Originally Posted by Teddy Robinson
Perhaps we are all missing the point, after all we tend to think of applicability in our own sphere of experience. Clearly this technology will not be outperforming turbofans anytime soon. But as a drone ?
Remember well that the predator/reaper met stiff resistance in traditional flying circles during the early days, until those on high realized that it had the ability to linger in an area of interest for 20+ hours. A developed version of this technology could be put to a similar use. Whilst it would be nice to think of benign applications, were I to place a small wager it would go on a military role.
well, yes and no,
the point of a drone is to be small, inconspicuous, remote etc, ie, the predators etc, they have bugger all wing area, thus to make them viable as solar powered, you would need wings the size of a Vulcan or the like, at which point, they would be far from inconspicuous and a pretty easy target!
then consider what happens when the sun goes down or cloud cover comes over?
Look, it's not about lack of belief in technology, it's simply a matter of physics, yes you can make a solar powered plane, but it will be usless for any practical purpose that we use planes for now.
Same goes for battery powered flight, yes it's obviously possible, but until battery (or capacitor) tech increased power density by a factor of 20+, it's simply not practical for anything other than toys and expensive demo's.
Next somebody will pop up and claim Hydrogen fuel cells are the answer - in which case I will point them at the issues around them at any major scale, and also where does Hydrogen come from (commercially).