(no title)
_jss | 1 year ago
Yes, it’s more total fuel consumption than a car (but in an hour covering 2x the distance, and allowing to travel more directly) but not at all close to turbine or turboprops. At the extremely cheap (accessible to more pilots) side for pressurized planes, fuel burn is going to be 40gph and it just goes up from there.
There are many variables, and winds work for or against—but by doing good flight planning you use the winds to your advantage.
There is also a lot of research on better aviation fuels (100ll :(((). I’m excited about that part of it, more so than the current electric planes (although electric self-launching gliders are pretty neat)
MOSIAC is going to make light sport aircraft more useful, which will also help in this area.
Tons of interesting stuff happening here!
limitedfrom|1 year ago
_jss|1 year ago
We don’t really have hybrid planes yet, which will likely help in the most inefficient parts of flying (climb).
My comment is to add more information to the discussion to consider many aspects, not to make claims that it’s a fuel-sensible method of travel. I am excited for innovation here, just like I am excited for the continued improvements in hybrid and electric cars.
n_ermosh|1 year ago
Our plane will be ~7 gph at cruise burning unleaded fuels and fly ~170mph over the ground (with no wind)
entropie|1 year ago
You give consumption of 7 gallons in cruise mode. I don't want to know what is burnt during take-off or landing.
callalex|1 year ago