Electric vehicles that can take off and land vertically, but then fly like a plane, are already being sold and used by hospitals and shipping companies. These vehicles have 5 batteries that give it a range of over 350 miles using current battery technology, though the batteries are intended to be swapped over the life of the aircraft, much like the engine of a traditional aircraft, however, future batteries could feature improvements, meaning the vehicle gets better over time. The redundancy that Electric motors allow more easily than mechanical motors means this aircraft is far safer than anything else in the air.
Posted this in another chat…
I’ve always been curious how electric planes will address MLW as they scale up. Even if you get similar energy densities and can cover MTOW, you generally count on reducing weight as you use up fuel and are lighter when you land. But with a battery your weight is going to be roughly the same. Will that mean you have to take into account the increased weight and will have less room for cargo/passengers?
could you briefly add what the abbreviations mean? Thank you!
Maximum Landing Weight and Maximum Takeoff Weight. Because of the stress put on the airframe when landing you don’t want a heavy plane. It’s easier to control when taking off because it’s smoother. So having the same weight on landing means the airframe will need to be beefed up, or you fly with less overall since more goes to the plane.
Flying a VTOL aircraft seems out of reach for me as most are either helicopters or military, but an EVTOL seems like something that could be in reach for me within my lifetime.
Yeah the guy was saying the learning curve is very approachable for those with the right qualifications.
I think the cats, hedgehogs, squirels and otger frequent roadkill victims will be very happy if massively we start using flying electric cars
If you replaced every vehicle with an electric airplane the electricity needed would be astronomical.
Flying cars exist, you just need a pilot license to operate one, that is not something that will go away any time soon, and for good reason.
Everyone driving at 60MPH in 2D is dangerous enough as it is, 160MPH in 3D is way more dangerous. It’s not an issue of technology, it is an issue of the fundamental impracticality of the concept.
But we could have an average of 684 9/11’s a hour, the actual number of car crashes per hour in the US, driven purely by the piloting skills of the average Amarican driver given command of an aircraft, who wouldn’t want to live in that future?
I see a lot of potential for electric aircraft for short haul flights between regional airports, or for distribution of cargo between hubs, but not in any sort of dispersed capacity. Hub to warehouse cargo? Sure! Delivery to doorsteps or air taxi? hell no.
Anything that isn’t flying along a designate air route between already establish large volume facilities is just fundamentally impractical due to the safety issues with aircraft. No amount of new tech will solve how fundamentally dangerous a 4 ton hunk of metal going at 160MPH going anywhere but a designated route away from populated areas is.
Oh yeah no. This guy has no dreams that don’t comply with the current FAA rules
Yeah, especially since even self-driving cars prove to be a much bigger headache to accomplish than anticipated. If we cannot even figure those out in so many years, it will take even longer to add a whole other dimension to all the variability.
Short haul flights should probably be high speed train rides anyway
