Do current aircraft have a backup in-case their fuel tanks run dry?
There's reserve tanks or more generally reserve fuel for emergencies. Other than that there's no propulsion backup for when the fuel runs out, instead redundancy comes from multiple independent fuel tanks.
> redundancy comes from multiple independent fuel tanks.
And in larger aircraft, multiple independent engines. See for instance ETOPS
I read new truck sales in China are about 30% electric and climbing. Apparently it does make sense for them
What China does hardly indicates economic sense, and you can be sure you won't hear about the down sides or failures. They already very agressively hide car lithium fires but they're very frequent. Economics over there are mostly investment driven with a large dose of ideology and vanity, not demand driven. You can see it everywhere including the massive amounts of empty housings for example
This ignores the fact that there are also things that China does better or equal than Western companies. Like robots, solar panels, electric cars (?), AI models, electronics.
They must be good at something, otherwise China wouldn't be where it is.
So flat out dismissing anything from China is not enough of an argument.
Mind you, I'm not saying you're generally wrong, just your "generally" is wrong. ;-)
Check jet engine weight and include in the calculation. One weights 2200-3700 lbs according to same source that quotes 45.9 seat miles per gallon. Vs 125 pounds for electric engine.
I’d guess comparable for a 30-seat regional, you’d probably want to compare with a PT6, especially since this aircraft is prop driven. That’s only about 250lb dry.
It seems you're right. Would nice to see breakdown for this plane how it actually maps to real world prototype.
I read new truck sales in China are about 30% electric and climbing. Apparently it does make sense for them
What China does hardly indicates economic sense, and you can be sure you won't hear about the down sides or failures. They already very agressively hide car lithium fires but they're very frequent. Economics over there are mostly investment driven with a large dose of ideology and vanity, not demand driven. You can see it everywhere including the massive amounts of empty housings for example
What China does hardly indicates economic sense, and you can be sure you won't hear about the down sides or failures. They already very agressively hide car lithium fires but they're very frequent. Economics over there are mostly investment driven with a large dose of ideology and vanity, not demand driven. You can see it everywhere including the massive amounts of empty housings for example
This ignores the fact that there are also things that China does better or equal than Western companies. Like robots, solar panels, electric cars (?), AI models, electronics. They must be good at something, otherwise China wouldn't be where it is. So flat out dismissing anything from China is not enough of an argument. Mind you, I'm not saying you're generally wrong, just your "generally" is wrong. ;-)
I'd dispute they do any of those better, they stole the IP, then used public funds to make cheaper versions in the hope of leading the markets, including by being artificially more affordable while there is any competition. Besides electric cars and solar, it's very debatable wether those will actually be ecological in the end. For ex. they are still opening massive amounts of fossil based electric plants, so the truck that is half battery is actually running on coal anyway. It would take an incredible re-work of the electric grids to accomodate actually transitioning away from thermal cars, including some solution for seasonal storage. If you're impressed by their robots, I don't know what you're looking at, they seem to be ridiculous, not even at the tech level that boston dynamics had decades ago. Finally keep in mind that electric cars are fantastic spying devices, for collecting data, and if you're nefarious, imagine hacking into them. That's why teslas are banned near anything governmental in China. So there is a huge strategic advantage to cornering that market, but not really to save the planet. The AIs are all distilled, USA still leads by far there, and they too are strategic weapons
Unless they have a whole new airport and flying experience, I don’t think a lot of people are going to fly just 125 miles. That’s less than two hours of driving. It would be 2 hours of just airport shenanigans much less the flight itself.
> 125 miles … That’s less than two hours of driving. I don’t know where you live or what you drive, but I just punched in a destination 200 km away as the crow flies, the Alps are in the way and I’m looking at five hours of driving. Also, water.
That's nothing. I was crossing Himalaya's by crawling at even slower speed.
Interesting decision to build the whole aircraft instead of the propulsion system only. I wonder what the decision process was between retrofit of existing turboprop frame vs. build from the ground up? I would expect the level of effort and certification to be much higher building from scratch even though you get complete control.
Unless they have a whole new airport and flying experience, I don’t think a lot of people are going to fly just 125 miles. That’s less than two hours of driving. It would be 2 hours of just airport shenanigans much less the flight itself.
Without noise, over time, travel will change.
There will still be some noise. But yes, it’ll be less noisy.
“250mph” AVERAGE speed. Most cars take off at that speed.
Most cars burn their engines out long before that. But damn, if it would not be fun to melt an engine driving at the redline in a straight line.
There are cars with engines that will bring you to 250 mph without burning out, like the Bugatti Chiron. Unfortunately you will burn through your $40k set of tires after 15 minutes at that speed. But don’t fret, because your fuel tank will be empty after 9 minutes anyhow.