Check it out guys ! The LNP voters would tell you it couldn't be done but here it is ;)

See what Australia has missed out on :( But then again we have lots of casual jobs making cups of coffee and mowing lawns. What great career prospects we have for our youth :(

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgdj9HpdzvI

Wow. Only need 300 of them instead of one commercial flight.

A rich man's toy.

We cant afford to make cars, not much chance we could make electric planes.


We need to get a lot poorer before we can afford to make stuff again.


If you know what I mean.

lee wrote on Dec 29^th, 2018 at 11:31am:

Wow. Only need 300 of them instead of one commercial flight. A rich man's toy.

I knew "it's not a 747" excuse would pop-up. Did you get that one out of your 101 climate skeptics handbook too ? :D LOL

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 29^th, 2018 at 12:53pm:

lee wrote on Dec 29th, 2018 at 11:31am: Wow. Only need 300 of them instead of one commercial flight. A rich man's toy. I knew "it's not a 747" excuse would pop-up. Did you get that one out of your 101 climate skeptics handbook too ? :D LOL

Well that must be why you posted "Totally all electric plane - the future is here !!"

Mass transport versus rich man's toy? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Dec 29^th, 2018 at 1:11pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 29th, 2018 at 12:53pm: lee wrote on Dec 29th, 2018 at 11:31am: Wow. Only need 300 of them instead of one commercial flight. A rich man's toy. I knew "it's not a 747" excuse would pop-up. Did you get that one out of your 101 climate skeptics handbook too ? :D LOL Well that must be why you posted "Totally all electric plane - the future is here !!" Mass transport versus rich man's toy? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

So a Cessna is a rich mans toy as well ?

How much does a 747 cost btw ? :D LOL

You see that's why I asked you what you really stand for because all you do is bag anything that threatens your beloved fossil fool industry. Just look at the sh.t you keep posting here. 

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 29^th, 2018 at 1:43pm:

So a Cessna is a rich mans toy as well ?

Well I don't own one. Most Australians of means don't own one. From about $55k second hand


Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 29^th, 2018 at 1:43pm:

You see that's why I asked you what you really stand for because all you do is bag anything that threatens your beloved fossil fool industry. Just look at the sh.t you keep posting here.

You are the one making claims of "the future is here".  And nothing to back it up. So with all these aircraft apparently coming on stream; how many new airports?

lee wrote on Dec 29^th, 2018 at 2:48pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 29th, 2018 at 1:43pm: So a Cessna is a rich mans toy as well ? Well I don't own one. Most Australians of means don't own one. From about $55k second hand Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 29th, 2018 at 1:43pm: You see that's why I asked you what you really stand for because all you do is bag anything that threatens your beloved fossil fool industry. Just look at the sh.t you keep posting here. You are the one making claims of "the future is here".  And nothing to back it up. So with all these aircraft apparently coming on stream; how many new airports?

You are a dead set doofus.

I just backed it up with an fully working example so go bugger yourself. Just because it's not a jumbo is irrelevant. You may not know that many are working on personal aircraft as a solution to prospective traffic chaos and energy wastage. But of course being a brain dead LNP voter you prefer to stick your head in the sand and play around with square wheels and rubbing sticks together.

https://cromhallchapel.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/dontreinventthemap-6ba62b8ba05d4957d2ed772584d7e4cd.png

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 29^th, 2018 at 4:11pm:

I just backed it up with an fully working example so go bugger yourself. Just because it's not a jumbo is irrelevant.

And what to do for a bigger electric aircraft? Add more batteries. More batteries - more weight - less passengers. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 29^th, 2018 at 8:58am:

Check it out guys ! The LNP voters would tell you it couldn't be done but here it is ;) See what Australia has missed out on :( But then again we have lots of casual jobs making cups of coffee and mowing lawns. What great career prospects we have for our youth :( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgdj9HpdzvI

7 minutes of flight used 20% of battery do you think that is impressive?

Well going by the cost of Electricity in Australia
I'm sure this idea will get off the ground as a better alternative.  ::)

lee wrote on Dec 29^th, 2018 at 5:31pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 29th, 2018 at 4:11pm: I just backed it up with an fully working example so go bugger yourself. Just because it's not a jumbo is irrelevant. And what to do for a bigger electric aircraft? Add more batteries. More batteries - more weight - less passengers. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

No lets just can the whole idea because they haven't built an 747 yet. For years we got the same criticisms for golf buggy style EV's but then Tesla comes along and turns all of that on its head and you lot end up eating your own vomit. You LNP supporters are dead set retarded and dangerous too. Just pieces of human flotsam hell bent on robbing people with hare brain business ideas that can't possibly compete on a level playing field :(

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 29^th, 2018 at 8:07pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 29th, 2018 at 8:58am: Check it out guys ! The LNP voters would tell you it couldn't be done but here it is ;) See what Australia has missed out on :( But then again we have lots of casual jobs making cups of coffee and mowing lawns. What great career prospects we have for our youth :( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgdj9HpdzvI 7 minutes of flight used 20% of battery do you think that is impressive?

According to you retards it was never going to get off the ground.

It’s ok Lastnial , these men need to be pitied not scorned, as they have lost the wonder of life, they can’t get excited about possibilities, they can only see the negative and I find it very saddening. :)

DonDeeHippy wrote on Dec 30^th, 2018 at 7:20am:

It’s ok Lastnial , these men need to be pitied not scorned, as they have lost the wonder of life, they can’t get excited about possibilities, they can only see the negative and I find it very saddening. :)

Plenty of pity to come when they get wiped off at the next election. But then they still won't realize why :D LOL

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 29^th, 2018 at 11:41pm:

No lets just can the whole idea because they haven't built an 747 yet.

So tell us. More powerful, lighter batteries? ;D ;D ;D ;D


Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 29^th, 2018 at 11:41pm:

For years we got the same criticisms for golf buggy style EV's but then Tesla comes along and turns all of that on its head and you lot end up eating your own vomit.

Really where was that said? All I can recall is questions of capacity, recharge etc. Questions that still remain for other than commutes.


Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 29^th, 2018 at 11:41pm:

Just pieces of human flotsam hell bent on robbing people with hare brain business ideas that can't possibly compete on a level playing field

You mean like the level playing field of intermittent power? ;D ;D ;D ;D

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 29^th, 2018 at 11:44pm:

According to you retards it was never going to get off the ground.

Got a reference for that?

DonDeeHippy wrote on Dec 30^th, 2018 at 7:20am:

t’s ok Lastnial , these men need to be pitied not scorned, as they have lost the wonder of life, they can’t get excited about possibilities, they can only see the negative and I find it very saddening.

poor ddh. Getting excited about possibilities? It would be better to get excited about probabilities.

lee wrote on Dec 30^th, 2018 at 12:10pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Dec 30th, 2018 at 7:20am: t’s ok Lastnial , these men need to be pitied not scorned, as they have lost the wonder of life, they can’t get excited about possibilities, they can only see the negative and I find it very saddening. poor ddh. Getting excited about possibilities? It would be better to get excited about probabilities.

There there Lee it’s ok.........and yes Id go for possibilities than probabilities any day.... u rest my case  ;)

DonDeeHippy wrote on Dec 30^th, 2018 at 2:23pm:

and yes Id go for possibilities than probabilities any day..

yes. So many new batteries - never made to production.
So any renewable energies - never made it to commercialisation.
And now Wind turbines.

"The analysis of almost 3,000 onshore wind turbines — the biggest study of its kind —warns that they will continue to generate electricity effectively for just 12 to 15 years.

The wind energy industry and the Government base all their calculations on turbines enjoying a lifespan of 20 to 25 years.

The study estimates that routine wear and tear will more than double the cost of electricity being produced by wind farms in the next decade.

Older turbines will need to be replaced more quickly than the industry estimates while many more will need to be built onshore if the Government is to meet renewable energy targets by 2020.

The extra cost is likely to be passed on to households, which already pay about £1 billion a year in a consumer subsidy that is added to electricity bills. "

" The report’s author, Prof Gordon Hughes, an economist at Edinburgh University and a former energy adviser to the World Bank, discovered that the “load factor” — the efficiency rating of a turbine based on the percentage of electricity it actually produces compared with its theoretical maximum — is reduced from 24 per cent in the first 12 months of operation to just 11 per cent after 15 years.

The decline in the output of offshore wind farms, based on a study of Danish wind farms, appears even more dramatic. The load factor for turbines built on platforms in the sea is reduced from 39 per cent to 15 per cent after 10 years."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/windpower/9770837/Wind-farm-turbines-wear-sooner-than-expected-says-study.html

That makes replacement sooner rather than later.



DonDeeHippy wrote on Dec 30^th, 2018 at 2:23pm:

. u rest my case

I have heard that about you. They call you "the Judge" on the wharves. Always resting on your case. ;)

lee wrote on Dec 30^th, 2018 at 2:37pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Dec 30th, 2018 at 2:23pm: and yes Id go for possibilities than probabilities any day.. yes. So many new batteries - never made to production. So any renewable energies - never made it to commercialisation. And now Wind turbines. "The analysis of almost 3,000 onshore wind turbines — the biggest study of its kind —warns that they will continue to generate electricity effectively for just 12 to 15 years. The wind energy industry and the Government base all their calculations on turbines enjoying a lifespan of 20 to 25 years. The study estimates that routine wear and tear will more than double the cost of electricity being produced by wind farms in the next decade. Older turbines will need to be replaced more quickly than the industry estimates while many more will need to be built onshore if the Government is to meet renewable energy targets by 2020. The extra cost is likely to be passed on to households, which already pay about £1 billion a year in a consumer subsidy that is added to electricity bills. " " The report’s author, Prof Gordon Hughes, an economist at Edinburgh University and a former energy adviser to the World Bank, discovered that the “load factor” — the efficiency rating of a turbine based on the percentage of electricity it actually produces compared with its theoretical maximum — is reduced from 24 per cent in the first 12 months of operation to just 11 per cent after 15 years. The decline in the output of offshore wind farms, based on a study of Danish wind farms, appears even more dramatic. The load factor for turbines built on platforms in the sea is reduced from 39 per cent to 15 per cent after 10 years." https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/windpower/9770837/Wind-farm-turbines-wear-sooner-than-expected-says-study.html That makes replacement sooner rather than later. DonDeeHippy wrote on Dec 30th, 2018 at 2:23pm: . u rest my case  I have heard that about you. They call you "the Judge" on the wharves. Always resting on your case. ;)

Ahh another example of trying to find anything to make ppls efforts to make the world better seam wrong.... this is a study from 6 years ago from a anti wind farm group... so what’s the follow up Lee, have the wind farms fallen apart, was the report true or was it just a distorted report with no foundation as was stated in the artical u linked  but didn’t put that part in your post  ;)
Again it’s really easy to tear down but hard to build Lee  ;)

DonDeeHippy wrote on Dec 30^th, 2018 at 6:09pm:

Ahh another example of trying to find anything to make ppls efforts to make the world better seam wrong....

Really? is that what you intuited? ;D ;D ;D


DonDeeHippy wrote on Dec 30^th, 2018 at 6:09pm:

this is a study from 6 years ago from a anti wind farm group...

I thought it was from an economist. ;)


DonDeeHippy wrote on Dec 30^th, 2018 at 6:09pm:

so what’s the follow up Lee, have the wind farms fallen apart, was the report true or was it just a distorted report with no foundation as was stated in the artical u linked  but didn’t put that part in your post

Perhaps you can point me to where it was "distorted"?


DonDeeHippy wrote on Dec 30^th, 2018 at 6:09pm:

Again it’s really easy to tear down but hard to build Lee

Except n the case of wind generators they take a lot of tearing down. All that CO2 emitting concrete. ;)

lee wrote on Dec 30^th, 2018 at 6:20pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Dec 30th, 2018 at 6:09pm: Ahh another example of trying to find anything to make ppls efforts to make the world better seam wrong.... Really? is that what you intuited? ;D ;D ;D DonDeeHippy wrote on Dec 30th, 2018 at 6:09pm: this is a study from 6 years ago from a anti wind farm group... I thought it was from an economist. ;) DonDeeHippy wrote on Dec 30th, 2018 at 6:09pm: so what’s the follow up Lee, have the wind farms fallen apart, was the report true or was it just a distorted report with no foundation as was stated in the artical u linked  but didn’t put that part in your post Perhaps you can point me to where it was "distorted"? DonDeeHippy wrote on Dec 30th, 2018 at 6:09pm: Again it’s really easy to tear down but hard to build Lee Except n the case of wind generators they take a lot of tearing down. All that CO2 emitting concrete. ;)

The report, published last week by the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF), a think tank that has campaigned against wind farms

So again have the turbines stopped working as the report was 7 years ago.... in 7 years have wind farms gotten cheaper. Have the gotten more economical and do they last longer now ? How much has coal power plants gotten better in. 7 years, are they half as cheep now .... r they more economical now since 7 years ago... r the coal plants that pollute less cheeper now..... ;)

I just realized u have done it again...... now we r not talking about planes.....anther great deflection there king Lee  ;)

DonDeeHippy wrote on Dec 30^th, 2018 at 6:59pm:

The report, published last week by the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF), a think tank that has campaigned against wind farms

So that makes the report bogus? distorted? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


DonDeeHippy wrote on Dec 30^th, 2018 at 6:59pm:

So again have the turbines stopped working as the report was 7 years ago.... in 7 years have wind farms gotten cheaper.

And they still need backup power supplies? When you factor that in they ain't cheaper.

Whether it is gas peaking plants or batteries. And gas peaking plants are powered by the dreaded fossil fuels. ;)

DonDeeHippy wrote on Dec 30^th, 2018 at 7:04pm:

I just realized u have done it again...... now we r not talking about planes.....anther great deflection there king Lee

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 29^th, 2018 at 1:43pm:

You see that's why I asked you what you really stand for because all you do is bag anything that threatens your beloved fossil fool industry. Just look at the sh.t you keep posting here.

Perhaps you should pin the blame where it belongs. ;)

And then you started waffling about possibilities. Apart from a light plane what other possibilities did you want to discuss under flight? ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Dec 30^th, 2018 at 7:13pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Dec 30th, 2018 at 7:04pm: I just realized u have done it again...... now we r not talking about planes.....anther great deflection there king Lee  Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 29th, 2018 at 1:43pm: You see that's why I asked you what you really stand for because all you do is bag anything that threatens your beloved fossil fool industry. Just look at the sh.t you keep posting here. Perhaps you should pin the blame where it belongs. ;) And then you started waffling about possibilities. Apart from a light plane what other possibilities did you want to discuss under flight? ;D ;D ;D

As opposed to the do nothing LNP party. Remember Doctor NO aka Tiny ABort. No No No No No No No No.....

https://pre00.deviantart.net/57dc/th/pre/i/2015/114/4/a/dr__no__tony_abbott__by_jmc17-d58smpu.jpg

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 30^th, 2018 at 9:21pm:

As opposed to the do nothing LNP party. Remember Doctor NO aka Tiny ABort. No No No No No No No No.....

oh dear. trying to take the topic off piste? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Dec 30^th, 2018 at 12:08pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 29th, 2018 at 11:44pm: According to you retards it was never going to get off the ground. Got a reference for that?

Yes :D LOL

https://pre00.deviantart.net/57dc/th/pre/i/2015/114/4/a/dr__no__tony_abbott__by_jmc17-d58smpu.jpg

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 29^th, 2018 at 11:44pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 29th, 2018 at 8:07pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 29th, 2018 at 8:58am: Check it out guys ! The LNP voters would tell you it couldn't be done but here it is ;) See what Australia has missed out on :( But then again we have lots of casual jobs making cups of coffee and mowing lawns. What great career prospects we have for our youth :( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgdj9HpdzvI 7 minutes of flight used 20% of battery do you think that is impressive? According to you retards it was never going to get off the ground.

Can you cite where I would have said that or did you pluck that from your ass?

That plane uses 20% of battery for 7 minutes flight time so keeping a little in reserve it's good for just under half an hour flight time per battery charge.

It would be lucky to do 100 knots (184 KPH) in level flight so it would have a range of about 90km

How far apart are airports? Is this thing limited to flying patterns around the airport it takes off from?

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 30^th, 2018 at 11:12pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 29th, 2018 at 11:44pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 29th, 2018 at 8:07pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 29th, 2018 at 8:58am: Check it out guys ! The LNP voters would tell you it couldn't be done but here it is ;) See what Australia has missed out on :( But then again we have lots of casual jobs making cups of coffee and mowing lawns. What great career prospects we have for our youth :( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgdj9HpdzvI 7 minutes of flight used 20% of battery do you think that is impressive? According to you retards it was never going to get off the ground. Can you cite where I would have said that or did you pluck that from your ass? That plane uses 20% of battery for 7 minutes flight time so keeping a little in reserve it's good for just under half an hour flight time per battery charge. It would be lucky to do 100 knots (184 KPH) in level flight so it would have a range of about 90km How far apart are airports? Is this thing limited to flying patterns around the airport it takes off from?

There were two people in the plane so added weight and they admitted that they were thrashing the plane and it was not normal use so flight time was considerably reduced. If it was left to LNP supporters the Wright brothers would never have got off the ground.

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 30^th, 2018 at 11:02pm:

Yes

So the real answer is "No". ;)

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 31^st, 2018 at 10:17am:

There were two people in the plane so added weight and they admitted that they were thrashing the plane and it was not normal use so flight time was considerably reduced.

Wow. There's a story. A plane carrying TWO. ;D ;D ;D ;D

I'm impressed, it's just what I need to do my grocery shopping. The supermarket is 80ks away traveling on inferior hilly winding roads, so by air the distance would be cut to just 50ks as the crow flies and the time would be cut by 60%

The plane would need to be a "peoples" plane to make it affordable, with just a few essential instruments and warning buzzers, and be restricted to flying in only clear weather

I could enjoy the added bonus of sightseeing mountains and valleys from the air on my way to do my shopping

I understand the need to closely examine the statistics and viability of EVs, but I do not understand why anyone feels the need to sneer at them.

People sneered at Stevenson in 1830. A century later, steam locomotives were capable of 150 kilometers and hour, and they did not have digital technology to help them figure out how to do it.

EVs are here to stay. They will improve faster than the steam engine did, and the sneerers will live to eat their words.

We have a fortune teller among us.

lee wrote on Dec 31^st, 2018 at 11:39am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 31st, 2018 at 10:17am: There were two people in the plane so added weight and they admitted that they were thrashing the plane and it was not normal use so flight time was considerably reduced. Wow. There's a story. A plane carrying TWO. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Just say what you really want to say instead of moving the goal posts to bag a new technology ;)

https://pre00.deviantart.net/57dc/th/pre/i/2015/114/4/a/dr__no__tony_abbott__by_jmc17-d58smpu.jpg

issuevoter wrote on Dec 31^st, 2018 at 4:18pm:

I understand the need to closely examine the statistics and viability of EVs, but I do not understand why anyone feels the need to sneer at them. People sneered at Stevenson in 1830. A century later, steam locomotives were capable of 150 kilometers and hour, and they did not have digital technology to help them figure out how to do it. EVs are here to stay. They will improve faster than the steam engine did, and the sneerers will live to eat their words.

They sneer at them because they fear change and they are only happy when battlers are forced to take it up the arse at the fossil fool bowser !!

Impressive - very nice. A lot cheaper than driving too. Looks to have a real good range if in cruse mode.

Obviously some questions on scale etc but a real nice start.

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 29^th, 2018 at 8:07pm:

[quote author=thelastnail link=1546037892/0#0 date=1546037892]Check it out guys ! The LNP voters would tell you it couldn't be done but here it is ;) See what Australia has missed out on :( But then again we have lots of casual jobs making cups of coffee and mowing lawns. What great career prospects we have for our youth :( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgdj9HpdzvI

Their trainer is for sale now and their fuel powered planes r very efficient they also have a electric glider that looks amazing.
https://www.pipistrel.si/plane/alpha-electro/overview ;)

DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 1^st, 2019 at 11:17am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 29th, 2018 at 8:07pm: [quote author=thelastnail link=1546037892/0#0 date=1546037892]Check it out guys ! The LNP voters would tell you it couldn't be done but here it is ;) See what Australia has missed out on :( But then again we have lots of casual jobs making cups of coffee and mowing lawns. What great career prospects we have for our youth :( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgdj9HpdzvI Every airport in Australia has a small fleet of training air craft and only used 30 mins to a hour at a time... so right now at a guess there would be 2000 planes this could replace and still do the job that is required..... It is pretty impressive he was going around 180kmh top and cruising at 160kmh and only using 20kw , my new ute is 120kw and would be pressed to do 160kmh  ;) Their trainer is for sale now and their fuel powered planes r very efficient they also have a electric glider that looks amazing. https://www.pipistrel.si/plane/alpha-electro/overview ;)

DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 1^st, 2019 at 11:32am:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 11:17am: Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 29th, 2018 at 8:07pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 29th, 2018 at 8:58am: Check it out guys ! The LNP voters would tell you it couldn't be done but here it is ;) See what Australia has missed out on :( But then again we have lots of casual jobs making cups of coffee and mowing lawns. What great career prospects we have for our youth :( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgdj9HpdzvI Every airport in Australia has a small fleet of training air craft and only used 30 mins to a hour at a time... so right now at a guess there would be 2000 planes this could replace and still do the job that is required..... It is pretty impressive he was going around 180kmh top and cruising at 160kmh and only using 20kw , my new ute is 120kw and would be pressed to do 160kmh  ;) Their trainer is for sale now and their fuel powered planes r very efficient they also have a electric glider that looks amazing. https://www.pipistrel.si/plane/alpha-electro/overview ;) You obviously don't know much about planes if you find that impressive. [quote] New Rotax 912 iS Offered In Pipistrel Virus This means that the Virus SW equipped with the new Rotax 912 iS cruises at 147 kts while using only 3.95 gph. http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=76228130-ae47-4d05-821f-cdec0ff1cc74

147 Knots = 270 KPH while burning just under 15L per hour, with a 54L usable fuel load with standard small tank that gives around 3.5 hours or 945 Km range. You can refuel that just as quick and easy as any car then takeoff again. If you can't afford 55L of fuel you can't afford a plane.


The electric plane has a VNE (velocity never exceed) of 135 knots how does that compare to a cruising speed of 147 Knots?

The Rotax 912IS is a fuel injected engine which are fairly new to light aircraft since most still use carbies, 73.5 Kw.

Oh. A trainer. Not a commuter aircraft.

And only € 125,000.

Yep everyone can afford one.

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2019 at 1:50pm:

Oh. A trainer. Not a commuter aircraft. And only € 125,000. Yep everyone can afford one.

you lot said the same about Tesla and now Tesla can't make enough of them ;)

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2019 at 1:50pm:

Oh. A trainer. Not a commuter aircraft. And only € 125,000. Yep everyone can afford one.

just like a 300K lambo, everyone can afford one but hey it runs off fossil fool so no cause for complaint from you lot is there ??? Funny about that ;)

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 1^st, 2019 at 2:24pm:

just like a 300K lambo, everyone can afford one but hey it runs off fossil fool so no cause for complaint from you lot is there ???

Now that is funny. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2019 at 3:32pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 2:24pm: just like a 300K lambo, everyone can afford one but hey it runs off fossil fool so no cause for complaint from you lot is there ??? Now that is funny. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

why funny ? no complaints from you lot about a 300K lambo when you can buy a toyota yaris for less than 20K. No complaints at all. No no no no.... !!

https://pre00.deviantart.net/57dc/th/pre/i/2015/114/4/a/dr__no__tony_abbott__by_jmc17-d58smpu.jpg

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 1^st, 2019 at 4:01pm:

why funny ?

Everyone can afford one. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Apparently they can't afford a house but they have enough disposable income to buy a Lambo.

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 1^st, 2019 at 4:01pm:

lee wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 3:32pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 2:24pm: just like a 300K lambo, everyone can afford one but hey it runs off fossil fool so no cause for complaint from you lot is there ??? Now that is funny. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D why funny ? no complaints from you lot about a 300K lambo when you can buy a toyota yaris for less than 20K. No complaints at all. No no no no.... !!

Last time i checked a base model Hurracan starts around $460 K then you could easily add another 100-150K on options.


If you could afford to pay that much for a car i doubt you would be worried about fuel costs


Rustynails is like a village idiot who never ceases to amaze us with his idiocy

;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 1^st, 2019 at 12:30pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 11:32am: DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 11:17am: Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 29th, 2018 at 8:07pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 29th, 2018 at 8:58am: Check it out guys ! The LNP voters would tell you it couldn't be done but here it is ;) See what Australia has missed out on :( But then again we have lots of casual jobs making cups of coffee and mowing lawns. What great career prospects we have for our youth :( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgdj9HpdzvI Every airport in Australia has a small fleet of training air craft and only used 30 mins to a hour at a time... so right now at a guess there would be 2000 planes this could replace and still do the job that is required..... It is pretty impressive he was going around 180kmh top and cruising at 160kmh and only using 20kw , my new ute is 120kw and would be pressed to do 160kmh  ;) Their trainer is for sale now and their fuel powered planes r very efficient they also have a electric glider that looks amazing. https://www.pipistrel.si/plane/alpha-electro/overview ;) You obviously don't know much about planes if you find that impressive. [quote] New Rotax 912 iS Offered In Pipistrel Virus This means that the Virus SW equipped with the new Rotax 912 iS cruises at 147 kts while using only 3.95 gph. http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=76228130-ae47-4d05-821f-cdec0ff1cc74 147 Knots = 270 KPH while burning just under 15L per hour, with a 54L usable fuel load with standard small tank that gives around 3.5 hours or 945 Km range. You can refuel that just as quick and easy as any car then takeoff again. If you can't afford 55L of fuel you can't afford a plane. The electric plane has a VNE (velocity never exceed) of 135 knots how does that compare to a cruising speed of 147 Knots? The Rotax 912IS is a fuel injected engine which are fairly new to light aircraft since most still use carbies, 73.5 Kw.

and yet as a trainer it would work fine :) :D
I know as much about planes as u seam to know about electric vehicle's Baron  :D :D :D

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 1^st, 2019 at 4:53pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 4:01pm: lee wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 3:32pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 2:24pm: just like a 300K lambo, everyone can afford one but hey it runs off fossil fool so no cause for complaint from you lot is there ??? Now that is funny. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D why funny ? no complaints from you lot about a 300K lambo when you can buy a toyota yaris for less than 20K. No complaints at all. No no no no.... !! Last time i checked a base model Hurracan starts around $460 K then you could easily add another 100-150K on options. If you could afford to pay that much for a car i doubt you would be worried about fuel costs Rustynails is like a village idiot who never ceases to amaze us with his idiocy ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

https://www.tesla.com/en_AU/roadster
and for $320,000 u can get a Tesla next year that will blow its socks off  ;) ;)

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 1^st, 2019 at 4:53pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 4:01pm: lee wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 3:32pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 2:24pm: just like a 300K lambo, everyone can afford one but hey it runs off fossil fool so no cause for complaint from you lot is there ??? Now that is funny. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D why funny ? no complaints from you lot about a 300K lambo when you can buy a toyota yaris for less than 20K. No complaints at all. No no no no.... !! Last time i checked a base model Hurracan starts around $460 K then you could easily add another 100-150K on options. If you could afford to pay that much for a car i doubt you would be worried about fuel costs Rustynails is like a village idiot who never ceases to amaze us with his idiocy ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

But the Tesla at less than a third of the price can blow it away as well as a million dollar V8 super car. Look who is the village idiot now with your stupid clunker that needs an engine rebuild after 50,000 clicks. Old oil rubbish :D LOL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eGhjhx8O9M&t=273s

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2019 at 10:40am:

But the Tesla at less than a third of the price can blow it away as well as a million dollar V8 super car.

But can it fly? ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2019 at 11:38am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 2nd, 2019 at 10:40am: But the Tesla at less than a third of the price can blow it away as well as a million dollar V8 super car. But can it fly? ;D ;D ;D ;D

id think aircraft manufacturers r very thankful Tesla isn't interested in making planes.... yet ;)

DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2019 at 12:46pm:

id think aircraft manufacturers r very thankful Tesla isn't interested in making planes.... yet

perhaps you missed this -

"In addition to semi-announced long term initiatives like the Tesla pickup truck, Elon Musk has also floated the idea of making a Tesla plane."

https://www.inverse.com/article/51568-tesla-electric-plane-how-elon-musk-plans-to-bring-batteries-to-the-skies

9 Dec 2018

lee wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2019 at 1:15pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 2nd, 2019 at 12:46pm: id think aircraft manufacturers r very thankful Tesla isn't interested in making planes.... yet perhaps you missed this - "In addition to semi-announced long term initiatives like the Tesla pickup truck, Elon Musk has also floated the idea of making a Tesla plane." https://www.inverse.com/article/51568-tesla-electric-plane-how-elon-musk-plans-to-bring-batteries-to-the-skies 9 Dec 2018

Just one more thing aussies missed the boat on that it took a visionary to see the way !!

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2019 at 2:05pm:

lee wrote on Jan 2nd, 2019 at 1:15pm: DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 2nd, 2019 at 12:46pm: id think aircraft manufacturers r very thankful Tesla isn't interested in making planes.... yet perhaps you missed this - "In addition to semi-announced long term initiatives like the Tesla pickup truck, Elon Musk has also floated the idea of making a Tesla plane." https://www.inverse.com/article/51568-tesla-electric-plane-how-elon-musk-plans-to-bring-batteries-to-the-skies 9 Dec 2018 Just one more thing aussies missed the boat on that it took a visionary to see the way !!

What does your messiah from the climate change religion say about electric planes in that link?


Quote:

Tesla Electric Plane: When Will It Take Off? The key holdup with Musk’s idea, in his words, is that he’s waiting for battery technology to improve. A plane would require a high energy density, 400 watt-hours of energy per kilogram of plane. The battery found in a Tesla car ranks at around 250 watt-hours per kilogram. However, 400 is the bare minimum for making such a plane work, and Musk claims 500 is more ideal.

Did your Messiah say the battery technology needs to improve with twice the power from the same weight for it to work ?

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2019 at 10:40am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 4:53pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 4:01pm: lee wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 3:32pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 2:24pm: just like a 300K lambo, everyone can afford one but hey it runs off fossil fool so no cause for complaint from you lot is there ??? Now that is funny. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D why funny ? no complaints from you lot about a 300K lambo when you can buy a toyota yaris for less than 20K. No complaints at all. No no no no.... !! Last time i checked a base model Hurracan starts around $460 K then you could easily add another 100-150K on options. If you could afford to pay that much for a car i doubt you would be worried about fuel costs Rustynails is like a village idiot who never ceases to amaze us with his idiocy ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D But the Tesla at less than a third of the price can blow it away as well as a million dollar V8 super car. Look who is the village idiot now with your stupid clunker that needs an engine rebuild after 50,000 clicks. Old oil rubbish :D LOL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eGhjhx8O9M&t=273s

At 7 min 10 seconds watch a mini pass the Tesla and leave it for dead in the corners, about another minute later a 911 also passes and leaves the Tesla for dead.

The Tesla has piss poor handling and crappy brakes perhaps that's why they crash so often.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHz9sgZYkoA

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2019 at 4:55pm:

Did your Messiah say the battery technology needs to improve with twice the power from the same weight for it to work ?

Bill Gates didn't.

"Global emissions of greenhouse gases went up in 2018. For me, that just reinforces the fact that the only way to prevent the worst climate-change scenarios is to get some breakthroughs in clean energy.

Some people think we have all the tools we need, and that driving down the cost of renewables like solar and wind solves the problem. I am glad to see solar and wind getting cheaper and we should be deploying them wherever it makes sense.

But solar and wind are intermittent sources of energy, and we are unlikely to have super-cheap batteries anytime soon that would allow us to store sufficient energy for when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing. Besides, electricity accounts for only 25% of all emissions. We need to solve the other 75% too."

"Nuclear is ideal for dealing with climate change, because it is the only carbon-free, scalable energy source that’s available 24 hours a day. The problems with today’s reactors, such as the risk of accidents, can be solved through innovation."

https://www.gatesnotes.com/About-Bill-Gates/Year-in-Review-2018

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2019 at 4:59pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 2nd, 2019 at 10:40am: Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 4:53pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 4:01pm: lee wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 3:32pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 2:24pm: just like a 300K lambo, everyone can afford one but hey it runs off fossil fool so no cause for complaint from you lot is there ??? Now that is funny. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D why funny ? no complaints from you lot about a 300K lambo when you can buy a toyota yaris for less than 20K. No complaints at all. No no no no.... !! Last time i checked a base model Hurracan starts around $460 K then you could easily add another 100-150K on options. If you could afford to pay that much for a car i doubt you would be worried about fuel costs Rustynails is like a village idiot who never ceases to amaze us with his idiocy ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D But the Tesla at less than a third of the price can blow it away as well as a million dollar V8 super car. Look who is the village idiot now with your stupid clunker that needs an engine rebuild after 50,000 clicks. Old oil rubbish :D LOL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eGhjhx8O9M&t=273s At 7 min 10 seconds watch a mini pass the Tesla and leave it for dead in the corners, about another minute later a 911 also passes and leaves the Tesla for dead. The Tesla has piss poor handling and crappy brakes perhaps that's why they crash so often. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHz9sgZYkoA

yes yes we know the Tesla S is slow on the track and as the first real electric car it can be forgiven.... now try to find the Tesla 3 performance car on a track and see how it goes :) ;)

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2019 at 4:55pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 2nd, 2019 at 2:05pm: lee wrote on Jan 2nd, 2019 at 1:15pm: DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 2nd, 2019 at 12:46pm: id think aircraft manufacturers r very thankful Tesla isn't interested in making planes.... yet perhaps you missed this - "In addition to semi-announced long term initiatives like the Tesla pickup truck, Elon Musk has also floated the idea of making a Tesla plane." https://www.inverse.com/article/51568-tesla-electric-plane-how-elon-musk-plans-to-bring-batteries-to-the-skies 9 Dec 2018 Just one more thing aussies missed the boat on that it took a visionary to see the way !! What does your messiah from the climate change religion say about electric planes in that link? Quote: Tesla Electric Plane: When Will It Take Off? The key holdup with Musk’s idea, in his words, is that he’s waiting for battery technology to improve. A plane would require a high energy density, 400 watt-hours of energy per kilogram of plane. The battery found in a Tesla car ranks at around 250 watt-hours per kilogram. However, 400 is the bare minimum for making such a plane work, and Musk claims 500 is more ideal. Did your Messiah say the battery technology needs to improve with twice the power from the same weight for it to work ?

ohh I see your now calling Elon messiah.... I guess if it floats your boat baron...
lithium energy density doubled in the first 10 years and halved in price.... if u look at a Tesla S and x the new Battery of the Tesla 3 is about 30% more energy for the same weight and that's only over 4 years... so id say give it 7- 10 years and the Electric batteries will be a 400kw per kg , then if Elon (or jesus to u) starts to set his sights on planes id say there will be lots of plane manufacturers very worried :)…. even if the battery tech get to the point of feasibility though, id say Tesla have so much on their plate  it will be 10 years before they could get around to it anyway :)

lee wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2019 at 5:17pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 3rd, 2019 at 4:55pm: Did your Messiah say the battery technology needs to improve with twice the power from the same weight for it to work ? Bill Gates didn't. "Global emissions of greenhouse gases went up in 2018. For me, that just reinforces the fact that the only way to prevent the worst climate-change scenarios is to get some breakthroughs in clean energy. Some people think we have all the tools we need, and that driving down the cost of renewables like solar and wind solves the problem. I am glad to see solar and wind getting cheaper and we should be deploying them wherever it makes sense. But solar and wind are intermittent sources of energy, and we are unlikely to have super-cheap batteries anytime soon that would allow us to store sufficient energy for when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing. Besides, electricity accounts for only 25% of all emissions. We need to solve the other 75% too." "Nuclear is ideal for dealing with climate change, because it is the only carbon-free, scalable energy source that’s available 24 hours a day. The problems with today’s reactors, such as the risk of accidents, can be solved through innovation." https://www.gatesnotes.com/About-Bill-Gates/Year-in-Review-2018

as a computer programmer he would know...…
maybe get the CEO of lg chem or Panasonic or other battery makers give some quotes Lee.... boy u would crucify (messiah complex now) if someone quoted a famous person that had nothing to do with climate change. ;)

DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2019 at 7:34pm:

as a computer programmer he would know...… maybe get the CEO of lg chem or Panasonic or other battery makers give some quotes Lee.... boy u would crucify (messiah complex now) if someone quoted a famous person that had nothing to do with climate change.

or St Elon of Musk. you hang on his every utterance.

"Elon Musk: Humanity Is Pretending Fossil Fuels Have ‘No Probability of a Bad Outcome'"

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/elon-musk-fossil-fuels-carbon-price-sxsw#gs.4rMkHePo

lee wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2019 at 7:57pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 3rd, 2019 at 7:34pm: as a computer programmer he would know...… maybe get the CEO of lg chem or Panasonic or other battery makers give some quotes Lee.... boy u would crucify (messiah complex now) if someone quoted a famous person that had nothing to do with climate change. or St Elon of Musk. you hang on his every utterance. "Elon Musk: Humanity Is Pretending Fossil Fuels Have ‘No Probability of a Bad Outcome'" https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/elon-musk-fossil-fuels-carbon-price-sxsw#gs.4rMkHePo

Sounds like he was talking about you ;)

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2019 at 8:19pm:

Sounds like he was talking about you

You think I am Bill Gates? Nope.

But I was more interested in his thoughts on wind, solar and batteries and the need for nuclear rather than climate change. After all he is in the technology industry I have been told.

Of course he believes in climate change which I thought you and DDH espoused as well.

And yet you don't agree with him having a voice. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2019 at 7:57pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 3rd, 2019 at 7:34pm: as a computer programmer he would know...… maybe get the CEO of lg chem or Panasonic or other battery makers give some quotes Lee.... boy u would crucify (messiah complex now) if someone quoted a famous person that had nothing to do with climate change. or St Elon of Musk. you hang on his every utterance. "Elon Musk: Humanity Is Pretending Fossil Fuels Have ‘No Probability of a Bad Outcome'" https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/elon-musk-fossil-fuels-carbon-price-sxsw#gs.4rMkHePo

good article there Lee and it shows my point perfectly, if I quoted Elon sprouting about carbon capture and environmental change.... u would ask if he was a climate scientist :)…. now ask him about space ship, cars batteries or AI and then we can listen, same as bill gates, ask about computer operating system , anything else well...…. ;)

DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2019 at 7:31pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 3rd, 2019 at 4:55pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 2nd, 2019 at 2:05pm: lee wrote on Jan 2nd, 2019 at 1:15pm: DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 2nd, 2019 at 12:46pm: id think aircraft manufacturers r very thankful Tesla isn't interested in making planes.... yet perhaps you missed this - "In addition to semi-announced long term initiatives like the Tesla pickup truck, Elon Musk has also floated the idea of making a Tesla plane." https://www.inverse.com/article/51568-tesla-electric-plane-how-elon-musk-plans-to-bring-batteries-to-the-skies 9 Dec 2018 Just one more thing aussies missed the boat on that it took a visionary to see the way !! What does your messiah from the climate change religion say about electric planes in that link? Quote: Tesla Electric Plane: When Will It Take Off? The key holdup with Musk’s idea, in his words, is that he’s waiting for battery technology to improve. A plane would require a high energy density, 400 watt-hours of energy per kilogram of plane. The battery found in a Tesla car ranks at around 250 watt-hours per kilogram. However, 400 is the bare minimum for making such a plane work, and Musk claims 500 is more ideal. Did your Messiah say the battery technology needs to improve with twice the power from the same weight for it to work ? ohh I see your now calling Elon messiah.... I guess if it floats your boat baron... lithium energy density doubled in the first 10 years and halved in price.... if u look at a Tesla S and x the new Battery of the Tesla 3 is about 30% more energy for the same weight and that's only over 4 years... so id say give it 7- 10 years and the Electric batteries will be a 400kw per kg , then if Elon (or jesus to u) starts to set his sights on planes id say there will be lots of plane manufacturers very worried :)…. even if the battery tech get to the point of feasibility though, id say Tesla have so much on their plate  it will be 10 years before they could get around to it anyway :)

Lithium batteries are the lightest batteries available.

If future developments get twice the power from the same weight with batteries does that mean the plane this thread is about can fly for one hour instead of 30 minutes?

The plane in this thread used 20% of it's battery capacity for 7 minutes flight


I don't think Rotax will be worried about electric power with batteries since they get over 3 hours flight time from the same plane with higher payload, the petrol version is much lighter than the electric version even with full fuel tank.


You must be smoking the same stuff as your messiah Elon Musk if you think electric planes are the future.


;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 4^th, 2019 at 5:13am:

good article there Lee and it shows my point perfectly, if I quoted Elon sprouting about carbon capture and environmental change.... u would ask if he was a climate scientist

What would a climate scientist know about CCS? About environmental change? They are neither directly related to the study of "climate".

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 4^th, 2019 at 12:38pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 3rd, 2019 at 7:31pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 3rd, 2019 at 4:55pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 2nd, 2019 at 2:05pm: lee wrote on Jan 2nd, 2019 at 1:15pm: DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 2nd, 2019 at 12:46pm: id think aircraft manufacturers r very thankful Tesla isn't interested in making planes.... yet perhaps you missed this - "In addition to semi-announced long term initiatives like the Tesla pickup truck, Elon Musk has also floated the idea of making a Tesla plane." https://www.inverse.com/article/51568-tesla-electric-plane-how-elon-musk-plans-to-bring-batteries-to-the-skies 9 Dec 2018 Just one more thing aussies missed the boat on that it took a visionary to see the way !! What does your messiah from the climate change religion say about electric planes in that link? Quote: Tesla Electric Plane: When Will It Take Off? The key holdup with Musk’s idea, in his words, is that he’s waiting for battery technology to improve. A plane would require a high energy density, 400 watt-hours of energy per kilogram of plane. The battery found in a Tesla car ranks at around 250 watt-hours per kilogram. However, 400 is the bare minimum for making such a plane work, and Musk claims 500 is more ideal. Did your Messiah say the battery technology needs to improve with twice the power from the same weight for it to work ? ohh I see your now calling Elon messiah.... I guess if it floats your boat baron... lithium energy density doubled in the first 10 years and halved in price.... if u look at a Tesla S and x the new Battery of the Tesla 3 is about 30% more energy for the same weight and that's only over 4 years... so id say give it 7- 10 years and the Electric batteries will be a 400kw per kg , then if Elon (or jesus to u) starts to set his sights on planes id say there will be lots of plane manufacturers very worried :)…. even if the battery tech get to the point of feasibility though, id say Tesla have so much on their plate  it will be 10 years before they could get around to it anyway :) Lithium batteries are the lightest batteries available. If future developments get twice the power from the same weight with batteries does that mean the plane this thread is about can fly for one hour instead of 30 minutes? The plane in this thread used 20% of it's battery capacity for 7 minutes flight I don't think Rotax will be worried about electric power with batteries since they get over 3 hours flight time from the same plane with higher payload, the petrol version is much lighter than the electric version even with full fuel tank. You must be smoking the same stuff as your messiah Elon Musk if you think electric planes are the future. ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

, wow your so smart, u should email Boeing and airbus and tell them to stop spending so much money on developing electric planes because u know better and they will never be a thing...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-aerospace-hybrid/boeing-backed-hybrid-electric-commuter-plane-to-hit-market-in-2022-idUSKBN1CA16A
https://www.airbus.com/innovation.html#shapingthefutureofaerospace?cid=psearchdef__global__au-en__br__google__ao-sem|innovation-electrification|bmm__TF
…. :D :D :D :D

lee wrote on Jan 4^th, 2019 at 3:26pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 4th, 2019 at 5:13am: good article there Lee and it shows my point perfectly, if I quoted Elon sprouting about carbon capture and environmental change.... u would ask if he was a climate scientist What would a climate scientist know about CCS? About environmental change? They are neither directly related to the study of "climate".

yes see what I mean I didn't say the right type of scientist and your picking holes in it.... imagine if id quote bill gates like u did  :D :D

DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 4^th, 2019 at 4:18pm:

yes see what I mean I didn't say the right type of scientist and your picking holes in it.... imagine if id quote bill gates like u di

But I wasn't quoting Bill gates in the Climate change context as I explained. Which you apparently believe anyway. And he is allowed an opinion. Which doesn't give it the gravitas of a scientist.

"Global emissions of greenhouse gases went up in 2018. For me, that just reinforces the fact that the only way to prevent the worst climate-change scenarios is to get some breakthroughs in clean energy."

So tell me which part do you disagree with. ;)


I was quoting about wind, solar and nuclear. Also something on which he is allowed an opinion.

But feel free to provide scientific evidence to the contrary on his opinions. ;)

DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 4^th, 2019 at 4:13pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 4th, 2019 at 12:38pm: DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 3rd, 2019 at 7:31pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 3rd, 2019 at 4:55pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 2nd, 2019 at 2:05pm: lee wrote on Jan 2nd, 2019 at 1:15pm: DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 2nd, 2019 at 12:46pm: id think aircraft manufacturers r very thankful Tesla isn't interested in making planes.... yet perhaps you missed this - "In addition to semi-announced long term initiatives like the Tesla pickup truck, Elon Musk has also floated the idea of making a Tesla plane." https://www.inverse.com/article/51568-tesla-electric-plane-how-elon-musk-plans-to-bring-batteries-to-the-skies 9 Dec 2018 Just one more thing aussies missed the boat on that it took a visionary to see the way !! What does your messiah from the climate change religion say about electric planes in that link? Quote: Tesla Electric Plane: When Will It Take Off? The key holdup with Musk’s idea, in his words, is that he’s waiting for battery technology to improve. A plane would require a high energy density, 400 watt-hours of energy per kilogram of plane. The battery found in a Tesla car ranks at around 250 watt-hours per kilogram. However, 400 is the bare minimum for making such a plane work, and Musk claims 500 is more ideal. Did your Messiah say the battery technology needs to improve with twice the power from the same weight for it to work ? ohh I see your now calling Elon messiah.... I guess if it floats your boat baron... lithium energy density doubled in the first 10 years and halved in price.... if u look at a Tesla S and x the new Battery of the Tesla 3 is about 30% more energy for the same weight and that's only over 4 years... so id say give it 7- 10 years and the Electric batteries will be a 400kw per kg , then if Elon (or jesus to u) starts to set his sights on planes id say there will be lots of plane manufacturers very worried :)…. even if the battery tech get to the point of feasibility though, id say Tesla have so much on their plate  it will be 10 years before they could get around to it anyway :) Lithium batteries are the lightest batteries available. If future developments get twice the power from the same weight with batteries does that mean the plane this thread is about can fly for one hour instead of 30 minutes? The plane in this thread used 20% of it's battery capacity for 7 minutes flight I don't think Rotax will be worried about electric power with batteries since they get over 3 hours flight time from the same plane with higher payload, the petrol version is much lighter than the electric version even with full fuel tank. You must be smoking the same stuff as your messiah Elon Musk if you think electric planes are the future. ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D , wow your so smart, u should email Boeing and airbus and tell them to stop spending so much money on developing electric planes because u know better and they will never be a thing... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-aerospace-hybrid/boeing-backed-hybrid-electric-commuter-plane-to-hit-market-in-2022-idUSKBN1CA16A https://www.airbus.com/innovation.html#shapingthefutureofaerospace?cid=psearchdef__global__au-en__br__google__ao-sem|innovation-electrification|bmm__TF …. :D :D :D :D

From your first link the second one has nothing.


Quote:

A supplemental jet-fuel engine and electrical generator would be used to give the plane a range of 700 miles and ensure it stays aloft after the batteries are exhausted, Knapp said Zunum says the plane would cruise at about 340 miles an hour and at altitudes of about 25,000 feet (7,600 meters) - slower and lower than conventional jets. Current battery technology can only power the plane for about 100 miles so a gas-powered engine would be used to generate electricity to power the motors for additional range.

The battery can only power it for less than 20 minutes which is even shorter than the light plane in this thread.


Keep smoking the same poo as your messiah Elon and keep dreaming.

lee wrote on Jan 4^th, 2019 at 4:44pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 4th, 2019 at 4:18pm: yes see what I mean I didn't say the right type of scientist and your picking holes in it.... imagine if id quote bill gates like u di But I wasn't quoting Bill gates in the Climate change context as I explained. Which you apparently believe anyway. And he is allowed an opinion. Which doesn't give it the gravitas of a scientist. "Global emissions of greenhouse gases went up in 2018. For me, that just reinforces the fact that the only way to prevent the worst climate-change scenarios is to get some breakthroughs in clean energy." So tell me which part do you disagree with. ;) I was quoting about wind, solar and nuclear. Also something on which he is allowed an opinion. But feel free to provide scientific evidence to the contrary on his opinions. ;)

ahh you r right and I agree with what your r posting
"Global emissions of greenhouse gases went up in 2018. For me, that just reinforces the fact that the only way to prevent the worst climate-change scenarios is to get some breakthroughs in clean energy."
I think u should focus more on these sort of statements  ;)

DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 4^th, 2019 at 5:33pm:

ahh you r right and I agree with what your r posting

Thanks


DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 4^th, 2019 at 5:33pm:

I think u should focus more on these sort of statements

Everyone, including you and Bill Gates, is entitled to his belief systems.

But I like the way you changed horse mid-stream. Firstly disagreeing with him and now agreeing. I guess you misread the post the first and second times. ;)

lee wrote on Jan 4^th, 2019 at 5:48pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 4th, 2019 at 5:33pm: ahh you r right and I agree with what your r posting Thanks DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 4th, 2019 at 5:33pm: I think u should focus more on these sort of statements  Everyone, including you and Bill Gates, is entitled to his belief systems. But I like the way you changed horse mid-stream. Firstly disagreeing with him and now agreeing. I guess you misread the post the first and second times. ;)

ahh I guess u need to re read , show me where I disagreed with what he said Lee :) ;)

DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 4^th, 2019 at 5:52pm:

ahh I guess u need to re read , show me where I disagreed with what he said Lee

DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2019 at 7:34pm:

as a computer programmer he would know...…

Oh dear.


DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2019 at 7:34pm:

boy u would crucify (messiah complex now) if someone quoted a famous person that had nothing to do with climate change

DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 4^th, 2019 at 4:18pm:

imagine if id quote bill gates like u did

You have a funny way of agreeing with him. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Jan 4^th, 2019 at 6:05pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 4th, 2019 at 5:52pm: ahh I guess u need to re read , show me where I disagreed with what he said Lee DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 3rd, 2019 at 7:34pm: as a computer programmer he would know...… Oh dear. DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 3rd, 2019 at 7:34pm: boy u would crucify (messiah complex now) if someone quoted a famous person that had nothing to do with climate change DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 4th, 2019 at 4:18pm: imagine if id quote bill gates like u did  You have a funny way of agreeing with him. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I never said he wasn't right, I was pointing out that if anyone else had used a quote from someone that wasn't a expert in that field u would rip what they quoted apart as being not relevant  ....
but as u now agree with what bill gates says about the world and environment
im glad u r coming around to agreeing we need renewable energy to fix the mess we r in :) ;)

DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 4^th, 2019 at 6:13pm:

but as u now agree with what bill gates says about the world and environment

really? Cognitive dissonance much. He is entitled to his opinion is what I said. Not that I agreed with it. ;)


DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 4^th, 2019 at 6:13pm:

im glad u r coming around to agreeing we need renewable energy to fix the mess we r in

Again you can't read. My opinion is more in line with Bill's.


lee wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2019 at 5:17pm:

But solar and wind are intermittent sources of energy, and we are unlikely to have super-cheap batteries anytime soon that would allow us to store sufficient energy for when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing.

lee wrote on Jan 4^th, 2019 at 6:44pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 4th, 2019 at 6:13pm: but as u now agree with what bill gates says about the world and environment really? Cognitive dissonance much. He is entitled to his opinion is what I said. Not that I agreed with it. ;) DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 4th, 2019 at 6:13pm: im glad u r coming around to agreeing we need renewable energy to fix the mess we r in Again you can't read. My opinion is more in line with Bill's. lee wrote on Jan 3rd, 2019 at 5:17pm: But solar and wind are intermittent sources of energy, and we are unlikely to have super-cheap batteries anytime soon that would allow us to store sufficient energy for when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing.

why would u quote what he says if u don't agree with what he says Lee ?
I mean if u don't agree with it , don't post it  ;)
SO now u just quote stuff u dont agree with just to win a argument ?

I am glad to see solar and wind getting cheaper and we should be deploying them wherever it makes sense.

"Global emissions of greenhouse gases went up in 2018. For me, that just reinforces the fact that the only way to prevent the worst climate-change scenarios is to get some breakthroughs in clean energy." ;)


again Lee good quote and I couldn't agree with u more  ;)

DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 4^th, 2019 at 6:55pm:

why would u quote what he says if u don't agree with what he says Lee ? I mean if u don't agree with it , don't post it

If I didn't you would accuse me of cherry picking. ;D ;D ;D ;D


DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 4^th, 2019 at 6:55pm:

SO now u just quote stuff u dont agree with just to win a argument ?

No petal. You get the chance to disagree with it. Which is what you initially did. ;)


DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 4^th, 2019 at 6:55pm:

I am glad to see solar and wind getting cheaper and we should be deploying them wherever it makes sense.

Yes. As I have said it makes sense for small communities. No good if there is any manufacturing. Coober Pedy comes to mind.


DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 4^th, 2019 at 6:55pm:

"Global emissions of greenhouse gases went up in 2018. For me, that just reinforces the fact that the only way to prevent the worst climate-change scenarios is to get some breakthroughs in clean energy."

Yes petal. Clean is not necessarily renewable. Nuclear is clean. Neodymium is not clean or green. Solar panels are not clean and green when recycling is taken into account.


DonDeeHippy wrote on Jan 4^th, 2019 at 6:55pm:

again Lee good quote and I couldn't agree with u more

Which parts? ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNvzZfsC13o

With current technology, you can build an electric plane with similar performance to a Cessna - sized plane. An electric commercial airliner with current technology and similar performance to current airliners is not viable. Batteries would need to have a capacity of about 2000 Wh/kg before you can build such planes, or about 8 times the capacity of current lithium batteries.

I love tech, it is indeed true that the science of today is the technology of tomorrow.

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/06/how-maritime-harbour-air-is-switching-over-to-100-electric-seaplanes/
When the world’s largest floatplane-only airline, Harbour Air, says it is switching to become an electrically powered airline, you know something is going on with the state of aviation battery technology. It starts to make sense to some, at least enough to look into it. And when aviation makes financial sense of electric mobility, it also means the tipping point is near or already reached.
Harbour Air will be the first seafaring airline to convert its complete fleet of de Havilland Beaver, Otter, Twin Otter aircraft and lone Cessna Caravan to electricity. These 41 vintage aircraft will be converted to reach a longer lifecycle with highly improved efficiency and lowered maintenance costs, a win-win for all.
Currently, the airline flies 500,000 passengers annually, with daily scheduled service flights between Seattle, Vancouver, and various other cities on the coast of British Columbia, as well as Vancouver Island.
According to the Vancouver Sun, founder and CEO Greg McDougall said: “If you think about it, it’s the evolution of transportation toward electric propulsion. The internal combustion engine is all but obsolete, really, for future development. It’s all about electric.”
In order to do that, Harbour Air will have to work closely with magneticX, the company that developed the 750 hp electric motor and battery pack that will give the aircraft enough electricity and power for about an hour of flight.
All of Harbour Air’s flights are 30 minutes or less, making electric air mobility ideal. By retrofitting new technology to an older existing platform, the airline continues to expand its product lifecycle. In terms of economy, the cost is the same as upgrading to a turbine engine. The benefit is that electric motors don’t need to be rebuilt every 2,500 to 3,000 hours. Maintenance is much lower.
In the end, we can always tell when a switch is in the air, and no matter how much kickback, once a company makes financial sense of electric mobility, there is no turning back. Harbour Air is certainly a bookcase scenario showing that the electric aviation business case has been reached.

As battery tech gets better and better there will be more applications where getting rid of fossil fuels will become more viable.   ;)

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 30^th, 2018 at 11:12pm:

That plane uses 20% of battery for 7 minutes flight time so keeping a little in reserve it's good for just under half an hour flight time per battery charge. It would be lucky to do 100 knots (184 KPH) in level flight so it would have a range of about 90km How far apart are airports? Is this thing limited to flying patterns around the airport it takes off from?

About half of the power used was used during take off only, their time in the air actually used very little battery power even though they were pushing it to test the plane. During a normal flight you wouldn't need to be doing all that fancy flying.

https://electrek.co/2019/04/11/norway-60-electric-airplanes/

Norway’s OSM Aviation, a firm that specializes in recruitment and training for the aviation industry, has ordered 60 all-electric planes from Colorado-based electric aircraft manufacturer Bye Aerospace.

OSM Aviation announced the order on its website. The order, which CEO Espen Høiby claims is the largest order for commercial electric planes to date, will be for Bye Aerospace’s eFlyer 2.
The eFlyer 2, formerly known as the Sun Flyer, uses a Siemens propulsion system: a 57 lb. SP70D motor with a 90kW peak rating (120 HP), and a continuous power setting of up to 70kW (94 HP). The eFlyer 2 successfully completed its first official flight test on February 8.
Each two-seater aircraft will cost $350,000 per plane, but while it costs $110/hr. to operate a conventional training plane, the all-electric planes will only cost $20 per hour, Høiby said.

I would imagine there are lots of training planes in every city and big town around the world, if operating costs are less id say the old combustion planes will be phased out as quickly as the Electric ones can be built. ;)

John Smith wrote on Apr 7^th, 2019 at 4:43pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 30th, 2018 at 11:12pm: That plane uses 20% of battery for 7 minutes flight time so keeping a little in reserve it's good for just under half an hour flight time per battery charge. It would be lucky to do 100 knots (184 KPH) in level flight so it would have a range of about 90km How far apart are airports? Is this thing limited to flying patterns around the airport it takes off from? About half of the power used was used during take off only, their time in the air actually used very little battery power even though they were pushing it to test the plane. During a normal flight you wouldn't need to be doing all that fancy flying.

Electric planes are the dreams of those who smoke the same dope Elon smokes.

Many problems for electric planes

Weight
Complexity
Range
Battery charging / replacement
Battery life
Environmental issues ( moisture  cold heat )
Battery disposal

Add to the above short list in regards to airplanes the simple reality that altitude ( above 3,000 feet ) has an extreme negative impact on the Li batteries currently in use that include but not not limited to
Bricking
Rapid loss of charge thereby range
Self immolation ( and the extreme difficulties of extinguishing an Li fire )
More extreme issues when it comes to Li’s vs heat and cold ( above 75f -  below 30f )

Electric planes will be limited to slow low flying short range trainers that can't carry a decent payload they're not viable for commercial passenger aircraft.

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 24^th, 2019 at 10:13pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 7th, 2019 at 4:43pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 30th, 2018 at 11:12pm: That plane uses 20% of battery for 7 minutes flight time so keeping a little in reserve it's good for just under half an hour flight time per battery charge. It would be lucky to do 100 knots (184 KPH) in level flight so it would have a range of about 90km How far apart are airports? Is this thing limited to flying patterns around the airport it takes off from? About half of the power used was used during take off only, their time in the air actually used very little battery power even though they were pushing it to test the plane. During a normal flight you wouldn't need to be doing all that fancy flying. Electric planes are the dreams of those who smoke the same dope Elon smokes. Many problems for electric planes Weight Complexity Range Battery charging / replacement Battery life Environmental issues ( moisture  cold heat ) Battery disposal Add to the above short list in regards to airplanes the simple reality that altitude ( above 3,000 feet ) has an extreme negative impact on the Li batteries currently in use that include but not not limited to Bricking Rapid loss of charge thereby range Self immolation ( and the extreme difficulties of extinguishing an Li fire ) More extreme issues when it comes to Li’s vs heat and cold ( above 75f -  below 30f ) Electric planes will be limited to slow low flying short range trainers that can't carry a decent payload they're not viable for commercial passenger aircraft.

ohh dear can see why you didn't put a link to that load of BS baron and you even highlighted it  ;D ;D
3000 feet is less than 1000 metres,, so why when cars drive above 3000 feet none of this happens or is only plane batteries  :D

What the hell is
Environmental issues ( moisture  cold heat )

I suppose it means condensation, and so this has never been a problem with liquid fuel ?

Battery replacement... ohh dear you do know most planes need complete engine rebuilds ever few thousand hours to keep safe.....
batteries now have at least 2000 full recharges so if a plane has 200km's or range that would make the batteries good for 400,000 km's, now the recyclers say they get 85% back on a lithium battery and going up.....

weight and range are one issue... as battery chemistry and manufacturing processes are improving these to will get better, Lithium Batteries for instance have doubled the density hence double the power for weight, so 10 years from now shouldn't be a problem, don't forget new battery configurations like solid state Batteries.

All this and yet companies are changing their fleets over to Electric Plans and have worked out that it will be cheaper for them because of cheaper running costs (especially maintenance or motors)

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 25^th, 2019 at 6:39am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 24th, 2019 at 10:13pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 7th, 2019 at 4:43pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 30th, 2018 at 11:12pm: That plane uses 20% of battery for 7 minutes flight time so keeping a little in reserve it's good for just under half an hour flight time per battery charge. It would be lucky to do 100 knots (184 KPH) in level flight so it would have a range of about 90km How far apart are airports? Is this thing limited to flying patterns around the airport it takes off from? About half of the power used was used during take off only, their time in the air actually used very little battery power even though they were pushing it to test the plane. During a normal flight you wouldn't need to be doing all that fancy flying. Electric planes are the dreams of those who smoke the same dope Elon smokes. Many problems for electric planes Weight Complexity Range Battery charging / replacement Battery life Environmental issues ( moisture  cold heat ) Battery disposal Add to the above short list in regards to airplanes the simple reality that altitude ( above 3,000 feet ) has an extreme negative impact on the Li batteries currently in use that include but not not limited to Bricking Rapid loss of charge thereby range Self immolation ( and the extreme difficulties of extinguishing an Li fire ) More extreme issues when it comes to Li’s vs heat and cold ( above 75f -  below 30f ) Electric planes will be limited to slow low flying short range trainers that can't carry a decent payload they're not viable for commercial passenger aircraft. ohh dear can see why you didn't put a link to that load of BS baron and you even highlighted it  ;D ;D 3000 feet is less than 1000 metres,, so why when cars drive above 3000 feet none of this happens or is only plane batteries  :D What the hell is Environmental issues ( moisture  cold heat ) I suppose it means condensation, and so this has never been a problem with liquid fuel ? Battery replacement... ohh dear you do know most planes need complete engine rebuilds ever few thousand hours to keep safe..... batteries now have at least 2000 full recharges so if a plane has 200km's or range that would make the batteries good for 400,000 km's, now the recyclers say they get 85% back on a lithium battery and going up..... weight and range are one issue... as battery chemistry and manufacturing processes are improving these to will get better, Lithium Batteries for instance have doubled the density hence double the power for weight, so 10 years from now shouldn't be a problem, don't forget new battery configurations like solid state Batteries. All this and yet companies are changing their fleets over to Electric Plans and have worked out that it will be cheaper for them because of cheaper running costs (especially maintenance or motors)

The climate change religious types are just proving they're delusional like the flat earthers.

Aviation authorities consider Lithium batteries to be dangerous goods because they catch on fire at altitude.


Quote:

US announces ban on transporting lithium ion batteries as cargo on passenger flights To prevent explosions The US Department of Transportation and Federal Aviation Administration are banning people from storing lithium ion cells or batteries as cargo on passenger planes, the agencies announced today. Companies also cannot ship batteries with more than 30 percent charge aboard cargo-only aircrafts. In 2017, the FAA urged the global airline community to reconsider allowing batteries on flights because of the fire risk. Most infamously, airlines banned passengers from bringing a Samsung Galaxy Note 7 on a commercial flight because of its battery malfunction that led to the device catching fire and in some cases exploding. https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/27/18243310/battery-lithium-ion-cargo-ban-faa-department-of-transportation

Quote:

Travelling safely with batteries and portable power packs We use batteries to charge most of our portable electronic devices (PEDs), but they can have serious safety consequences if they're not carried correctly when you're flying. This happened in 2014 in Melbourne when undeclared lithium batteries were packed into a passenger’s checked bag and short-circuited, igniting a fire in the aircraft’s cargo hold before passengers boarded the flight to Fiji. Batteries under 100Wh rating The batteries that power your phone, laptop and camera are usually under the 100 watt-hour (Wh) rating. If you're carrying a spare battery that's not in one of these devices, it must be in your carry-on baggage only. Spare batteries, regardless of their size are not to be carried in checked luggage. Lithium Ion batteries 100-160Wh rating These are more powerful batteries, and can be found in industrial equipment such as power tools and mobility aids between 100 and 160Wh. You must have approval from your airline before flying. If the battery is installed in a device, it can be carried in either checked or carry-on baggage. If the battery is a spare - that is, the battery is by itself and not contained in equipment - it must be in your carry-on baggage only. Spare batteries, regardless of their size are not to be carried in checked luggage. There is a limit of two spare batteries per person. These batteries must only be packed in carry-on luggage Lithium Ion batteries 160Wh rating and above You can't carry lithium batteries above 160Wh unless they are for wheelchairs and other mobility aids. These batteries must be transported as declared dangerous goods cargo. Please contact your airline for guidance. Damaged batteries can be dangerous. Whether they’re dropped, smashed, overheated or mistreated in other ways, lithium batteries can become unstable and have been known to ignite fires due to mistreatment. https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/travelling-safely-batteries

The aviation authorities heavily restrict carrying small Lithium batteries on planes due to fire risk they consider Lithium batteries as dangerous goods because they have a habit of catching on fire at altitude.

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 25^th, 2019 at 7:51am:

Quote: Travelling safely with batteries and portable power packs We use batteries to charge most of our portable electronic devices (PEDs), but they can have serious safety consequences if they're not carried correctly when you're flying. This happened in 2014 in Melbourne when undeclared lithium batteries were packed into a passenger’s checked bag and short-circuited, igniting a fire in the aircraft’s cargo hold before passengers boarded the flight to Fiji. Batteries under 100Wh rating The batteries that power your phone, laptop and camera are usually under the 100 watt-hour (Wh) rating. If you're carrying a spare battery that's not in one of these devices, it must be in your carry-on baggage only. Spare batteries, regardless of their size are not to be carried in checked luggage. Lithium Ion batteries 100-160Wh rating These are more powerful batteries, and can be found in industrial equipment such as power tools and mobility aids between 100 and 160Wh. You must have approval from your airline before flying. If the battery is installed in a device, it can be carried in either checked or carry-on baggage. If the battery is a spare - that is, the battery is by itself and not contained in equipment - it must be in your carry-on baggage only. Spare batteries, regardless of their size are not to be carried in checked luggage. There is a limit of two spare batteries per person. These batteries must only be packed in carry-on luggage Lithium Ion batteries 160Wh rating and above You can't carry lithium batteries above 160Wh unless they are for wheelchairs and other mobility aids. These batteries must be transported as declared dangerous goods cargo. Please contact your airline for guidance. Damaged batteries can be dangerous. Whether they’re dropped, smashed, overheated or mistreated in other ways, lithium batteries can become unstable and have been known to ignite fires due to mistreatment. https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/travelling-safely-batteries The aviation authorities heavily restrict carrying small Lithium batteries on planes due to fire risk they consider Lithium batteries as dangerous goods because they have a habit of catching on fire at altitude.

haha just getting dumber :Dr.... So do they also ban Passengers from Caring Aviation fuel on board too ?
If so why.... the plane has thousand of Litres of the stuff in it,...... ;)

I take it that's the point of these 2 article's Baron to show that batteries are dangerous and cant be stored as luggage,and same goes for fuel.

If your trying to say the batteries are dangerous as a fuel source though, then your forgetting the jets have 1000's of litre of explosive fuel on board already.....
That is the point your trying to make isn't it Baron ?  ;D

The bag in storage, it could of been any type of battery that cause a item to short circuit and catch things on fire.... it doesn't say the battery had a thermal runaway..... ;D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Prototype


I did a check about the claim about batteries not being good a high altitudes and found out, electric solar battery planes are the only ones that can go high up...…

On August 13, 2001,[1] the Helios Prototype piloted remotely by Greg Kendall reached an altitude of 96,863 feet (29,524 m), a world record for sustained horizontal flight by a winged aircraft.[4] The altitude reached was more than 11,000 feet (3,400 m) — or more than 2 miles (3.2 km) — above the previous altitude record for sustained flight by a winged aircraft. In addition, the aircraft spent more than 40 minutes above 96,000 feet (29,000 m).[1]

Ohh and in case your wondering it beat the record of another solar/battery powered planes made before it

On one of seven flights there in the spring and summer of 1997, Pathfinder raised the altitude record for solar-powered aircraft — as well as propeller-driven aircraft — to 71,530 feet (21,800 m) on July 7, 1997.

so instead of Batteries being a problem and high altitudes it looks like it's the only way to get up really high.....  ;)

Lilium Jet is all-electric and can go 300 km (186 miles) thanks to 36 electric motors rated at roughly 1.5 MW
Lilium, a Munich-based startup, revealed its all-new Lilium Jet, a five-seater, fully-electric aircraft that can take-off and land vertically (eVTOL), which on May 4, 2019 successfully completed its short maiden flight.

The presented full-scale, full-weight prototype is equipped with a total of 36 electric motors, which together are rated at 2,000 hp peak (almost 1.5 MW). According to the press release, the Lilium Jet will be able to go 300 km/h (186 mph) and fly 300 km (186 miles) on a single charge.

wow VTOL and good speed and good range....electric planes are just getting better and better...
that would be Caloundra to the gold coast (135km's one way) in less than a half a hour.....from anyone house....


https://insideevs.com/news/350276/video-lilium-air-taxi-celebrates-maiden-flight/

You can see what every one else is doing except for australia. We have lumps of coal of course and a party of dimwits that worship it :(

How many refuels is that to cross Australia? Not forgetting to leave some as backup in case of bad weather and you can't land where you said you would land.

lee wrote on May 19^th, 2019 at 3:28pm:

How many refuels is that to cross Australia? Not forgetting to leave some as backup in case of bad weather and you can't land where you said you would land.

Why would a taxi cross Australia  :D

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 19^th, 2019 at 8:32pm:

Why would a taxi cross Australia

if you have the money to waste; why not?


lee wrote on May 19^th, 2019 at 3:28pm:

Not forgetting to leave some as backup in case of bad weather and you can't land where you said you would land.

So what is your estimate with the appropriate safety factors. Being banked up etc.

lee wrote on May 19^th, 2019 at 9:00pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 8:32pm: Why would a taxi cross Australia if you have the money to waste; why not? lee wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 3:28pm: Not forgetting to leave some as backup in case of bad weather and you can't land where you said you would land. So what is your estimate with the appropriate safety factors. Being banked up etc.

300km's of range...I don't know the safety factors needed for a VTOL craft. I would imagine you could land just about anywhere. ;)
There are charging spots across the Nullarbor now so if you where a adventurer with lots of time I guess you could go across Australia.

You could also take a electric skateboard across Australia as well, but why would you ? ;)

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 19^th, 2019 at 12:37pm:

Lilium Jet is all-electric and can go 300 km (186 miles) thanks to 36 electric motors rated at roughly 1.5 MW Lilium, a Munich-based startup, revealed its all-new Lilium Jet, a five-seater, fully-electric aircraft that can take-off and land vertically (eVTOL), which on May 4, 2019 successfully completed its short maiden flight. The presented full-scale, full-weight prototype is equipped with a total of 36 electric motors, which together are rated at 2,000 hp peak (almost 1.5 MW). According to the press release, the Lilium Jet will be able to go 300 km/h (186 mph) and fly 300 km (186 miles) on a single charge. wow VTOL and good speed and good range....electric planes are just getting better and better... that would be Caloundra to the gold coast (135km's one way) in less than a half a hour.....from anyone house.... https://insideevs.com/news/350276/video-lilium-air-taxi-celebrates-maiden-flight/

We live about 100km's inland of Brisbane about 2.5 hours of driving, any threatening injury and its a helicopter ride, these planes would do the job well and if they will have to be cheaper. Very few moving parts so a lot less in Maintenance and running costs less as well. If the company are talking same price as a taxi it will be a great saving for our hospital system.

If someone is in a critical condition the VTOL should be able to land very close to the patient as well. ;)

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 20^th, 2019 at 7:26am:

300km's of range...I don't know the safety factors needed for a VTOL craft. I would imagine you could land just about anywhere.

Yes. desert would do wonders for them.


DonDeeHippy wrote on May 20^th, 2019 at 7:26am:

There are charging spots across the Nullarbor now so if you where a adventurer with lots of time I guess you could go across Australia.

Do these charging spots come complete with the necessary adaptors?

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 20^th, 2019 at 8:40am:

If someone is in a critical condition the VTOL should be able to land very close to the patient as well.

Define "very close" in terms of terrain.

lee wrote on May 20^th, 2019 at 2:46pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 20th, 2019 at 8:40am: If someone is in a critical condition the VTOL should be able to land very close to the patient as well. Define "very close" in terms of terrain.

https://youtu.be/FI8AemQcclY
this is the most imprssive thing ive seen so far

Even though not required by FAA regulations, BlackFly operators will be required to successfully complete the FAA Private Pilot written examination and also complete company-mandated vehicle familiarization and operator training.
The company says that the BlackFly is “simple to master and requires no formal licensing (in USA) or special skills to operate safely.”

this one could park anywhere a car can. ;)

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 21^st, 2019 at 7:07am:

this one could park anywhere a car can.

4wd or 2wd?

lee wrote on May 21^st, 2019 at 4:38pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 21st, 2019 at 7:07am: this one could park anywhere a car can. 4wd or 2wd?

don't ask questions about a video you haven't watched  :P

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 21^st, 2019 at 5:09pm:

don't ask questions about a video you haven't watched

If this is still the Lillium jet one i notice they don't give a weight either laden or unladen.

"The power-to-weight ratio is a huge consideration for electric flight. It’s also one of its biggest inhibitors. Energy density — the amount of energy stored in a given system — is the key metric, and today’s batteries don’t contain enough energy to get most planes off the ground. To weigh it out: jet fuel gives us about 43 times more energy than a battery that’s just as heavy.

Gerber wouldn’t provide any details about the Lilium Jet’s weight capacity, but he insisted that it will eventually be able to carry five passengers and a pilot, plus luggage. Lilium’s “payload ratio is industry-leading, and that’s what is going to make the difference,” he said."

https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/16/18625088/lilium-jet-test-flight-electric-aircraft-flying-car

lee wrote on May 21^st, 2019 at 5:16pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 21st, 2019 at 5:09pm: don't ask questions about a video you haven't watched  If this is still the Lillium jet one i notice they don't give a weight either laden or unladen. "The power-to-weight ratio is a huge consideration for electric flight. It’s also one of its biggest inhibitors. Energy density — the amount of energy stored in a given system — is the key metric, and today’s batteries don’t contain enough energy to get most planes off the ground. To weigh it out: jet fuel gives us about 43 times more energy than a battery that’s just as heavy. Gerber wouldn’t provide any details about the Lilium Jet’s weight capacity, but he insisted that it will eventually be able to carry five passengers and a pilot, plus luggage. Lilium’s “payload ratio is industry-leading, and that’s what is going to make the difference,” he said." https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/16/18625088/lilium-jet-test-flight-electric-aircraft-flying-car

See this is what happens when you just quote one line and start getting too old petal.... this is to do with post number 100 Lee  ;)

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 21^st, 2019 at 5:19pm:

See this is what happens when you just quote one line and start getting too old petal.... this is to do with post number 100 Lee

Oh you mean the single seater with something less than a 260lb capacity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qotuu8JjQM

The plane looks to be about 4mtres by about 10 metres so that's all it needs to land, so any road even back yard... if you go to about the 2 min mark you can see it fly straight up. that should help Lee ;)

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 21^st, 2019 at 5:49pm:

The plane looks to be about 4mtres by about 10 metres so that's all it needs to land, so any road even back yard... if you go to about the 2 min mark you can see it fly straight up. that should help Lee

The question about how much it weighs has a direct bearing on how weight it puts on the ground. Will it sink in.

So "any" land seems a tad optimistic.

lee wrote on May 21^st, 2019 at 9:06pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 21st, 2019 at 5:49pm: The plane looks to be about 4mtres by about 10 metres so that's all it needs to land, so any road even back yard... if you go to about the 2 min mark you can see it fly straight up. that should help Lee The question about how much it weighs has a direct bearing on how weight it puts on the ground. Will it sink in. So "any" land seems a tad optimistic.

why cant it hover just above the ground when they load it ,in that very rare time the ground or a road is too boggy ?

Three light weight circles about a metre wide stored on a ambulance or even the plane to make a instant landing pad... there are many ways around it. ;)

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 22^nd, 2019 at 7:50am:

why cant it hover just above the ground when they load it ,in that very rare time the ground or a road is too boggy ?

They generally take 15 to 20 minutes to load a patient. The paramedic on board has to be satisfied the patient is stable first. That all comes out of the allowable flight time.


DonDeeHippy wrote on May 22^nd, 2019 at 7:50am:

Three light weight circles about a metre wide stored on a ambulance or even the plane to make a instant landing pad.

And they hover whilst somebody moves around under it placing these squares? Doesn't sound very safe.

lee wrote on May 22^nd, 2019 at 6:51pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 22nd, 2019 at 7:50am: why cant it hover just above the ground when they load it ,in that very rare time the ground or a road is too boggy ? They generally take 15 to 20 minutes to load a patient. The paramedic on board has to be satisfied the patient is stable first. That all comes out of the allowable flight time. DonDeeHippy wrote on May 22nd, 2019 at 7:50am: Three light weight circles about a metre wide stored on a ambulance or even the plane to make a instant landing pad. And they hover whilst somebody moves around under it placing these squares? Doesn't sound very safe.

once the squares are on the ground they can go up again you know :)

or as i said have the stabilizers on the ambulance so they can be placed on the ground beforehand
But it would only have to be for patients that where considered a risk of hurting more if they moved them to the local hospital first
The other thing to consider if they are relatively easy to fly they can teach the ambulance drivers to use them and have them placed at the local hospitals and dramatically bring down waiting time for the patient's:)

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 23^rd, 2019 at 7:06am:

once the squares are on the ground they can go up again you know

Yes petal. Was it you volunteering to be under the plane to place them? ;D ;D ;D ;D


DonDeeHippy wrote on May 23^rd, 2019 at 7:06am:

The other thing to consider if they are relatively easy to fly they can teach the ambulance drivers to use them and have them placed at the local hospitals and dramatically bring down waiting time for the patient's:)

Are you still talking about the five seater Lillium Jet? It doesn't seem likely.

You do realise out in the bush the Ambos, Fire & Rescue are all volunteers? Governments don't want to spend money in the bush. Their voter core is in the cities.

lee wrote on May 23^rd, 2019 at 4:54pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 23rd, 2019 at 7:06am: once the squares are on the ground they can go up again you know Yes petal. Was it you volunteering to be under the plane to place them? ;D ;D ;D ;D DonDeeHippy wrote on May 23rd, 2019 at 7:06am: The other thing to consider if they are relatively easy to fly they can teach the ambulance drivers to use them and have them placed at the local hospitals and dramatically bring down waiting time for the patient's:) Are you still talking about the five seater Lillium Jet? It doesn't seem likely. You do realise out in the bush the Ambos, Fire & Rescue are all volunteers? Governments don't want to spend money in the bush. Their voter core is in the cities.

Sure they can drop the squares and take off again I wouldn't have a problem putting down 3 lightweight square in a that odd time when a life is at risk..... or just put the stabilizers in the ambulances and not have the problem would probable be better :)
They are planning to make them into Taxi's id say they will have to be easy to fly and safe to do that :)
not in QLD our ambulance and fire and rescue is Government funded... just the Rural fire brigade is Volunteer. ;)

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 23^rd, 2019 at 5:28pm:

Sure they can drop the squares and take off again I wouldn't have a problem putting down 3 lightweight square in a that odd time when a life is at risk..... or just put the stabilizers in the ambulances and not have the problem would probable be better

You do understand why they keep clear areas around helicopters when they are either  taking off or landing? They are not exactly stable at low speeds.


DonDeeHippy wrote on May 23^rd, 2019 at 5:28pm:

They are planning to make them into Taxi's id say they will have to be easy to fly and safe to do that

A 300km flying taxi and no pilot's license? ;D ;D ;D


DonDeeHippy wrote on May 23^rd, 2019 at 5:28pm:

not in QLD our ambulance and fire and rescue is Government funded... just the Rural fire brigade is Volunteer.

Even our Volunteers are funded by the state. We just don't have all the "toys" that career officers have.

But cost will be a big factor and I don't see a state government stumping up for one every 200 kms radially from a hospital.

lee wrote on May 23^rd, 2019 at 5:59pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 23rd, 2019 at 5:28pm: Sure they can drop the squares and take off again I wouldn't have a problem putting down 3 lightweight square in a that odd time when a life is at risk..... or just put the stabilizers in the ambulances and not have the problem would probable be better You do understand why they keep clear areas around helicopters when they are either  taking off or landing? They are not exactly stable at low speeds. DonDeeHippy wrote on May 23rd, 2019 at 5:28pm: They are planning to make them into Taxi's id say they will have to be easy to fly and safe to do that A 300km flying taxi and no pilot's license? ;D ;D ;D DonDeeHippy wrote on May 23rd, 2019 at 5:28pm: not in QLD our ambulance and fire and rescue is Government funded... just the Rural fire brigade is Volunteer. Even our Volunteers are funded by the state. We just don't have all the "toys" that career officers have. But cost will be a big factor and I don't see a state government stumping up for one every 200 kms radially from a hospital.

and you do understand its not a Helicopter and when it takes off again it can fly sideways so it's not above you... or as I keep saying the ambulance can have to stabilizers

SO taxi drivers dont have a car licence... why would you think a plane Taxi wouldnt have one, they might not need a helcopter licence though or it may be autonomous....

Well as this is all hypethetic anyway, why not…..we have no idea of cost or continuing maintenance but id say it would be substancially less so 3 or 4 around a major hospital may or may not be feasable ;)

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 24^th, 2019 at 6:33am:

and you do understand its not a Helicopter and when it takes off again it can fly sideways so it's not above you..

Are you saying helicopters can't fly sideways? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I am talking instability of aircraft at low speeds. Any little updraft, downdraft or side shear will cause it to shift. At higher speed it is better able to be controlled.


DonDeeHippy wrote on May 24^th, 2019 at 6:33am:

SO taxi drivers dont have a car licence..

Really? ;D ;D ;D


DonDeeHippy wrote on May 24^th, 2019 at 6:33am:

why would you think a plane Taxi wouldnt have one, they might not need a helcopter licence though or it may be autonomous....

Who said anything about a helicopter licence? CASA would have something to say about that.

Autonomous? As in remote flight over 100Km or someone on board the plane who isn't licensed to fly it?


DonDeeHippy wrote on May 24^th, 2019 at 6:33am:

.we have no idea of cost or continuing maintenance but id say it would be substancially less so 3 or 4 around a major hospital may or may not be feasable

So not in the bush then. Glad we sorted that bit out. ;)