Air transport is one of the most polluting ways to travel, and I would expect a single person airplane is even worse than a full A380.
Is there anything you're doing to alleviate this issue ?
I would imagine that lead is dangerous for a long as it's being used, whereas CO2 has an annoyingly long half life that we need to actively remove in (currently) time- or energy-intensive processes, while it's reducing healthy years of life for millions of people —speaking of air pollution from combustion in general here, I don't have specific numbers for airplanes but as an airplane company you are surely better aware of this than me
Fact of the lead content, the wishes and the promises of your post have a place here.
However "Green" only sounds good in a marketing pitches. While it might resonate with potential customers who are already sold on the idea, it can come across as vague and insubstantial to those trying to understand your response.
It sounds misleading and deceptive for the individuals who are skeptical of the environmental impact.
our first model will still be a gasoline ICE airplane, but we are building a limited number of them to get our tech out there and get a new wave of people excited about GA. out future aircraft will be able to utilize our fly-by-wire/simplified controls to fly more aerodynamically efficient airframes that will use less energy, whatever that source is. We can do this because these airframes would be too unstable for a human to fly by hand, hence the need for fly-by-wire/simplified controls in the loop.
today, we don't have a good alternative to ICE for airplanes that also meets the mission profile of the vehicle. I personally think hybrid electric is at least the next step, with hydrogen (though that has it's own challenges) coming after.
Yes, it’s more total fuel consumption than a car (but in an hour covering 2x the distance, and allowing to travel more directly) but not at all close to turbine or turboprops. At the extremely cheap (accessible to more pilots) side for pressurized planes, fuel burn is going to be 40gph and it just goes up from there.
There are many variables, and winds work for or against—but by doing good flight planning you use the winds to your advantage.
There is also a lot of research on better aviation fuels (100ll :(((). I’m excited about that part of it, more so than the current electric planes (although electric self-launching gliders are pretty neat)
MOSIAC is going to make light sport aircraft more useful, which will also help in this area.
Tons of interesting stuff happening here!
Our plane will be ~7 gph at cruise burning unleaded fuels and fly ~170mph over the ground (with no wind)
You give consumption of 7 gallons in cruise mode. I don't want to know what is burnt during take-off or landing.
Takeoff constitutes a negligible part of the total fuel consumption. Climb to altitude uses more, but you get that back when landing since you're then using your stored potential energy.
Small-aircraft GA is a vanishingly small fraction of total fossil fuel use, and it will be quite easy to replace that with some renewable fuel solution (compared with the huge amounts of fuel consumed by transport aircraft). For my part, I think it would be a shame to kill GA because of a temporary and relatively unimportant concern.
OP wrote: "We want people who don’t think about airplanes as a mode of transportation to start flying"
They're meaning for this to become a larger fraction, besides that the relevant measure is pollution per benefit or per capita or something rather than absolute amount of pollution
I think we should absolutely keep airplanes as a mode of transportation, because the alternative is that all small airports go away and then it won't matter when renewable fuels become a reality because there will be no longer be anywhere to land and take off. Those airports would not come back.
First off, you've got this backwards. One doesn't have an opinion because one flies or not; conversely, one flies or not because one concludes their situation does or does not warrant the pollution for a particular destination
But equally weird, why are you making this about me personally? If I say I don't fly, that's probably unusual where you're from so I'll be the environmentalist out-group whose opinion is too extreme and can be dismissed. If I do I'll be considered a hypocrite (like what you called someone in the other thread). I can tell you the answer is a middle ground but I don't think it helps anyone here to make this about me. I'd much rather make this about facts and science rather than opinions and feelings
> I think we should absolutely keep airplanes as a mode of transportation
I agree, but since nobody said anything to the contrary, that seems like a given
I asked chatgpt what the average consumption of a car is; the answer was 0.5-1 gallon on a highway.
if the consumption is 7 times as high (very conservative calculation) and the speed is about twice as high, we are still at a modifier of 3.5. right?
Too much for me. We should be aiming for the absolute minimisation of fossil fuels.
Look, this is peanuts compared to everyday consumption by the world.
> We should be aiming for the absolute minimisation of fossil fuels.
Should we? We could easily do that. Just stop cars and busses and trains and planes and heating and the production of medicine and everything else.
Oh, our life would be much worse.
As a matter of fact, we should not aim for "the absolute minimisation of fossil fuels". Not at all. It is dispiriting for me to learn that you believe such primitive nonsense.
Seriously, you need to learn the basics of economics and trade-offs and all that.
These models seem to be big (Volkswagen Atlas, Subaru Ascent, Ford F150) or fast (Audi RS5, Porche 911, Kia Stinger). If you can get similar mpg from an airplane that carries four people and their luggage at 100+ mph ground speed on a more direct (shorter) route… that’s very compelling to me.
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSearch.do?action=noform...
There are about 15m cars sold in the US every year, but around 1500 piston engine planes. That's a factor of 10,000. There are some 210m cars in use in the USA, but around 150k piston engine planes. That's a factor of 1400 (reflecting the fact that planes have a much longer life than cars, further contributing to their lower environmental impact).
Every day, cars burn more fuel than light airplanes burn in a year.
This project is a minuscule rounding error in climate change drivers.
We don’t really have hybrid planes yet, which will likely help in the most inefficient parts of flying (climb).
My comment is to add more information to the discussion to consider many aspects, not to make claims that it’s a fuel-sensible method of travel. I am excited for innovation here, just like I am excited for the continued improvements in hybrid and electric cars.
Not sure where you're from but airport density in the US is incredibly high thanks to WWII and Cold War leftover infrastructure (and a fairly robust GA culture up through the 80s). People just don't notice their little local airports unless they fly.
[1] https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-determines-lead-emissio... [2] https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/leaded-gas-wa...