Live data from Hacker News

Electric aircraft set to take flight by 2026 under new agreements

hub.united.com

11–20 of 223 posts

Re: Electric aircraft set to take flight by 2026 under new agreements

#11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean in Europe all capitals are within 100s/1000s of km from each others... and inner country travel is definitely within the 100km range. This has a huge potential, but I don't know if it will improve overtime, since energy density of Li-ion is a hard limit.

We already have trains, you know.

Trains take a lot more time, even HSR. I'm going to Madrid in the near future and I don't think I'll take a train, it's at least 6+ hours, and most of it is HSR.

Re: Electric aircraft set to take flight by 2026 under new agreements

#13
post #3

Small aircraft on short routes are quite a niche market right now, but electric aircraft have a very good value proposition there, reducing both fuel and maintenance costs drastically. Depending on how things work out, in 10 years we might see a lot more flights in 10-30 seat electric aircraft, e.g. as connecting flights to tiny airports.

I mean in Europe all capitals are within 100s/1000s of km from each others... and inner country travel is definitely within the 100km range. This has a huge potential, but I don't know if it will improve overtime, since energy density of Li-ion is a hard limit.

For me only if we figure out how to shorten airport time. Otherwise train in europe is easier - and usually located directly downtown or close instead of an hour in a car with traffic.

Re: Electric aircraft set to take flight by 2026 under new agreements

#14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean in Europe all capitals are within 100s/1000s of km from each others... and inner country travel is definitely within the 100km range. This has a huge potential, but I don't know if it will improve overtime, since energy density of Li-ion is a hard limit.

We already have trains, you know.

Trains are great in many cases, but there’s some limit to tunnels and bridges: you can go from Stockholm to Berlin directly, but Stockholm to Helsinki is harder (that’s actually the destination that the plane is likely to cover); Manchester to Amsterdam is feasible by train in theory, but given the constraints around London and the Channel Tunnel, unlikely to loose its flight connection. Same for Aberdeen to Oslo.

Many of those are over seas, so an ekranoplane would make sense, if you want to lower the energy output, but a tradition train won’t work for many cases.

Re: Electric aircraft set to take flight by 2026 under new agreements

#16
post #3

Small aircraft on short routes are quite a niche market right now, but electric aircraft have a very good value proposition there, reducing both fuel and maintenance costs drastically. Depending on how things work out, in 10 years we might see a lot more flights in 10-30 seat electric aircraft, e.g. as connecting flights to tiny airports.

I mean in Europe all capitals are within 100s/1000s of km from each others... and inner country travel is definitely within the 100km range. This has a huge potential, but I don't know if it will improve overtime, since energy density of Li-ion is a hard limit.

I mean.

Re: Electric aircraft set to take flight by 2026 under new agreements

#17
Digging through their website[1] trying to figure them out. Seems to me that the whole business proposition depends on their understanding that Norway, Sweden, (and I guess they expect others to follow) will mandate all short flights being electric in the next decade. They also say turboprops are higher maintenance and this expense reduces the viability of short flying routes, and I guess their implication is that electric will be cheaper. I am not sold on that one. 95% of the maintenance cost is the routine inspection. You'd have to do a routine inspection on electric propulsion as well. This is all just speculation until you see it in action.

[1] https://heartaerospace.com/

Re: Electric aircraft set to take flight by 2026 under new agreements

#18
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already have trains, you know.

Trains take a lot more time, even HSR. I'm going to Madrid in the near future and I don't think I'll take a train, it's at least 6+ hours, and most of it is HSR.

How long is the flight in comparison? And have you factored in the airport time into that?

I was looking at taking the Eurostar from London to Amsterdam, and a friend was dismissing it as it took 4 hours where as the flight is ~45 mins. Except its not, the flight its self maybe 45 mins, but you have to get to heathrow (which is further away than St Pancreas) plus get there an hour early. Then we would have to deal with Schiphol and getting to the center of Amsterdam. To me the prospect of spending 4 hours sat down on the train and arriving directly in central Amsterdam, all the while with more space than a plane is much better than the prospect of 4 hours of that.

Now obviously that's a very niche case, and for most people it doesn't make as much sense, but I think people get scared off by the long train times but ignore the extra time needed around the flight.

Re: Electric aircraft set to take flight by 2026 under new agreements

#19
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already have trains, you know.

Trains are great in many cases, but there’s some limit to tunnels and bridges: you can go from Stockholm to Berlin directly, but Stockholm to Helsinki is harder (that’s actually the destination that the plane is likely to cover); Manchester to Amsterdam is feasible by train in theory, but given the constraints around London and the Channel Tunnel, unlikely to loose its flight connection. Same for Aberdeen to Oslo. Ma…

Manchester to Amsterdam is further than the distance targeted by these first electric aircraft, getting between a runway and a gate at Schiphol is probably beyond their range too.

Re: Electric aircraft set to take flight by 2026 under new agreements

#20

Wendover Productions (who else?!) recently released a video[1] on the future of electric planes. Quite a lot of information in there! [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH4b3sAs-l8

Why “who else”?

I suspect it was in jest, but the reason why is that he is obviously immensely passionated about aviation and logistics. He makes really, really good videos about both, I'd recommend his channel to anyone.

PS, I had to vouch for your comment to reply, as it was dead. Had a look through your profile… I think there's often a lot of value in asking simple questions, but a lot of your comment history is just extremely low value (eg. correcting people's spelling). If you don't have anything meaningful to add to a discussion, maybe consider not replying at all.

Post reply on HN