youtu.be/MBItc_QAUUM?t=2422 - Going higher - Using gravitational energy on the second half/landing part of the journey. Like a car going down hill. - Making use of the higher power density of the engines - (Doesn't mention this, but using batteries as structural elements) I also think that this: "Prandtl Wing Minimum Drag Update" - Al Bowers (Chief Scientist at NASA) would be a key technology https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCwtcDNB15E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCwtcDNB15E A new type of wing and maybe more importantly a new type if turbine fan.

gamblor956 6y ago
So basically Elon has suggested doing all the things they already do today to maximize fuel savings in ICE planes... Note that airplane fuel has significantly higher power density than an electric battery (~40x as much, see https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/14/17686706/electric-airplane-flying-car-battery-weight-green-energy-travel https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/14/17686706/electric-airplan...), so no EV will ever be able to achieve the same range as an ICE plane, ton-for-ton.
- nickik 6y ago
  > So basically Elon has suggested doing all the things they already do today to maximize fuel savings in ICE planes... No. If you think that you didn't get his point. - Fuel is not structural in a plane. Only fuel tanks. - ICE are only optimally efficent at a particular height. - ICE can not convert gravitational energy into fuel. - ICE vehicles have a lower power density and are bigger. Making it harder to gimbals them for VTOL. This is a cause of huge issues with military VTOL. > EV will ever be able to achieve the same range as an ICE plane, ton-for-ton And they don't have to to beat ICE in the market.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    1) If you want to get that technical, like fuel, battery cells aren't structural either. The battery casings like the fuel tank shells, are the structural components that can be used as structural elements. And on some planes, they are used in that manner for weight-saving. 2) Irrelevant. They're still more efficient than EV planes at any height, so comparing the relative efficiency of ICE to itself is pointless. 3) Neither can EV planes, unless someone has discovered how to turn gravity into electricity without water and a massive turbine. 4) ICE vehicles have higher power density (see previous Verge link, also https://www.topspeed.com/cars/warp-coils-seem-closer-to-reality-than-a-battery-with-energy-density-of-gasoline-ar185365.html https://www.topspeed.com/cars/warp-coils-seem-closer-to-real...). It's not even close. 43x-100x the power density of batteries, depending on the type of fuel and the type of battery. ICE vehicles are bigger because they are used to carry more things and people: hundreds of people or hundreds of tons of cargo on trips that can go almost halfway across the world without stopping. In contrast, an EV plane can currently carry itself, a pilot and a passenger, for almost long enough to get from LA to Fresno. (No EV currently on the market can even make the trip from LA to SF.) And they don't have to to beat ICE in the market. You're right. EVs will never be able to compete at the ranged market; they'll be limited to short-range hops. This means they won't be a viable option for the corporate/personal jet market beyond limited hobbyist use.
    - nickik 6y ago
      1) The can is a necessary element and they can be structural. This is a fact. 2) No, that is just flat out wrong. EV are more efficent, its not close. And they don't have 1 hight where they have the best efficency. 3) Yes they can. Have you ever driven an EV? Its seem that you are just otherly clueless and seem to simply deny the existens of proven technology so there is no point in this argument.

by nickik 6y ago

gamblor956 6y ago

So basically Elon has suggested doing all the things they already do today to maximize fuel savings in ICE planes... Note that airplane fuel has significantly higher power density than an electric battery (~40x as much, see https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/14/17686706/electric-airplane-flying-car-battery-weight-green-energy-travel https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/14/17686706/electric-airplan...), so no EV will ever be able to achieve the same range as an ICE plane, ton-for-ton.

nickik 6y ago
> So basically Elon has suggested doing all the things they already do today to maximize fuel savings in ICE planes... No. If you think that you didn't get his point. - Fuel is not structural in a plane. Only fuel tanks. - ICE are only optimally efficent at a particular height. - ICE can not convert gravitational energy into fuel. - ICE vehicles have a lower power density and are bigger. Making it harder to gimbals them for VTOL. This is a cause of huge issues with military VTOL. > EV will ever be able to achieve the same range as an ICE plane, ton-for-ton And they don't have to to beat ICE in the market.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  1) If you want to get that technical, like fuel, battery cells aren't structural either. The battery casings like the fuel tank shells, are the structural components that can be used as structural elements. And on some planes, they are used in that manner for weight-saving. 2) Irrelevant. They're still more efficient than EV planes at any height, so comparing the relative efficiency of ICE to itself is pointless. 3) Neither can EV planes, unless someone has discovered how to turn gravity into electricity without water and a massive turbine. 4) ICE vehicles have higher power density (see previous Verge link, also https://www.topspeed.com/cars/warp-coils-seem-closer-to-reality-than-a-battery-with-energy-density-of-gasoline-ar185365.html https://www.topspeed.com/cars/warp-coils-seem-closer-to-real...). It's not even close. 43x-100x the power density of batteries, depending on the type of fuel and the type of battery. ICE vehicles are bigger because they are used to carry more things and people: hundreds of people or hundreds of tons of cargo on trips that can go almost halfway across the world without stopping. In contrast, an EV plane can currently carry itself, a pilot and a passenger, for almost long enough to get from LA to Fresno. (No EV currently on the market can even make the trip from LA to SF.) And they don't have to to beat ICE in the market. You're right. EVs will never be able to compete at the ranged market; they'll be limited to short-range hops. This means they won't be a viable option for the corporate/personal jet market beyond limited hobbyist use.
  - nickik 6y ago
    1) The can is a necessary element and they can be structural. This is a fact. 2) No, that is just flat out wrong. EV are more efficent, its not close. And they don't have 1 hight where they have the best efficency. 3) Yes they can. Have you ever driven an EV? Its seem that you are just otherly clueless and seem to simply deny the existens of proven technology so there is no point in this argument.