If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gizmodo)   World's first electric plane takes off. Initial reactions were both positive and negative   (gizmodo.com.au) divider line 33
    More: Plug, electric aircraft, electricity, Airbus, airplanes, cruising speed, courtesy  
•       •       •

1336 clicks; posted to Geek » on 12 May 2014 at 9:19 AM (10 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



33 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-05-12 08:43:34 AM
Not even close to being the first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_airplane
 
2014-05-12 08:59:44 AM

dittybopper: Not even close to being the first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_airplane


Well, I'm shocked, SHOCKED I say!
 
2014-05-12 09:05:10 AM
www.heidelberghire.com.au
 
2014-05-12 09:23:15 AM
Initial reactions were both positive and negative


Bullshiat.  AC will never fly.

-- T. Edison
 
2014-05-12 09:29:03 AM
a brand new way for airlines to charge up the ass
 
2014-05-12 09:30:50 AM
Stubby, AC what you did there.
 
2014-05-12 09:39:01 AM

xanadian: dittybopper: Not even close to being the first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_airplane

Well, I'm shocked, SHOCKED I say!


It turns out subby's statement was not...

*sunglasses*

...well grounded.
 
2014-05-12 09:39:52 AM

xanadian: dittybopper: Not even close to being the first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_airplane

Well, I'm shocked, SHOCKED I say!




Ditty's charge is well grounded.
 
2014-05-12 09:41:52 AM
Electric seems a poor choice for planes.

First, batteries have a poor weight to energy storage ratio compared to jet fuel.  For the same length trip, a plane with batteries would weigh more and hence use more energy to travel from point a to b.

Second, batteries take a long time to charge.  The big transport planes - be it for people or products - don't stay on the ground too long, except at night.  So they'd either have to carry enough batteries to last them the whole day (heavy), or physically swap them at each airport (expensive due to shipping).

Third, batteries are error prone.  They heat up and catch on fire, or they stop holding a full charge, or they just stop working at inconvenient times.  When dealing with an individual battery it's not so bad, but when you are dealing with the large banks of batteries needed to fly a plane you'd have issues every day.

Nuclear power seems a better option.  Either a scaled down pebble reactor, or perhaps RTGs like they use on satellites.  A bank of those and you'd never have to refuel your plane again.  In either case there would be no risk of melt down or radiation.  Well, except all the radiation you fly through that is.
 
2014-05-12 09:58:44 AM
Well, if it's a two seater, and you can get it up to 2-3 hours between charges, rather than being stuck with only 1, it would make a great alternative to the C-152s and 172s most flight schools use for getting your private/instrument ratings.  The electricity would cost a lot less than 110LL, so certificate costs could come down, which is one of the biggest reasons for the drop in numbers at flight schools.
 
2014-05-12 10:01:32 AM
First?


There have been several electric planes.


What is this  horseshiat?
 
2014-05-12 10:02:03 AM
That's going to need one hell of an extension cord.
www.ccixpress.com
 
2014-05-12 10:07:29 AM
Gah that music
 
2014-05-12 10:17:37 AM
Skip to 3:00-ish if you want to see the plane instead of some inception-style music.
 
2014-05-12 10:22:11 AM
The first?  Nah, not even close.

i1168.photobucket.com

i1168.photobucket.com
 
M-G
2014-05-12 10:43:49 AM

ristst: The first?  Nah, not even close.



All I can think of:  "The principles are the same!"

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-05-12 10:57:34 AM
Still.  Need.  More.  Energy.  Density. (but getting there)
 
2014-05-12 11:00:20 AM
And by "world's first electric plane," we mean "the first electric plane that the mouthbreathing moron at Gizmodo happened to hear about."
 
2014-05-12 11:09:45 AM

ikanreed: Still.  Need.  More.  Energy.  Density. (but getting there)


Either that, or more efficient aircraft designs.  Or both.

But yeah, we can do things now that couldn't be done before.
 
2014-05-12 11:24:24 AM
I'd go with larger wings (as high speed isn't the goal here) so to provide higher lift capacity, and then coat that thing with solar panels, it might not be enough to charge the battery or run the motors, but could extend flight time, and then once landed, if not going up for a couple of days, might be enough to charge it, if not partially..
 
2014-05-12 11:25:36 AM

ikanreed: Still.  Need.  More.  Energy.  Density. (but getting there)


Actually, energy densities are a lot better than you think these days, and good enough to do a lot of things.

The latest 18650 Li-ion NMC cells on the market weigh 3 grams per watt-hour. So a 90kg pack would give you 30kwh--enough to fly a plane for an hour.  And that's only the weight of a single person.
 
2014-05-12 11:25:43 AM

M-G: ristst: The first?  Nah, not even close.


All I can think of:  "The principles are the same!"

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 335x328]


Is that from "Flight of the Phoenix"? Holy obscurity, Batman.
 
2014-05-12 11:31:27 AM

Valiente: M-G: ristst: The first?  Nah, not even close.


All I can think of:  "The principles are the same!"

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 335x328]

Is that from "Flight of the Phoenix"? Holy obscurity, Batman.


That's what passes for obscure these days?
 
2014-05-12 11:42:41 AM
When assembling your electric plane, it's very important to connect the red wire to the Aladeen terminal -- and not the Aladeen terminal, or else the whole thing could explode.
 
2014-05-12 12:15:56 PM
as clever a use of that plug tag is, i'm likely to skip all plug tags out of principle without reading the headline, particularly when it's right next to an actual plug tag for Fark.  but i do applaud the use of it, like a weeners tag about hot dogs.
 
2014-05-12 12:17:29 PM

SomeAmerican: Electric seems a poor choice for planes.

First, batteries have a poor weight to energy storage ratio compared to jet fuel.  For the same length trip, a plane with batteries would weigh more and hence use more energy to travel from point a to b.

Second, batteries take a long time to charge.  The big transport planes - be it for people or products - don't stay on the ground too long, except at night.  So they'd either have to carry enough batteries to last them the whole day (heavy), or physically swap them at each airport (expensive due to shipping).

Third, batteries are error prone.  They heat up and catch on fire, or they stop holding a full charge, or they just stop working at inconvenient times.  When dealing with an individual battery it's not so bad, but when you are dealing with the large banks of batteries needed to fly a plane you'd have issues every day.

Nuclear power seems a better option.  Either a scaled down pebble reactor, or perhaps RTGs like they use on satellites.  A bank of those and you'd never have to refuel your plane again.  In either case there would be no risk of melt down or radiation.  Well, except all the radiation you fly through that is.


You're not the first person to make such a statement. I think it's a badass idea.
 
2014-05-12 12:29:25 PM

SomeAmerican: Nuclear power seems a better option.  Either a scaled down pebble reactor, or perhaps RTGs like they use on satellites.  A bank of those and you'd never have to refuel your plane again.  In either case there would be no risk of melt down or radiation.


Good thing airplanes never crash, right?
 
2014-05-12 01:30:35 PM

Hollie Maea: SomeAmerican: Nuclear power seems a better option.  Either a scaled down pebble reactor, or perhaps RTGs like they use on satellites.  A bank of those and you'd never have to refuel your plane again.  In either case there would be no risk of melt down or radiation.

Good thing airplanes never crash, right?


RTGs built for spacecraft are designed orbital reentry intact.  I'm pretty sure we could build one that would survive any conceivable plane crash.

The problem is that for their power output, they are heavy.  Fine for a spacecraft, a Mars rover, or something like an automated station on Earth, but not so great for an aircraft.

I wouldn't mind running my house on them, though.
 
2014-05-12 02:00:50 PM

dittybopper: RTGs built for spacecraft are designed orbital reentry intact.  I'm pretty sure we could build one that would survive any conceivable plane crash.

The problem is that for their power output, they are heavy.  Fine for a spacecraft, a Mars rover, or something like an automated station on Earth, but not so great for an aircraft.

I wouldn't mind running my house on them, though.


Not just heavy, but tend to put out relatively little power, but for a very long period of time. The voyager probe produced at launch under 500 W. According to the article this plane is powered by 30kW engines.
 
2014-05-12 02:29:12 PM

SpaceButler: Initial reactions were both positive and negative


Bullshiat.  AC will never fly.

-- T. Edison


brilliant.
 
2014-05-12 02:37:56 PM

Chuck Wagon: dittybopper: RTGs built for spacecraft are designed orbital reentry intact.  I'm pretty sure we could build one that would survive any conceivable plane crash.

The problem is that for their power output, they are heavy.  Fine for a spacecraft, a Mars rover, or something like an automated station on Earth, but not so great for an aircraft.

I wouldn't mind running my house on them, though.

Not just heavy, but tend to put out relatively little power, but for a very long period of time. The voyager probe produced at launch under 500 W. According to the article this plane is powered by 30kW engines.


I thought I covered that.
 
2014-05-12 02:49:35 PM

SomeAmerican: Electric seems a poor choice for planes.

First, batteries have a poor weight to energy storage ratio compared to jet fuel.  For the same length trip, a plane with batteries would weigh more and hence use more energy to travel from point a to b.

Second, batteries take a long time to charge.  The big transport planes - be it for people or products - don't stay on the ground too long, except at night.  So they'd either have to carry enough batteries to last them the whole day (heavy), or physically swap them at each airport (expensive due to shipping).

Third, batteries are error prone.  They heat up and catch on fire, or they stop holding a full charge, or they just stop working at inconvenient times.  When dealing with an individual battery it's not so bad, but when you are dealing with the large banks of batteries needed to fly a plane you'd have issues every day.



Are you kidding it's perfect, what we do is instead of installing chairs, every passenger is strapped into an exercycle driving a generator, now if those cheapskates want to get in the air they have to work for it.


For emergency backup all small children tall enough to pedal will be given red kool-aid a constant feed of m&ms to power them.
 
2014-05-12 07:10:45 PM
"It might only be good as a stunt plane for now, but eventually it should prove a nice alternative to say, nuclear-powered planes."

Screw you, gimme a nuke jet. I want Beijing to NYC non-stop.
 
Displayed 33 of 33 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report