![]() |
New turboprop by Embrarer:
|
Smart move. Eventually global warming concerns will outweigh the pax inherent fear and loathing of crop-dusters.
|
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3479794)
Smart move. Eventually global warming concerns will outweigh the pax inherent fear and loathing of crop-dusters.
|
Electric planes are the next big thing. Turboprops are dated
|
Originally Posted by ABXAirOfficer
(Post 3480049)
Electric planes are the next big thing. Turboprops are dated
|
Originally Posted by ABXAirOfficer
(Post 3480049)
Electric planes are the next big thing. Turboprops are dated
I'm a proud member of the props are for boats club but the reality is they have their place for certain missions. I flew full Q400s out of Aspen which makes a lot more economic sense than half full CRJ700s. |
Chicks dig beta-those big props will be droppin' P's left and right.
|
Originally Posted by tallpilot
(Post 3480226)
I think we need one more product cycle of 'sustainable aviation fuel' powered turbines before battery technology has the energy density necessary to provide comparable range.
Energy density (energy per volume) also matters for aviation but energy density is the real kicker... Batteries will never have energy density comparable to kerosene. Chemistry is based on physics... electron valance energy isn't changing, at least not in this reality. There are no big surprises left in the stable (non-radioactive) areas of periodic table, or Newtonian physics. Max *theoretical* specific energy for electro-chemical storage is ballpark 1000 WH/Kg. Current battery technology can actually utilize maybe 250 WH/Kg. That's at the cell level, you lose some in the packaging and battery management. Maybe they can get that up to 800WH/Kg someday? Kerosene's specific energy is 12,000 WH/Kg... Batteries can *someday* plausibly be used for smallish regional aircraft on stage lengths of a maybe a couple hundred NM. Bigger or longer than that, an you need liquid fuels. H2 has a very good specific energy, better than kerosene actually. But it falls short on *energy density*... it takes up a huge volume, so you need a huge airframe to hold that volume, and that's heavy and expensive, so you need more fuel, etc. Remember the Saturn V? That burned kerosene. Space shuttle on the hand burned H2, and needed that big orange external tank to carry enough.
Originally Posted by tallpilot
(Post 3480226)
I'm a proud member of the props are for boats club but the reality is they have their place for certain missions. I flew full Q400s out of Aspen which makes a lot more economic sense than half full CRJ700s.
|
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3480259)
Batteries can *someday* plausibly be used for smallish regional aircraft on stage lengths of a maybe a couple hundred NM. Bigger or longer than that, an you need liquid fuels. A car doing 60 mph can beat many regionals on a two hundred mile trip when you consider all the delays. |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 3480325)
Perhaps, but flying them out of large airports where you have an hour or two wait between being able to park and getting through TSA and then a long wait taxiing out will surely limit their utility.
A car doing 60 mph can beat many regionals on a two hundred mile trip when you consider all the delays. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:00 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands