4 ms·
Kudos for going for electric and automated approach. This is high risk but exactly the kind of thing that can open up cheaper, easier flights. Both technologies
by mchusma 2y ago
Kudos for going for electric and automated approach. This is high risk but exactly the kind of thing that can open up cheaper, easier flights. Both technologies (Electric and pilot-less) are pretty clearly going to be capable enough for something in 10-20 years, so given the length of time for aircraft development it makes sense that things in development now should be trying to make this happen.
- semi-extrinsic 2y agoIf you think this is going to enable anything that resembles "cheap", think again. IF it works, this is going to be exclusively for rich people to avoid traffic jams. Electric is plain and simple a no-go for aircraft, the specific energy is nowhere near sufficient to actually make an impact. See e.g. the Airbus E-Fan X cancellation, and their subsequent switch to hydrogen research. And it makes sense if you take a closer look at the development in battery technology, you will see that although $/kWh has gone down fast, kg/kWh has been essentially unchanged for over a decade. That is if you ignore numbers in university press releases but look at what is available commercially on the pack level for a safety critical application.