Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Electric aircraft set to take flight by 2026 under new agreements

hub.united.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 223 posts

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

#131

Post by tadfisher »

gunapologist99 wrote: post #128

One of the things that helped Southwest dominate in the short-haul space, particularly in the Texas Triangle, was optimizing "turn-time" with a target of less than 10 minutes to both deplane and board passengers (10 minutes!)[0] I wonder how lengthy charge cycles will affect the viability of fast turn times, especially for the short-haul segments that they're targeting for these new airliners. It seems like they'll n…

Battery swaps could be viable, barring some complications in gate infrastructure and airframe design. Obviously this would be impossible if airframe designers incorporate battery cells in structural members, as some suggest to offset the weight penalty.

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

#132

Post by [deleted] »

gunapologist99 wrote: post #128

One of the things that helped Southwest dominate in the short-haul space, particularly in the Texas Triangle, was optimizing "turn-time" with a target of less than 10 minutes to both deplane and board passengers (10 minutes!)[0] I wonder how lengthy charge cycles will affect the viability of fast turn times, especially for the short-haul segments that they're targeting for these new airliners. It seems like they'll n…

[deleted]

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

#133

Post by theYipster »

holycrapwhodat wrote: post #126
gregmac wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Develop software that can fly the planes autonomously from strip to strip (I assume this is the really hard part, but I am under the impression that autonomous flying is a much easier problem than autonomous driving?). As a software developer, this part is what I don't like. We're still quite a ways from fully autonomous driving cars (as in: don't rely on a human taking over for backup). A bad bug in an autonomous…

As both a software developer and a pilot... We're (much?) closer to Fully-Self-Flying planes than FSD cars because the problem space is - perhaps counterintuitively - MUCH smaller to tackle. And we have a lot more experience tackling it. Additionally there could easily be remote pilots as backup in case of catastrophe (See remote piloted military and border patrol UAVs) And pulling a parachute at 1000'+ altitude actu…

As an industry leader on this specific subject matter... I agree: the problem space is much smaller, in theory.

However, certification requirements and safety assurance needs will drive both cost and time into realizing fully autonomous aircraft. They will be here, but we are 10-15 years away.

The problem is in how to certify machine learning code. Today, you can't. Existing AMCs (accepted means of compliance) are incompatible with the nature of ML. (The breakdown is specifically with assurance architectures focused on code traceability and coverage.) A new architecture for demonstrating safety assurance with AI/ML is needed, and is being built, but is still 1.5-2 years away from being released, and then it will take another year or two before a CAA (civil aviation authority, like the FAA or EASA) will certify a component with ML code--and that will not be an autonomous pilot. That will come in time, but the industry is conservative--especially on safety-critical matters--and it will take years to develop trust in both technology, human factors, and methodology to work up to autonomously flown passenger aircraft.

From the regulator perspective, EASA has taken poll position in thought leadership. Google their AI Roadmap or their Concept Paper for Level 1 Machine Learning Applications.

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

#134

Post by hutzlibu »

tadfisher wrote: post #131
gunapologist99 wrote: post #128

One of the things that helped Southwest dominate in the short-haul space, particularly in the Texas Triangle, was optimizing "turn-time" with a target of less than 10 minutes to both deplane and board passengers (10 minutes!)[0] I wonder how lengthy charge cycles will affect the viability of fast turn times, especially for the short-haul segments that they're targeting for these new airliners. It seems like they'll n…

Battery swaps could be viable, barring some complications in gate infrastructure and airframe design. Obviously this would be impossible if airframe designers incorporate battery cells in structural members, as some suggest to offset the weight penalty.

"Obviously this would be impossible if airframe designers incorporate battery cells in structural members, as some suggest to offset the weight penalty."

Why not do both?

Swap one part and charge just the internal batteries. But internal batteries does not sound so clever with limited lifetime anyway.

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

#135

Post by samatman »

IshKebab wrote: post #72
thunderrabbit wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for bringing up this other conclusion. I still side with Wendover overall. Even if batteries have to be replaced that often now, the technology will continue to improve, becoming both cheaper and more reliable. Computers used to be the size of rooms and break due to literal insects in them.

I don't think you can cite the technology that has advanced most dramatically out of all the technologies to support some kind of rule that all technology inevitably advances rapidly. Yes they'll get better, but they might get 10% better over the next 20 years or something like that.

I would say that the poster you're replying to is more directionally accurate than you are.

I read them as saying "transistors have steadily marched toward the theoretical limit in size, batteries will do the same for power"— and that isn't a 10% improvement from where we're sitting now. I couldn't tell you offhand what it is, but it's at least double density.

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

#136

Post by NickM »

gunapologist99 wrote: post #128

One of the things that helped Southwest dominate in the short-haul space, particularly in the Texas Triangle, was optimizing "turn-time" with a target of less than 10 minutes to both deplane and board passengers (10 minutes!)[0] I wonder how lengthy charge cycles will affect the viability of fast turn times, especially for the short-haul segments that they're targeting for these new airliners. It seems like they'll n…

Even if they don't have super fast chargers or battery swaps, I'd imagine the cost of longer turn times might be offset by the substantially lower fuel costs.

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

#137

Post by mchusma »

IshKebab wrote: post #72
thunderrabbit wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for bringing up this other conclusion. I still side with Wendover overall. Even if batteries have to be replaced that often now, the technology will continue to improve, becoming both cheaper and more reliable. Computers used to be the size of rooms and break due to literal insects in them.

I don't think you can cite the technology that has advanced most dramatically out of all the technologies to support some kind of rule that all technology inevitably advances rapidly. Yes they'll get better, but they might get 10% better over the next 20 years or something like that.

Historical rate of improvement is significantly faster.

50% improvement in energy density over 10 years would be more conservative than most estimates, which range considerably but none I could find were worse than that:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thedriven.io/2021/04/28/how-ele...

https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2021/ee/d0ee0268...

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

#138

Post by Tossrock »

tadfisher wrote: post #131
gunapologist99 wrote: post #128

One of the things that helped Southwest dominate in the short-haul space, particularly in the Texas Triangle, was optimizing "turn-time" with a target of less than 10 minutes to both deplane and board passengers (10 minutes!)[0] I wonder how lengthy charge cycles will affect the viability of fast turn times, especially for the short-haul segments that they're targeting for these new airliners. It seems like they'll n…

Battery swaps could be viable, barring some complications in gate infrastructure and airframe design. Obviously this would be impossible if airframe designers incorporate battery cells in structural members, as some suggest to offset the weight penalty.

I've said for a while that electric planes are the perfect use case for aluminum-air batteries. Aluminum-air batteries have up to 8x the energy density of lithium ion, but are not rechargeable, so using them only makes sense if you have a system to recycle the used batteries. This doesn't make a ton of sense with cars, because cars are constantly going from random place to random place, and having to include a stop at a battery recycling center every ~1000km or whatever would be impractical.

But planes go between very limited sets of known points, with huge amounts of infrastructure. Adding in the capability to do Al-air battery swaps / recycling would be easy, and the benefits for the use case (huge weight savings, faster turnaround times by swapping vs charging) are big.

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

#139

Post by aeternum »

damsta wrote: post #29
crossroadsguy wrote: post #28

Will one of the benefits be absence of copious amounts of highly inflammable liquid on it in the event of crashes?

Won't batteries be a problem now?

Batteries could be used as part of the structure itself (similar to the transition we made from separate fuel tanks to simply putting fuel in the wings). That saves a lot of weight.

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

#140

Post by hutzlibu »

bertil wrote: post #14
rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #8

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…

"ekranoplane "

Can't they fly only over flat surface and very close to the ground?

That makes them quite unpractical in my opinion.

Post reply on HN