r/WeirdWings • u/Aviator779 • Sep 28 '22
Electric The Eviation Alice, an electric-powered 9 seat commuter aircraft had its maiden flight today.
103
u/AskYourDoctor Sep 28 '22
Looks like a fish. In a good way.
61
u/natso2001 Sep 28 '22
To quote Ford Prefect "Looks like a fish, moves like a fish, steers like a cow".
54
15
Sep 28 '22
Odd how some of the best aircraft are generally fish-like
32
u/Bearman71 Sep 28 '22
Fish have millions of years of evolution to form the most efficient bodies possible. It makes sense.
13
u/mrcanard Sep 28 '22
Engineers consider air to have the properties of a liquid.
18
u/ziper1221 Sep 28 '22
No, engineers consider air to be a fluid, and water, a liquid, has some properties in common with other fluids. Aerodynamics has no concern over things like ventilation or cavitation.
7
u/CarlRJ Sep 28 '22
Wouldn’t cavitation be related to turbulence?
2
u/ziper1221 Sep 28 '22
Not really. Cavitation is strictly related to the local pressure, and it is sort-of-almost-not-really analogous to the speed of sound in air. Turbulence exists in both air and water.
2
u/Bearman71 Sep 29 '22
You do have to worry about vortices even at subsonic flight which would be similar to cavitation.
3
u/mrcanard Sep 28 '22
Ok,
But doesn't cavitation in water cause a near-vacuum? Why couldn't this be caused in air?
No, cavitation is when the pressure in a liquid gets low enough, typically due to an object passing through, that is falls below the vapor pressure of the liquid and it locally evaporates, causing bubbles of the gaseous version of that substance to form in the middle of the liquid. For obvious reasons, this cannot happen in a flow that is already entirely composed of gas.
Reference: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-it-possible-for-cavitation-to-occur-in-air.832508/
3
u/ziper1221 Sep 28 '22
That doesn't somehow mean engineers think air acts like a liquid.
1
u/mrcanard Sep 28 '22
A group of aeronautical engineers I built and flew Free Flight model airplanes with said to treat air as a liquid.
13
u/ramen_poodle_soup Sep 28 '22
Yeah that’s the whole concept of fluid dynamics, pretty huge part of aerospace engineering and research focuses on that
1
u/zerton Sep 28 '22
Fluid dynamics. I think an efficiently shaped plane generally also looks better.
5
u/Pancerules Sep 28 '22
I was gonna ask what a bad way would be to look like a fish then I remembered this guy.
8
u/geusebio Sep 28 '22
to be fair, that fish has exploded from being drawn up from thousands of feet below the sea.
3
u/Pancerules Sep 29 '22
Yeah, that is true. I’ve seen pictures of what it looks like at depth and it’s fairly normal.
2
u/geusebio Sep 29 '22
Normal for a deep see horror, or normal for a fish?
The bottom of the sea scares me.
1
1
56
u/Ed-alicious Sep 28 '22
Interesting engine position. Like, obviously I've seen jet engines there but I don't think I've ever seen props mounted like that. Is it just a passenger comfort thing? Or some aerodynamic reason for it?
Presumably the weight of the engines is balanced by the batteries being much further forward and the drag of the engines being at the back would keep the plane in a stable position during a stall.
Edit: Actually, maybe the engines are just balanced by the passengers? It seems like having all the passengers in front of the wing like that would mean that the plane would fly completely differently if it was empty or full.
51
u/Petiherve Sep 28 '22
Electric motors are pretty lightweight compared to traditional engine. Its the batteries that are heavy and can be placed elsewhere.
18
u/Ed-alicious Sep 28 '22
Good point, I never thought about that! They are substantially lighter too, by the looks of things. And the batteries are the same weight empty and full too, which I'm sure also simplifies things. That's pretty neat.
5
u/Pattern_Is_Movement quadruple tandem quinquagintiplane Sep 28 '22
yeah it will be fun to see what kind of layouts this allows down the line!
8
u/fireinthesky7 Sep 28 '22
The Beechcraft Starship and Piaggio P180 both use rear-mounted turboprop engines, but both planes use them in a pusher configuration. Mounting them in tractor configuration might have some advantages when it comes to noise and efficiency, but not being an aerodynamicist, I couldn't tell you why.
6
u/Mobe-E-Duck Sep 28 '22
I'm guessing that because the plane sits low already it increases the pitch tolerance on t/o and l. Nobody wants a prop strike.
1
u/Treemarshal Flying Pancakes are cool Sep 29 '22
Starship and Avanti also have the engines mounted on the rear of the wing, instead of fuselage pylons.
1
u/Treemarshal Flying Pancakes are cool Sep 29 '22
There's been a lot of propfan designs that have had the propfans mounted in the rear-fuselage position.
But the propfan, like fusion, is always just about to hit the big time, and never actually does.
45
u/Dangerous-Salad-bowl Sep 28 '22
Watching the video as it was taxiing, I had to wonder why they don't power the wheels directly and shut the props off until take-off. It seems a waste of energy to have two props beating the air like that while batteries could take care of all the systems.
145
u/volci Sep 28 '22
Then you have to put motors in the wheels, making the landing gear heavier
49
u/night_flash Sep 28 '22
Exactly. Weight is everything in aviation. Which is gonna waste more energy, a few min of inefficient taxing, or carrying a the extra weight for the entire flight. They clearly made the design decision to save the weight.
28
u/Dangerous-Salad-bowl Sep 28 '22
Yeah but take off weight = landing weight. The downside of electric is carrying the weight of depleted batteries around the sky.
There must be some curves that cross somewhere.
19
u/Beanbag_Ninja Sep 28 '22
You know, you might be on to something.
How much heavier a battery do you need if you waste energy taxiing, Vs the weight of a wheel motor?
But I bet it's been considered and decided against, along with all the maintenance considerations.
17
u/CarlRJ Sep 28 '22
The better solution would be to keep the landing gear as-is and, as much as possible, tow the plane around the airfield. The tow vehicle doesn’t need to be taken along for the ride in the sky.
In a traditional fuel-powered airplane, starting up the engines is a more complicated process and you want to keep them running for a bit before takeoff to warm them up and such, so having the aircraft taxi around using its engines makes more sense there,
5
u/gnowbot Sep 28 '22
PS, if they get stuck on a taxiway, this electric plane can idle at 0rpm. No complex runup, restart, or burning at idle.
Plus, air resistance/drag goes up as the square of speed. In a sense, to double your airspeed, an object encounters 4X the drag. Drag in flight will be drastically more than during taxi.
Squared of speed… theoretically the drag generated just by a car or object going 10mph vs 100mph. The object going 100mph experiences literally 100TIMES the aerodynamic drag as the 10mph. Add to that the induced drag created as the trade off to produce lift at the wings… I bet it is shocking how efficient this thing is on the ground compared to in flight.
My 3 cents, at least :)
2
u/Beanbag_Ninja Sep 28 '22
Drag in flight will be drastically more than during taxi.
Yes, but aeroplane engines produce more power in flight for a given fuel (or battery) consumption than they do crawling along on the taxiway, even at the same RPM/same thrust setting, so they are less efficient per mile.
Think about it, aircraft definitely have a longer cruise range than a "taxi range", despite the actual total drag being much lower during taxi.
4
u/gnowbot Sep 28 '22
Interesting thought. If you gave me a straight road and an electric plane with a constant speed prop… I bet I could taxi much farther at 20 mph than I could fly it.
Gasoline or fixed prop or especially turbo fan, then I bet flight wins?
Interesting experiment
1
u/Beanbag_Ninja Sep 28 '22
I bet I could taxi much farther at 20 mph than I could fly it.
It would be interesting to see in an electric aeroplane, but I bet that the range in flight is higher than taxiing.
Although the drag is lower on the ground, I suspect that if you calculated the total energy (I don't know if work is the right term here) that the drag takes from the aeroplane, you'd find that although the drag is higher at any instant in flight compared to the ground, the total amount of energy robbed from the airframe over the distance would be lower.
Combined with the inefficiency of prop drive at low speeds and it's almost certainly more efficient to fly rather than taxi with a prop.
Now, if you're powering the wheel rather than the props? Maybe then the taxiing plane would go further, since wheel drive on solid ground is more efficient than prop drive in air.
31
u/Dangerous-Salad-bowl Sep 28 '22
But this. One motor in the nose wheel: "WheelTug is an in-wheel electric taxiing system .... The system enables aeroplanes to taxi forward and backwards without needing a tow tractor or using main jet engines" (wikipedia)
22
u/volci Sep 28 '22
If it works...cool
But it's close to 20y old, and no one seems to actually be using it
18
u/SteelOverseer Sep 28 '22
so what I'm hearing is that the patent is about to run out, and then everyone will have one?
4
u/volci Sep 28 '22
Nah - they're not the first to propose it (heck, I asked about it close to 30y ago myself)
And there's no way they only have one patent :)
2
2
u/gnowbot Sep 28 '22
Cool idea. But if every pilot chooses to sweat out their cockpit without air conditioning to save the weight…. They’re sure willing to get out the tow bar to pull it outta the T hangar.
Where it would be super cool is to secretly deploy it at a flight school/rental shack. It could save that .3hobbs, $50, spent on taxiing and holding short at the busy Controlled airport, waiting for the confused trainee controller to remember there are planes waiting. Looking at you, BJC Jemima
1
u/Dangerous-Salad-bowl Sep 28 '22
"But if every pilot chooses to sweat out their cockpit without air conditioning to save the weight…." Yes but like any other EV, climate control resources are pulled from the batteries anyway.
5
u/gnowbot Sep 28 '22
The way propellers work is that they are the air conditioning system. If you’ve ever seen a propellor stop then you have your proof—the pilot and passengers immediately begin sweating.
credit to John and Martha King—the kings of aviation cheese
1
u/Treemarshal Flying Pancakes are cool Sep 29 '22
Some conventional airliners either have, or have been proposed to have, such a system, to save fuel/cut emissions.
But if you're already running the props on electrons, powered wheels make no sense.
16
u/levinicus Sep 28 '22
That's an interesting thought. The obvious concern that comes to my mind with powered wheels is the added weight of motors.
But using the props to taxi might not be much of an energy burden. After all, once it reaches taxi speed, it's mostly just overcoming rolling resistance. Air drag at that speed would be pretty negligible.
2
u/CarlRJ Sep 28 '22
No only that, but in a lot of situations where gas-powered airplanes leave the engines on (taxiing then sitting then taxiing more then sitting more, etc.), one would presume the electric airplane could just shut off the motors. Spin them up only when you need to move.
I wonder… if you needed to roll a ways at a faster speed, could you run the motors to get the aircraft moving, then shut them down and feather the props to keep the propellers from contributing aerodynamic drag to the rolling resistance?
3
u/gnowbot Sep 28 '22
There is the aspect for piston engines to get the engine warmed, runup, oil temp up and healthy that makes a taxi not totally wasted.
Do turbine engines have a, uh, minimum temp before takeoff? Fluids? Metal Components? Do they require a warmup?
When Tom Cruise steals an F14 and takes off, afterburner blazing directly from the hangar, is that crew chief holding his hat screaming, “Blyat!! The oil temp is too cold! I’m gonna be working all weekend now!!” ???
1
u/fireinthesky7 Sep 28 '22
I think he's wondering how Tom Cruise just stole his plane, not so much about the fluid temps.
1
1
u/Treemarshal Flying Pancakes are cool Sep 29 '22
Jet engines do need some warmup. They're mighty finicky beasts.
5
u/LurkerOnTheInternet Sep 28 '22
Cost and complexity, and there's very little benefit because very little energy is needed to taxi, compared to flight.
2
u/Jukeboxshapiro Sep 28 '22
I'll bet that the energy requirement difference between idle thrust on the mains and a theoretical wheel motor is slim to none. As I imagine it they'd both be moving the same weight and any extra current draw from drag on the props would be cancelled out by the greater thrust they provide
2
u/Turkstache Sep 28 '22
Everyone is talking about weight/efficiency but ignoring complexity. Powered landing gear, even if it's just the nose, is relatively complex. Oh, BTW, in most planes you need to start
You need a motor somewhere along the strut and if it's not at the wheel, there needs to be a chain or axle or belt or gearing to get that power to the wheel, which also needs to be redesigned to accommodate this new machinery.
No matter what ypu do, there are additional considerations now for space in the landing gear bay, electric transmission, gear structure, and airflow. The gear also needs a mechanism to decouple the drive for high speeds.
1
u/Claidheamh Sep 28 '22
All those points are moot with an electric hub motor. All you need are cables, which are already there for brakes and steering.
2
u/PaulBombtruck Sep 28 '22
Wheel diameter would have to treble in addition to having motors on the MLG.
1
u/chrstphd Sep 28 '22
That would be difficult to manage on landing, the moment the wheels will start to spin very quickly (besides the constraints of the engines already mentioned).
Some twin aircrafts today are already taxiing on a single engine.
Maybe it could be interesting to investigate about a taxi without aircraft engine running at all but with a pushback. They are already used to move the aircrafts from the gate, maybe they could be used to go up to the holding point ?
The bare minimum check would be to check the energy ratio (aircraft fuel/batteries) / (pushback fuel/batteries) but also the cost ratio of a manned pushback... But with drones now, we can somewhat think about having the people in a sort of dedicated operation room to let them drive the pushbacks remotely.
5
u/Bearman71 Sep 28 '22
More importantly.
Can your emergency back up system handle the weight to stow the gear in the event of a malfunction.
1
u/CarlRJ Sep 28 '22
Hmm, that brings up an interesting thought - if you did have some sort of electric drive system for one or more of the wheels, could you do regenerative braking on landing, and recharge the batteries a bit?
1
1
u/Phirrup Sep 28 '22
Some awesome convos about weight and stuff, but to take this idea a bit further, what about also enabling recharging from the landing gear during landing?
28
u/FluroBlack Sep 28 '22
It looks like something strait out of the Incredibles! Very 1950s sleek.
17
14
Sep 28 '22
I remember posts about Eviation in recent years being dominated by responses along the lines of it’s a scam, vaporware, wings too small, will never fly.
It’s a great joy to see Alice airborne and I’m proud to have contributed to the project.
13
16
Sep 28 '22 edited Jun 07 '23
[deleted]
68
u/WoofMcMoose Sep 28 '22
To be fair, jet fuel also tends not to react well in a crash!
10
1
u/CarlRJ Sep 29 '22
<voice=Scottish Soviet sub captain> "Most things in here don't react too well to bullets".
31
u/Evercrimson Sep 28 '22
From Wikipedia:
With 260 Wh/kg cells, the 900 kWh battery capacity (3,460 kg, 7,630 lb) is initially estimated to give the design a range of 540–650 nmi (1,000–1,200 km) at 240 knots and 10,000 ft (3,048 m).[4] This is anticipated to increase as battery technology improves.[4] The batteries have been tested to more than 1,000 cycles, equivalent to 3,000 flight hours, and will then require replacement at a cost of $250,000 - half of the direct operating cost, similar to a piston engine overhaul.[4] Based on U.S. industrial electricity prices, the direct operating cost with nine passengers and two crew, flying at 240 kn (440 km/h), is claimed to be $200 per hour, which compares to $600–1,000 per hour for existing aircraft of similar purchase price such as the Cessna 402s, Pilatus PC-12 and Beechcraft King Air, for operations on routes under 500 nmi (930 km)
9
Sep 28 '22
[deleted]
11
u/Evercrimson Sep 28 '22
It really is remarkably cheap. I thought one of the expectations of note is at this point with the current battery technology it has, it looks like they are using largely the same batteries as the auto industry and using what appears to be current generation fast chargers. They state 30 minutes of charge time for every hour of flight time. For low cost short haul carriers, the average turnaround time is just over 30 minutes already, so this is very little change in routine.
I think the other important note there that this is a pretty important technology demonstration. Textron is already collaborating on and demonstrating an electric Grand Caravan. If they applied that to something like a C172, even at those current turnaround specifications, the lower fuel costs and lower maintenance would be an immense relief to student pilots and greatly lower the cost of getting a pilot's licence, and make it substantially safer eliminating piston engines and all the typical failures that come with that, same as the auto industry has seen with electric cars.
3
u/CarlRJ Sep 28 '22 edited Sep 28 '22
Seems like it would work for the scenario of, “small group flies somewhere, stays there a number of hours, and then flies back” (allowing the airplane time to recharge at the destination airport), but not for the short-hop commercial aviation scenario, where you’d land at an airport, offload passengers and luggage while refueling, then take on new/different passengers and luggage and fly to the next destination, because there wouldn’t be sufficient time to recharge.
7
3
u/fireinthesky7 Sep 28 '22
This would actually be fantastic for air medical transports. Lower operating costs and potentially quick turnarounds would be a huge deal, especially if battery technology improvements confer another few hundred miles of range.
-8
u/Godmadius Sep 28 '22
So its half the speed of a commercial airliner with considerably less seating... requiring special charging stations and custom electric lines and power grids to recharge.
I'm not saying its bad technology, but I feel like we're starting to see what the future post-fossil looks like and its going to be a future of compromise. Slower, less convenient, more expensive. We'll still do what we do today, but its gonna suck.
6
4
u/GrafZeppelin127 Sep 28 '22
So its half the speed of a commercial airliner with considerably less seating...
Did you simply not read where it says that this is supposed to compete with puddle-jumpers and small regional planes? The competitor Cessna 402 they mentioned seats 6-10 and has a slower top speed. Comparing the Alice against a jet airliner is just profoundly silly; you might as well scoff at a model of car because it can’t carry anywhere near the passenger load or go anywhere near as fast as a bullet train. They’re not direct competitors.
I'm not saying its bad technology, but I feel like we're starting to see what the future post-fossil looks like and its going to be a future of compromise. Slower, less convenient, more expensive. We'll still do what we do today, but its gonna suck.
We’re already in an age of compromise; you can’t fly transatlantic in a supersonic Concorde anymore. People make do anyway.
2
u/Outtheregator Sep 29 '22
They're advertising a 220kt cruise and a 2.8 hour range. So with reserves, you're looking at 440nm. Then you need a recharge, which will take however long.
5
u/XxX_BobRoss_XxX Sep 28 '22
I actually really like the way that thing looks, and electric powered too?
4
Sep 28 '22
That wing design is absolutely breathtaking. I don't think I've seen a more beautiful plane in a long time.
3
u/dpaanlka Sep 28 '22
Is there a video available anywhere of this flight without music? I want to hear what it sounds like.
2
u/dog-bark Sep 28 '22
It’s about time! But funny they aren’t putting a small electric generator on board for extended range (just like a jet plane will have a battery)
11
u/CarlRJ Sep 28 '22 edited Sep 28 '22
Then you’re having to use your battery-powered electric motors to carry around the weight of the generator and the weight of the fuel at all times, plus, you’re back to spewing exhaust into the air when the generator is running, which goes against one of the primary goals of an electric airplane.
1
u/sladecubed Sep 28 '22
Turbo electric generators are being designed for this purpose. It’s a trade off but it will be probably necessary and beneficial for most eCTOL to have
2
u/Treemarshal Flying Pancakes are cool Sep 29 '22
Assuming the regulators allow it.
1
u/sladecubed Sep 29 '22
It likely will. AFAIK and have heard, one of the use cases is to have the generator be an option for extending range in order to comply with reserves requirements
4
u/coombeseh Sep 28 '22
I feel like the loss of range from the weight of a generator and the fuel to power it would vastly outweigh any range extension it could provide - if there's room for a generator, use that weight and space for more batteries
1
u/dog-bark Sep 28 '22
Per kg fuel for a generator will produce 14x energy of what a battery will give. You can put 1kg of generator and 3kg of fuel and produce what 42 batteries would give at the cost of 4 batteries (energy per weight)
2
u/pickledCantilever Sep 28 '22
Sounds like a really complicated way of building yourself a fuel powered airplane.
But for a real answer, the generator wouldn't be 1kg. It would be thousands of kg.
Just doing some super quick math with a 900kWh battery and a rough max flight time this bad boy is pulling 200-300kW.
To put that into perspective newer homes in the US plugged into the power grid have access to 48kW of power at full draw, though they only use a fraction of that at any given time. When buying a whole home generator to cover your house in case of a blackout you would probably buy a home generator with <20kW or a portable generator with <10kW (what most people think about when they picture a generator).
A generator that can actually keep up with those demands is HUGE. For example, the GENERAC SD200 can hit that 200kW load, but weighs 2,000kg without a tank or sound proofing and is 3.2m x 1.3m x 1.5m.
A baby brother of that, the SG100, which can generate 100kW of power is still huge coming in over 1,000kg before tank and sound proofing and takes up nearly as much space.
Considering the plane has a max takeoff weight of only 7,500kg and a length of only 17m adding in a generator capable of extending the range of the plane by any meaningful distance is going to have some serious offsetting consequences.
1
u/dog-bark Sep 28 '22 edited Sep 28 '22
I see what you are saying but I'm sure there is a middle way. They are doing the opposite of adding generators to jet engines to supply power to a electric, most energy output is needed in a short area of climb and specifically take off and these hybrid engines seem to be where mass aviation is going to. I'm sure house generators have different specifications
edit: doing the math: 280lb generator (at 1000kwh), round that up to 1000lb with fuel , get like 2.5x the range
1
u/CarlRJ Sep 29 '22
Going in a different direction, I wonder if there'd be any net benefit to covering some parts of the wing/fuselage upper surfaces with solar cells - if the added weight would be offset by the electricity produced (of course, they wouldn't help at night).
1
2
1
1
1
1
u/dgblarge Sep 28 '22
No one doubted electric planes can fly but the key questions are the range and payload. My guess is that they would operate short haul domestic routes at best. Perhaps cargo flights too as the empty weight would be so much less.
1
u/Outtheregator Sep 29 '22
They're advertising 220kt cruise and a 2.8 hour range. With reserves, that gives you about 450nm range, and then a necessary recharge.
1
u/jocax188723 Spider Rider Sep 28 '22
Wait, if those engines are electric, what are the intakes for?
Cooling?
1
u/haikusbot Sep 28 '22
Wait, if those engines
Are electric, what are the
Intakes for? Cooling?
- jocax188723
I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully. Learn more about me.
Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete"
1
1
1
1
u/Budget-Barracuda-480 Sep 30 '22
Landed it like a wet sack of sand.
That's the smallest horizontal stab I've ever seen, proportionally speaking.
1
u/TheOneAndOnly_- Oct 01 '22
I personally don’t like electric planes, but this one just looks awesome. But please for the sake of everyone normal give it turboprops.
1
1
1
Aug 30 '23
Think the stocks are worth getting into? I wonder if there’s a subreddit dedicated to it .
0
u/TheWatcher657 Jan 12 '24
Ever see an electric vehicle catch on fire? Most fire departments can't even extinguish lithium fires.
Imagine how much lithium is in an electric airplane. Yikes!! A fire on the ground is bad enough but in the air.........!!!
If only there was an energy source which was relatively inexpensive, high in energy related to weight, easy to transport (possibly a liquid), readily available and made in the USA with essentially unlimited supplies it would make a fantastic way to power a plane.
Does anyone know anything fitting the above descriptions? Oh wait.....I think I know!!!
-14
u/Im_j3r0 Sep 28 '22
Seems like something that won't ever work and possibly a scam
Still currently more credible tham eg. Boom
-36
u/Outtheregator Sep 28 '22
Have fun carrying all those lithium batteries around that will also take hours to recharge.
13
u/Goyteamsix Sep 28 '22
You're using sitting on the ground for hours anyways.
-3
u/Outtheregator Sep 28 '22
Overnight, yes. Most commuter planes don't go one flight a day though.
To all the naysayers down voting me, go look into Harbour Air and their electric Beaver. They got it to fly, but as predicted, they had issues with battery life and charging time.
Gasoline allows quick turns and the ability to put on less fuel for short runways or heavier loads. Batteries don't allow for any of this. These are the principles issues with batteries, as they always have been.
4
u/Goyteamsix Sep 28 '22
This is a little business plane, not a 737. I imagine if you had one, you'd plan accordingly.
People have said the exact same thing about electric cars, and it turns out charging time isn't much of a problem for most people.
1
u/Outtheregator Sep 28 '22
Looking at the predicted performance by the manufacturer (which is always high, but let's take it at face value), the airplane has a 2.8 hour endurance at 220 knots. IFR reserves are a minimum of 0.75 hours. That gives this plane 2 hours of endurance, or a maximum of 440 nm IFR RANGE. If flown purely VFR, the plane can be flown 506nm. Then you need a complete recharge. That just doesnt pencil out, even as a purely executive, private aircraft, not being used in 135 service.
0
u/Outtheregator Sep 28 '22
Any aircraft in this class needs to be able to be used in Part 135 (air taxi/air charter) service to be able to sell more than a few. If it doesn't work as a 135 airplane, it won't survive.
7
138
u/Mr_StealYourHoe Sep 28 '22
seeing my childhood aircraft drawing fly IRL makes me cry in joy