Related (in at least one dimension): https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/airborne-for-64-day... Cessna 172 flown for 64 days, 22 hours, 19 minutes and 5 seconds.
Neat - but not interesting from a technological stand point.
Solar-powered aircraft flown for nearly three weeks without landing
11–20 of 220 posts
Re: Solar-powered aircraft flown for nearly three weeks without landing
#12Related (in at least one dimension): https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/airborne-for-64-day... Cessna 172 flown for 64 days, 22 hours, 19 minutes and 5 seconds.
> When asked by a reporter if he would ever replicate the stunt, Cook replied: “Next time I feel in the mood to fly endurance, I’m going to lock myself in a garbage can with the vacuum cleaner running, and have Bob serve me T-bone steaks chopped up in a thermos bottle. That is, until my psychiatrist opens for business in the morning.” ROLF!!!
I think he sums this up nicely. What a feat!
Re: Solar-powered aircraft flown for nearly three weeks without landing
#13For those curious about the physics of these aircraft, here's an analysis I did of the same concept. The goal is to determine the smallest aircraft configuration that can indefinitely sustain flight: https://github.com/gusgordon/atmospheric_satellite#readme
Re: Solar-powered aircraft flown for nearly three weeks without landing
#14Wasn't Facebook working on a similar project (Aquila)?
Yes, it was cancelled in 2018: https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/26/facebook-permanently-groun...
Re: Solar-powered aircraft flown for nearly three weeks without landing
#15Isn’t taxi-takeoff-landing what consumes the most energy? It’s often 10% to 25% of the total flight consumption for supersonic planes like the Concorde (but not for the SR-71, since they refueled in-flight to fill the rest with inert gas https://theaviationgeekclub.com/former-sr-71-driver-explains... ), and still a lot for the other planes.
Re: Solar-powered aircraft flown for nearly three weeks without landing
#16Related (in at least one dimension): https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/airborne-for-64-day... Cessna 172 flown for 64 days, 22 hours, 19 minutes and 5 seconds.
Neat - but not interesting from a technological stand point.
Is it not? I don't imagine such sustained flight, continuous operation of all the equipment and engine for so long, would've been a design consideration.
Presumably there's a number, I just doubt it's tens of days, so isn't it interesting that it was achieved?
Re: Solar-powered aircraft flown for nearly three weeks without landing
#17But there is starlink for internet in rural areas
Re: Solar-powered aircraft flown for nearly three weeks without landing
#18Isn’t taxi-takeoff-landing what consumes the most energy? It’s often 10% to 25% of the total flight consumption for supersonic planes like the Concorde (but not for the SR-71, since they refueled in-flight to fill the rest with inert gas https://theaviationgeekclub.com/former-sr-71-driver-explains... ), and still a lot for the other planes.
Based on your percentages then, I think you mean most per unit time? So then, given three weeks far exceeds normal flight time (by more than 1/25%)...
Re: Solar-powered aircraft flown for nearly three weeks without landing
#19But there is starlink for internet in rural areas
Sure, but even if these planes managed to somehow cost as much as a starlink satellite, it'd still be cheaper to do it this way because having some dude toss it up into the air for takeoff is basically free compared to even a fully reusable Starship flight.
Re: Solar-powered aircraft flown for nearly three weeks without landing
#20Related (in at least one dimension): https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/airborne-for-64-day... Cessna 172 flown for 64 days, 22 hours, 19 minutes and 5 seconds.
You can see the aircraft used at the Las Vegas airport. It says "Hacienda Hotel" on the side and I think it's hanging over baggage claim.