Comments by "Martijn Maas" (@hotdognl70) on "Cleo Abram" channel.

Good observation! We have to keep in mind that her video's are targeting the mainstream audience without any knowledge of aviation and electrics so it's not going too deep.
2
High... Very high! At this moment it's still a dirty busines and we can only hope it's getting better.
2
@patrickredman3040 Yeah, contrails might be a bit cleaner but it still is hot water vapour in cold air condensing. Watervapour in it self is also a greenhouse gas, that's why I considder them equaly bad.
2
Flying these drone-like aircrafts is basicly flying on autopilot all of the time. VTOL's ability to use "Full Stop" as a safety mode where normal aircrafts will drop from the sky is also making them way easier to auto pilot on just GPS- or motion sensor input.
2
The only downside is: Count the number of fender benders involving normal cars and realize that this will become the number of likely fatal crashes with these drone-like VTOL's.
1
Just understand that the "We" is the entire planet. People like you and me should work hard on using less.
1
@johnford2508 Topic was about energy and no, we do not have to replace it. Just try to use less.
1
@ReivecS Large planes are decent protected but still can be affected by lightning, smaller conventional planes can kind of steep glide while the controls are mechanical. Highly computerized small VTOL's can not glide like this and rely on electronics for their stability. If any of the "many" motors fails you are in trouble, unless they use a complicated control system like helicopters do. This will however completey erase the advantage of light, simple motors placed anywhere. But to be fair, this is a non-issue: No smart pilot would go flying into a thunderstorm.
1
The smaller aircraft as seen in the background in this video are in use already for some time. They are restricted by their excesive strain on the electric grid and small operating radius.
1
Biofuels or fossil fuels are nearly equaly bad on contrails. The issue is that the atmosphere still is the carrier of the polution. Hydrogen is even worse for several reasons, water vapour being a strong greenhouse gas and the high energy cost to produce it in a "green" way are 2 of them. As it is today, the main source for hydrogen is natural gas, with CO as byproduct.
1
Kind like we used to do with electric forklifts: Alwas a few batteries on charge. Funny thing about aviation is the ammount of paperwork to just tighten a screw... In many regions safety regulations are a huge pain in te backdoor! For that reason the use of mobile starter packs is becomming more and more frequent in GA. You can use any kind of battery you want and it saves the planes own battery. Changing a complete battery pack like a refuel would make life fairly simple but the costs and regulations as we have now are not helping to implement this system.
1
@PistonAvatarGuy The smaller types of aircrafts used by several flight schools are not as expensive as you are assuming. To be fair, they are as good as equal in total costs (buy and operation) based on what they charge per hour.
1
@poochie5543 For basic flight traing 45 minutes is perfect, keep in mind this is 45 minutes airtime + a healthy reserve. The main issue with electric planes is that you need additional training to operate piston engines. Type ratings might be part of that. At this moment these plains are far from perfect but it is a start.
1
@PistonAvatarGuy Operators of these new electric small planes are no benefit organisations but commercialy operated busineses. They are not giving out free lessons and their rate is not as high as your assumtions would demand them to be. Mogas has some restrictions as well and can't be used under all circumstances. We used it on several Cesna's but only on busy days and the last flights of the day were on avgas to prevent vapour building up overnight. It is also not a clean fuel and therefor not an alternative. it is also no alternative for Jet A1, but that kind of planes is also still far away from going electric.
1
@PistonAvatarGuy To illustrate the cost at one of the airfields where you can take normal and electric lessons: 40 minutes electric €265 45 minutes conventional €279 Electric is actualy cheaper inspite of your assumption of the costs.
1
@PistonAvatarGuy Believe what you want to believe, these rates are verifiable for Teuge airport in The Netherlands. The prices are prety much equal wich means that electric is not as expensive as you think it is. The reason why I say it is actualy cheaper is that the conventional Cesna's are used for more things than just training and that company has also lower overhead costs per aircraft. The new electric school has higher overhead per aircraft. Brand new oversized hangar is not cheap. Still they can offer these rates so the aircrafts can't be as expensive as you claim they are and when operated on the same scale rates will go down. This is not trolling, just maths. But please don't be mistaken of my opinion about these litle planes. As much as I think they can be usefull for training and hour grinding for CPL, in the current situation thats all they are good for. They are way too limited for most other purposes.
1
@PistonAvatarGuy I'm using what is available at this moment on a location that is accesible for me. I've made comparissions a few times over the years and in general the rates where roughlt the same. On a small airfield start/landing fees were low but schools overhead was relative high and the other way around. I'm not intentional skewing numbers, if I would do that I would have taken a verifiable way higher rate from another school. The simple fact here is that most schools operate Cesna's and I can't compare rates with other airfields since they don't offer electric. Perhaps your local situation is very different but over here it is roughly as I presented. No trolling, no skewing. Only tried to debunk your initial claim about prices being way higher. They are not insane expensive in use, also not twice as expensive. With the numbers you have derived of my numbers it's just 7%. Over time that will drop in the advantage of electric.
1
The only reason that airplanes are having a high score on safety is the training of the people that operate those. Imagine now a world were just as much people are flying easy to operate planes as we have people driving a car these days: What now is just an anyoing fender bender will then be a fatal crash at altitude.
1
They can but there are significant complications and dangers to that. There is a reason even the militairy do restrict the use of these systems to aircraft carriers. By the way, the Wright brothers used a catapult system for their very first aircraft.
1
@tonydeveyra4611 That is not a complication but an advantage. Another advantage of catapults on ships is that you can easy adjust it's direction to have it perfect against the wind. The lack of space is also an advantage: Shorter systems are easier to maintain. The huge variety of aircraft makes it even more complicated. Every variation of weight, take off speed and size have different needs.
1
Correct, very small 2 seaters. Not even suitable for low altidude skydiving but decent for basic flight training. These are already in use on several places for some time so I was kind of surprised she was not alowed to go for a ride.
1
After an accident years ago I promissed myself a flying lesson the first day I could walk without cruches. My mom drove me to the airfield.
1
You're not completely wrong. Car batteries that are at 70% of their capacity are considered unusable and for planes I recon the limits are going to be even stricter. However, these batteries can still have a function in stationairy storage as peak backup or off-grid solutions where the increased weigh and volume ratio is not an issue.
1
No, she's doing the positive side of changes. Your subject is unfortunately still the darkside of "green energy".
1
@ingerasulffs Helicopters use a very mechanical complicated rotor system where these electric multi engine drone's use just the enginge to balance and control the aircraft. Easier in maintenance, less vulnerable.
1