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

161–170 of 223 posts

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

#161

Post by darkwizard42 »

ehnto wrote: post #153
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…

That's part of what made high speed rail so compelling. When done well you can be on the train, sat down and moving in just a few minutes. No airport security, long ticketing lines, baggage check-ins or fuss at the gate. Just walk in, bags in the overhead, sit down and away you go.

I think high speed rail is compelling because of the speed and accessibility (which if built right -- looking at Japan) becomes an easy option for commute and transport between cities that is vastly more accessible than airports (Narita airport is FAR from Tokyo central)

The security check in, long ticket lines, etc. are all byproducts of security theater that has come through and honestly in the US, with TSA Pre, I'm pretty sure I spend more time sitting at the gate than ANY other process (check in, 5 min, security, 5 min, walking to gate, 5 min, sitting at gate waiting for boarding, 40 min)

100% agree that the ability to walk straight into a train, find your seat through multiple doors (even the wrong car) feels pretty good.

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

#162

Post by tommi »

darkwizard42 wrote: post #161
ehnto wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's part of what made high speed rail so compelling. When done well you can be on the train, sat down and moving in just a few minutes. No airport security, long ticketing lines, baggage check-ins or fuss at the gate. Just walk in, bags in the overhead, sit down and away you go.

I think high speed rail is compelling because of the speed and accessibility (which if built right -- looking at Japan) becomes an easy option for commute and transport between cities that is vastly more accessible than airports (Narita airport is FAR from Tokyo central) The security check in, long ticket lines, etc. are all byproducts of security theater that has come through and honestly in the US, with TSA Pre, I'…

Well said though to clarify the reason why you wait 40 minutes at the gate is probably because you have to calculate some extra per each step leading to it. You can't be sure you'll make it in 5 minutes per check in, security and walk to the gate. Also, the added cost in time and money of missing a plane is quite high compared to missing a train e.g. in Europe, so that further increases the buffer you add to the process.

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

#163

Post by jcims »

aerospace_guy wrote: post #143
jcims wrote: post #73

This video from magniX shows one major advantage of electric aircraft: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDtduvin9Mw There's almost nothing to inspect or maintain.

Huh? I see a lot of parts that can fail. What do you mean?

Tearing this down for inspection vs. a turboprop, for example, would be a dream.

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

#164

Post by apendleton »

ZanyProgrammer wrote: post #5
thedrbrian wrote: post #4

Interesting that the routes they name are 119 and 78 miles. Kinda surprised Americans have flights so short. But then again the aircraft might beat CAFE for a vehicle with a single driver in it, plus aircraft usually carry a load of cargo too, as the passengers pay for the plane to go somewhere and the cargo is the profit. Wonder how much cargo this elegy plane can carry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in…

It’s 130 miles from Portland International to SeaTac, and there absolutely are a ton of Alaska Airlines flights between the two cities.

True, but if you don't have a car and are going downtown to downtown, it's probably faster to take a train or bus, given that it takes almost an hour to get from downtown Seattle to SeaTac by transit and a shorter-but-still-nontrivial amount of time into Portland on the Max on the other end, plus ticketing, boarding, etc. I think it really only makes sense if you're connecting.

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

#165

Post by ClumsyPilot »

username_my1 wrote: post #6
wongarsu wrote: 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.

Small electric planes do not fly as fast as the current passenger Jets, theor speed is going to be comparable to a high speed train.

In fact i'd say europe could avoid airplanes entirely if it could sort out it's rail network, but, alas, going from Londom to Prague I'd have to change like 6 trains. You have to cross many different national signalling systems, gauge sizes and ticket offices.

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

#166

Post by throwawayboise »

Tossrock wrote: post #138
tadfisher wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Small tertiary airports often served by short regional flights don't have a lot of infrastructure. They have a couple of fuel trucks and a gate agent/security screener/baggage handler who might all be the same person.

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

#167

Post by throwawayboise »

Infernal wrote: post #146
otterley wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the process for recycling an aluminum-air battery? And is it cost/energy effective to do so? (If you think about it, closed-loop recycling of energy storage is just another form of recharging, but with extra steps.)

From wikipedia[0] "it is possible to mechanically recharge the battery with new aluminium anodes made from recycling the hydrated aluminium oxide". I've found a few papers regarding recovery of aluminum from aluminum oxides, but I don't have the background to interpret them with an eye towards that process's impact on the overall efficiency of the battery. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium–air_battery

Production of aluminum metal from aluminum oxide is hugely energy-intensive. Aluminum plants often have an on-site utility-size power plant to provide the electricity. Is this same energy needed to recycle the oxide from the batteries? If so it seems like a non-starter, maybe unless it could be done with solar generation.

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

#168

Post by throwawayboise »

Robotbeat wrote: post #100
FabHK wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good rule of thumb (in general aviation at least) is that anything aviation grade is about 10x the "normal" price, or more.

Fuel isn’t. Jet fuel is basically no more expensive than diesel and sometimes cheaper (no road tax). You can consider batteries basically like jet fuel.

It's the same order of magnitude, but aviation fuel is more expensive than motor vehicle fuel (standards are higher for one thing).

https://www.globalair.com/airport/region.aspx

The chart linked above does not include additives which may be required such as anti-icing/anti-gel.

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

#169

Post by carabiner »

gamegoblin wrote: post #99

I recently had a pie-in-the-sky business idea and I would love for someone who knows more about the industry why it will definitely fail. I assume it's unworkable for a lot of reasons, but it is just plausible enough to be a fun idea for a sci-fi novel. Get a fleet of 2-4 seater unpowered glider planes [1] Get a bunch of rural properties spaced ~100km apart. Put little glider landing and launch strips on each propert…

The problem is rural areas are not cities by definition. So you'll drive out 30 minutes to a rural airstrip, fly out to another rural area in a 30 minute flight, then presumably rent a car in the rural area (build an Avis there I suppose), and drive 30 minutes to the other city. Including time for transitions, checking in, and paperwork, it's maybe 2-2.5 hours for 100 km of travel. You could maybe take rideshare, but if this is truly "rural" that might not be an option. Have you ever tried getting an Uber to take you 30 minutes outside of a city? I regularly drive such distances on the weekend in 1 hour. The overall idea of travel between cities is what air taxis were for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_taxi but it was for distances of 200-500 miles.

The energy would probably be better spent on a bus, with even a gas-powered bus being more efficient per passenger-mile than a 4 pax aircraft. It could also go city to city and skip the rural areas altogether.

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

#170

Post by iSnow »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #165
username_my1 wrote: post #6

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.

Small electric planes do not fly as fast as the current passenger Jets, theor speed is going to be comparable to a high speed train. In fact i'd say europe could avoid airplanes entirely if it could sort out it's rail network, but, alas, going from Londom to Prague I'd have to change like 6 trains. You have to cross many different national signalling systems, gauge sizes and ticket offices.

Track gauge is the same all over western and central Europe. And Europe is slowly but surely moving towards ERTMS/ETCS() for train control. Different voltages and frequencies are a problem but less than in the past thanks to modern electronics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Train_Control_System

Post reply on HN