You mean it looks like it might be an upgraded 4th generation fighter and not a revolutionary 6th generation super plane?

This could be the 4.99 generation craft…with alien technology far beyond the eye can see.

I used to know someone who was 2.08 metres tall. He drove a Volvo. Said it was because he fitted in it.

Mine was before the ownership went to chinese, but the Geely has turned interesting with revamping the SAINT.

It’s always the same sequence that is pictured. This time we have to see the engine installation and roll out as a supplementary bonus (notice the petal airbrake that are still on).
Given that the fuselage was left idle on the production line for quite a considerable laps of time (in the film it’s then interrupted by a two day sequence with a lot more of activity around the bird and none in the background), we have the right to be concerned with conformity or problem with the quality of the design.

And I am still wondering how they plan to remove the wing on the field when they need to move a damaged airframe around. The Grip supposed ability to operate from dispersed airfield doesn’t match with this.

Is it possible that when they make the plane like that it becomes the only aircraft that in fact can be operated from any one mile long country road which is approximately straight.

Given most electric cars can barely manage 100miles on a single charge using a battery which alone, weighs approximately the same as the entire empty weight of this aircraft, why is anyone giving this the time of day?

If these guys have a revolutionary & highly secret battery technology why are they so stupid to try selling it in such a mega high risk venture and not say a car which would dominate the green car market……..or just sell the IP to Musk or BMW. It makes no sense.

I reckon it’s got confidence trick written all over it;-
So why is a top European Technology Agency such as ESA backing it?
Is there another level of fraud going on here with EU money?
Or are some investors now so technically ignorant, it’s become really easy to extract money.

I wouldn’t be so direct. The fact that street legal cars cannot do 1000 km does not mean it wouldn’t be possible.
One engineer ( Andraxxus ) here counted that alone stereos, airconditioning and headlights in a car today consume more electricity than A-model Ford’s engine produced power (3 kw ) some hundred and ten years ago.

It will be interesting to see the regulatory burden on electric aircraft.
Just as powered airlines must carry extra fuel for diversions, electric a.c. will certainly have to carry spare power with them in case their cells quit functioning.

Yes, they will need to be pressurized, the added structure will add weight .

Yes Boyle it would have to be pressurized just like the APOLLO LEM was. I figure you need stronger hull section in the practically flying wing kinda contraption anyway and it could easily thus be made into a pressure vessel. The energy for the pressurisation would come when all on the board would be cycling at 150 watts power constantly it would then yield 200 x 150 watts = 30 kW…which is sufficient I figure.

Also noteworthy is that the 50/1 glideratio craft can glide 1000 km from an altitude of 20 ( 25 ) km easily. It can do it in the night time too…and below 3000 meters the pedallers could produce the APU power for the controls…above that it needs some battery charge.

Weight is not your enemy on this lack of faith is definitely ! Gliders weight 70 kg/m2 ( wing loading )….and 747 ( Boeing ) 550 kg/m2 which is overweight for solar aircraft surely.

I am also convinced that the craft could be moderatly supersonic above 24 km altitude…very fast at any rate..it has to be..it would not stay airborne othervise. Helios flew 7 times faster at 100 000 ft than on sea level.

And what about PAK-FA???

18 500 kg empty and Mtow 37 000 kg.

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=782