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

201–210 of 223 posts

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

#201

Post by topspin »

jonfw wrote: post #123
topspin wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Point of information; certified autoland systems appeared on airliners in 1968. Yes, we're a ways off from the level of automation for a fully pilotless system as proposed here, but I think it a matter of a few years, perhaps a decade.

You know what they say- the last 20% of the problem is 80% of the effort. I think that these percentages probably understate things, but the point is that getting something to be mostly functional in ideal circumstances really isn't much of an achievement.

"mostly functional in ideal circumstances"

Autoland was developed for and is usually used in poor conditions.

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

#202

Post by fomine3 »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #191
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.

With all due respect, if they had built airports in the middle of cities, we would all be complaining about why we had to take a taxi to the train station miles from the city centre. The big advantage of the train is being on the property ladder 100 years early.

Airport is NIMBY

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

#203

Post by kevincox »

bamboozled wrote: post #200
kevincox wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems irrelevant as that electricity could be collected and used whether or not it is used for planes. So while that may be a good idea it has little if any influence on whether or not it makes sense to use electric planes.

When it comes to affecting the price of flights it would? Imagine if an airline could generate it's own power and not have to pay a third party for electricity to charge planes.

But they could equivalently sell the electricity and buy jet fuel with the profit. Sure, the margins are slightly worse but it doesn't significantly change the equation.

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

#204

Post by ComputerGuru »

Hypx_ wrote: post #195
mapt wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no "recharging" an aluminum-air battery, you add the energy back through recycling (smelting) it. One of the big synergies is with renewables: With the right industrial process, you can treat this smelting process as a way to dump excess energy in peak production times.

It's the same idea of green hydrogen. Only hydrogen allows you to use pipelines instead of physically hauling everything. You also don't have to worry about the battery physically gaining weight as you fly.

I remember 20 years back, hydrogen was going to be it. There were prototype cars manufactured, calls for hydrogen fueling stations to be built, everyone scrambling to get on the hydrogen train. Then it all just fizzled out. It was probably one of the promised techs I most wish had lived up to the hype.

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

#205

Post by otterley »

mapt wrote: post #184
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.)

There is no "recharging" an aluminum-air battery, you add the energy back through recycling (smelting) it. One of the big synergies is with renewables: With the right industrial process, you can treat this smelting process as a way to dump excess energy in peak production times.

Doesn't smelting generate a ton of waste heat, though? Sounds like a process that uses far more energy than the aluminum-air battery can hold.

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

#206

Post by itsrajju »

neither_color wrote: post #79
itsrajju wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. :)

The only reason I pay for youtube premium is for creators like Wendover, Extreme Engineering, Smarter Every Day, etc. There are a lot of independent science, economics, and history channels there that are too good for YT but depend on the traffic for survival. Some have made attempts to switch to other platforms like Nebula but they dont have the mass yet.

I do have a Nebula subscription, and Wendover is part of it. I like the fact that Nebula is partly owned by the creators themselves, and a significant part of Nebula's revenue goes directly to them.

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

#207

Post by sundvor »

sandworm101 wrote: post #98
epx wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the 1990s, the idea of electric RC planes were ridiculed as well. I am moderately optimistic that 1:1 planes will eventually follow, as RC electric cars became "good enough" and 1:1 electric cars are a reality now.

I had an electric RC plane in the mid 90s. It wasn't much, just a styrofoam body and pair of electric motors (no flight controls) but it was a cheap and functional RC plane.

Nice info, P and GP! I built a RC buggy car with lipo batteries; it's amazing how quickly it goes, and how well we've suspension etc works. Sadly most of the time was spent on the build, too hard to get to the local track with family and such, but still a great experience. It's just so quiet compared to the nitro ones too.

Goes to show if you want to get somewhere, first you have to start. The other top trending thread on making a bit of progress every day comes to mind, it's amazing how far we can get over a long period of constantly making small improvements.

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

#208

Post by Hypx_ »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #204
Hypx_ wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the same idea of green hydrogen. Only hydrogen allows you to use pipelines instead of physically hauling everything. You also don't have to worry about the battery physically gaining weight as you fly.

I remember 20 years back, hydrogen was going to be it. There were prototype cars manufactured, calls for hydrogen fueling stations to be built, everyone scrambling to get on the hydrogen train. Then it all just fizzled out. It was probably one of the promised techs I most wish had lived up to the hype.

It's going to live up to the hype. It just didn't happen in that timeframe.

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

#209

Post by Symbiote »

GravitasFailure wrote: post #48
bserge wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

A a route that serves a few hundred passengers a day is also potentially profitable for an airline while a train would likely not be unless there's existing infrastructure that can be leveraged. Also, if nobody needs that route to be served any more, just send the plane elsewhere. Edit: I'm an idiot and missed that these are 19 seat planes. No, a train that only serves 19 people a day, one way, has a zero percent cha…

For 19 people on a 100-mile route, they may as well schedule a bus.

(For example, my parents would take a direct bus a similar distance to Heathrow or several other airports. It saves parking costs and driving while tired.)

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

#210

Post by redis_mlc »

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.

To burn jet fuel, 99% of the time you need a jet engine, which usually starts at $1 million.
Post reply on HN