Live data from Hacker News

First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

cbc.ca

121–130 of 188 posts

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#121

You can do small aircraft like this, no problem. The trouble is you can't scale it up, due to how quickly the power and energy demands go up. This thing is 560 kW and gets a range of 86 nmi; an A320 is around 40 000 kW and has a range of 3 500 nmi, while an A380 is around 80 000 kW and has a range of 8 500 nmi. Going from this DHC-2 to the A380 requires an increase in energy storage by a factor of around 14 000x, whi…

Shouldn't it be easier to scale up at least to a point? Cross section increases slower than interior volume.

Scaling up on range is different, but just scaling size/passenger count I would think would be easier.

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#123
post #96

You can do small aircraft like this, no problem. The trouble is you can't scale it up, due to how quickly the power and energy demands go up. This thing is 560 kW and gets a range of 86 nmi; an A320 is around 40 000 kW and has a range of 3 500 nmi, while an A380 is around 80 000 kW and has a range of 8 500 nmi. Going from this DHC-2 to the A380 requires an increase in energy storage by a factor of around 14 000x, whi…

We can accomplish the same by producing the jet fuel using electricity. Realistically this will likely involve methane (natural gas) extracted from the ground and water, but it could one day be carbon neutral using captured carbon. The trick is to use clean energy like nuclear of renewables. There was an article on HN just recently about doing that with portable nuclear generators like those used on ships, this could…

> All we need to do is make it carbon neutral and our existing aviation tech won't even need to change.

Except making it carbon neutral will require enormous amounts of energy, shift the price up, and make aviation available only to the richest among us.

Aviation industry may keep existing, but will need to scale down.

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#124

You can do small aircraft like this, no problem. The trouble is you can't scale it up, due to how quickly the power and energy demands go up. This thing is 560 kW and gets a range of 86 nmi; an A320 is around 40 000 kW and has a range of 3 500 nmi, while an A380 is around 80 000 kW and has a range of 8 500 nmi. Going from this DHC-2 to the A380 requires an increase in energy storage by a factor of around 14 000x, whi…

Big aircraft are a thing because small aircraft are very expensive to operate. In GA there's a thing called the 100$ hamburger which is basically pilots doing short flights to grab a burger and spending about 100$ on fuel to get some air time. These are short hops and the handful of companies operating flights commercially for this kind of distances charge similar amounts (or way more) for the privilege per passenger. The main reason that this market is so small is the fuel cost. If you drastically cut that cost, you create a new market.

What electrical flight will do initially is enable the 5$ hamburger flight and create that market. Same distance, same speed, fraction of the cost. GA is currently prohibitively expensive mainly because of fuel. Operating that kind of flights commercially offers similar advantages though you still have to account for the pilots.

And while pilot cost is a factor, their availability is a much bigger problem. There simply aren't enough of them to operate the tens of thousands of mass produced electrical planes that on paper could out compete commuter jets on cost, scale, noise, flexibility, ability to land just about anywhere, etc.

The solution to that is self flying planes, aka. drones. This will likely happen long before we train up hundreds of thousands of new pilots. Like self driving cars there are challenges for this and like self driving cars those challenges are increasingly of a legal rather than a technical nature. It's technically feasible but getting permission to actually start doing this will take time and is happening very slowly despite e.g. Waymo 'drivers' actually needing to touch their controls is now becoming a once every few tens of thousands of miles kind of thing.

The list price for the Eviation Alice (projected to hit the market in 3-5 years) is around 3M and flies 9 passengers. The list price for an A319 is around 90M and flies about up to 160 passengers. So, ballpark it's not unthinkable to fly similar amounts of people using 20-30 mass produced self flying electrical planes competing on most 1-2 hour hops that these jets are typically used for. That will take decades to happen but it is entirely feasible with today's level of technology.

Small planes are not fundamentally hard. Cessna nailed mass production decades ago and electrical planes are vastly simpler (way less moving or combustible parts) And as Tesla and other battery manufacturers are showing, there's nothing fundamentally hard about producing a few hundred kwh of battery at a reasonable weight. A small plane with 500-1000khwh of battery will have a very usable range. With increasing energy densities, that will eventually extend into longer ranges as well. The Eviation Alice manages close to 600 miles on 900 kwh of what is essentially similar to the current energy density of mass produced EVs i.e. hardly the state of the art in battery tech. They are holding back here to get this thing certified ASAP instead of opting for already existing newer battery tech.

The impressive thing about this particular announcement is that it is a cost effective conversion for planes that are 60+ years old with a very well understood mission, which is very short hops. The reason that is economical is because combustion engine economics for that are so spectacularly bad and always have been. Electric flight is going to kill that market first and very soon because it hardly was a market to begin with. Small electrical planes crossing the Atlantic is going to happen at some point in the next decade or so. From there to that becoming a routine thing will take more time. But once that happens, it's likely to challenge the economics of dong the same in a 747. There's no fundamental need to scale electrical planes to that size even though that will probably eventually actually happen as well; but that will indeed require decades of improvements in energy density in batteries.

The only questions around electrical flight is when, not if.

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or biofuel. Plants are good at capturing atmospheric CO2 and the resulting biomass can be turned into fuel using well established technology. If it's nearly suitable for cars I suspect it's even more nearly suitable for aviation on account of the lower volumes and higher margins.

Now I'm just imagining some sort of steampunk wood-burning airplane.

> Now I'm just imagining some sort of steampunk wood-burning airplane.

Almost there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_gas

"Flight attendants will resume service in just a moment, after they throw another tree trunk into the wood gas generator"

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#126
post #123
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can accomplish the same by producing the jet fuel using electricity. Realistically this will likely involve methane (natural gas) extracted from the ground and water, but it could one day be carbon neutral using captured carbon. The trick is to use clean energy like nuclear of renewables. There was an article on HN just recently about doing that with portable nuclear generators like those used on ships, this could…

> All we need to do is make it carbon neutral and our existing aviation tech won't even need to change. Except making it carbon neutral will require enormous amounts of energy, shift the price up, and make aviation available only to the richest among us. Aviation industry may keep existing, but will need to scale down.

If the fuel is synthetic anyway, uh can be made better than kerosene.

Also, we have a huge amount of free nuclear energy, daily delivered from Sun, about 1 kW / m². It is nit stable enough for electric baseload, but, depending on the process, may be adequate for fuel synthesis.

North of Sahara may become a primary source of jet fuel, given its vast amounts of insolation, cheapness of the land, and access to seawater. Not exactly tomorrow, though.

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#127
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not true. It's easier to scale up. You get more efficient. Scaling up an electric motor is not particularly hard. Some of the largest machines in existence are electric. Power is not a challenge for electric. In fact, this electrified seaplane has much more power (560kW) than the original radial piston engine one (336kW), and even more than the turboprop conversion (510kW). A LOT of very confident people on t…

All depends on what you want. You can have “infinite” range with “no” battery — gliders are a thing, you can rise on thermals and turn the potential energy into kinetic to get wherever. But if you want to go as fast as a chemical engine and sustain that for as long as a chemical engine , you either need at least the energy density of a chemical fuel or some way to refuel in-flight. Fuel efficient often means “slow”.…

Electric motor gliders should be great! You only need the battery/prop for takeoff and occasional sustaining flight and the glide ratio is ~4x better than general aviation planes.

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#128
post #96

You can do small aircraft like this, no problem. The trouble is you can't scale it up, due to how quickly the power and energy demands go up. This thing is 560 kW and gets a range of 86 nmi; an A320 is around 40 000 kW and has a range of 3 500 nmi, while an A380 is around 80 000 kW and has a range of 8 500 nmi. Going from this DHC-2 to the A380 requires an increase in energy storage by a factor of around 14 000x, whi…

We can accomplish the same by producing the jet fuel using electricity. Realistically this will likely involve methane (natural gas) extracted from the ground and water, but it could one day be carbon neutral using captured carbon. The trick is to use clean energy like nuclear of renewables. There was an article on HN just recently about doing that with portable nuclear generators like those used on ships, this could…

I don't really know where else to ask, so I'll ask here.

Another topic of research is very rapid sub-orbital passenger flight. Are there any numbers on proposed fuel efficiency for that? I'd expect you gain a lot by removing hours and hours of wind resistance, but getting up to speed and out of the atmosphere probably (gut feel) uses more.

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not true. It's easier to scale up. You get more efficient. Scaling up an electric motor is not particularly hard. Some of the largest machines in existence are electric. Power is not a challenge for electric. In fact, this electrified seaplane has much more power (560kW) than the original radial piston engine one (336kW), and even more than the turboprop conversion (510kW). A LOT of very confident people on t…

Cars are not airplanes. Electric cars are much heavier but weight isn't a big problem on the road. That's why they work, and they're still catching up to traditional range expectations. With airplanes, you have to lift that weight using the same energy stored within. In that case, energy density is the absolute issue. Nothing else matters. There's no magical solution, a high-school physics class will teach you how to…

Model S is about 10% heavier than comparable conventional cars. It's no a big difference.

I guess they didn't teach you about lift to drag ratio in your high school physics.

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#130

I've seen a lot of skeptics and nay-sayers talking about this project, but I feel like there is a fundamental mis-understanding of why this is significant. No, it's not going to compete with jet airliners even in the remotely near future. High-bypass turbofan engines have enormous cost advantages over traditional piston engines. It's almost always more economical to use a turbofan engine to power aircraft in anything…

I know nothing about planes, but an interesting detail is that everyone owns a PC now. If tiny airplanes got cheap, who knows...
Post reply on HN