Absolutely love your thorough and detailed analysis with a non technical delivery so we non-engineers can understand the big picture issues at hand. Been a big fan of your channel- thanks.
I have to say that this is one of the very best channels on RUclips. Straight talking, excellent explanation of the keys issues in EVTOL aircraft. What I have learnt from watching all the videos is that we are a long way off serious worldwide air taxis (sorry all you investors). What we have is a niche market. Primarily rich toys (Blackfly Opener the cleverest imo) , cargo delivery (Robinson E-R22) and perhaps 5 seater airport to town taxi (Lillium etc). Still overvalued sector imo.
Fantastic video with all the information that I think really matters - some of this stuff is really hard to find out and keep track of (the eR44 especially as there are so many changes they are always making) Thank you!
Agree with Martin that this is a very important sector for electric aviation. This because we can replace noisy inefficient, less safe piston engine helos with electric propulsion in the sub non turbine category. This opens the way up to the Mini-500 Baby-Belle personal machines, and the more important compound helicopters like Challis Heliplane and Rotodyne like vehicles. As these are electric machines, it is possible to reduce less safe mechanical complexity with electronics. I think this category can be all we hope it to be, - simply limitless, particularly in the personal flight category.
Seeing that jet aircraft are major polluters and are likely the primary suspect as the cause of the dreadful weather events in recent years, it will be a great boon to humanity if we can get electric aircraft up and flying asap. Thanks for this informative presentation.
In tracking eVTOL developments, I imagined that the heliplane nature of multiple rotor designs would obsolete traditional helicopters. So will be very interested to see your analysis of eVTOL vs electric helicopter systems. My guess is there will be specialized use cases for both paradigms.
@@eastindiaV Lots of small rotors actually ends up much simpler than large ones. If you look at a small drone you will see that they have fixed pitch rotors with direct drive, meaning they are able to be extremely simple. The issue with scaling this is that in order to do anything you need to change the speed of the rotors. The throttle controls rotor speed which controls lift, and while this works at small scales, rotor speed responds quite sluggishly for large rotors. You can get around this by controlling blade pitch instead, because lift responds instantly to blade pitch, but this adds complexity. Each of the rotor modules is able to be completely redundant, so there is no massive down side to just having lots of them, particularly if they are light enough that maintenance can be simplified to a single tech switching out whole modules for work elsewhere.
Excellent analysis as always. We are nearing the era when high power batteries and robotized battery swapping will make conventional helicopters redundant for many tasks. Drones have already wiped out helicams for filming and will soon do the same for police helicopters. What battery tech are you most excited about?
Another great video! I would like to get in touch with you about this channel - particularly about a community growth an expanding the community contributions to the research you put together.
Also maybe look at maintenance cost. Usually helicopters have really bad ratios of something like 2 to 10 hours of maintenance for every hour flown. With the reliability of batterys and electric motors, this should be reduced greatly, right?
check out the Frore system company and their new cooling tech. I bet this could be utilized to great effect in aviation. Could boundary layer suction become next big thing ?
I think H2 fuel cells are the way forward in electric aviation of all kinds. The ultimate would be cryogenic H2,which is being researched by NASA , Airbus and others.
The future of electric aviation is the E-Cat SKLep SSM. Send the power unit back to the factory every 30 yrs or so. Every 11 yrs if operated at full power 24/7.
I wish people would stop calling them "Zero Emission Vehicles" because the fact of the matter is with any automobile or aircraft operated on batteries the amount of emissions put out by the building and material gathering process are more significant than what modern day gasoline cars put out and we aren't even adding in the fact that in order to charge these vehicles they must plug into a power source that comes from mostly coal burning power plants and with just the small amount of electric vehicles on the road today the demand on coal and nuclear operated power plants has significantly gone up to the point that we could never simply switch over to wind or solar and expect it to power entire communities and cities. That's why you can never call an electric vehicle a "zero emission vehicle" because all you're doing is spreading misinformation and people in society now days are so easily brainwashed that they begin to believe these things with every bit of their soul and their minds are no longer able to be changed even when confronted with hard facts and reality. Other than that this was a great video.
Check out OskarRDA channel. Guy in NZ who has a homebuilt electric helicopter with a unique tail rotor configuration which makes the most of redundancy in this critical parameter.
Seems that there is not much benefit of electrifying a standard current helicopter design. The energy density of the batteries is insufficient (and this may not change), and the useful load and range are very small. Moreover, the complex main rotor system remains (collective, cyclic, tilting head, flapping blades, leading edge hinges, etc), and this is a system requiring a lot of expensive and frequent maintenance. The benefits of electric motors are using multiple simple fixed pitch rotors, achieving control via fly by wire instant manipulation of their RPM, which can also possibly do dynamic maneuevers which current rotor craft can't do, such as tiltrotors. Less complex mechanically and less maintenance. So this can't be achieved by electrifying a current design. Anyway it's all academic if battery energy density can't be significantly improved. I suspect that if electric flight proves to be viable, it will be via a hybrid system, with a turbine powering a generator that powers the multiple rotors (like a diesel electric locomotive).
Organ delivery is best suited for a drone and 20 minutes duration is no way near capable enough for medical evacuation. How many hours charge for this 20-30 minutes of flight?
sry no, it´s the absolute king of human powered flight, and all designers will eventually return to this design for efficiency reliability and performance and safety
hahah, tao cho y tuong roi do, phat trien di :D:D:D tao da co 2 ty usd roi. bon may chi an cap y tuong , cong trinh nghien cuu cua tao ma thoi :D hahah, cung y chang nhu ai kia thoi :D
Why fuel cells for aviation, when turbine engines are much better, in every way, except noise . Were talking more than twice the power density they claim for their fuel cells, much higher efficiency, much cheaper, and lasts many times longer. And that is compared to their claims. 2 kW per kg, of what part of the fuel cell system? That is not per kg of the whole system, not even the equivalent to "dry weight" figure of engines. Fuel cells doesn't have huge combustion chambers, it's not how they work, the fuel and oxidizer reacts with a "barrier" between them, which means the fuel and oxidizer must reach this barrier, molecule for molecule, in the required rate. You don't accomplish that, with a sustained power output of 2 kW per kg of fuel cell system, and "high" efficiency, and all that. As far as I can tell Hypoint doesn't have a product in form of an actual fuel cell with those stats, what they seem to have is a fantasy about it, just one of those claims would be borderline too good to be true, assuming some significant drawback, all of those claims combined, well, that is fantasy, no doubt. Still, even that fantasy fuel cell system is very very far from as good as jet engines, or turboprops are, and could be running on hydrogen if they were designed to do that. So, ok, combustion engines tends to produce NOx, besides noise, which low temperature fuel cells can avoid, but Hypoint talks about high temperature fuel cells. If anthropogenic NOx becomes reduced to what the planes than can't be battery powered produce in the future, I can promise that NOx will not be a relevant problem. Fuel cells are not viable for aviation propulsion, they are not anywhere near viable for practical use for aviation propulsion, and will not become. Hypoints fantasy fuel cells would be kind of technically possible to use practically, but they do not exist, and they will not exist in the foreseeable future, and even if they would they'd be unable to compete with hydrogen powered jet engines or turboprops. not bec
Thanks for your informed comment. I understand your scepticism towards fuel cells and shared the same views about 2 years ago. I have however seen the progress and adoption of fuel cells in the industry.
@@ElectricAviation Feel absolutely free to enlighten me about actual products powered by fuel cells. Fuel cells can be quiet, and have "clean" exhaust, they can also have decent efficiency. But, if you want decent efficiency, like comparable to a good diesel engine, the power density of fuel cells is ridiculous, and it's unavoidable, because of limitations caused by the fundamental principle of how they work. Fuel cells needs extremely specific conditions to be a practical option in any case, despite being invented well before the first rechargeable battery was invented, they have seen very little use. Their properties make them especially bad for aircraft propulsion, it's among the worst imaginable use-cases for fuel cells. IF they ever become widely adopted, in reality, it will not begin with aircraft propulsion. The company Hypoint inc was founded in 2018, and seems to have produced little else than outrageous claims and CGI. Late 2021 they said they'd have 20 kW modules early 2022, that didn't happen. If you followed Nikola motor, could see the many similarities in presentation and claims if you analyzed both a bit. Outrageous claims about performance, cost and are about to change the world, starting in the very near future. Hypoint has been bought by another content factory, ZeroAvia, they have at least slapped a small fuel cell system to actual planes, and been able to sustain level flight on power from the fuel cell system. They call it cruise, sure, but the speed was much closer to the stall speed than normal cruise speed for a Malibu Mirage which they refitted. Short distance, level flight, with somewhat comfortable margin over stall speed, no actual payload, or capacity left for payload, but that probably still makes them the actual "world leader" in fuel cell powered aviation, by a wide margin. Or do you know of anyone else that have come close to that, in reality?
@@fishyerik Whilst fuel cells are fool cells indeed for cars, due to H2 power density I can clearly see plenty of applications very soon. Do you know how much a hot section inspection of a turbine costs? Are you kidding me? Of course small GA is a small number manufacturing business that is much harder to crack than satellites or non nuclear powered submarines (where do due power density and silence they are simply stellar). But if beyond the training market with two seaters (helo or fixed wing), power density of H2 simply make it very viable for the lower to mid range market in any kind of aviation transport. That simply reflects the stored density. That still will be a niche for a while, but up to 19 seats with 500 nm range or 150 nm with vertical take off and landing is definitely a huge, "clean" market. So just because a Malibu with fuel cells is currently at Vc close to Vs and does an off airport landing does not mean that a special ops silent squad delivery helo would not be on the market within 5 years. With the right funding the technology is simply way ahead of tubines, piston engines or any other power plants if silence has an important premium attached to it. The maturity of the technology, funding for the need of a small market is the core question here. The first can be overcome quickly with funding. The second one is usually circumvented only if you have a military or government research funding, quiet or public, or a gazillionaire with a certain zest for something (Howard Hughes, Paul Allen, you get the idea).
@@Walterwaltraud H2 power density? Do you mean energy density? Don't assume you're expert if you can't tell power and energy apart. Jet engines are expensive, to buy, to run to service, but NOT compared to fuel cells with same power. You clearly didn't understand most of what I explained. The fuel cells that actually exist, and the ones that actually will exist in the near future have ridiculous power density, whether you understand that or not doesn't change reality. And if you want to convince someone about anything try to be coherent.
@@fishyerik Sorry, I am merely a jetlagged commercial pilot - so yes, I know factors more about turbines than you; energy density, kudos, I present my deepest apologies for mixing up words whilst typing on a small device, sleep deprived after a long flight. Erik: I constantly read the scientific literature on this but am not a researcher myself. But the power source for this or that application is pretty self explanatory. Fuel cells for cars are stupid, for trains we all could have been on the fence for a while, it seems to go the battery way in that application. But you seem to be completely ignorant about fuel cells in spacecraft and submarines. So, what's your qualification? You come across like a layman who has read a lot and now has strong opinions. But probably has zero rotor time, never ran a flight school, never ran a maintenance shop in aviation and certainly are not a researcher in the field. I am curious.
Hydrogen can be produced on site, so that's an option. Ammonia probably has a lot more going for it than hydrogen especially in terms of storage and and distribution which are easier due to ammonia's higher temperature lower pressure triple point point and are already developed for ammonia.
@@paulharland7280 No, hydrogen can not be produced on site. Hydrogen is a product of oil refinery and would have to transported to take off and landing sites. Hydrogen is not a solution.
@@paulharland7280 Well over 90% of hydrogen is produced by refining oil. Please, quit arguing and go look it up. It's not my responsibility to educate you. That's your job.
Absolutely love your thorough and detailed analysis with a non technical delivery so we non-engineers can understand the big picture issues at hand. Been a big fan of your channel- thanks.
Thank you
Your videos are easy to follow and interesting! I really appreciate your knowledge and effort!
So nice of you
I have to say that this is one of the very best channels on RUclips. Straight talking, excellent explanation of the keys issues in EVTOL aircraft. What I have learnt from watching all the videos is that we are a long way off serious worldwide air taxis (sorry all you investors). What we have is a niche market. Primarily rich toys (Blackfly Opener the cleverest imo) , cargo delivery (Robinson E-R22) and perhaps 5 seater airport to town taxi (Lillium etc). Still overvalued sector imo.
Fantastic video with all the information that I think really matters - some of this stuff is really hard to find out and keep track of (the eR44 especially as there are so many changes they are always making) Thank you!
Glad it was helpful!
what about the load?
Agree with Martin that this is a very important sector for electric aviation. This because we can replace noisy inefficient, less safe piston engine helos with electric propulsion in the sub non turbine category. This opens the way up to the Mini-500 Baby-Belle personal machines, and the more important compound helicopters like Challis Heliplane and Rotodyne like vehicles. As these are electric machines, it is possible to reduce less safe mechanical complexity with electronics. I think this category can be all we hope it to be, - simply limitless, particularly in the personal flight category.
So much information - I love it. Thank you for keeping up on current events. Happy New Year !
Happy new year!
As an RC Enthusiast, i knew it would just be a matter of Time & Energystorage density 😅 until we see Humans in Electric Helis!
The great detail you provide and insightful comment is the gold standard in you genre…well done my friend! 👏👏👏👏👏👏😊👍👍
Thank you! Cheers!
Seeing that jet aircraft are major polluters and are likely the primary suspect as the cause of the dreadful weather events in recent years, it will be a great boon to humanity if we can get electric aircraft up and flying asap. Thanks for this informative presentation.
Great information, Thank you! Never even new someone was engineering this greatly needed rotor craft advancement! 🚁
Very welcome!
Bigger rotors are more efficient, that means longer range or smaller battery.
thx. for the video. Could you do a video on Green Ammonia based fuel too? Not sure if this can be used in aviation with combustion engines.
Great video, many thanks!
Wish you a very happy new year, see you back in 2023!
Thank you. So nice of you. Happy New Year
Very interesting, as always! Thanks.
Thanks again!
Innolith promises batteries with energy density around 1000 Wh/kg, so it beats energy density of proposed fuel cells twice and removes their weight.
Perfect. Thanks for the acknowledgement.
A swapoable Aluminium air battery could make electrict helicopters viable in the future.
Informative I learned something today, good news for the future in a world that's lost its mind.
In tracking eVTOL developments, I imagined that the heliplane nature of multiple rotor designs would obsolete traditional helicopters. So will be very interested to see your analysis of eVTOL vs electric helicopter systems. My guess is there will be specialized use cases for both paradigms.
Simple is best, some of those heliplanes have like 8 motors when they should just have 2 or 3, tops
@@eastindiaV Lots of small rotors actually ends up much simpler than large ones. If you look at a small drone you will see that they have fixed pitch rotors with direct drive, meaning they are able to be extremely simple. The issue with scaling this is that in order to do anything you need to change the speed of the rotors. The throttle controls rotor speed which controls lift, and while this works at small scales, rotor speed responds quite sluggishly for large rotors. You can get around this by controlling blade pitch instead, because lift responds instantly to blade pitch, but this adds complexity. Each of the rotor modules is able to be completely redundant, so there is no massive down side to just having lots of them, particularly if they are light enough that maintenance can be simplified to a single tech switching out whole modules for work elsewhere.
A bigger rotor/propellor is more efficient. That is what counts as battery tech is limited in energy density.
Fantastic overview.
Excellent analysis as always. We are nearing the era when high power batteries and robotized battery swapping will make conventional helicopters redundant for many tasks. Drones have already wiped out helicams for filming and will soon do the same for police helicopters. What battery tech are you most excited about?
I wonder how much one would get out of Frauenhoffers Power Paste in comparison to the shown latest model.
Another great video! I would like to get in touch with you about this channel - particularly about a community growth an expanding the community contributions to the research you put together.
Thanks for this video.
You're welcome
Also maybe look at maintenance cost. Usually helicopters have really bad ratios of something like 2 to 10 hours of maintenance for every hour flown. With the reliability of batterys and electric motors, this should be reduced greatly, right?
No mention of the mosquito although we saw it (green)?
check out the Frore system company and their new cooling tech. I bet this could be utilized to great effect in aviation. Could boundary layer suction become next big thing ?
Упровлять вертолётом наверное очень не лёгкое дело. Надо быть професионалом этого дела.
Я под✍ ся, а вы?
Warning: no captions
I wonder if electric autogyros could be a viable option.
yeah! why didnt i think of that yet
I think H2 fuel cells are the way forward in electric aviation of all kinds. The ultimate would be cryogenic H2,which is being researched by NASA , Airbus and others.
The future of electric aviation is the E-Cat SKLep SSM. Send the power unit back to the factory every 30 yrs or so. Every 11 yrs if operated at full power 24/7.
I want a Jetson!!
I wish people would stop calling them "Zero Emission Vehicles" because the fact of the matter is with any automobile or aircraft operated on batteries the amount of emissions put out by the building and material gathering process are more significant than what modern day gasoline cars put out and we aren't even adding in the fact that in order to charge these vehicles they must plug into a power source that comes from mostly coal burning power plants and with just the small amount of electric vehicles on the road today the demand on coal and nuclear operated power plants has significantly gone up to the point that we could never simply switch over to wind or solar and expect it to power entire communities and cities. That's why you can never call an electric vehicle a "zero emission vehicle" because all you're doing is spreading misinformation and people in society now days are so easily brainwashed that they begin to believe these things with every bit of their soul and their minds are no longer able to be changed even when confronted with hard facts and reality. Other than that this was a great video.
India Wants Thousand Electric Helicopter
Check out OskarRDA channel. Guy in NZ who has a homebuilt electric helicopter with a unique tail rotor configuration which makes the most of redundancy in this critical parameter.
Seems that there is not much benefit of electrifying a standard current helicopter design. The energy density of the batteries is insufficient (and this may not change), and the useful load and range are very small. Moreover, the complex main rotor system remains (collective, cyclic, tilting head, flapping blades, leading edge hinges, etc), and this is a system requiring a lot of expensive and frequent maintenance.
The benefits of electric motors are using multiple simple fixed pitch rotors, achieving control via fly by wire instant manipulation of their RPM, which can also possibly do dynamic maneuevers which current rotor craft can't do, such as tiltrotors. Less complex mechanically and less maintenance. So this can't be achieved by electrifying a current design.
Anyway it's all academic if battery energy density can't be significantly improved. I suspect that if electric flight proves to be viable, it will be via a hybrid system, with a turbine powering a generator that powers the multiple rotors (like a diesel electric locomotive).
Helicopter Helicopter🚁🚁
What is happening with Jetoptera ?
Organ delivery is best suited for a drone and 20 minutes duration is no way near capable enough for medical evacuation.
How many hours charge for this 20-30 minutes of flight?
Can't wait for around the world e helicopter flight...😂😂🤣
With a well designed fuel cell - hydrogen or ethanol for example - electric vehicles will supersede internal combustion engines.
Rise of the electric helicopter. Max Range: 50km
Coax is most efficient on endurance. But y u need collective and cyclic control when u can build it like toy helicopter
PLEASE PUT ELECTRIC MOTORS ON AIR FORCE ONE.
Traditional helicopters are more efficient and safer than quadcopter designs
Even with approx 20% of the energy going to the tail rotor in a traditional design? Maybe coaxial would be optimal?
Magnetic motors
sry no, it´s the absolute king of human powered flight, and all designers will eventually return to this design for efficiency reliability and performance and safety
530kg for 6.2kWh. Was it really that bad? that's impressively incompetent.
Tiltwing is the way to go.
Even worst lead-acid batteries wold be about 200kg for 6kWh...
No sound
I did not have any issues with that.
they still make noise
Sorry, we can't come to airlift you to hospital or put out your forrest fire because we're recharging the helicopter.
See you tomorrow
Batteries are swappable, at least for eR44 and it takes just 15 minutes to Swap them
hahah, tao cho y tuong roi do, phat trien di :D:D:D tao da co 2 ty usd roi. bon may chi an cap y tuong , cong trinh nghien cuu cua tao ma thoi :D hahah, cung y chang nhu ai kia thoi :D
ill stick to petroleum fuels thanks
i want o imagine battery dead ...50m above the ground ...you meet JESUS sooner than you think
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorotation
No. This ain't the way. Helicopters are not as safe as fixed wing, so adding VTOL to them will provide more security over this system
Hydrogen, pfft.
Why fuel cells for aviation, when turbine engines are much better, in every way, except noise . Were talking more than twice the power density they claim for their fuel cells, much higher efficiency, much cheaper, and lasts many times longer. And that is compared to their claims.
2 kW per kg, of what part of the fuel cell system? That is not per kg of the whole system, not even the equivalent to "dry weight" figure of engines. Fuel cells doesn't have huge combustion chambers, it's not how they work, the fuel and oxidizer reacts with a "barrier" between them, which means the fuel and oxidizer must reach this barrier, molecule for molecule, in the required rate. You don't accomplish that, with a sustained power output of 2 kW per kg of fuel cell system, and "high" efficiency, and all that.
As far as I can tell Hypoint doesn't have a product in form of an actual fuel cell with those stats, what they seem to have is a fantasy about it, just one of those claims would be borderline too good to be true, assuming some significant drawback, all of those claims combined, well, that is fantasy, no doubt. Still, even that fantasy fuel cell system is very very far from as good as jet engines, or turboprops are, and could be running on hydrogen if they were designed to do that.
So, ok, combustion engines tends to produce NOx, besides noise, which low temperature fuel cells can avoid, but Hypoint talks about high temperature fuel cells. If anthropogenic NOx becomes reduced to what the planes than can't be battery powered produce in the future, I can promise that NOx will not be a relevant problem.
Fuel cells are not viable for aviation propulsion, they are not anywhere near viable for practical use for aviation propulsion, and will not become. Hypoints fantasy fuel cells would be kind of technically possible to use practically, but they do not exist, and they will not exist in the foreseeable future, and even if they would they'd be unable to compete with hydrogen powered jet engines or turboprops.
not bec
Thanks for your informed comment. I understand your scepticism towards fuel cells and shared the same views about 2 years ago. I have however seen the progress and adoption of fuel cells in the industry.
@@ElectricAviation Feel absolutely free to enlighten me about actual products powered by fuel cells. Fuel cells can be quiet, and have "clean" exhaust, they can also have decent efficiency. But, if you want decent efficiency, like comparable to a good diesel engine, the power density of fuel cells is ridiculous, and it's unavoidable, because of limitations caused by the fundamental principle of how they work.
Fuel cells needs extremely specific conditions to be a practical option in any case, despite being invented well before the first rechargeable battery was invented, they have seen very little use.
Their properties make them especially bad for aircraft propulsion, it's among the worst imaginable use-cases for fuel cells. IF they ever become widely adopted, in reality, it will not begin with aircraft propulsion.
The company Hypoint inc was founded in 2018, and seems to have produced little else than outrageous claims and CGI. Late 2021 they said they'd have 20 kW modules early 2022, that didn't happen. If you followed Nikola motor, could see the many similarities in presentation and claims if you analyzed both a bit. Outrageous claims about performance, cost and are about to change the world, starting in the very near future.
Hypoint has been bought by another content factory, ZeroAvia, they have at least slapped a small fuel cell system to actual planes, and been able to sustain level flight on power from the fuel cell system. They call it cruise, sure, but the speed was much closer to the stall speed than normal cruise speed for a Malibu Mirage which they refitted. Short distance, level flight, with somewhat comfortable margin over stall speed, no actual payload, or capacity left for payload, but that probably still makes them the actual "world leader" in fuel cell powered aviation, by a wide margin. Or do you know of anyone else that have come close to that, in reality?
@@fishyerik Whilst fuel cells are fool cells indeed for cars, due to H2 power density I can clearly see plenty of applications very soon. Do you know how much a hot section inspection of a turbine costs? Are you kidding me?
Of course small GA is a small number manufacturing business that is much harder to crack than satellites or non nuclear powered submarines (where do due power density and silence they are simply stellar). But if beyond the training market with two seaters (helo or fixed wing), power density of H2 simply make it very viable for the lower to mid range market in any kind of aviation transport. That simply reflects the stored density. That still will be a niche for a while, but up to 19 seats with 500 nm range or 150 nm with vertical take off and landing is definitely a huge, "clean" market.
So just because a Malibu with fuel cells is currently at Vc close to Vs and does an off airport landing does not mean that a special ops silent squad delivery helo would not be on the market within 5 years. With the right funding the technology is simply way ahead of tubines, piston engines or any other power plants if silence has an important premium attached to it.
The maturity of the technology, funding for the need of a small market is the core question here. The first can be overcome quickly with funding. The second one is usually circumvented only if you have a military or government research funding, quiet or public, or a gazillionaire with a certain zest for something (Howard Hughes, Paul Allen, you get the idea).
@@Walterwaltraud H2 power density? Do you mean energy density? Don't assume you're expert if you can't tell power and energy apart.
Jet engines are expensive, to buy, to run to service, but NOT compared to fuel cells with same power.
You clearly didn't understand most of what I explained. The fuel cells that actually exist, and the ones that actually will exist in the near future have ridiculous power density, whether you understand that or not doesn't change reality. And if you want to convince someone about anything try to be coherent.
@@fishyerik Sorry, I am merely a jetlagged commercial pilot - so yes, I know factors more about turbines than you; energy density, kudos, I present my deepest apologies for mixing up words whilst typing on a small device, sleep deprived after a long flight.
Erik: I constantly read the scientific literature on this but am not a researcher myself. But the power source for this or that application is pretty self explanatory. Fuel cells for cars are stupid, for trains we all could have been on the fence for a while, it seems to go the battery way in that application. But you seem to be completely ignorant about fuel cells in spacecraft and submarines.
So, what's your qualification? You come across like a layman who has read a lot and now has strong opinions. But probably has zero rotor time, never ran a flight school, never ran a maintenance shop in aviation and certainly are not a researcher in the field.
I am curious.
Using hydrogen will limit where the helicopters can go. It sounds like Tesla needs to make an electric helicopter.
Hydrogen can be produced on site, so that's an option. Ammonia probably has a lot more going for it than hydrogen especially in terms of storage and and distribution which are easier due to ammonia's higher temperature lower pressure triple point point and are already developed for ammonia.
@@paulharland7280 No, hydrogen can not be produced on site. Hydrogen is a product of oil refinery and would have to transported to take off and landing sites. Hydrogen is not a solution.
@@TomUlcak Incorrect. Hydrogen can and has been produced by splitting water.
@@TomUlcak Your explanation of the steam reforming process is also highly imprecise.
@@paulharland7280 Well over 90% of hydrogen is produced by refining oil. Please, quit arguing and go look it up. It's not my responsibility to educate you. That's your job.