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

91–100 of 384 posts

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#91

Post by misterderpie »

luma wrote: post #87
alberth wrote: post #83

Is this EV or Hybrid? The founder seems to sneak in the word "hybrid", around 1m30 mark in the video below. https://youtu.be/nM86DBOqgPM?si=5unXLmPxk6M_kmuN&t=86 Note: not being negative, I just want to ensure I understand correctly since the title might imply something else. Update: confirmed, it does use aviation fuel. > "The airplane will also include a reserve-hybrid configuration, consisting of two turbo generat…

Hybrid after the first 125 miles, total range 500 miles. Their problem is diversions - an incident at the destination airport may mean an passenger aircraft may need to land at an airport which could be a couple hundred miles away. The hybrid powerplant throws the fuel efficiency numbers off so goal is not to run it unless needed, but they could not get certification without it.

For anyone looking for the reference, it's stated at 10:16 [0]

[0] https://youtu.be/nM86DBOqgPM?si=BdoZzp1Dxa4S3C_9&t=616

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#92

Post by gonzalohm »

newsclues wrote: post #37
Gibbon1 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are maybe some advantages to a hybrid system. The higher reliability of electric. Losing an turbine engine doesn't mean asymmetrical thrust. Plane still flies normally. Losing an engine on takeoff you still have full power. Electric motors spin up faster than turbines. Which means faster throttle response. Which you need when hit with a wind shear on landing. Take off and landing under electric power means much…

I’ve been tinkering with the idea of a hybrid system where the ICE system is its own bolt on component to an electric aircraft that is used for takeoff and altitude before it detaches and returns to the airfield before the aircraft cruiser on electric power. Could even have a rocket launch version for cargo

You can use some kind of catapult for that

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#93

Post by tuatoru »

alberth wrote: post #83

Is this EV or Hybrid? The founder seems to sneak in the word "hybrid", around 1m30 mark in the video below. https://youtu.be/nM86DBOqgPM?si=5unXLmPxk6M_kmuN&t=86 Note: not being negative, I just want to ensure I understand correctly since the title might imply something else. Update: confirmed, it does use aviation fuel. > "The airplane will also include a reserve-hybrid configuration, consisting of two turbo generat…

Surprised they are not using linear opposed piston crankshaftless generators to make an extended range EV aircraft.

Smaller, lighter, simpler, cheaper, and more flexible about fuel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeG4zLlFkak

Linear engine starts around 11:19

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#94

Post by newsclues »

coredog64 wrote: post #49
newsclues wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve been tinkering with the idea of a hybrid system where the ICE system is its own bolt on component to an electric aircraft that is used for takeoff and altitude before it detaches and returns to the airfield before the aircraft cruiser on electric power. Could even have a rocket launch version for cargo

Separating in flight is a very tricky problem that requires massive amounts of testing and can go very wrong.

They had fuel drop tanks made of paper in WW2.

Cool drones can test and validate the solution without risking a pilot!

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#95

Post by anonymars »

tuatoru wrote: post #93
alberth wrote: post #83

Is this EV or Hybrid? The founder seems to sneak in the word "hybrid", around 1m30 mark in the video below. https://youtu.be/nM86DBOqgPM?si=5unXLmPxk6M_kmuN&t=86 Note: not being negative, I just want to ensure I understand correctly since the title might imply something else. Update: confirmed, it does use aviation fuel. > "The airplane will also include a reserve-hybrid configuration, consisting of two turbo generat…

Surprised they are not using linear opposed piston crankshaftless generators to make an extended range EV aircraft. Smaller, lighter, simpler, cheaper, and more flexible about fuel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeG4zLlFkak Linear engine starts around 11:19

Turbines are extremely reliable and well-understood in aviation propulsion

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#96

Post by pkulak »

7952 wrote: post #42
tmtvl wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Commercial passenger planes can generally only lift off and on at dedicated facilities, though.

Those facilities can be much more modest and can scale up and down depending on location. Particularly for smaller short haul aircraft.

Maybe. But they can almost never be in places where people actually need to be; like central cities.

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#97

Post by notyourav »

infotainment wrote: post #81
QuantumNoodle wrote: post #32

These kind of startup excite me. More so than the "next killer app" or "look what we shoved AI into." Cheap electric transportation can finally offset USA's lacking rail commutes and attack Europe's short flight market (which is already cheap). Now we need bigger planes or more frequent planes and the next startup to solve the energy needs.

> Cheap electric transportation can finally offset USA's lacking rail commutes I'm not sure how building an electric aircraft would help with this. Are people going to suddenly switch to commuting by plane? Fixing America's commute problem is primarily an urban planning one (ie, putting all the homes nowhere near anything) and not an insufficient-electric-aircraft one.

Not enough population density with single family homes. And if given a choice between living in a condo + better urban planning versus suburban housing, well. And then there is NY.

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#98

Post by pkulak »

boelboel wrote: post #27
pkulak wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can I be the one to make the obligatory train comment? Moving hundreds of people 500 miles in comfort, using only electricity, is also a VERY solved problem.

It's not about moving hundreds of people, it's about moving 30-100 people. Many places don't have the demand or physical possibility for a railway. If this wasn't the case there wouldn't be so many short distance flights.

> Many places don't have the demand or physical possibility for a railway.

This I don't get. I've seen rail stops in the smallest towns, where the train stops for 30 seconds to let a couple people on or off. Places where even the smallest airplane makes no sense at all. Not 30-100, 1-2.

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#99

Post by LastTrain »

Waterluvian wrote: post #86
infotainment wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cheap electric transportation can finally offset USA's lacking rail commutes I'm not sure how building an electric aircraft would help with this. Are people going to suddenly switch to commuting by plane? Fixing America's commute problem is primarily an urban planning one (ie, putting all the homes nowhere near anything) and not an insufficient-electric-aircraft one.

Could you imagine the (rather justified?) NIMBYism for all the airports required for commuter flight? If rail can’t be done, flight definitely won’t fly.

Rejecting stupid ideas that are a net bad for the community isn’t NIMBYism

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#100

Post by Waterluvian »

LastTrain wrote: post #99
Waterluvian wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you imagine the (rather justified?) NIMBYism for all the airports required for commuter flight? If rail can’t be done, flight definitely won’t fly.

Rejecting stupid ideas that are a net bad for the community isn’t NIMBYism

Yeah… Fair point! I’ve always perceived NIMBY as “we want the benefits but we want someone else to deal with the geographic price.” I bet we could find people who legitimately want commuter airports but just not near their house… wait… how would that even work?!
Post reply on HN