>>37117 >Or baby out of the car seat Silly anon, you're putting the cart before the horse. Progressives and rich people don't have kids so what baby would there be to pull out?

>>37117 How the hell does one contain an in flight battery fire on a large commercial electrically propelled aircraft?

>>37170 >Battery fire You don't. If it's an electrical fire you'll smell an acrid smell from a mixture of swamp gas and hydrogen gas from the insulation burning and while bad, you can turn the battery off, close the vents putting out the fire, then reopen the vents and safely land while praying it's not night time. >electrically propelled aircraft Don't know. I'm looking up the physics of how this works and all I'm getting are new-age PopSci articles about how "batteries will improve enough to handle electrical propulsion" (they won't) and how the "science is already there" (apparently it isn't since nobody can describe how these fucking work and they don't sound like an air pump since I wouldn't think an air pump would be strong enough), or how there's "150 companies developing electric propulsion aircraft" (but nobody has a working prototype).

>>37170 >>37171 The only electrically propelled aircraft that I know of right off is that one from the 90s with the solar panels.

>>37171 Most of the newfangled eVTOL business is a gay Climatefornian venture capitalist scam there are a number of working prototype aircraft propelled by ducted fans or propellers attached to electric motors. Startup faggotry aside some of these seem like a childhood dream come true if not for the pathetic sub-30 minute flight time and microscopic range exhibited by virtually of all of them.