Might work, how much more than a good used 172?
I do not understand why, when aviation accounts for barely 2% of global CO2 emissions, that we are spending so much time, energy and money on trying to do anything about it when the hugely easier industry to ‘fix’ is road transport where the technology is entirely available now and could start to be implemented tomorrow to produce a 40% reduction in global CO2 emissions over a mere 10 to 20 years.
Because human beings are inherently stupid…
I read the product as providing availability of fuel worldwide, environmental talk is just the usual PR these days.
Certainly aviation is singled out for abuse, probably because it is high profile and viewed as a luxury. Climate catastrophists are better at politics than science, in 3/4 of a century none of their doomsday predictions have actually occurred. Aviation improves human life, CC’s mentality is anti-human.
Wow. Impressive numbers for 122 hp. But the sales price needs to be impressive also.
The only numbers given are for “the most powerful piston versions.” I did not read one number associated with this TP version.
I’ll add a counterpoint. Most people use cars as a necessity, especially in the U.S., to make a living. Those same people struggle to pay for those same vehicles.
Nearly all privately-owned aircraft are a non-essential luxury. Yes, many are used for business purposes, but traveling by airline would accomplish the same purpose with less convenience.
Using the same logic, why not push for more-efficient aircraft even though the cost would likely be unaffordable, or at least cost-prohibitive, for those who use them? It’s just money, correct? It’s easy to want the masses to do something that some can easily afford but the every-man would struggle to do.
“Yes, many are used for business purposes, but traveling by airline would accomplish the same purpose with less convenience.”
Yes, but then many would not get to play pilot while getting tax breaks from the USG.
Okay, I’m a little confused (nothing new, I confess). The MTOW is 1,620 pounds, but it is a 2+2 design. How do they propose to fill the seats and still be at that weight. Most two seat LSAs struggle to fit a pair of folks in and stay under that weight. Also, the engine TBO is listed at 3,000 hours. Knowing turbine engines, wouldn’t that more likely be a time to replacement? Finally, they did not mention cruise speed, but on 122 HP, you can bet it won’t be anywhere near 160 kt. I guess the good news is that with a turbine, cruising in the flight levels shouldn’t be a problem.
Four very small people.
If the overhaul is half of the price of a new motor why replace the motor.
One person at 20,000 might be able to cruise at 160 knots.
A slick airframe that doesn’t have to carry the cooling drag of a piston engine - it’s not too unreasonable, especially as TAS.
I’ve had a DA20 to a little over 140kts at low weight, and without wheel fairings. Smaller, but also less power.
The 2% is for civil aviation – and no-one has to fly. Time was, if you wanted to get to Thailand from Europe, it took a month by boat. Now people fly for long weekends. To look at a beach, very similar to a beach anywhere. It is this part of flying which makes it such a target for CO2 reduction.
Sorry - civil as opposed to…? This article (Aviation - IEA) makes it pretty clear to me that the 2% is ‘aviation’ without qualification…?
And come on… “no-one has to fly”…?! You do if you want to visit anywhere more than ~2k miles away and you want to do it practically. What is the point in developing technology if we are not going to use it? If you want to live as people did 100 years ago, good luck to you but the vast majority of normal people want to take advantage of the wonders of the modern world (and that means eg health care as much as it does transport).
Could we do much of what travel is currently done in jet-powered aircraft in high speed electric trains? Absolutely and practically too – China has proved this beyond any doubt (possibly Japan and bits of year also). Unfortunately, the oil industry as such a stranglehold on the whole thing that we will be waiting a long time before the status quo changes, certainly as far as the US is concerned.
Enticing, but a bit too much “pie in the sky”. I have a hard time fathoming how 122 h.p. will lift 4 people into the sky without 250 square feet of wing and an airframe capable of supporting 4 aluminum lawn chairs. 160 kts? downhill maybe. Put a modern wing on a C170 or Stinson 108 and it might work. Most of these projected performance figures are pixie dust and glossy brochures.
Individual time alive is valuable.- a finite resource.
Sigh, another conspiracy theorist.
The Limitation of trains is access - can’t have tracks everywhere. Whereas cars on streets are very flexible. Buses are in between but only on defined routes - that’s why many elder people drive cars which better accommodate their decreasing mobility and energy.
Two young children in the back seats, two small people in the front (think typical east orient not American farm amazons ;-).
As for TBO, go do homework. Depends on engine design and what it was intended to do, low capital cost for one thing. Airliner turbine engines stay on the wing for tens of thousands of hours.
(I was amazed seeing a little Allison turboshaft from a light helicopter in an overhaul shop - the compressor was a single piece, FOD took off all blades. But it was light as suits helicopters.)
Buses are in between but only on defined routes - that’s why many elder people drive cars which better accommodate their decreasing mobility and energy
At this point, lets put in a nod to services which are in between cars and buses - shared small buses or vans which will pick up and drop off qualifying persons (elderly, broke, etc.) to and from their home and reasonable destinations. The service might be on demand or by appointment, but the van will be shared by others and should be on an ad hoc route which tries to optimize pickups and dropoffs.
Perhaps a subset of cars.