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

21–30 of 223 posts

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

#21

Post by sandworm101 »

mustafa_pasi wrote: post #17

Digging through their website[1] trying to figure them out. Seems to me that the whole business proposition depends on their understanding that Norway, Sweden, (and I guess they expect others to follow) will mandate all short flights being electric in the next decade. They also say turboprops are higher maintenance and this expense reduces the viability of short flying routes, and I guess their implication is that el…

95% of daily maintenance costs. Overhaul costs of jet/turboprop engines are considerable, several hundred thousand dollars per engine. A reasonable operating budget is about 1000$/hour per engine. Electric engines should avoid overhaul costs, and the fuel costs would be practically zero.

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

#22

Post by Aardwolf »

kylehotchkiss wrote: post #9
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 all connecting to bigger flights. Plus 78-119 miles means either paying a lot of money for a cab, paying gas & parking fees for the duration of your trip at the bigger airport, or asking a friend/family member very nicely to take that trip to drop you off/pick you up. The smaller cities in question for these routes aren't going to have any sort of usable bus service for making a flight on time. To answer your ca…

> Plus 78-119 miles means either paying a lot of money for a cab, paying gas & parking fees for the duration of your trip at the bigger airport, or asking a friend/family member very nicely to take that trip to drop you off/pick you up.

How about trains for those distances?

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

#23

Post by HPsquared »

mustafa_pasi wrote: post #17

Digging through their website[1] trying to figure them out. Seems to me that the whole business proposition depends on their understanding that Norway, Sweden, (and I guess they expect others to follow) will mandate all short flights being electric in the next decade. They also say turboprops are higher maintenance and this expense reduces the viability of short flying routes, and I guess their implication is that el…

Gas turbine engines have critical components which can have gradual failure (fatigue particularly, and creep) which need regular inspection to catch small defects before they grow to critical size. They also have large numbers of high-temperature, stressed components.

Electric motors are generally much simpler in construction and wouldn't need nearly as much mechanical inspection.

The difficult/expensive part is the battery, but that's going to have more onboard condition monitoring and will be simply replaced periodically, not subject to regular teardown inspections. The cost of ongoing battery replacements might be significant, though.

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

#24

Post by spodek »

They talk about regional flight. Does anyone have any sign that battery-powered planes carrying a hundred people will cross the Atlantic, Pacific, or the U.S.?

The physics in Tom Murphy's textbook https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2021/03/textbook-debut suggests it's impossible. I've talked to people at electric plane companies who have offered no hope.

I originally thought since we engineered from the Wright brothers to 747s, aren't we just at the Wright brothers stage now, but am starting to conclude it's not possible.

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

#25

Post by busterarm »

spodek wrote: post #24

They talk about regional flight. Does anyone have any sign that battery-powered planes carrying a hundred people will cross the Atlantic, Pacific, or the U.S.? The physics in Tom Murphy's textbook https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2021/03/textbook-debut suggests it's impossible. I've talked to people at electric plane companies who have offered no hope. I originally thought since we engineered from the Wright brothers to 74…

Unless the energy density of batteries suddenly goes up 50x to meet avgas, then no it's extremely unlikely.

Even with road vehicles, electric is only viable right now to the weight and load of your average 4-door sedan.

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

#26

Post by bserge »

Aardwolf wrote: post #22
kylehotchkiss wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's all connecting to bigger flights. Plus 78-119 miles means either paying a lot of money for a cab, paying gas & parking fees for the duration of your trip at the bigger airport, or asking a friend/family member very nicely to take that trip to drop you off/pick you up. The smaller cities in question for these routes aren't going to have any sort of usable bus service for making a flight on time. To answer your ca…

> Plus 78-119 miles means either paying a lot of money for a cab, paying gas & parking fees for the duration of your trip at the bigger airport, or asking a friend/family member very nicely to take that trip to drop you off/pick you up. How about trains for those distances?

Track/engine building and maintenance is probably more expensive than airports and planes.

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

#27

Post by itsrajju »

scrollaway wrote: post #20
canadianfella wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why “who else”?

I suspect it was in jest, but the reason why is that he is obviously immensely passionated about aviation and logistics. He makes really, really good videos about both, I'd recommend his channel to anyone. PS, I had to vouch for your comment to reply, as it was dead. Had a look through your profile… I think there's often a lot of value in asking simple questions, but a lot of your comment history is just extremely lo…

It was indeed in jest! Wendover's videos have been consistently increasing in quality over the years. The amount of research that goes into each one is phenomenal. So much so that lately if I ever come across any aviation topic on the internet, there's already a Wendover video about it. :)

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

#30

Post by zinekeller »

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?

Good point. The Dreamliner has such problems in its Li-ion batteries to the point that the weight savings due to composite construction was subsequently nullified by metal retrofits to contain battery fires (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner_battery_...). Additionally, IATA has put strict limits on Li-ion cargo due to Lithium being too reactive, so any plane with Lithium batteries must consider that.
Post reply on HN