317 karma · joined November 30, 2014
The 51% rule is extremely common in experimental aviation.
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.
https://nationaltransitdatabase.org/california/peninsula-cor...
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).
Sorry you can't drive a 2-ton vehicle through one of the most dense cities in the world, that also has a very extensive public transportation system.
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.
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...
For a VFR aircraft I don't mind an iPad-type device for nav. I did my initial training on a 6pack 152 and I was fine with that.
I'm mostly interested (and they've remained silent) on their choice of avionics for the IFR eFlyer4. I'd kill for a G1000...
This is why IFR certification (more dangerous and skilled) is an addon that takes dozens of hours to complete initial training for, and then requires Instrument Proficiency Checks every 6 months to keep current on.
1) General aviation doesn't rely at all on the weight difference from fuel burn for flight planning (I am IFR certified and fly Cirrus SR22s). My fuel not burning in my wings wouldn't change anything, as I'm constrained by takeoff weight not by landing weight, and I don't climb into the flight-levels high enough for my current weight to matter (that would require FL22 or above, and I like my breathable oxygen).
2) General aviation certification, while expensive, is far from the cost of commercial cert, especially for VFR aircraft. There is no reason why they can't certify an electric aircraft, and they have funding from Subaru's investment fund. Pipistrel (electro) did it for their ultralight.
3) Of course the motor's electrical system is separate from the aircraft's other electrical system, that's aircraft certification 101 (being able to through the master switch deactivate alternator but not battery power). On top of that 12v instrumentation is (obviously) on a different power level than an electric engine, so the batteries will be different.
IFR certification will require 2 instrumentation power source backups (like BAT1/BAT2 on my cirrus) which really isn't a problem, when you've put a 92kWh battery on a plane you can put 2 0.5kWh batteries as redundancy.
(for what it's worth, I'm currently waiting to buy an eFlyer 4).
Look up engine knock.
If this ever flies and there is a kerosene carbon tax, that plane is dead.
As you can see, the US response is critically deficient.