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

The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 385 posts

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#161

Post by runako »

ajross wrote: post #10
runako wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 500 miles with hybrid system > the grueling two hour drives What country are you in, and perhaps more importantly, what roads are you driving on?

To repeat: the market is filled with fuel-driven turboprops. This only wins if it's better, and it's only better if it's cheaper. Is it cheaper? If it's cheaper they should say, and not spend time talking about "all electric" range in a regime that doesn't want aircraft at all. And sure, there are places in the world that don't have limited access highways. But the 125 mile range is already served very well by piston…

> If it's cheaper they should say

I think you would be pleased at the very first selling points on their website, as well as on the product page. It seems they have at least considered the most obvious issue in their product space.

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#162

Post by phire »

jmward01 wrote: post #154
werdnapk wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what do regular aircraft do when they run out of fuel? They require a forced landing. Aircraft fly with a buffer of fuel though to avoid such situations, so why can't an electric aircraft fly with a similar buffer on it's range? ie. Always fly less than the current charged range of the aircraft.

Lots of down votes on this but it is a legitimate question. The goal is likely to have the majority of flight off of batteries. That being said, the total weight of the emergency fuel plus generators is likely far less than the weight of the extra batteries they would haul around for the safety margin they need. So they end up lighter and more capable AND don't need to burn fuel. That being said, I wouldn't be surpri…

> That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't start the generators during critical phases

I somewhat doubt that. Part of the advantage of the design is that the generators don't need to be sized as big enough to power take off, climb and a potential go-around on landing. They only need to be sized as big enough for cruising.

So powering them up during critical phases wouldn't help with safety. If anything, normal operating procedures might actually require shutting them down during critical phases.

What this does mean is that the batteries need to be reasonably full when it comes into land, possibly as high as 50%. And most go arounds will require immediately powering up the generators, so it probably needs to be fuelled for all but the shortest flights.

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#163

Post by phire »

MobiusHorizons wrote: post #138
werdnapk wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what do regular aircraft do when they run out of fuel? They require a forced landing. Aircraft fly with a buffer of fuel though to avoid such situations, so why can't an electric aircraft fly with a similar buffer on it's range? ie. Always fly less than the current charged range of the aircraft.

Regular aircraft are required to have enough fuel to be able to divert to the alternate airfield in their flight plan plus all the margins for taxiing and waiting for a landing clearance. If a plane is low on fuel they can declare an emergency and get priority over other traffic, but that obviously is disruptive and should not happen on well planned flights unless something pretty significant happens after takeoff.

> and should not happen on well planned flights

You make it sound like it is acceptable for a badly planned flight to have a fuel emergency. It is not.

If there is a fuel emergency (or the plane lands with less than 30min of fuel) there will be an incident investigation that treats the situation as serious as if the plane had crashed. If the investigation discovers it was nothing more than bad planning, (at minimum) the planning procedures will be changed to ensure it never happens again.

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#164

Post by dyauspitr »

luma wrote: post #87
alberth wrote: post #83

Is this EV or Hybrid? The founder seems to sneak in the word "hybrid", around 1m30 mark in the video below. https://youtu.be/nM86DBOqgPM?si=5unXLmPxk6M_kmuN&t=86 Note: not being negative, I just want to ensure I understand correctly since the title might imply something else. Update: confirmed, it does use aviation fuel. > "The airplane will also include a reserve-hybrid configuration, consisting of two turbo generat…

Hybrid after the first 125 miles, total range 500 miles. Their problem is diversions - an incident at the destination airport may mean an passenger aircraft may need to land at an airport which could be a couple hundred miles away. The hybrid powerplant throws the fuel efficiency numbers off so goal is not to run it unless needed, but they could not get certification without it.

Unless they have a whole new airport and flying experience, I don’t think a lot of people are going to fly just 125 miles. That’s less than two hours of driving. It would be 2 hours of just airport shenanigans much less the flight itself.

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#166

Post by enquirewithin »

waterTanuki wrote: post #107
infotainment wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cheap electric transportation can finally offset USA's lacking rail commutes I'm not sure how building an electric aircraft would help with this. Are people going to suddenly switch to commuting by plane? Fixing America's commute problem is primarily an urban planning one (ie, putting all the homes nowhere near anything) and not an insufficient-electric-aircraft one.

It's clearly marketed for remote communities with little to no connecting infrastructure. Think Alaskan wilderness or Hawaiian island hopping. This isn't for getting from LA to Denver for skiing.

An aircraft like this can be used two or three times a day, while spending the rest of the time charging.

A piston or turbine powered aircraft can run all day.

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#167

Post by mjcarden »

gpm wrote: post #143
merek wrote: post #142

Maybe I missed it but they didn't delve much into the TAM. "Half of all flights in the world are under 2 hours." Then they give examples of Fjord-town hopping in Norway, or Island hopping in Hawaii, which seem very niche. Will they be able to compete in any of the busiest routes? Could it take me Melbourne-Sydney in 1 - 2 hours for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_passenger_flig...

Batteries are rapidly improving (on many metrics, but the relevant one here is increasing in energy density). The range is apparently 125 miles electric, and 500 miles as a hybrid. That's not enough for Melbourne Sydney. Give it a couple doubling-times though (5 years total?) and it will be. Meanwhile aircraft take forever to develop and there should be enough of a market in shorter hall flights to occupy a scaling c…

Canberra - Sydney is one of the busiest routes in Australia with Dash 8 and ATR turboprops on high rotation every day. I could see a small electric aircraft working pretty well there, modulo charging times.

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#168

Post by defrost »

mjcarden wrote: post #167
gpm wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Batteries are rapidly improving (on many metrics, but the relevant one here is increasing in energy density). The range is apparently 125 miles electric, and 500 miles as a hybrid. That's not enough for Melbourne Sydney. Give it a couple doubling-times though (5 years total?) and it will be. Meanwhile aircraft take forever to develop and there should be enough of a market in shorter hall flights to occupy a scaling c…

Canberra - Sydney is one of the busiest routes in Australia with Dash 8 and ATR turboprops on high rotation every day. I could see a small electric aircraft working pretty well there, modulo charging times.

> modulo charging times.

There's already an Australian electric trucking company trailing plug n'replace heavy battery packs (with a forklift).

That allows for fast turnover times while used batteries recharge at terminals.

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#169

Post by enquirewithin »

ActorNightly wrote: post #148
gpm wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Batteries are rapidly improving (on many metrics, but the relevant one here is increasing in energy density). The range is apparently 125 miles electric, and 500 miles as a hybrid. That's not enough for Melbourne Sydney. Give it a couple doubling-times though (5 years total?) and it will be. Meanwhile aircraft take forever to develop and there should be enough of a market in shorter hall flights to occupy a scaling c…

Batteries aren't rapidly improving. Every single battery that has proposed higher energy density also has downsides in max discharge current. We may get at best like 10% improvement over what it is today.

It’s taken thirty years for lithium batteries to double in energy density, and the rate of increase has tapered off recently.

Re: The largest electric aircraft just flew [video]

#170

Post by enquirewithin »

ActorNightly wrote: post #149
merek wrote: post #142

Maybe I missed it but they didn't delve much into the TAM. "Half of all flights in the world are under 2 hours." Then they give examples of Fjord-town hopping in Norway, or Island hopping in Hawaii, which seem very niche. Will they be able to compete in any of the busiest routes? Could it take me Melbourne-Sydney in 1 - 2 hours for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_passenger_flig...

Electric planes can in theory get longer flights, provided they change the flight profile - you spend a lot of energy going up to higher altitude, and the essentially glide down.

The energy used to achieve altitude is then saved in the descent stage. So that’s not an issue for aircraft, regardless of how they’re powered. This is why every flight you’ve ever been on climbs to cruise altitude as fast as possible.

High altitude where the air is less dense is better for speed due to less drag. This is also power source agnostic.

Post reply on HN