With the advent of electric airplanes, a group of engineers and designers took a radically different path than the “fast, heavy” trend that prevailed in the 20th century.
Using light materials and an exaggeratedly large wingspan they managed to put enough solar panels on the wings to never need to land, especially when high above the clouds. In a plane, altitude is energy storage so through a mix of slow descent and just the right amount of batteries, the cruise goes through each night peacefully.
Travel is a different experience than transport and living a few weeks over the clouds is actually a very nice break from the bleak city life.
Let’s be clear, without joking I think you are wrong to dismiss these possibilities and that you have an almost pathological lack of imagination. Yes, science fiction is about techs that do not exist yet are plausible.
You can fit a pool and a greenhouse in 250t. 40 cubic meters of water is 40 tons, 40 cubic meters of soil is basically the same. You have room to spare for the tennis court.
I am not a pro aviator, but I am a pro engineer, on an unrelated field, but I can do my napkins calculations. I mentioned the An-225 to make a point on the physically possible payloads that are possible today, with proven tech. I am not proposing we need those neither do we need the exceptional specs of that exceptional plane.
We scale down speed, it scales down drag (and necessary thrust) quadratically. We assume better efficiency on solar panels, batteries and motors because that’s what we will have in the future. Needing thrust only for sustaining flight and not for take off is another x5 factor on your calculation.
Look at you! You managed to scale down your initial super confident 600 000 m² estimate by an order of magnitude! I am proud of you!
From what I am reading this is about the amount of power an airliner uses at max power on all the engines. You are looking at 1/10th to 1/20th of that for sustained flight, and quadratically less at lower speeds that those typical of those airliners.
You’re wrong to assert things without considering the utmost basics. Thats’ why you’re the exact same as those people who imagined those 21st century images in the 19th century.
Yes, it’s a fancy idea. But it’s completely ignoring reality.
There’s much better fantasies to be had of things we can actually build.
“I am a pro engineer”
No, you’re not, ROFL. You haven’t even done rounded up basic maths with basic physics fucking LOL
I didn’t even use a calculator for that shit and I have zero engineering experience or education.
Yeah a regular airbus. Which is why it’s 4-6 times higher for a AN255 in fair weather conditions. And what you’re proposing would need to be several times the size of the AN255.
But no, you’re not wrong. You can’t be mistaken. None of what you think can be unrealistic. It’s just me, the guy doing the math you refused to even consider, who’s utterly wrong and your fantasies of firemen with flapping wings are ofc completely realistic. Oh wait no that’s the 19th century guys, I get you confused you constantly because both of those are equally unrealistic.