Correct. Fuel is around 16/36th of the CO2 mass it emit when being burnt. A 777 carries around 120 tons of fuel for a SF/LON flight, so that's around 300 tons of emissions per flight.
There is a ballistic chute on the cirrus SF50 (their single-engine jet). It's a 7 seater IIRC (6 minimum), and roughly the same weight (2.7T for the cirrus, 3.1 for the lilium).
This type of antiscientific/clickbait reporting shouldn't be on HN. ITER (whatever you think of its results, its competition with more modern approaches like commonwealth fusion systems, and fusion in general) has never been designed for, and has never claimed net-positive power production. It's a prototype vessel for research.
Thats not exactly right. It’s simply that you cannot sell something built >51% by the factory under experimental rules, you’d need to have it FAA certified which this isn’t ( for thousands of reasons ).
The 51% rule is extremely common in experimental aviation.
Transoceanic aircraft need lots of ETOPS time. For example the boeing 777 (twin-engine, transoceanic) has an ETOPS of 330 minutes, so it always needs to be 330 min away from an airport (which is 11 hours of flight from airport A to airport B, not taking wind into account)
Yeah agreed, even on the GA market, the eFlyer 2 is a much more aerodynamic design (low wing, wheel pants, lower windshield height) which is already claiming 36kW cruise at 100kts.
I'm surprised nobody talked about the potential implications of effectively embedding, now that the device is standalone, a lithium ion battery into your skull.
I'm not a battery hater whatsoever but in the case of a thermal runoff if the battery starts burning... there is no way to get it out.
those aren't super hornets by the way (no civilian would get an authorization to fly a super hornet). They're the A/B, original hornet version, and any superhornet would fly circles around one.
If we're in nitpick land, it truly is important (especially in that 737 case) to remember that stalls on wings has nothing to do with speed, and everything to do with angle of attack (the angle between the wing and the apparent wind).
Now, to be fair, going faster DOES create apparent wind coming from the front, so it decreases your angle of attack, but that's it.
(the sensor that failed on the 737s was the angle of attack indicator, trying to estimate if the wing was going to stall).
Space isn't like a highway where you can move from A to B at minimal expense. Switching orbits, both orbit heights but mainly orbit inclinations, comes at a very high delta-V expense and therefore propellant expense, which this craft simply doesn't have the volume to hold.
This cannot shuttle between LEO stations and switch orbits to imitate multiple observation sats unless those sats and stations are very close in terms of orbits.
I was unclear in my weight explanations. The OP’s point was that one of the advantages of fossil fuel aircraft was its ability to shed weight during flight from its fuel source burning away, and I claimed that was irrelevant for GA ( which it is ).
Completely agreed on the avantages of fuel for weight adjustments before takeoff though.
To be fair however the eFlyer specs of 440pounds of useful load for the 2, and 800 for the 4, are quite generous when you compare to fuel equivalent aircraft with realistic fuel loads.
The real insane drawback is the limited range at useful speeds...