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

The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 389 posts

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#51

Post by ajross »

dang wrote: post #19
ajross wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Can you please not be snarky in HN comments and not post shallow dismissals of other people's work? Both of these are in the site guidelines, as you must know: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html . There's room for thoughtful skepticism and critique, but not dismissive sarcasm, nor supercilious putdowns like "Yeah...", "just a joke", "yet another high wing puddle jumper". All that is exactly what we ask…

Fair enough. I'd view it as "florid" vs. "shallow", but it's not my opinion that matters and I fully agree that there's a spectrum between "strongly held" and "offensive" and you have to put the boundary somewhere.

I'm going to push back on one bit though, which I suspect is just a misunderstanding on your part: "yet another high wing puddle jumper" is not remotely dismissive or trivializing! Being "high wing" is purely descriptive, and correct, and a "puddle jumper" is a widely used term for short-range passenger aircraft (like the Dash 8, which I also mentioned), here's a great reddit thread for reference: https://www.reddit.com/r/etymology/comments/rs7i4m/what_is_t...

I'm not saying this to make the designers feel bad verbally. I'm literally saying they've produced an aircraft that competes poorly in the market with something DeHavilland was selling in the 1980's.

My first sentence was almost 100% sarcasm though and I'll take the hit on that.

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#53

Post by jillesvangurp »

RajT88 wrote: post #14
runako wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 500 miles with hybrid system > the grueling two hour drives What country are you in, and perhaps more importantly, what roads are you driving on?

Gotta be Germany and the Autobahn. The questions really are: What car are you driving? How are you not dead?

I live in Germany. 500 miles is more than essentially all domestic flights in Germany. Two hours driving by car from Berlin gets you nowhere all that interesting. You'd probably spend close to an hour just getting out of the city. Two hours might get you as far as Magdeburg or Dresden when traffic is mild. Good luck with that on a busy weekday. Dresden would be about 200km. Magdeburg is a bit closer to 160km. And much of the way you'd be facing speed limits. And traffic jams.

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#54

Post by dang »

ajross wrote: post #51
dang wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you please not be snarky in HN comments and not post shallow dismissals of other people's work? Both of these are in the site guidelines, as you must know: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html . There's room for thoughtful skepticism and critique, but not dismissive sarcasm, nor supercilious putdowns like "Yeah...", "just a joke", "yet another high wing puddle jumper". All that is exactly what we ask…

Fair enough. I'd view it as "florid" vs. "shallow", but it's not my opinion that matters and I fully agree that there's a spectrum between "strongly held" and "offensive" and you have to put the boundary somewhere. I'm going to push back on one bit though, which I suspect is just a misunderstanding on your part: "yet another high wing puddle jumper" is not remotely dismissive or trivializing! Being "high wing" is pur…

I take your points on "high wing" and "puddle jumper", especially the latter since I didn't know the term. But "yet another" is still a dismissive swipe!

I appreciate the reply.

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#55

Post by woods42 »

mmcconnell1618 wrote: post #11

Interesting decision to build the whole aircraft instead of the propulsion system only. I wonder what the decision process was between retrofit of existing turboprop frame vs. build from the ground up? I would expect the level of effort and certification to be much higher building from scratch even though you get complete control.

I think an interesting aspect is that on normal aircraft fuel tanks have to be near the center of lift to maintain weight and balance as fuel is burned off. When using batteries, this is not really a concern, and I would think might lead to some more interesting designs. To be sure, if there is space in the wing, awesome - the batteries can now also be used as ballast though too if required.

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#56

Post by imoverclocked »

mmcconnell1618 wrote: post #11

Interesting decision to build the whole aircraft instead of the propulsion system only. I wonder what the decision process was between retrofit of existing turboprop frame vs. build from the ground up? I would expect the level of effort and certification to be much higher building from scratch even though you get complete control.

Aircraft design is very intricate. Change the CG, break the whole system.

Fuel is often placed in wings because adding/burning fuel from your center of lift means your CG doesn't significantly change through a flight and you spend less on pumping fuel within the aircraft. With batteries, you are looking at a constant mass from the beginning of the flight to the end... so you can place it anywhere. Electric motors are orders of magnitude lighter than jet engines. Also, you don't need to pump electrons against gravity so placing all of that weight lower has handling/performance advantages.

By using an airframe shape that is well known, they are reducing risk and appealing to existing pilots. By building it from the ground-up, they are taking advantage of differences between the tech.

eg: all of that weight in the fuselage instead of the wings means that rolling is going to be much more nimble. Yaw might be affected as well, depending on the placement/moment of the batteries.

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#57

Post by notahacker »

ajross wrote: post #10
runako wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 500 miles with hybrid system > the grueling two hour drives What country are you in, and perhaps more importantly, what roads are you driving on?

To repeat: the market is filled with fuel-driven turboprops. This only wins if it's better, and it's only better if it's cheaper. Is it cheaper? If it's cheaper they should say, and not spend time talking about "all electric" range in a regime that doesn't want aircraft at all. And sure, there are places in the world that don't have limited access highways. But the 125 mile range is already served very well by piston…

I mean, for the all-electric distances it's pretty much a given that it's cheaper: fuel consumed is the largest item on airlines' expenditure. The bigger question is at what distance you start having to burn more fuel than if you weren't lugging batteries round with you. If it's [eventually] commercially competitive at 400m range it's going to be useful on a variety of routes currently operated by ATR-42s and Saab 340s etc, the sort of thing that's definitely not operated by 40 year old 9-seaters. If it isn't... well islands still exist, they're just a fairly small niche

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#58

Post by mhb »

tristanj wrote: post #48
MBCook wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But maybe they’re aiming at short haul cargo. And either way, wouldn’t that really be one of the last things to do? Just proving the plane can even get in the air and stay there for a useful distance on electricity is more important than how comfortable it is.

The video shows dozens of seats, so they are not only aiming for short haul cargo.

And, unsurprisingly, the video also includes speaking where the head of the company says that.

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#60

Post by notahacker »

tristanj wrote: post #46
dmurray wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really, a prototype airplane, the first of this size ever built with this novel propulsion system, had engineers involved in the design?

You've missed the point. The engineers went too far optimizing for weight, to the point of sacrificing usability.

What does "usability" mean in the context of a prototype short haul passenger aircraft? It's got seats for people to sit in...

The competition in this market segment doesn't look like Middle Eastern airlines' first class cabin concept art, it looks like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_340#/media/File:Mesaba_Ai...

Post reply on HN