Live data from Hacker News

The age of electric flight is finally upon us

bbc.com

241–250 of 272 posts

Re: The age of electric flight is finally upon us

#241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is constantly repeated, but it's not true. I work in the field of electric motors for electric aircraft, and the amount of nonsense constantly repeated on the Internet about how electric flight cannot be done without a breakthrough is breathtaking. Electric motors can achieve FAR greater than 1kW/kg. Here's one used sometimes on electric aircraft capable of 10kW/kg, same as a jet engine: https://emrax.com/produc…

That engine may have good power density, but it is quite weak in general. Site quoth: "Continuous power: up to 110 kW" That is basically a negligible amount of power

"Quite weak in general."

It's not negligible for its weight. You can always scale up an electric motor. The largest machines in the world (such as bucket wheel excavators) are driven by electric motors. Additionally, electric motors are much simpler to cluster into a distributed propulsion configuration than jet turbines are. That's why NASA's building the X-57 electric aircraft.

Re: The age of electric flight is finally upon us

#242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very bad news in event of loss of fuel containment.

Haha, not so bad as loss of H2 containment (as seen IRL in Norway) ... and of course farmers deal with it every day.

Ammonia is deadly of itself. Even before it explodes.

Re: The age of electric flight is finally upon us

#243
post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better tell NASA, then, which is building a design (X-57) with the same kind of wing-tip propellers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No9Rq3VE0FI The key is that the Alice aircraft is capable of take-off with just the rear propeller. That's possible because electric motors (unlike jet engines) can operate at much higher power for short periods of time. It was addressed recently at the Paris airshow Q&A for Eviation. I…

Compare the number of propellers on NASA’s version. They have serious backup in the event any single engine fails. Being able to take off with one engine that’s rapidly overheating, does not mean is safe to continue a flight with a single engine. Electric aircraft don’t get lighter in flight because they don’t burn fuel.

The power delivered to the rear MOTOR (not engine) is not the same for take-off and cruising.

A motor that would overheat at takeoff power won't necessarily overheat at cruise and would be designed not to overheat in an aircraft application.

Motor control is not just on or off.

Re: The age of electric flight is finally upon us

#244
post #223
post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > improved modern materials means you can just have most of your take-off mass be battery, compensating for the poorer specific energy > Again, this can be done for any aircraft, not just the electric ones. Not only that: you burn the fuel, so for the second half of the flight you only need to carry half the fuel. But you have to carry the full battery mass (modulo E=mc^2) all the way.

Well, that’s in part a point for the batteries, though. You spend a lot of energy to lift all that fuel that you just blow out with all its potential energy up in the air, whilst the batteries provide you with that very potential energy on the way down as well. Glider planes quiet commonly are filled with water to make them heavier so they can make more use of the potential energy they gain from the externally powere…

Actually, gliders with water ballasts have the same L/D full or empty. The difference is that they can fly faster when the tanks are full, but they don’t travel larger distances

Re: The age of electric flight is finally upon us

#245
post #206

As others have noted, electric flights require a major breakthrough in the battery technology. Here are energy density numbers for gasoline, jet fuel, and lithium-ion batteries: Gas and jet fuel specific energy density ~= 45 MJ/kg; Lithium-ion specific energy density Even worse, a jet engine is much better at generating power. A modern high-bypass turbofan engine can generate 10 kW/kg whereas an electric motor is aro…

I think the biggest point that you and others that bring this up is missing, is not just how electric designs gives you higher efficiency and close the gap (as others have mentioned). The main thing you're missing is that modern jet planes have absolutely ridiculous range, and a huge number of flights use only a fraction of that range. Electric planes don't need to match modern jet planes to be viable. They just have…

> A related aspect is that electric planes are much more quiet.

I'm not so sure! Have you ever heard the sound of twin-turbo regional airplanes in small airports? That sound is not from the turboprop engine, but from the propeller itself. Electric planes do have propellers and propellers are usually very loud. Actually much louder than turbofans!

Making propellers quieter has been an active field of research in fluid dynamics for decades but it's a very hard problem.

Re: The age of electric flight is finally upon us

#246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That engine may have good power density, but it is quite weak in general. Site quoth: "Continuous power: up to 110 kW" That is basically a negligible amount of power

"Quite weak in general." It's not negligible for its weight. You can always scale up an electric motor. The largest machines in the world (such as bucket wheel excavators) are driven by electric motors. Additionally, electric motors are much simpler to cluster into a distributed propulsion configuration than jet turbines are. That's why NASA's building the X-57 electric aircraft.

> "scale up"

yep, BUT cube-square law applies

Re: The age of electric flight is finally upon us

#247

As others have noted, electric flights require a major breakthrough in the battery technology. Here are energy density numbers for gasoline, jet fuel, and lithium-ion batteries: Gas and jet fuel specific energy density ~= 45 MJ/kg; Lithium-ion specific energy density Even worse, a jet engine is much better at generating power. A modern high-bypass turbofan engine can generate 10 kW/kg whereas an electric motor is aro…

By this logic, the several products in that are currently in the process of being certified are physically impossible. The more reasonable explanation is obviously that your numbers are in fact wrong (or at least your interpretation of them) and that within two years from now, several companies will be shipping the battery powered planes with exactly the ranges, weights, and specs they are currently advertising and that they are working to get certified.

E.g. the Eviation Alice carries ~8000 pounds of battery and provides its nine passengers a range of 650 miles. That's undeniably a lot of battery and the energy density is indeed not great. However, it doesn't prevent it from flying. Transporting 9 people over that kind of distance for the price of charging that battery is a very disruptive cost improvement over the state of the art that involves burning hundreds of dollars worth of fuel.

It's the cost of fuel that's going to kill jet and piston engines. It doesn't matter how energy efficient they are when the cost difference with battery electric in the first generation is already two orders of magnitude. And while we have pretty much peaked in terms of fuel cost efficiency (order of magnitude improvements seem unlikely), that is definitely not the case for battery electrical. Cheaper and lighter batteries are basically happening. 2-3x seems to be likely within a decade or so. More may come after that. Electricity prices are also not a constant and seem to be dropping rapidly. So, if it's economical now, it's going to be far more economical in a few more decades. I think another two orders of magnitude cost improvements are likely.

For the same reason, hybrid planes are not likely to be more than a stop gap solution. They'd still be burning a lot of fuel which would raise the cost relative to small battery powered planes. I do believe that they will have an important role for longer distances; for the simple reason they'd definitely provide better energy efficiency. Ultimately, synthetic fuels generated using dirt cheap electricity may help bring prices down here but this will take a while and is not likely to be a very efficient way of using electricity (compared to storing it in a battery and using it directly).

As soon as battery powered planes are range competitive, which for short haul is happening right now, orders of magnitude cost improvement means game over for traditional planes.

Here's some back of the envelope math for you for the Eviation Alice vs the A319. You can buy a state of the art A319 for about 110M $. That same amount of money buys you about 30 Eviations (at the announced price of 3M $). You only need about 18 to match the number of passengers of an A319 (160 passengers). The A319 is very popular on short haul flights that are well within the range of an Eviation Alice. The difference is that one burns thousands of dollars worth of fuel and the other has an operational cost measured in the lower tens of dollars. There are of course many other advantages replacing big A319s with small battery powered planes. E.g. they make less noise and they can fly to much smaller airfields. The point here is that we don't need an electrical version of the A319. Big planes are only interesting because of the fuel economy. Small electrical planes don't have that problem.

The biggest bottleneck is actually not going to be batteries, engine efficiency, maintenance, or electricity cost but pilot wages and production volume of these new planes: we'll need a lot of them and with the cost of electricity already being low, pilot cost is going to be the dominant thing. As cost drops, ranges improve, and production volumes go up, the business case for operating an A319 will rapidly disappear. The Eviation arguably already challenges that. Autonomous flight, which is another thing Eviation is working on, will accelerate this. IMHO most A319s shipping today will be retired years or decades before their normal projected end of life because of their operational cost vs the cost of products like this.

This is why Eviation has a full order portfolio. They'll be selling these things as fast as they can build them. Others will follow. This is only the first generation of their product. I expect great things from them and their competitors in the years to come.

Re: The age of electric flight is finally upon us

#248
post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the biggest point that you and others that bring this up is missing, is not just how electric designs gives you higher efficiency and close the gap (as others have mentioned). The main thing you're missing is that modern jet planes have absolutely ridiculous range, and a huge number of flights use only a fraction of that range. Electric planes don't need to match modern jet planes to be viable. They just have…

> A related aspect is that electric planes are much more quiet. I'm not so sure! Have you ever heard the sound of twin-turbo regional airplanes in small airports? That sound is not from the turboprop engine, but from the propeller itself. Electric planes do have propellers and propellers are usually very loud. Actually much louder than turbofans! Making propellers quieter has been an active field of research in fluid…

Many smaller propellers can replace a few bigger ones. They'll make noise but not nearly as much as huge twin props. Another thing is that electrical propellers only make noise when you need them to produce thrust. Most traditional props produce noise just sitting on the ramp waiting for their oil temperatures to rise or while slowly taxiing to the runway. Another difference is that the high pitched whine of an electrical engine is very different from rumbling of a jet or piston engine. As I'm writing this, I hear a jet plane taking off from an airport 6 miles away from my house. I doubt I'd be able to hear an electrical plane from that distance.

Re: The age of electric flight is finally upon us

#249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even medium range flying is tough to accomplish with near-term electric technology. A flight across the United States would involve 10 hours of flight time, assuming you did it in a single leg, which of course you cannot. Three stops, so probably 15+ hours total. People do seem willing to take one-stop jet rides across the U.S. now, but the gold standard is about 5.5 hours for a non-stop flight.

Why would a transcontinental flight be the relevant comparison here? The real disruptive/comparitive market is the DC NYC Boston corridor. I'm sure there are similarly busy and small corridors in the EU.

London to the major western European cities is 1-3 hours and quite busy.

Re: The age of electric flight is finally upon us

#250

As others have noted, electric flights require a major breakthrough in the battery technology. Here are energy density numbers for gasoline, jet fuel, and lithium-ion batteries: Gas and jet fuel specific energy density ~= 45 MJ/kg; Lithium-ion specific energy density Even worse, a jet engine is much better at generating power. A modern high-bypass turbofan engine can generate 10 kW/kg whereas an electric motor is aro…

Carbon sequestration and biofuels that are actually carbon neutral may be similarly implausible.

Making Methanol from electricity is not too hard. You can also make a kind of diesel with electricity as energy source. These processes have fairly terrible efficiency of course, compared to batteries, but are useful for applications where you absolutely need high energy density fuels.
Post reply on HN