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

201–210 of 381 posts

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#201

Post by neals »

dyauspitr wrote: post #164
luma wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unless they have a whole new airport and flying experience, I don’t think a lot of people are going to fly just 125 miles. That’s less than two hours of driving. It would be 2 hours of just airport shenanigans much less the flight itself.

Without noise, over time, travel will change.

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#202

Post by zxexz »

tomjessessky wrote: post #177
dyauspitr wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless they have a whole new airport and flying experience, I don’t think a lot of people are going to fly just 125 miles. That’s less than two hours of driving. It would be 2 hours of just airport shenanigans much less the flight itself.

There are a fair number of connecting flights that this is a good fit for. For example, I fly out of Madison, WI regularly and almost always connect through Chicago, which I believe is right around the 125 mile mark.

Used to regularly take the shortish flight from Boston to Chicago, and then a bus >3x as long to Madison to see family, because the puddlejumper was too expensive or not even running.

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#203

Post by keiferski »

dyauspitr wrote: post #164
luma wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unless they have a whole new airport and flying experience, I don’t think a lot of people are going to fly just 125 miles. That’s less than two hours of driving. It would be 2 hours of just airport shenanigans much less the flight itself.

Could be useful for hub and spoke type systems, where you fly from a smaller city to the main hub, and catch a connection from there.

Even then there are lots of flights in Europe that are between cities less than 1 hour apart.

This idea generally makes more sense in Europe than the US, I think.

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#204

Post by brucehoult »

Barbing wrote: post #153
brucehoult wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In sailplanes we add up to around 200 litres of water to wing tanks in single-seat gliders (empty weight typically around 280kg) to improve the high speed performance (typically up to 270 km/h these days) and ability to fly comfortably in turbulence. It's surprising what you can fly formation with, even without an engine [1] :-) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0icOICQLTc Dumping (most of the) water before landing: h…

What a rabbithole this is now :D That glider next to the world's fastest aircraft (in 1953) dressed up for a fight, how about that. And they can water the grass... - So several thousand $ to get trained and certified and finally be ready to get towed and soar... but just a few hundred (California) to try for half an hour behind a pro in the cockpit--oh yeah! ...omg they let you fly the thing for another couple bucks!…

If it's a pro then they'll be sitting in the back seat so you're in the front seat the same as you will be when you fly solo.

Here's a video of me taking a student for their first lesson:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDZN21xzsRo

That's in a DG1000, actually this exact one ZK-GGR:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeueijUoL70

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0ShTUTiqlM

And how that looks from the other end of the rope:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRxcJR-zipI

And from the door of the hangar (using the runway in the opposite direction). Turn it up!

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

Coming back to more like the current topic, an electric powered glider:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7F2gS9ENl5k

Also from Stefan's channel, some fun here in New Zealand ... this flight passes just a couple of km from the Lord of the Rings "Weathertop" site (Google maps knows it).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggz2CzvPNUc

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#205

Post by cpach »

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.

There are probably multiple reasons for doing so. I imagine some reasons are business risk, freedom to innovate, freedom to take a holistic perspective and improving the possibilites for raising capital.

If you build only the propulsion system you would be 100% dependent of existing aircraft companies, which are heavily invested in jet engines. It would probably be much harder to innovate and make good design choices in such a setting.

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#206

Post by petesergeant »

dyauspitr wrote: post #164
luma wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unless they have a whole new airport and flying experience, I don’t think a lot of people are going to fly just 125 miles. That’s less than two hours of driving. It would be 2 hours of just airport shenanigans much less the flight itself.

Mandalay to Bagan, Oaxaca to Puerto Escondido, Chiang Mai to Pai… shitty mountain and hill roads can make short plane distances take forever

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#207

Post by ragebol »

ddlsmurf wrote: post #197
class3shock wrote: post #155

Doing some math. Regional jets get somewhere around 45.9 seat miles per gallon (1). So 30 seats, going 125 miles would take around 80 gallons of jet fuel. This is likely low because all the jets listed are bigger and likely flying longer flights that are more efficient but just go with it. Jet fuel has a specific energy of 12 kwh/kg and a density of 6.7 lb/gal (2). So 80 gallons of jet fuel is 536 lb, or 243 kg, and…

Yes, it doesn't even make sense to make electric trucks, let alone airplanes. Or they'd be mostly battery.

I read new truck sales in China are about 30% electric and climbing. Apparently it does make sense for them

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#208

Post by llukas »

class3shock wrote: post #155

Doing some math. Regional jets get somewhere around 45.9 seat miles per gallon (1). So 30 seats, going 125 miles would take around 80 gallons of jet fuel. This is likely low because all the jets listed are bigger and likely flying longer flights that are more efficient but just go with it. Jet fuel has a specific energy of 12 kwh/kg and a density of 6.7 lb/gal (2). So 80 gallons of jet fuel is 536 lb, or 243 kg, and…

Check jet engine weight and include in the calculation. One weights 2200-3700 lbs according to same source that quotes 45.9 seat miles per gallon. Vs 125 pounds for electric engine.

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#209

Post by CalRobert »

dyauspitr wrote: post #164
luma wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unless they have a whole new airport and flying experience, I don’t think a lot of people are going to fly just 125 miles. That’s less than two hours of driving. It would be 2 hours of just airport shenanigans much less the flight itself.

SFO to sac and Monterey, lax to (SD, Santa Barbara, etc) could be good for those “I live in a 50k person town and need to get to a hub” flights.

Of course those -should- be easy on trains too…

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#210

Post by Tepix »

onjectic wrote: post #106

I don’t see how a purely electric aircraft could ever beat synthetic jet fuel made with electricity. If this is a hybrid, I am curious where they are stealing energy from.

Well, what’s the efficiency of synthetic jet fuel production?

Is it still competitive?

Can we realistically get lots of it, like ever?

Post reply on HN