Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TjW0569 t1_jdvgfs0 wrote

Reply to comment by MAS2de in Does living in an airplane flight path, near an airport, pose a health risk? What happens to the lead from the jets fuel? by [deleted]

Think of the dangers that batteries pose in aircraft today. Those with a memory may recall the Dreamliner fleet being grounded due to battery fires. Then think of how dangerous they can be with twice the energy in the same volume.
Batteries are like rocket engines, in that they are a chemical reaction that has its oxidizer built into it. Unlike automobiles, there's generally no convenient way to immediately pull over and get out.

3

32_Dollar_Burrito t1_jdwdp67 wrote

Think of the dangers that tons of fuel pose in aircraft!

We figured that out, we'll figure out battery safety too

1

TjW0569 t1_jdww2yq wrote

The tons of fuel don't have the oxidizer mixed in with it.
So full fuel tanks can't just burst into flame. You need to add oxygen to it. Which is another advantage of fuels: you don't have to lift the oxidizer.

2

MAS2de t1_jdvix3r wrote

Car fires happen, so do plane fires. They also have batteries that you can put a bunch of nails through and all that happens is they lose a small amount of capacity. Those batteries are on the market today. Not in mass quantities. But to think that a future battery couldn't hold far more capacity than today's batteries and be safe and have enough other good parameters for aviation is silly.

−2

[deleted] OP t1_jdvjj9p wrote

[removed]

2

[deleted] OP t1_jdvm5u8 wrote

[removed]

0

TjW0569 t1_jdvnivx wrote

Lots of gliders have done that in wave. Of course, that's off topic, since they typically have zero emissions.

1

dittybopper_05H t1_jdwaczh wrote

This is true, but it's also irrelevant if you live in, say, Topeka, Kansas and Aunt Edna lives in Stevens Point, Wisconsin or Abilene, Texas.

The topography required for that kind of soaring requires both the right topography and the right weather conditions.

I mean, sure, the Perlan 2 sailplane beat the altitude record set by the U-2 spy plane. That doesn't mean the USAF is going to start using sailplanes for photoreconnaissance flights.

1

TjW0569 t1_jdwwh65 wrote

You might be surprised where waves can set up. Be that as it may, private ownership of an aircraft able to reach 30,000 feet isn't out of the question.

1

dittybopper_05H t1_jdzxwot wrote

You absolutely can own them, many people do. But if you fly between 18,000 feet and 60,000 feet, you must fly under IFR rules, and be in contact with air traffic control.

Above 60,000 feet is uncontrolled airspace, however, so you're free to do what you want if you can reach those altitudes. Good luck getting an aircraft that will fly that high, however.

One of the few aircraft I know of that can operate that high is the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter, and there are 15 privately owned ones in the FAA registry. Most seem to be owned by a couple of corporations, but a handful look like they are either owned individually, or perhaps through an LLC (common for very expensive aircraft).

1

MAS2de t1_jdvpflg wrote

This whole thread started because someone brought up the potential future of EV planes. But people keep talking about todays solutions. Electric planes are in their infancy. Many battery technologies and other electrical energy storage technologies are rapidly solving the problems of today's batteries.

−1