- Joined
- Mar 15, 2016
- Messages
- 4,867
- Display Name
Display name:
Ari
I didn't draw any conclusions. Which unfair assumptions do you think I made?Awful lot of assumptions in your conclusions.
I didn't draw any conclusions. Which unfair assumptions do you think I made?Awful lot of assumptions in your conclusions.
Yeah, it's an odd way to write it.. maybe it's just dumbed down? Or misleading on purposeMy last engineering class was decades ago, so maybe it's a New Math thing, but I have no idea what "> 50% lower" means. Instinctively I interpret it the same way you do, but the phrasing is so imprecise as to appear deliberately misleading, or careless. But still a cool plane and I'm with you on condoning out of the box approaches to aviation.
Marketing. Vague claims can't be tested, so you can never fall short of them. Their website commits the even worse mathematical sin of saying "Up to 8 times lower fuel consumption than jet aircraft comparable in size." I have never been able to figure out what it means for a number to be "N times lower" than another number.Yeah, it's an odd way to write it.. maybe it's just dumbed down? Or misleading on purpose
Marketing. Vague claims can't be tested, so you can never fall short of them. Their website commits the even worse mathematical sin of saying "Up to 8 times lower fuel consumption than jet aircraft comparable in size." I have never been able to figure out what it means for a number to be "N times lower" than another number.
That combined with a fuel dump valve would explain the 4,500-mile range.It means that if the jet burns 100 gallons per hour, and 8*100 is 800, that this plane burns 100 - 800 = -700 gallons! So, as long as you have enough fuel in the tanks to start the engine, you can go fly. You just have to land before the tanks fill up or you go over max gross weight.
YES! but this is one of the most common transgression from math-ignorantsMarketing. Vague claims can't be tested, so you can never fall short of them. Their website commits the even worse mathematical sin of saying "Up to 8 times lower fuel consumption than jet aircraft comparable in size." I have never been able to figure out what it means for a number to be "N times lower" than another number.
Y
example 2
when someone expresses an increase 50 to 100 as "200 percent increase" NO NO NO NO.. it's twice as much, but that's a 100% increase! I like to ask people, if 50 to 100 is a 200 percent increase, than what is a 100 percent increase?
Yeah, it's an odd way to write it.. maybe it's just dumbed down? Or misleading on purpose
Yeah my thinking is similar. I was using the TBM as a performance benchmark.. with the "Mooney wing" and a competent engineering firm standing behind them I'm doubtful there is *that* much left to give. Putting all their eggs in the fuselage/powerplant basket it seemsI don't see any way they can make anything that can carry six people and has 500 - 600 hp on hand will come anywhere close to those performance figures that they have been showing. Piper lists the M600's cruise speed to be 274 knots, maybe the Celera gets 300 knots? Again, I don't think existing aircraft leave that much on the table to where there are large aerodynamic gains to be had.
Looks like they're still at it:
https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/1468703810562375686
View attachment 102601