The largest electric aircraft just flew [video] • Hacker News Board

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#371

Post by Toutouxc » Sat, Sep 05, 2026, 5:31 AM UTC

dghlsakjg wrote: post #338

Toutouxc wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but you’re still weirdly switching from power (kilowatts) to energy (kilowatt hours). The electric plane could easily pull 1.5 megawatts for two minutes (on takeoff) and consume 50 kWh of energy, then spend the next 45 kWh cruising around and descend on the rest. (Or similar numbers, of course.)

I understand that energy and instantaneous power draw aren’t the same. I’m working with the numbers given: over a megawatt of power draw, and the price of energy in kilowatt hours. I’m not saying that they are flying on 100kw. I’m saying that using absurdly optimistic - unrealistic, really - pricing they have alln energy budget of 100kwh to use for the entire flight of 27 min. That means that average power consumptio…

> You are saying that they took off with a normal amount of power for a plane that size, then cruised around using an amount of power (45kw) that wouldn’t keep a two person plane 1/20th the weight airborne.

No, I’m not saying anything about 45 kW, you’re, again mistaking kW for kWh.

> Citing drag from a Tesla is kind of irrelevant because the whole way an airplane works is by creating lift via drag.

That’s already included in the drag coefficient that I quoted, and I know what induced drag is. Airliners are incredibly slippery because of their shape, a Skyhawk (or any other small GA plane) is a brick compared to that.

I’m not arguing about the $5 figure, it might as well be $20, I don’t know where they buy their electricity, but it’s still a very low number compared to anything burning Jet-A or avgas, and it’s absolutely a “low hundreds of kilowatt hours” number.

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#372

Post by Toutouxc » Sat, Sep 05, 2026, 5:34 AM UTC

echoangle wrote: post #362

Toutouxc wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s why I approximated the fuselage as two EVS (the frontal area) and I only looked up the drag coefficient of a 737 because it’s a well-known narrow-body airliner. I don’t know what speeds they flew, but AFAIK most maiden flights are very tame. My point stands, low hundreds of kilowatthours of energy seems like the right ballpark.

> That’s why I approximated the fuselage as two EVS (the frontal area) Have you ever seen a car and a plane? The Tesla model x has a frontal area of 2.6 sqm and a 737 fuselage alone, without any wings is already 11 sqm. With all attachments it’s at least 20 sqm. And half of the energy for altitude gain and half for drag is way too optimistic. The flight cost more than $5 in energy.

The electric plane isn’t a 737, the fuselage looks quite slender.

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#373

Post by sandreas » Sat, Sep 05, 2026, 5:59 AM UTC

IAmBroom wrote: post #329

sandreas wrote: post #165

I wonder if these airplanes are using helium to "reduce the weight"... that is something I also don't usually on drones. Probably too expensive.

Helium only reduces the weight proportional to the volume it occupies - which is why dirigibles look like big balloons. Filling a wing with helium would barely shift the weight of the plane measurably. Filling the cabin and cockpit would be bad for what I hope are obvious reasons...

I'm aware of that. Just thinking of using ANY space, that can be filled - like all hallow room in the plane that cannot be made use of.

I'm not an engineer, probably it is more reasonable to fill the remaining space with battery ;)

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#374

Post by bgnn » Sat, Sep 05, 2026, 7:53 AM UTC

I really hate the fossil fuel dependency of the current aircrafts. Time will tell if there will be a place for battery electric aircraft, and if there is, will the introduction be in the west where Boeing and Airbus duopoly is killing all the competition (i.e. Bombardier CS series saga). I won't say China will be more open as it's popular to do these days on HN. One hopes some other nations with less political power but enough industrial capabilities can do this for domestic flights (like Brazil, India, Indonesia..) in the future, if the global politics continues to go in its current trend.

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#375

Post by ddlsmurf » Sat, Sep 05, 2026, 8:22 AM UTC

mbesto wrote: post #361

ddlsmurf wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They regularly pop up on the usual guanxi, douyin/weibo etc. They stay up for a few hours usually.

> but they're very frequent. Yet you state their frequency as some sort of statistical fact. Your anecdotal experience doesn't make it any more or less true.

and you are refuting with even less justification. I told you how to check for yourself if you actually cared about veracity. Best of luck trying to get funding to publish something academic anti-CCP though, but I'd love it if you did. Also this is just a conversation, not an academic debate

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#376

Post by ncruces » Sat, Sep 05, 2026, 10:31 AM UTC

ddlsmurf wrote: post #244

ncruces wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Due to Iran, they're cutting oil/fuel imports 30% YoY, and consumption by the transportation sector by 5~10%.

And opened about 80GW of coal last year alone. That's the only advantage to electric trucks, they can run on coal too, even though you can only carry half the capacity whilst moving the same total weight, it still can make sense, just not economic and certainly not ecological. They sure love people writing articles about it though, and how green and solar they are.

I never said anything about green. They don't have oil, they want to be less reliant on oil. Electricity allows them to adapt the mix in a way petrol doesn't.

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#377

Post by bluGill » Sat, Sep 05, 2026, 10:43 AM UTC

kmeisthax wrote: post #346

bluGill wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> USA's lacking rail commutes come down to the fact that America's leaders made the deliberate decision to destroy its own rail network and force people onto planes This is utterly 100% false! The US made the decision to focus rail roads on freight. You never think about freight because you never use it for anything personal, but it is still there. The US beats any place in Europe for Freight and few countries even c…

No, the freights are NOT OK. US freight railways are responsible for the "precision scheduled railroading" brainworm that makes freight genuinely worse for anything that can be carried by truck and isn't good for anyone: 1. Freight customers spend longer waiting for their deliveries, and pay more money for them. As a result, a lot of mid-size freight customers have moved to trucking instead, and the market has shrunk…

Best in the world is fully compatible with sick in several ways such as you named. They really should improve. However the results of what they have done are still really good...

A bus is better because you still need roads for last mile freight, trades and other things that can't run on transit. May as well also run a bus when those roads are not congested anyway.

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#378

Post by mdnahas » Sat, Sep 05, 2026, 10:50 AM UTC

horsawlarway wrote: post #333

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…

They discuss quite a bit of this in the video. I actually thought it was a decent walk through of why they're targeting the space they're targeting, and how they're thinking about exactly these problems. Some items to consider from the video 1. short flights spend an large amount of energy simply having the engines running during taxi to/from the runway. 2. Take-off also consumes much more fuel than cruising. 3. 1 &…

A businessman I talked to said that United is investing in smaller airplane manufacturers in hopes of breaking the Boeing-AirBus duopoly. Thus, giving commitments here and to Boom Supersonic.

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#379

Post by theflyingelvis » Sat, Sep 05, 2026, 11:37 AM UTC

Zxian wrote: post #305

theflyingelvis wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bridges are a thing

Yeah, and they require a place to build. Do you think bridges between the Hawaiian islands is feasible? Report recently from my area. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/transportation/transporta...

There was no mention of Hawaiian Islands in the comment.

To your question… Feasible: no; Possible: yes.

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#380

Post by ragebol » Sat, Sep 05, 2026, 11:39 AM UTC

ddlsmurf wrote: post #271

ragebol wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> used public funds to make cheaper versions in the hope of leading the markets, including by being artificially more affordable while there is any competition If you replace 'public' with 'VC', isn't that the exact same as the US does in Silicon Valley?

if VCs didn't care about making their money back, but instead had very different interests, then somewhat

You don't think China (as a whole and as the government) is making it's money back? If not now, then in a few years