Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TheLianeonProject t1_j6htwsv wrote

>line the pockets of the founders.

All new technologies are too-good-to-be-true when they start out, and all startups need to paint an optimistic outlook to get funding. You seem to be suggesting corruption, which need not be the case.

Remember also, electric aircraft don't need a super long range to carve out an important niche. They are prop-driven and can actually be faster than jets on these short routes, doing so without expensive fuel.

I can see a future where electric planes take over some short air routes for sure.


Progenitor001 t1_j6iyaon wrote

Yeah, the too good to be true tech are called scams, vaporware and greenwashing. People need to stop throwing money on useless trash just because a few millionaires think it's a cool. Idea.

Examples: Theranos. Hyperloop, waterseer, that one electric truck company, solar roadways. To name a few. Fucking morons throwing money at garbage.


thegreatgazoo t1_j6i8puh wrote

The range is only half of the picture. Current airplanes can refuel quickly and easily and get back in the air. A battery powered airplane would need either multiple charge points or swappable batteries.

Then there's fire suppression unless a battery that is much less flammable than lithium ion batteries are used.


Surur t1_j6i9n1j wrote

> However, United Airlines-backed Heart Aerospace says swapping batteries will add unnecessary complexity and that charging times will be about 40 minutes for an 'average mission'.

I believe their solid electrode battery has a much lower risk of fire.