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

First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 188 posts

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#81

Post by Patrick_Devine »

I've seen a lot of skeptics and nay-sayers talking about this project, but I feel like there is a fundamental mis-understanding of why this is significant.

No, it's not going to compete with jet airliners even in the remotely near future. High-bypass turbofan engines have enormous cost advantages over traditional piston engines. It's almost always more economical to use a turbofan engine to power aircraft in anything more than a short hop.

I see this being a classic case of something like Mainframes vs. PCs however. Most people don't equate flying with General Aviation because GA has traditionally been so cost prohibitive, much the same way that mainframes were so cost prohibitive in the 60's and 70's. There are a few airlines, like Harbour Air, and Mokulele, that currently offer a short haul flights (usually over water) where people are willing to pay a lot more money. There are benefits like frequency of flights, but the big ones for me are not having to queue up for security, and being able to bring liquids on board. My wife once brought a can of soup on board Mokulele. Try doing that on Hawaiian.

If this can bring down the cost of short haul flights, particularly those around 200-250 miles, it could be extremely appealing, especially when coupled with ride hailing. I would much rather take a 45 minute flight and get Lyft on the other side, than spend 3 hours sitting in a car stuck in traffic. GA can fly out of smaller terminals and smaller airports. San Carlos (SQL) to South Lake Tahoe is a 40ish minute flight in a GA aircraft, but can be 5+ hours in traffic on I-80.

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#82

Post by goodcanadian »

dang wrote: post #68
goodcanadian wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel ever so slightly ripped off :-) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21760768

It happens! Sorry. We do plan to do something eventually to share karma with earlier submissons. In the meantime it's a bit of a lottery, but it does even out in the long run if you keep submitting good stories. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

No worries. The smiley was meant to convey the fact that I was simply being cheeky. :-)

Edit: just happy to see it get traction.

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#83

Post by Robotbeat »

deepspace wrote: post #38
seabrookmx wrote: post #11

I look at the Harbour Air planes out my office window! Super neat project, although I agree with other commenters that "fully-electric commercial flight" is misleading. If I walk down there and book a flight, I'm not going to be in an e-plane. It's still very much experimental.

Yes, when you start digging into the details, it turns out that they filled the plane, a de Havilland Beaver, to the gills with batteries. The batteries physically consume all the interior space, leaving no room for passengers, and they bring the takeoff weight to the max that the (electric) engine can manage. With all that, the range is 15 minutes, with a 25 minute reserve. That is not even enough to reach Nanaimo,…

This isn't true. If you want to keep making these claims, you're going to have to provide a source. For instance, there's plenty of space behind the pilot that is empty. There's plenty of interior space as the batteries are placed below.

Additionally, they are using bulletproof flight-certified batteries which are much lower than the typical good lithium ion batteries used in, say, a Tesla. They're just for the prototype. "“These are batteries that NASA is using, but they’re not batteries that we’d use if we were going to try and make it economical to fly today, because they’re very low in watt-hours per kilogram,” explained McDougall."

The electric motor (not an engine) is 560kW, almost twice the original 336kW radial motor, so it's not in the least underpowered (as you imply).

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#84

Post by Gibbon1 »

Gravityloss wrote: post #37
semi-extrinsic wrote: post #27

You can do small aircraft like this, no problem. The trouble is you can't scale it up, due to how quickly the power and energy demands go up. This thing is 560 kW and gets a range of 86 nmi; an A320 is around 40 000 kW and has a range of 3 500 nmi, while an A380 is around 80 000 kW and has a range of 8 500 nmi. Going from this DHC-2 to the A380 requires an increase in energy storage by a factor of around 14 000x, whi…

How would planes would look like if fuel prices increased a few fold? I would assume probably less jets and more turbine aircraft, at least on short trips. Straight wings and slower speeds. Boeing and Airbus might lose some market share. Boeing never had a turboprop, Airbus owns 50% of ATR.

> How would planes would look like if fuel prices increased a few fold?

Like High speed rail

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#85

Post by SahAssar »

manigandham wrote: post #74
semi-extrinsic wrote: post #27

You can do small aircraft like this, no problem. The trouble is you can't scale it up, due to how quickly the power and energy demands go up. This thing is 560 kW and gets a range of 86 nmi; an A320 is around 40 000 kW and has a range of 3 500 nmi, while an A380 is around 80 000 kW and has a range of 8 500 nmi. Going from this DHC-2 to the A380 requires an increase in energy storage by a factor of around 14 000x, whi…

Also batteries weigh the same at landing and takeoff while jets rely on the reduced weight from fuel burn for safe landing.

No, not for safe landing. If a jet couldn't land safely while fully tanked then they would not be able to land in emergencies happening early in the flight.

They rely on the plane being lighter from fuel burn and therefore more efficient to extend their possible flight time, but not for safety.

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#86

Post by Robotbeat »

ct0 wrote: post #77
Robotbeat wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

30 minute flight time, not 15. Should have approximately 86 mile range with this one. There's plenty of room for passengers in this concept. Where are you getting this false information?

Imagine the headaches when the airport tells these guys to hover for a while wile delays clear out. This is a niche product, albeit a cool one.

It's a seaplane, it lands on the water, not an airport. Additionally, the total flight time including reserve is 40 minutes in this prototype and will be at least 60 minutes on the operational one (with Tesla-like-energy-density batteries).

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#87

Post by beefield »

deepspace wrote: post #76
Robotbeat wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

30 minute flight time, not 15. Should have approximately 86 mile range with this one. There's plenty of room for passengers in this concept. Where are you getting this false information?

See: https://www.skiesmag.com/news/harbour-air-makes-history-with... From the article: > What certainly hasn’t been done before is to fill a Beaver’s cabin with lithium-ion batteries, taking the plane to its gross weight. As a technology demonstrator, this eBeaver isn’t carrying passengers — there isn’t room — and will only have a 15-minute endurance with a 25-minute reserve.

Sorry, you seem to be quoting a bit selectively. From the same article:

> These are batteries that NASA is using, but they’re not batteries that we’d use if we were going to try and make it economical to fly today, because they’re very low in watt-hours per kilogram

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#88

Post by ben_w »

Robotbeat wrote: post #79
semi-extrinsic wrote: post #27

You can do small aircraft like this, no problem. The trouble is you can't scale it up, due to how quickly the power and energy demands go up. This thing is 560 kW and gets a range of 86 nmi; an A320 is around 40 000 kW and has a range of 3 500 nmi, while an A380 is around 80 000 kW and has a range of 8 500 nmi. Going from this DHC-2 to the A380 requires an increase in energy storage by a factor of around 14 000x, whi…

This is not true. It's easier to scale up. You get more efficient. Scaling up an electric motor is not particularly hard. Some of the largest machines in existence are electric. Power is not a challenge for electric. In fact, this electrified seaplane has much more power (560kW) than the original radial piston engine one (336kW), and even more than the turboprop conversion (510kW). A LOT of very confident people on t…

All depends on what you want. You can have “infinite” range with “no” battery — gliders are a thing, you can rise on thermals and turn the potential energy into kinetic to get wherever.

But if you want to go as fast as a chemical engine and sustain that for as long as a chemical engine, you either need at least the energy density of a chemical fuel or some way to refuel in-flight.

Fuel efficient often means “slow”. Great for cargo, not so much for passengers.

Edit:

Just to add, I’m looking forward to a future of short-range electric personal aircraft, I’m just not expecting pure electric intercontinental for anyone other than hobbyists — unless there’s a big breakthrough in density or wireless power transmission.

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#89

Post by totallyabstract »

SahAssar wrote: post #85
manigandham wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also batteries weigh the same at landing and takeoff while jets rely on the reduced weight from fuel burn for safe landing.

No, not for safe landing. If a jet couldn't land safely while fully tanked then they would not be able to land in emergencies happening early in the flight. They rely on the plane being lighter from fuel burn and therefore more efficient to extend their possible flight time, but not for safety.

It isn't an issue for smaller planes (A320, 737), but larger planes (such as 747, 777, A340, A380) usually have a lower maximum landing weight than their takeoff weight. If an emergency happens early in flight they usually have to dump fuel to reduce weight before they can land. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_dumping

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#90

Post by Gibbon1 »

ska wrote: post #64

Some perhaps useful context: Harbour air operates the worlds largest sea plane service, the majority of it between Vancouver (city) and Vancouver Island (mostly Victoria). They are a perfect test bed for this, as the in air time is about 15-20 min for most routes. (less 100km/60m ). So while electric is a long way from long haul domestic routes, let alone international, I could see it taking over specific services li…

I'm waiting to see if Eviations Alice actually fly's and meets spec's. They're claiming 600 miles of range at around $200/hr. If they can hit that then they are not only competitive in existing markets. But new ones.
Post reply on HN