News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Study identifies main culprit behind lithium metal batter... by rlpb on Wednesday August 28, 2019 @07:20AM (#20818666)
> Assuming 300 mph.

I think that's a very generous assumption. Typical small engine light aircraft cruise at 70-120 knots (80-140 mph). Wikipedia[1] suggests 211 mph as the current electric speed record (made in 2017). I doubt typical aircraft will be as optimised for speed as the one that holds the record. Increased speed causes exponentially increased aerodynamic drag, so if you want to increase range, slower speed [than your maximum speed] is the way to do it, not faster.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_EA-300#Variants

Re:Study identifies main culprit behind lithium metal batter... by agumonkey on Wednesday August 28, 2019 @08:10AM (#20818960)
Could a two step setup be of interest ? an external device or vehicle to to lift it up, then the internal battery takes care of sustained gliding in high altitude (low air density) ?
Re:Study identifies main culprit behind lithium metal batter... by fencepost on Wednesday August 28, 2019 @09:17AM (#20819431)
Even without an external lifting element there's plenty of history for towed launches for a little extra push. Aircraft carrier catapults and ground launched gliders come to mind.
Re:Study identifies main culprit behind lithium metal batter... by agumonkey on Wednesday August 28, 2019 @09:44PM (#20825933)
yeah I had these in mind, the question is would it change the energy equation significantly