There's little to add to ThreePhaseEel's excellent answer. But here are a few thoughts.
I recognize the "Aluminum wiring is good" argument can be hard to accept given 30 years of retrofitters whipping people into a froth about aluminum small-appliance circuit wiring. There is a nugget of truth there.
Back in the 1970s there was a copper shortage. Aluminum actually has nearly twice the conductivity of copper by mass and 12 times the conductivity by dollar, which makes 1350 alloy the darling of power companies. Wire companies who make both said "Hey, we could just put house-wire insulation on 1350 alloy, just use the next size larger (-2 numerically)" because aluminum has less conductivity by volume. Given the urgency of the shortage, this was rushed through, including rushing through UL listing of essentially copper-rated terminations. This became a problem on small branch circuits <=30A, which is 80-90% of the circuits in a house.
Turns out aluminum and copper's different thermal expansion ratios mean over many thermal cycles, copper terminations crush and deform aluminum wire, loosening the clamping force. That, plus oxidation, causes trouble. The reverse is not true; aluminum terminations are perfectly resilient on copper wire.
Now, bored electricians whip the public into a froth about aluminum branch-circuit wiring, because rewiring a whole house is a great gig if you can get it. But instead you can use CO-ALR rated ("R"=revised) receptacles/switches, pigtail with Alumiconns (lug terminals made of aluminum, see above), or AFCI breakers come to the rescue, by detecting the main problem - arc faults. Also, a new AA-8000 alloy was formulated specifically for in-house wiring. You could wire a new house today with CO-ALR receptacles and AA-8000 (if you could find anyone who stocked it in small sizes).
However, nobody's ever disputed that aluminum wires (even 1350) were always safe for larger feeder connections (4AWG and larger). Nonetheless 1350 is banned and they should sell you AA-8000. Use the No-Ox goop, and tighten to torque spec.
There's another bit of oogabooga about "voltage drop". Code says nothing about 3%, but somehow that number has been effectively ..... marketed.
That was always wrong. It was always intended as a "rule of thumb", and even then, it was meant to be applied to the routine daily/continuous load not occasional loads and certainly not the breaker rating. And then, it became a lot wronger with computers. Trouble is, people do this:
and that's the default for Pete's sake! What's wrong with that? I see a huge number of cases where I override the number and looks what's hiding behind the curtain:
Oh, come on. And like I say, I get a 3.01-3.60% number on well over half the calcs I do. Calling for a bump in these cases is certainly not the intent of the 3% rule-of-thumb, heavens no!
Your actual loads
Again, voltage drop calcs should be based on your typical loads when active, never your circuit breaker rating. You're expecting 47A @ 120V, which means ideally 23.5A @ 240V (but more cynically, say 17 and 30A, with 13A on the neutral).
For 240V circuits, it isn't even worth checking the voltage drop calc for <115', but 30A on a 60A circuit, fuggedaboutit.