- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
"Having fewer total turbines means a wind farm could space them farther apart, avoiding airflow interference. The turbines would be nearly twice as tall, so they’ll reach a higher, gustier part of the atmosphere. And big turbines don’t need to spin as quickly, so they would make economic sense in places with average wind speeds around 5 meters per second… "
I’m no Boeing engineer, but the design on the thumbnail does not look airworthy at all, the wings are too small and probably too far rearward to generate the necessary lift. And only 4 engines? Look up pictures of the late An-225 for an actual superheavy airlifter.
Did you read the article? It addresses those items.
Read? An article?
You need wing area and engine power to carry weight, not to carry space. That plane is made to carry extremely lightweight wind turbine blades that take up a lot of space but are very low density.
Yes, if you fill that payload area with iron, it won’t fly. But if you use it for its intended purpose, the wing area is large enough.
The An-225 was designed to carry 253 tons about 2500 miles. This aircraft needs to carry just 75 tons, and could get away with about a 1000 mile range.
This is not supposed to be a superheavy airlifter. Supersized, yes, but wind turbine blades are very light for their size.
Lmao, it’s like a flying T-Rex.