Hacker News Reader

Comment by module0000 | Hacker News Reader

>> My fuel not burning in my wings wouldn't change anything, as I'm constrained by takeoff weight not by landing weight

I realize every pilot's job is different...but it's routine where I've worked(not as a pilot, but as a LIDAR operator), to skimp on fuel so we could still make weight & balance with our equipment on board. I've never heard(same as you) of anyone counting on that decrease in weight from fuel consumption though.

View on HN

My memory is a bit vague, but I do seem to recall that there are some older GA twins where the maximum takeoff weight can exceed the maximum landing weight. Therefore, if you have an engine out immediately after takeoff with full load, you need to circle around for a bit to burn fuel.

I'd have to dig around to find out exactly which aircraft this refers to, but I'm going to take a guess that it's something like a Piper Apache or Aztec.

A Cessna 182S has a max takeoff weight of 3100 lbs and max landing of 2950 lbs. If you take off right at max gross you need to burn 25 gallons of gas. At 14 gph, that's about 1h45, minus a bit for the increased fuel burn in the climb.

This is something that can be designed for though (mainly stronger landing gear) and I would argue all the benefits of electric far outweigh the drawbacks aside from battery life/range.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.15

Sure dropping objects is another option, but arguably that would work in an electric plane too.

However, I really doubt they would certify an electric with a higher takeoff weight than landing weight.

Emergency situations give the pilot essentially unlimited powers to safely land the aircraft. In a ‘no time remaining’ type of emergency such as a fire you’re just landing the aircraft over weight. It will be fine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com