Eliminate fuel. Feed the batteries using green energy. Eliminate the pilot through drone operation. Costs of production of the aircraft will go down over time like all produced tech.
@@thecasualfront7432 No, the ratio is not 50x, because the energy density for the fuel is thermal, not work. Most jet engines have efficiencies between 8% and 17%.The ratio between actual available work from the two is closer to 8x ish. And specific energy density of batteries is still likely to double over the next decade. Next, you have that electric engines are much more compact, so you get engine mass back, and you can freely distribute them over the aircraft to get better aerodynamics or VTOL capacity, which further improves the ratio, or by simply having more fan area than the equivalent kerosene burning aircraft. For short-haul flights where fuel is only a small percentage of the liftoff weight, you can easily do the same trip with an electric aircraft that just dedicates a larger portion of its weight to energy storage. You also have better range with a winged VTOL electric aircraft than with a helicopter, so they can also compete directly with helicopters by providing VTOL (though not loitering time in hover) with substantially less mechanical complexity & moving parts.
@@brejaimecastillo8851 No that’s not what I’m considering. I’m just saying that considering their investors include companies like Amazon’s Climate Change Pledge Fund and Fidelity Management and Research. As well as their customer base from UPS, in addition to the impressive design inspired from nature (the Arctic Tern), make it a promising technology that this company has pioneered. Not to mention they do human test-flights which indicates they are very confident in their engineering now. All of this combined with the fact that they aren’t public would point to them being cautious in regards to investors’ capital and want to make sure they can deliver a product consistently before they rely on public investment. Good luck on your investments as well. :]
![[LIVE] BABYMONSTER(베이비몬스터) - DRIP | 두시탈출 컬투쇼](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/UG05pxLGwzc/mqdefault.jpg)
Impressive seeing the plane in UPS colors for the first time. Godspeed to you and the team, Kyle. And getting some press.
Such a beautiful garage. I hope Beta Technologies keeps it up! What an incredible design.
For reference ↙:
Vertical Take-off and Landing=VTOL
Electric Vertical Take-off and Landing=EVTOL
The CEO handled himself very well, even though the interviewers were asking some pretty lame questions.
The end of fuel.
Yeeeeeah. Try hauling 777 volume with no fuel.
The innovation in this space will be mind-blowing. Fuel-based propulsion is a transitional technology - like fax machines.
Literally unless they can bring down costs this thing will not get off the ground
Eliminate fuel. Feed the batteries using green energy. Eliminate the pilot through drone operation. Costs of production of the aircraft will go down over time like all produced tech.
How would you guys like to know how to earn 50k dollars per week trading on forex it’s Really wonderful and stress free
(Hopkinsanchez)email him with this name
it is already down enough...to be disruptive...
Aviation fuel energy density: 45Mj/kg
Lithium ion battery energy density: 0.7Mj/kg
Yeah it’s not happening.
How are you doing mr would you like to know how to earn 10k every week trading on forex
Hopkinsanchez@ email him with that name
That just means the range is lower. Now do operating cost
@@BosonCollider well given they have 2% of the range of an ordinary aircraft and would have to be 50 times heavier, it’s definitely not happening.
@@thecasualfront7432 No, the ratio is not 50x, because the energy density for the fuel is thermal, not work. Most jet engines have efficiencies between 8% and 17%.The ratio between actual available work from the two is closer to 8x ish. And specific energy density of batteries is still likely to double over the next decade.
Next, you have that electric engines are much more compact, so you get engine mass back, and you can freely distribute them over the aircraft to get better aerodynamics or VTOL capacity, which further improves the ratio, or by simply having more fan area than the equivalent kerosene burning aircraft.
For short-haul flights where fuel is only a small percentage of the liftoff weight, you can easily do the same trip with an electric aircraft that just dedicates a larger portion of its weight to energy storage. You also have better range with a winged VTOL electric aircraft than with a helicopter, so they can also compete directly with helicopters by providing VTOL (though not loitering time in hover) with substantially less mechanical complexity & moving parts.
The disgusting pint peroperativly remain because asia proximately screw in a silent disadvantage. fallacious, calm actor
Sound like another lordstown and Nikola. Careful people
Literally nothing like those two. This company isn’t even public! Seems like a great Vermont company. :]
@@WingofTech so because of its geographical origin I should trust it? Good luck with all your investements.
@@brejaimecastillo8851 No that’s not what I’m considering. I’m just saying that considering their investors include companies like Amazon’s Climate Change Pledge Fund and Fidelity Management and Research. As well as their customer base from UPS, in addition to the impressive design inspired from nature (the Arctic Tern), make it a promising technology that this company has pioneered. Not to mention they do human test-flights which indicates they are very confident in their engineering now.
All of this combined with the fact that they aren’t public would point to them being cautious in regards to investors’ capital and want to make sure they can deliver a product consistently before they rely on public investment.
Good luck on your investments as well. :]
Beta shrimps...LOL