Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Airbus and Boeing are exploring the viability of electric planes

phys.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 149 posts

Re: Airbus and Boeing are exploring the viability of electric planes

#31

Post by achamayou »

cm2187 wrote: post #24

As a first step, they could make at least the take off and landing electric, that would help a lot with the noise and pollution around cities, i.e. where people live. I guess the batteries could be recharged during the flight for landing.

Now that electromagnetic catapults are becoming a thing, perhaps they can be adapted for airliner takeoff. One supposed benefit is the ability to adjust the acceleration profile to reduce airframe fatigue, and probably improve crew comfort at the same time. If it's smooth enough for passengers, it'd save carrying quite a bit of fuel and batteries.

I would have thought landing to be far less energy intensive (except perhaps in case of aborts, but I would imagine they're reasonably uncommon).

Re: Airbus and Boeing are exploring the viability of electric planes

#32

Post by pacaro »

zdkl wrote: post #22
hengheng wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tectonics would like a word with you

You don't have to bolt it to the ground though!

Harry Harrison covered this idea in “A Transatlantic Tunnel, Hurrah!” [1], which only had to compete with coal powered flying boats and nuclear trains.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_Through_the_Deeps

Re: Airbus and Boeing are exploring the viability of electric planes

#33

Post by pjc50 »

cm2187 wrote: post #24

As a first step, they could make at least the take off and landing electric, that would help a lot with the noise and pollution around cities, i.e. where people live. I guess the batteries could be recharged during the flight for landing.

Takeoff is the hardest part requiring the most power, unfortunately.

Re: Airbus and Boeing are exploring the viability of electric planes

#34

Post by dbasedweeb »

sjilo wrote: post #3
realPubkey wrote: post #2

Or we just stop flying arround the world for two-day trips.

I think we should now be at a point where we realize that people won't give up these benefits to their lives "for the greater good". Convincing people to go green as a business model would be a huge failure - nobody would pay to get convinced to stop doing something convenient.

So make them pay for externalities, and you’ll see the necessary reduction.

Re: Airbus and Boeing are exploring the viability of electric planes

#35

Post by pjc50 »

jopsen wrote: post #15

From an engineering perspective how much harder would be to do a cross Atlantic high speed rail: Norway Canada ? Politically, it would probably be possible due to cost and risks.

The Channel Tunnel cost ~£200m per mile. The Atlantic is ~4000 miles across. That implies the Atlantic crossing would cost £800bn, slightly more than a trillion dollars and roughly the cost of the Iraq war and occupation.

Re: Airbus and Boeing are exploring the viability of electric planes

#36

Post by lucb1e »

bpicolo wrote: post #21
hyperpallium wrote: post #17

It's weird, recently a solar plane circumnavigated the globe, but got very little publicity.

You can't scale up solar power to an aircraft carrying significant passengers / cargo.

Do you have anymore information on that, a link perhaps?

Re: Airbus and Boeing are exploring the viability of electric planes

#37

Post by pishpash »

cyberferret wrote: post #6

The stat that really woke me up to how popular travel was when an aviation magazine once posted that at any second of any day, there are at least one million people flying in an airplane somewhere. That's an entire good sized city full of people who are not in contact with the ground at any point in time you care to pick. And that article was quite a few years old, I wouldn't be surprised if that number has increased…

This doesn't sound right. Would like to see the numbers.

Re: Airbus and Boeing are exploring the viability of electric planes

#38

Post by pishpash »

pjc50 wrote: post #35
jopsen wrote: post #15

From an engineering perspective how much harder would be to do a cross Atlantic high speed rail: Norway Canada ? Politically, it would probably be possible due to cost and risks.

The Channel Tunnel cost ~£200m per mile. The Atlantic is ~4000 miles across. That implies the Atlantic crossing would cost £800bn, slightly more than a trillion dollars and roughly the cost of the Iraq war and occupation.

It would never make its money back, and neither would the War (as a matter of course).
Post reply on HN