Increased regulation let the push to more fuel efficient vehicles.
I kind of like out RAV4 that has more power than my '54 Chevy coupe and gets 30+ mpg.
If it hadn't been for regulation, and competition from overseas (The American car buyer will never buy small cars, they want Cadillacs and Buicks) and we'd all still be driving cars with 9-18MPG inefficient motors that needed valve adjustment 2x a year and a head job every 50K miles
No, it wasn't CAFE standards that did that.
It was $5/gallon of gas after Katrina that did that.
Competition from overseas, yeah I'll give you that.
I'm talking the 70's (1977) when I bought my first foreign car brand new. For half the price of the Olds on the showroom floor, with more amenities as in they didn't charge $40 extra for hubcaps like on the Olds sticker, and it was 4WD and got over 30MPG back then. And yes, CAFE did have an effect back then as it started in '75. The foreign companies had no issues designing and building new technology to meet those standards.
GM, AMC, MOPAR, and Ford gave us scheidt like the Pinto and the Chevette. Because they hated the idea of having to retool, and as I mentioned, they were still of the opinion that we good Americans wanted big steel American cars. They learned quickly enough.
When Toyota, Nissan, and Mitsubishi started selling high numbers of small trucks the US makers had to import them under their labels just to keep a share of the market. If not mistaken, the Chevy LUV small truck was made mostly by Mitsubishi or some other Japanese corporation.
Katrina may have helped keep the ball rolling, especially in the F150 truck class and the SUV size vehicles, but then again, the American companies came late to the show after the Toyota 4 runner types were selling better than some of their offerings.
The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men. In it is contentment In it is death and all you seek (Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)
Concept airplane that’ll never see the light of day. The range is completely inadequate for anything, you have to be able to get there plus have a reserve and get to an alternate if the weather requires. 500 nm won’t get you anywhere in the Caribbean from Miami except maybe the Bahamas or Cuba.
Small startups are always floating ideas like this and 99.9% never get built. Most are hoping to get bought out by a real manufacturer for their ideas. We’ll eventually see electric airplanes built, but it won’t be this one.
Just like with electric vehicles, it’s going to take a major battery technology breakthrough before they’re viable. It’s not going to happen with today’s technology.
That's what I was thinking too, if they have to divert another 50 to 100 miles and their at 480 mile range already, it'll turn into a lawn dart.
Just some general comments. Electricity is a secondary energy source dependent ultimately on on coal, gas, oil, or nuclear energy; we have no nuclear energy practically speaking, so it’s hydrocarbons to the rescue again.
It isn’t just existing and accessible as a primary source of power; this goes to the footprint of producing those batteries, and with rare elements, which must weigh the proverbial ton (just like in the cars) reducing payload. Of course aviation fuel is around, what, 8 lbs per gallon so I’m not sure of the trade-off there. I’m thinking the batteries outweigh the liquid fuel though.
But, it’s the whole ruse of just “plugging in” and there’s your power.
Good looking plane though.
Jet fuel is 6.5 pounds/gal and avgas is 6 pounds per.
I am..........disturbed.
Concerning the difference between man and the jackass: some observers hold that there isn't any. But this wrongs the jackass. -Twain
Eflyer 800 is expected to have a 500 mile range, 280 knot cruise, 35,000 ft ceiling and roughly 3,400 fpm rate of climb.
And every pilot knows range is a silly #. It's duration. How long will these motors turn? @ 280 KTS lets say they mean about 2 hours.
While the technology is admirable, anyone with experience is going to take a pass unless you're just so "woke" you have to show you're the cool kid.
I had a true airspeed today of 128 KTS and a groundspeed of 152 KTS in our low wing, single engine bug smasher. I sure wouldn't want to be in the flyer800 thinking I could make it 500 miles going the other way? Maybe plot out alternatives like where there are lots of Uber drivers?
If something on the internet makes you angry the odds are you're being manipulated
I'm with Goober and George and Pugs. I know squat about aviation, but aren't there some guidelines (mandated or just sensible) about a reserve fuel capability? It looks to me that the stated range and sped allows for none.
Maybe that's what the parachute is for?
From working for Alaska Airlines for several years , I know the jets flying to Kotzebue carried enough fuel for the return trip, or, on occasion, Fairbanks as an alternative, plus a reserve.
Just some general comments. Electricity is a secondary energy source dependent ultimately on on coal, gas, oil, or nuclear energy; we have no nuclear energy practically speaking, so it’s hydrocarbons to the rescue again.
It isn’t just existing and accessible as a primary source of power; this goes to the footprint of producing those batteries, and with rare elements, which must weigh the proverbial ton (just like in the cars) reducing payload. Of course aviation fuel is around, what, 8 lbs per gallon so I’m not sure of the trade-off there. I’m thinking the batteries outweigh the liquid fuel though.
But, it’s the whole ruse of just “plugging in” and there’s your power.
Good looking plane though.
Jet fuel is 6.5 pounds/gal and avgas is 6 pounds per.
one reason they "float" on water, eh?
The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men. In it is contentment In it is death and all you seek (Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)
Eflyer 800 is expected to have a 500 mile range, 280 knot cruise, 35,000 ft ceiling and roughly 3,400 fpm rate of climb.
And every pilot knows range is a silly #. It's duration. How long will these motors turn? @ 280 KTS lets say they mean about 2 hours.
While the technology is admirable, anyone with experience is going to take a pass unless you're just so "woke" you have to show you're the cool kid.
I had a true airspeed today of 128 KTS and a groundspeed of 152 KTS in our low wing, single engine bug smasher. I sure wouldn't want to be in the flyer800 thinking I could make it 500 miles going the other way? Maybe plot out alternatives like where there are lots of Uber drivers?
Do you flyers live by the "rule of thirds" like we did when I was diving?
A third for the trip down and the bottom time, a third for the trip up and off gassing if needed, and a third for "Oh scheidt, we didn't plan on that happening".
The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men. In it is contentment In it is death and all you seek (Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)
Can't even fly from El Paso to Dallas with that abysmal 500 mi. range. Not sure why they're so intent on forcing electric everything down our throats. Just more control over the population.
I think your hat band is a little too tight. How is adding electric options to planes increasing control (rather than giving more options?). For someone who doesn't need more range or quick turns, electric seems like a low cost, low maintenance option. Say for flying from San Fran to Tahoe for the weekend, or from Seattle to Sun Valley. Or from Miami to anywhere in the Caribbean.
It's not about providing more options to the consumer. It's about phasing out fossil fuels and therefore limiting our options, and our mobility while exerting more control the individual, under the guise of "green" energy. EPA regs, have all but ruined diesels and they're hell bent on getting rid of gasoline as well. There's not enough electrical capacity in the grid to sustain battery powered everything and solar/wind power simply won't cut it. It's certainly not about the environment as lithium battery manufacturing and disposal is an environmental nightmare, and if you don't see that, maybe it's you whose hatband is too tight.
EPA Chief concedes no climate impact from climate rule; it's about 'reinventing a global economy'
Yeah, like the giant windmills dotting the countryside whose output will never fill the carbon footprint made to produce them...according to an engineer.
It's not about providing more options to the consumer. It's about phasing out fossil fuels and therefore limiting our options, and our mobility while exerting more control the individual, under the guise of "green" energy. EPA regs, have all but ruined diesels and they're hell bent on getting rid of gasoline as well. There's not enough electrical capacity in the grid to sustain battery powered everything and solar/wind power simply won't cut it. It's certainly not about the environment as lithium battery manufacturing and disposal is an environmental nightmare, and if you don't see that, maybe it's you whose hatband is too tight.
Completely WRONG.
This is not conforming to some government mandate. This isn't come company forced to comply with some EPA ruling. This isn't anyone shoving anything down your gullet.
This is a privately owned, locally based company here in Colorado, trying to innovate. 100% of their funding is venture capitol - not handouts by the government.
They have been around since 2007, and also manufacture drones for remote sensing. (I have experience with their drones using special imaging to direct autonomous vehicles to apply variable rate application of fertilizers on test USDA sites in Colorado. LONG story, that...)
No one is forcing you to "fly electric", and this has nothing to do with phasing out fossil fuels.
It is just another tool in a consumer's toolbelt.
If it is inconvenient, doesn't make sense, and is too expensive, this company will cease to exist.
I disagree with part of your statement. There are many in power that are hell bent to get rid of fossil fuels. This company may not have those intentions but the people that butter their bread do, as you mentioned they are into manufacturing drones. The government buys plenty of those. Also to decide to manufacture an electric form of transportation isn't always done because it's a money maker. I bet they get some hefty tax breaks for doing this. I also know business owners that see the handwriting on the wall and try to get ahead of government mandates, especially those that have to do with the EPA. Everyone knew after biden was in office the EPA would go back to being the gestapo they have always been and then some and it's early yet so they have plenty to screw up!
Eflyer 800 is expected to have a 500 mile range, 280 knot cruise, 35,000 ft ceiling and roughly 3,400 fpm rate of climb.
And every pilot knows range is a silly #. It's duration. How long will these motors turn? @ 280 KTS lets say they mean about 2 hours.
While the technology is admirable, anyone with experience is going to take a pass unless you're just so "woke" you have to show you're the cool kid.
I had a true airspeed today of 128 KTS and a groundspeed of 152 KTS in our low wing, single engine bug smasher. I sure wouldn't want to be in the flyer800 thinking I could make it 500 miles going the other way? Maybe plot out alternatives like where there are lots of Uber drivers?
Bye aerospace is currently producing and selling the EFlyer200, a two seater single engine trainer with a duration of a little over 3 hours. A stretched version 4 seater is in the works.
Originally Posted by George_De_Vries_3rd
Just some general comments. Electricity is a secondary energy source dependent ultimately on on coal, gas, oil, or nuclear energy; we have no nuclear energy practically speaking, so it’s hydrocarbons to the rescue again.
It isn’t just existing and accessible as a primary source of power; this goes to the footprint of producing those batteries, and with rare elements, which must weigh the proverbial ton (just like in the cars) reducing payload. Of course aviation fuel is around, what, 8 lbs per gallon so I’m not sure of the trade-off there. I’m thinking the batteries outweigh the liquid fuel though.
But, it’s the whole ruse of just “plugging in” and there’s your power.
Good looking plane though.
The main element in the batteries is lithium, one of the 10 most abundant elements on earth.
As far as source of electricity, even in Texas, close to 30% of the electric supply is renewable. Nationwide, more electricity is produced by renewables than coal, and coal is still shrinking while renewable energy growth continues to accelerate. For one simple reason: it’s cheaper.
I'm with Goober and George and Pugs. I know squat about aviation, but aren't there some guidelines (mandated or just sensible) about a reserve fuel capability? It looks to me that the stated range and sped allows for none.
It claims those #'s are in addition to a 45 minute reserve. What I need by the FAA requirements IFR is enough fuel to reach my primary destination then my alternative destination plus 45 minutes so the reserve could really be much more than 45 minutes since an alternative weather better be better than the primary one I couldn't get into.
Notice they didn't say how much it costs to buy but claim an operating cost 1/5 th of a standard turboprop so they must be giving them away.
If something on the internet makes you angry the odds are you're being manipulated
I would imagine many of these same arguments were heard a hundred and twenty years ago or so...when they started trying to replace horses in many applications with those infernal, internal combustion engines.
The main element in the batteries is lithium, one of the 10 most abundant elements on earth.
As far as source of electricity, even in Texas, close to 30% of the electric supply is renewable. Nationwide, more electricity is produced by renewables than coal, and coal is still shrinking while renewable energy growth continues to accelerate. For one simple reason: it’s cheaper.
But it just doesn't pop up out of the ground, it has to be mined. Those mines are hideous!
Oil and gas fields, and tanks farms aren't hideous?
Or coal mines and coal powerplants?
The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men. In it is contentment In it is death and all you seek (Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)
The main element in the batteries is lithium, one of the 10 most abundant elements on earth.
As far as source of electricity, even in Texas, close to 30% of the electric supply is renewable. Nationwide, more electricity is produced by renewables than coal, and coal is still shrinking while renewable energy growth continues to accelerate. For one simple reason: it’s cheaper.
But it just doesn't pop up out of the ground, it has to be mined. Those mines are hideous!
Jeepers. I think we need fewer tinfoil hats around here. No matter how you feel about it, fossil fuels aren't sustainable in the long term. Solar panel and battery technology has a long ways to go. I think windmills are stupid. I wouldn't own a Prius. I think nuclear is the answer. Maybe the current cars and planes aren't long term viable but they are necessary evolutionary steps. And what's wrong with a company seeing the writing on the wall and getting in front of it?
Bore size is no substitute for shot placement and Power is no substitute for bullet performance. 458WIN
l told my pap and mam I was going to be a mountain man; acted like they was gut-shot. Make your life go here. Here's where the peoples is. Mother Gue, I says, the Rocky Mountains is the marrow of the world, and by God, I was right. - Del Gue
![[Linked Image]](https://i.postimg.cc/050xcBLB/Abbyand-Rum.jpg)
