Why is every branch of the US military suddenly shelling out for this thing? Have they figured out how to impregnate aircraft composites with egirl pheromones or something? YOU CAN'T FRICK THE PLANE. GAO, T- TELL THEM THEY CAN'T FRICK IT
• US Navy Selects Electra to Design Ship-Based Contested Logistics Aircraft
• US Army Awards Electra Contract for Powered Wind Tunnel Test of Contested Logistics eSTOL Aircraft
• Electra to develop ultra-short takeoff plane for Air Force
If you think you can't frick it you're not trying hard enough.
She's no F35, pal. If you ain't bringing enough to share with the class, we got a 2A problem. Stimmies or we riot
Is this a bot?
Is this?
What blew up now?
Why not just buy Storch?
Who in their right mind would want to frick THAT when you have ELECTRA sitting topside
You need to check into the medbay?
>Her vs Her friend with "a great personality"
> BRAWMAMWAMBRBWBRBWBRBWBRBBRBBR
> bzwzbwzwzwwzzwzwzwzwzwzzw
But seriously - anyone? What's so special about this one shitter, versus any of the zillions of other eVTOL style things out there at the moment?
They probably like the idea of having a transport that doesnt need to use fuel, but in a few years realize that batteries are still shit and can the project.
Does this firm have special sauce in that regard? I don't see anything extra shiny in their portfolio. There's such a glut of eVTOL companies with wildly ambitious demonstrators and marketing pitches that I have no idea how / why the big branches are settling on one vendor repeateldy for this.
The special sauce is they're not evtol, they're hybrid. They take advantage of the P/W of the electric motors for takeoff thrust and use a much smaller conventional engine sized for cruise
Electro Aero plane is hybrid. It's powered by 600kw turbo generator using normal jet fuel. Electric part is transmission and some battery to boost power during short take off.
>600kw generator in that tiny ass plane
No
>Safran Helicopter Engines has signed an agreement with Electra to develop the 600 kW electric turbogenerator propulsion system for the prototype of Electra’s nine-passenger hybrid-electric short takeoff and landing (eSTOL) aircraft.
https://www.electra.aero/news/safran
guessing it means it can pull 600kw from the electrical system during takeoff, not that it's a literal 600kw generator. Use your brain
Turbine engines are extremely power dense in weight and volume.
https://aviationweek.com/shownews/paris-air-show/safran-helicopter-engines-developing-turbogenerator-electras-estol
That turboshaft has a peak output of 850kw.
I'm looking forward to buying one for pennies on the dollar at a government auction, don't ruin the surprise.
They promote this for the same they promote gay electric cars. They don't intend to actually make them so they are commercially feasible and affordable its just a carrot to dangle in front of moronic normie bug people so they buy into the climate crisis scam.
Biden said the military needed electric vehicles because CO2 bad.
Electra aero runs on jet fuel.
Global oil reserves are predicted to run dry by 2051. Or at least, that's the date when it's no longer economically profitable to tap it. Only airliners and the military will still use oil. Most of us will die of alcoholism before then, but kids born today will be just 26 when that happens. The US is literally the only country investing in electric tanks and ships and shit. They know what's coming. They know they'll need them.
I miss peak oil boomer's schizo charts plotting ammo vs. gold vs. oil
>Global oil reserves are predicted to run dry by 2051.
Fear mongering.
Also there is synthetic oil from coal, and coal reserves are at least another 500 years.
>Global oil reserves are predicted to run dry by 2051.
No they aren't.
>Or at least, that's the date when it's no longer economically profitable to tap it.
No it isn't.
Every single one of these studies begins with "if we never drill a well ever again". They're a fricking psyop to alarm laymen into thinking their kids will freeze unless we buy solar panels and heat pumps. You may as well publish articles about humans going extinct if we all stopped eating (which billions would have to do if oil ran out by the way).
They're studies that are based on science. Oil isn't infinite, you know. We're burning it constantly. It will run out eventually. Our militaries must be prepared for this, and they are in fact doing so. They accept reality, and you should too.
>They're studies that are based on science.
That all begin with "if we never drill a well ever again"
They're based on economics. By 2051 the only oil reserves left will be so deep that and sparce that it won't be profitable to tap them. They'll be tapped only for the fact that nothing else is as energy dense as hydrocarbons.
>They're based on economics.
That all begin with "if we never drill a well ever again"
>the only oil reserves left
The only EXPLORED reserves. Like I said, they ALL begin with "if we never drill a well ever again".
You're just repeating yourself. Google the question and see that it's the truth. Please stop saying that oil will be profitable forever.
>You're just repeating yourself.
You keep having something said to you and it slips off your smooth brain like shit out of a seagull's ass.
>Please stop saying that oil will be profitable forever.
Please quote me saying anything remotely approaching that statement once. Oh, and have a nice day.
>just drill more wells lol
that won't help you if there isn't any oil left to drill for, moron. the more wells you drill, the sooner that day comes.
(but let me guess - just drill le nother well. drill your mother. just drill!)
>if there isn't any oil left to drill for
two more weeks
why so evasive, anon? are you saying it'll never happen? you could make life easy here: pretend to be an abiotic oil schizo.
but you won't, you'll reply "two more weeks" again or something because years of using this shithole has left you incapable of engaging seriously with any point. you're too dishonest to admit oil reserves aren't limitless, but more insultingly you're too stupid to pretend that they are.
don't reply again unless it's a good one.
two more weeks
more seriously, even in the event of total oil depletion, it's probably still worth using alternative energy sources to produce synfuel as a dense, storable form of energy compatible with existing engines and logistics chains. So no, we'll never run out of oil, because we can make more. It's not cheap, but nothing would be cheap in a world where literally every hydrocarbon source on Earth decided to stop producing.
No matter how you slice it, a world without oil will not be able to support our current economy and population. If you take a barrel of oil, calculate its stored energy, then translate that energy to what you'd need to pay a human to expend an equivalent amount of energy, it costs $208,172. A barrel of oil gives us that work for $86, by comparison.
Can we make synthetic oil? Yes, but the crops for that are crops that you can't use for other things, like food. It takes more energy to make synthetic oil than to mine crude oil, so it's less efficient overall, too. So what will we do? Electric vehicles? There's not enough lithium in the world to make all the batteries needed to replace combustion engines, but at least the lithium can be recycled. We can also use sodium batteries, but those suck and would be relegated to container sized, static units.
>There's not enough lithium in the world to make enough batteries to replace combustion engines
Wrong, or at least deliberately misleading.
Global Lithium Availability
A Constraint for Electric Vehicles?
Paul W. Gruber, Pablo A. Medina, Gregory A. Keoleian, Stephen E. Kesler, Mark P. Everson, Timothy J. Wallington
The EROI argument you're making is fine and a worthwhile conversation, but gross exploitable lithium supply probably isn't a constraint for energy transition.
I will always advocate for nuclear though, since it's the only directly weaponisable energy source. All the other ones have intermediate steps that mean they're not weapons in and of themselves.
>Batteries are not immediately weaponizable
Bigger the better
Sometimes you just need to get it wet.
>then translate that energy to what you'd need to pay a human to expend an equivalent amount of energy
This is the most moronic comparison I've ever heard. "We will regress to paying homeless people to run on treadmills" is not a realistic description of post-fossil-fuel economies and makes everything else you say deeply unserious. Procurement should not be driven by your fantasies.
That's not what he's saying. Just using human labor as a benchmark for the most inefficient work source. That's the one we started with and built on top of, using more and more efficient ones. No one thinks we'll revert to human labor as a primary energy source, it's just the absolute floor for how efficient energy can be.
Unless we literally lose the technology for internal combustion the floor is wood gas
No, because the discussion isn't only about the primary energy source, it's about all energy sources that are used, because economics actually works in terms of shifts at the margins when prices change.
This is because the value you get from a unit of a commodity must at least match the cost you pay for it. The most valuable uses can afford the most for a commodity, the least valuable things the least. When the price of a thing increases the value floor for the possible uses rises, and more possible uses are not economically viable. In reality, commodities vary in price as well as the value of the potential uses, and the cheapest units of a commodity are consumed first, most expensive last, up to the point where the cheapest available unit of commodity is more expensive than the most valuable remaining use. Thus, if you remove many cheap units of a commodity then the remaining units will be reassigned to higher value uses than they were previously used for, and some uses will no longer be economically viable.
Pretending that all work (in the engineering sense) is fully commoditisable for the sake of explanation, this is why we already use human labor for some things right now. There is never enough available work (ie converted energy) to cover all valuable uses, so some of them are done with the least efficient unit of the commodity (human labor). If work (energy) becomes generally more expensive because the primary source of it changes to a less efficient source, then more work will be done by manual labor and some things that we do now will become too expensive to keep doing (ie, living standards will decline).
i always appreciate being passionate about technology but it's important to not assume you have a complete grasp of complex topics. believe it or not, it is not as simple as you make it out to be.
>If you take a barrel of oil, calculate its stored energy, then translate that energy to what you'd need to pay a human to expend an equivalent amount of energy, it costs $208,172. A barrel of oil gives us that work for $86, by comparison.
Also, this is a comparison of work to energy, correct? The work done with oil is still cheaper, but it's still shifty to compare the work done by one thing to the total energy of another. For the specific topic of discussion (cars), even if it was perfectly efficient to refine oil to gasoline (it's not), car engines themselves are only 50% efficient at best.
better reply, thank you.
it's okay anon, we'll hit peak oil very soon!
We were supposed to run out of oil a long time ago.
Every single past prediction about oil has been wrong, simply because no study can realistically account for future technology developments. Oil extraction will keep getting cheaper and previously economically inaccessible reserves will be tapped.
The thing is that the damned stuff is not growing back. The entire premise hinges on
>hey maybe we can find some new source and scrape by for next few decades
Its like being a jobless guy and living of large inherited wealth.
Money runs out so you start selling israeliteelry. israeliteelry starts running out, you start selling paintings off the wall. Then silver kitchnware goes. Then some of the fancier furniture. Then wooden wall panels.
And each time you start feeling pressures you reassure yourself:
>hey, ill just find something else to sell in future if needed and it will be okay
Without noticing that you spend more and more effort trying to fence the stuff and gain less and less in return.
And unless you actually get a source of new income, at some point - not tomorrow, not in a month or even a year, but the time will ineviteably come, and you will sit hungry in empty house with bare walls and bare floor, looking at grandfathers rare gun collection and thinking that you could sell them as well.
Anyway i hope somebody cracks the industrial scale bacterial petroleum synthesis soon.
>Global oil reserves are predicted to run dry by 2051.
No. moron. Thats not how it works.
We have FOUND enough oil to run to 2051 because once a certain threshold is found, everyone stops looking. Why? Because if someone finds oil all the oil companies have to compete to buy rights to that oil, and there is no point in spending money in 2024 on something you wont use until 2040 or 2050.
So we have PROVEN reserves to 2051, unproven reserves stretch well beyond that.
Not the anon you're replying to but:
>This very finite resource is actually infinite
>Nevermind the damage it causes
>Nevermind the economic boon and potential available for something much easier to source
We get it, you're overdosing on Daily Caller, but come on, anon, you can't be this fricking dense.
the damage it causes
All oil was at one point organic matter, organic matter which somehow grew in a world in which all of the carbon was still in the atmosphere/biosphere and had not yet been sequestered in the Earth's crust.
Carbon sequestration cannot be a 1-way process, it has to be released at some point. Either we can exploit it, or it continues being sequestered until the biosphere is suppressed, or a seismic event causes a massive field to rupture and break it's containment.
the economic boon
Then go make billions of dollars. YOU. Go on. If renewable energy is such easy money go and make yourself a billionaire. I'm not even kidding, if you can figure out how to make renewables profitable (without market manipulation and taxing the shit out of people to fake profitability) I'm in your corner.
Are you actually being this dense on purpose?
Are you actually saying we should be causing tectonic destabilization, which wasn't even brought up? Holy shit.
>Makes up some shit that was never stated to argue with self
It's difficult and takes a shitload of investment to go from potential massive boon to an actual massive boon. The same thing had to happen with oil. Decades of investment and research into infrastructure, refinement, storage, delivery, etc. Is this not taught in history classes anymore? I'd ask if you're a dropout, but I remember learning this well before my first pubic hair.
>Are you actually saying we should be causing tectonic destabilization
Oh OK, you're fricking illiterate.
>Make moronic statement
>Act superior when someone calls it out for being a moronic statement
You are programmed.
You just have no plan for the future, right? Stop sticking your head in the sand. Oil will not last forever. The day it runs out is within a lifetime. We must adapt soon.
>Everything happens because of whoever I cast as my personal bogeyman this week
>Saving money is BAD
I say this as someone who has to help care for a family member that is schizophrenic: you need help.
Electra aren't focused on an evtol, they're working on a hybrid system allowing you to size your traditional power system for cruise and use electric systems to provide additional power. It's like an electric "afterburner" (separate motors but you get my point). The electric only contracts I suspect they took because they exist, but they're not morons, they know pure evs won't have the range and endurance required
If range isn't a problem electric motors have far better power-to-weight ratio than piston engines and even most turboshaft engines
>If range isn't a problem
Range is always a problem. No one has ever said "we don't need that much range."
Range is always a problem, but even a <100km aircraft can be useful if you don't need any maintenance -compared to a piston engine-
>electric motors have far better power-to-weight ratio than piston engines
unless you count the fuel/battery
>unless you count the fuel/battery
Even taking into account that.
>300 kw lycoming engine + 3 kg of fuel (100 (very SC) - 300 kg)
>300 kw gas turbine + 4 kg of fuel (60-120 kg)
>300 kw electric motor + 10 kwh (80-100 kg)
The gas turbine is by far the best, piston engines are useless if you don't want waste time maintaining a SC engine. That same 10kwh battery could do +600 kw for a few seconds, just enough for a take off. Electric motors have advantage if range isn't a problem because batteries are far better than mechanical things to generate short peaks of high power, the weight of the (aero)motor itself is negligible.
I appreciate your effortposting, but it's lost on brainrotted useful idiots who brainwashed themselves into being luddites for the benefit of oil corps.
NTA
I have noticed that people love to point out things electric suck at like trucks or airliners and just ignore everything they are great for.
If you live in a city odds are an electric car will save you money while doing everything you need. I would love one but with our broken housing market I'm going to be renting for life and I'm not putting a charger in someone elses house.
EVs are class warfare.
They are based on the (wrong) premise that everyone has a cozy garage and just plugs it in at night.
It's not lost on everyone
I want to see undesirables getting blown up by solar powered UAV's with a practically limitless loiter time. To stop global warming, I mean.
Boeings butt frickery has them wanting literally any alternative for planes.
i dont know what it is but i like it
Turbines and turboprops are extremely high maintenance engines, so if they can replace trainers with electric planes then ground time gets shorter, crews can be smaller and overall running of the aircraft can be significantly cheaper.
Problem with that is battery charge times. My flight school looked into that and the time it takes to charge a battery was like 4 hours. 4 hours that could be spent flying, making money and training students. You would need replaceable batteries that could sit on a charger while a fresh set was installed and sent flying.
Honestly it's just that electric engines are just efficient, provide a frick ton of torque for not a lot of weight.
You can effectively have a low power but efficient fuel generator for gliding, yet have the burst of power for takeoff from batteries, and they require way less maintainance.
Plus you can supplement using nuclear powerplants onboard certain carriers quite literally indefinitely.
Electric motors are wildly efficient and batteries are woefully inadequate at power density. This has always been the tradeoff, barring massive advances in battery technology. You can make lightweight electric planes, but they're always going to be compromises. Another factor - fuel weight decreases as you burn it, battery weight remains the same as they discharge.
swapping batteries takes 2 minutes
>Turbines and turboprops are extremely high maintenance engines
Turbines are actually easier to maintain than piston engines. A turbine only has a single moving assembly and typically operates at lower peak temperatures. The issues with turbine are mostly in the materials for the turbine (not compressor) blades and making sure they're slotted, pinned, and balanced properly.
I want to lift same-chan off the ground and watch them struggle powerlessly, kicking feets in their silly sharksuit
>Is this a bot?
I'm trying to keep a thread about a shitty lil adventure plane alive long enough for someone who knows the grift to show up and tell me whose dick was sucked. It's either planefrickers or poltards. Which would you rather have
>them
>Why is every branch of the US military suddenly shelling out for this thing?
How many electric airplanes are there for sale right now? Not many. That's why. When there is more competition in the market a better plane will be selected. This is only ever going to be used in situations where fuel isn't accessible because it kind of sucks.
>Why is every branch of the US military suddenly shelling out for this thing?
It's the same as everything else. Corrupt politicians want more money from their MIC donors, so they will do what their MIC donors want them to do.
>8 goddamn engines for such a small plane
The most american solution possible
Pdf presentation on this plane
https://aam-cms.marqui.tech/uploads/aam-portal-cms/originals/2b8e1470-89f8-422f-ba8e-5605920de49b.pdf
They promise fuel efficiency equivalent of the 23MPG car. It's nice.
It's blown wing concept.
https://www.electra.aero/
Propellers increase air speed around wing at low aircraft speeds so wing produces more lift.
This is why it's hybrid turbo electric. Mechanical transmission for 8 propellers would be nightmare, but with electric motors it's easy peasy.
small props are less efiicient than large props. so, why tf are they using small props
>all this EV shilling ITT
homosexuals must have gotten tired of shilling EVs on PrepHole.
>YOU CAN'T FRICK THE PLANE.
I'd frick that plane. The 8 prop layout goes crazy.
>8 prop layout
imagine the blowjobs, heh
I'm a mechanical engineer. I have upgraded that plane.
Corporate called down. They want to know if you can fix it more. Or maybe it was better? Or bigger...
I don't know about this one but I do know the Alpha Electro costs ~1/4 as much as a 2 seat cesna per hour including the battery being replaced every 5,000 hours.
Electric trainers make perfect sense for saving money until your trainees graduate to jets and you have to spend big on flight hours.
>Oil seething
Solar+wind+hydro (where possible) with a wood gas backup if you're rural enough should be the goal for every single American who owns a home.
Not because "muh environment", or because oil is gonna run out, but because if the US power grid is 90% decentralized and self-sustaining it's effectively invincible, and as a consumer being energy independent is one less corpoBlack person shackle around your neck.
Related - kinda
Why exactly does it need 8 small engines instead of a single big engine? Something to do with electric motor efficiency?
I see.