It comes with a long power cord.
Mark, you are correct - Payload is useful load minus fuel. In some cases with the jets I fly they use BEW - which is empty weight + crew - then the calculations for fuel / payload are then computed.
For a SR22 for example (lets use a G2) it has a typical useful load of 1050 lbs. It can hold 80 gallons (nominally) so the payload with fuel fuel would be : 1050 - 480 = 570. If for example you wanted to fly for 1.5 hours with a fuel burn of 17 GPH , and VFR reserve of 30 minutes your payload would be: 1050 lbs - fuel (2.0 x 17 = 34 gallons = 204 lbs) = 844 lbs. A C182 would be very similiar - just a lot slower than the SR22 but faster than the Chinese plane.
I use the Joby, which is a great prototype, since it is one of the most popular in the electric aircraft race, albeit a different class.
Iāve flown the electric Pipestral in Europe and for 30 minute flights is it is a blast.
Congratulations on Part 23 certification, China is actually DOING something in electric aviation. Has it reached full potential? No more than the Wright Flyer performance achieved compared to a DC3 compared to an A380 today. But the Wright Flyer did something, the DC3 did likewise including much more culminating at where the aviation world is at today with an A380. All three started a pathway of maturing technology that continues today. Guess what Chinaā¦ has some pretty smart people who can take an idea to useful reality for their culture and needs, even and including meeting US certification! May not meet all our needs as compared to a 182ā¦ but still shows promise that will inevitably mature. Maybe instead of economic sanctions, belligerent tariffs, and threatened military Sabre rattling, we say āwell doneāā¦can we buy these or your technology and build them here? Geeā¦ getting alongā¦now thatās a novel idea!
1 Like
Having China lean on the FAA sounds like a wonderful idea. Pressure from foreign governments will likely get the attention from Congress for the FAA to move quicker. Likely meaning, hiring more people at the FAA. As a follower of the Jetson 1, 14 CFR part 91.119 needs to be modified for small eVTOLs to land and takeoff in urban areas for metro commuter use to reduce traffic jams around the planet as well as in the US. An ideal condition for the Chinese aviation authority to become involved in to get it done sooner rather than later.
James mentioned lithium-oxygen batteries - great in theory, but no one has been able to make one that works in the real world. One interesting thing about Li-O batteries is that they get heavier as they discharge. That would be fun in a aviation application!
China used U.S. technology and investments to become a manufacturing and technological powerhouse, turning civilian innovations like electric aircraft into military assets and gaining a strategic edge. During the 1980s, American industry fed Chinaās rise by outsourcing production and sharing technologyāwhat seemed like a good idea at the time to cut costs and expand markets has now turned into a nightmare, as Chinaās industrial infrastructure has mushroomed into a global force. (Ask the CIA how that worked out.) Meanwhile, the U.S. is scrambling to reclaim lost groundāfactories, supply chains, and technological leadership. Efforts to rebuild are underway, but the clock is ticking, and the challenge is enormous. As for āgetting alongā?..donāt hold your breath.
The plane doesnāt look attractive to myself,and I prefer the roll characteristics of shorter wings,even if they are 60 years old or so.Maybe all the good structural inventions for aircraft more or less were used up 50 or 60 years ago,except for vgās.But it would be exciting if the Asians would supply more reasonable parts,or even a more efficient and cheaper fuel
Can it be ordered from TEMU?
All of the car talk, whataboutism and misty-eyed bromides about the Wright brothers and steam engines in the world donāt change the fact that something must to be commercially viable to survive in the modern world, and what is essentially an uglier 172 with 90min of endurance is not exactly the image of easily commercially viable.
You guys like numbers. This is only marginally better than the electric Pipistrel, which is rated for 50min + reserve (80min). That plane has two seats and is essentially useless aside from pattern work for and short hops to airports that are less than 100mi apart, this one is advertising that it is roughly equivalent in the range department (90min - 30min reserve = 60 min), and thatās advertising. Whatās real world? If it were 90min + reserve, they would have said that, because itās an increase of a third and thatās more than significant. In the end, its viability outside of its home market with its lax regulations will depend on cost. Weāll have to see what it costs, since itās Chinese itāll probably be cheaper than if it were a Cessna, but the 2-seat flying e-bike Pipistrel is $200,000+, and letās not forget that deep cycling the batteries will significantly shorten their āTBOā vs someoneās babied EV which almost never gets deep cycled and does half of its āchargingā over its life off of regen.
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.