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

London-Paris electric flight 'in decade'

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 165 posts

Re: London-Paris electric flight 'in decade'

#141

Post by mercer »

TorKlingberg wrote: post #111
dx034 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The better idea for the first electric flight is probably LCY-AMS. It's a 35-40 min flight but there's no alternative to it (train 4+ hours, ship 8+ hours). There's a lot of demand for that route, you have more than 15 flights per day across all London airports.

I wonder why there is no fast London - Amsterdam train. It's not that much farther than Paris.

Interesting. I assumed there was one! I regularly take the train between Berlin and Amsterdam and it's awesome. door-to-door it's actually only slightly longer than a flight, but so much more comfortable. I usually get either a ton of work done, or I relax with a movie in the restaurant area. Flying, on the other hand, is about 50% just waiting in line and/or being uncomfortable in some way.

Re: London-Paris electric flight 'in decade'

#142

Post by nether »

macspoofing wrote: post #4

>A new start-up says that it intends to offer an electric-powered commercial flight from London to Paris in 10 years. There is no way a startup without any experience in aviation will design, build, certify and sell a commercial 150-seat airplane in 10 years. Not even mention the immense R&D groundwork required to even prove the concept of using batteries to power short haul flights. Why do they put out bullshit like…

But they do have experience in aerospace, since they're made up of engineers from Boeing, Cessna, and NASA.

Re: London-Paris electric flight 'in decade'

#143

Post by [deleted] »

macspoofing wrote: post #4

>A new start-up says that it intends to offer an electric-powered commercial flight from London to Paris in 10 years. There is no way a startup without any experience in aviation will design, build, certify and sell a commercial 150-seat airplane in 10 years. Not even mention the immense R&D groundwork required to even prove the concept of using batteries to power short haul flights. Why do they put out bullshit like…

[deleted]

Re: London-Paris electric flight 'in decade'

#144

Post by JustSomeNobody »

jpm_sd wrote: post #122
notahacker wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any sensible proposal for electric systems for commercial aircraft is going to aim for batteries to be safely swappable in 10-15 minutes. (Though they can still make delays from unexpected diversions to airports without a stock of batteries worse)

The structural penalties for making "most of the weight of the aircraft" removable will probably lead to a plane that doesn't fly.

Hmmm... I wonder. Let's say they design the aircraft around an existing battery (size/weight). If later technology allows for a lighter battery, would they they have to add the weight back in order to keep the cg correct?

Re: London-Paris electric flight 'in decade'

#145

Post by srssays »

J-dawg wrote: post #139
srssays wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A better idea would be to dig oil out of the ground, process it into kerosene, and use that to power jet turbines on the aircraft.

At some point we're going to need to stop doing that, hence the need for alternative ideas.

Sure. How about LNG (liquid methane)? We have enough natural gas to last quite a while. In the far future, hopefully we will have mastered producing kerosene using algae.

Re: London-Paris electric flight 'in decade'

#146

Post by nether »

yongjik wrote: post #132

I wonder if any company is seriously considering nuclear-powered planes? The energy density alone would make it extremely competitive. And, let's be honest, in case of a crash, I'd rather walk away (or be hauled away without a limb or two) to die of cancer ten years later, than be burned to crisp in a huge fireball. Fear of radiation is overrated.

Well, I don't think there's much consideration of nuclear power in the first place by most countries. A nuclear-powered B-36D (large bomber) was explored in the '60s though. Complications included the weight of the lead shielding to protect occupants, and that doing some routine operations in the radioactive areas required a remote controlled robot. The reactor was never used to power the aircraft, and test flights just explored the effects of radiation on everything.

Re: London-Paris electric flight 'in decade'

#147

Post by pilom »

elmar wrote: post #99
D_Alex wrote: post #75

I am really quite confident that no serious development of electric passenger aircraft will take place during the coming decade. And it is not a question of feasibility, but rather of priorities. There is so much low hanging fruit to be collected! By the end of the decade, if all goes well, we will be in the middle of replacing petroleum fuelled cars and busses with electric ones, and maybe turning our attention to o…

Personally I think the development will be on 1 to 4 places fully electric aircraft and maybe 4-30 places hybrid.

Airplanes really don't get the same benefits cars do from being hybrids. Hybrid cars take advantage of the fact that cars have to change speeds often and electric motors are somewhat effective at recovering energy when the car needs to slow down. Planes don't have that issue. The engine in a plane generally sits at the same throttle point for >80% of the flight.

Re: London-Paris electric flight 'in decade'

#148

Post by tankenmate »

srssays wrote: post #145
J-dawg wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At some point we're going to need to stop doing that, hence the need for alternative ideas.

Sure. How about LNG (liquid methane)? We have enough natural gas to last quite a while. In the far future, hopefully we will have mastered producing kerosene using algae.

LNG tanks are far from lightweight; to keep LNG at room temperature is about 320 atmospheres of pressure. Liquid propane on the other hand is about 8 atmospheres. Mind you at altitude it's around -50 ~ -60 C, but that will only reduce the pressure requirements to approx 100 atm. Also, LNG has about 60% of the energy density of kerosene. SO to use LNG you'd be taking a double whammy, lower density and heavier tanks.

Re: London-Paris electric flight 'in decade'

#149

Post by Symbiote »

fridek wrote: post #77
dx034 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The better idea for the first electric flight is probably LCY-AMS. It's a 35-40 min flight but there's no alternative to it (train 4+ hours, ship 8+ hours). There's a lot of demand for that route, you have more than 15 flights per day across all London airports.

I was just looking for a route London - Rotterdam and found exactly what you mention - no good alternative to flights :)

The ferry is OK if you're travelling overnight, I've done it a couple of times.

It's possible to buy a train ticket which includes the ferry, and trains at both ends. (e.g London to Rotterdam.) The ferry itself is from Harwich to the Hook of Holland.

Re: London-Paris electric flight 'in decade'

#150

Post by icc97 »

fridek wrote: post #72

Currently the shortest LGW-CDG flight is 1h. There is LCY-CDG lasting 1h 20m. For both cities it takes 30 - 60m to get to the airport from central location and you should be there at least 1h before the departure (for a total of 2-3h non-flight time). This makes total travel 3h - 4h30m. For comparison, the fastest train is 2h 25m. I guess you need to travel to and from the train station too, but it's definitely more…

Definitely agree with this, although I'm not sure where you get the '5 minutes' before departure for the trains. The only train between the two is the Eurostar and you need a minimum of 30 mins. The Thalys was exactly this '5 minutes' before between other European cities, although I think this has been slowed down because of security.

Never-the-less, taking the train is wonderful. It is a much more 'natural' travelling experience in that you're not going to some artificial out-of-city place.

In terms of pleasure of travelling, St. Pancras is a joy to behold, a beautiful building that has been wonderfully converted for use of the Eurostar.

Also anecdotal evidence, but I've struck up conversations multiple times on the Eurostar that lasted the entire journey and even turned into friendships after, but never talked to someone on a flight.

Post reply on HN