Batteries have a much tighter band of temperatures they operate in, so there is an inherent complexity requirement. You can’t just stick a radiator and a fan. This is alleviated, to a degree, in that there is much less heat that you have to get rid of in comparison to a gasoline engine, but you do have to both heat…

It will accomplish exactly what it is intended to, It will give legal cover to gm’s ass.

Well this can patrol, move quickly over relatively long distances, and thus engage a potential drone when its relatively far away from its target. A human shooter has to stand close to the high value target and wait for the drone to approach. It’s probably best to have both.

If I understand the title correctly, this is designed as an anti drone counter weapon. Recent drone assassination attempt in (Venezuela? maybe?) shows that explosives laden drones are a real danger to high profile targets, especially since they are relatively inexpensive, and to the best of my limited knowledge very…

Look at the distribution chart at the very bottom. The middle looks like you’d expect, pretty random. The edges on the other hand are anything but even. Something strange is happening in Nevada, Oregon, Michigan in Minnesota, and to a lesser extent a few other states. Having a whole lot of states where nothing weird…

Not all pickup buyers are on the right side of the culture war, but its safe to say that more than half are.

Maybe, but only if all the manufacturers are in on it. If one manufacturer tries the “electric but we don’t tell you” thing, the others will be quick to out them.

Good plan. Also would introduce the drivers of fleet vehicles to the benefits of an electric pickup, assuming the benefits are there.

If they can avoid being seen as a liberal/hippy/girly man/snowflake vehicle, sure. I’m not saying that an electric pickup wont be functional, I’m saying identity matters in purchase.

“It’s honestly been a little baffling to me why fully-electric trucks are not more of a thing,”

The solution to that problem is a communication system. A de energized connector makes contact. Some system checks the connection and ensure that it is safe. Only then is the connection energized. Same safety system monitors the connection for any malfunctions.

By the time the aircraft is in stall condition it is going to be very hard to recover from (its too late to adjust the controls when there is no airflow over the control surfaces). So the system tries to anticipate stall and preempt it. Air speed seems relevant, but by the time you’re loosing altitude its clearly too…

Judging from stuff I read on the internet, not exactly. Stall speed depends on two variables, AoA and air speed. MCAS ignores airspeed and only takes into account AoA. Some pilots believe the system would have been more reliable otherwise.

Usually, designers don’t mind multiplying everything by 3. That’s easy. It’s designing additional systems to guard against very unlikely scenarios that is hard.

No it’s just a reminder to build more robust control systems.

As far as the system was concerned, nosing to the ground avoided a stall. Control systems can be stupid like that.

It’s not about which was the nose is pointing to the horizon, but the direction of travel. It’s ok to point up if you’re traveling up, its bad to point up if you are traveling forward.

AoA isn’t the same as pitch, so I’m not sure how IMU is going to help. They aren’t looking for the angle of the plane wing to the horizontal, they are looking for the angle of the plane wing to airflow.

The AoA isn’t the same as the pitch of the aircraft, and so can be hard to tell. Immediate response is necessary because stalls are very bad and hard to get out of. I don’t see anything wrong with having an automated safety system, it just needed much greater robustness, if the AoA sensor is at fault for these…

Curious, if they did use 2 sensors, and one was sending faulty data, how would they know which it was? Seems like you need an odd number of inputs.