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

31–40 of 165 posts

Re: London-Paris electric flight 'in decade'

#31

Post by kbart »

wiz21c wrote: post #14
koolba wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Normally I'd agree with you but seeing that SpaceX was able to go from zero to sending stuff into orbit in a decade, building a plane in that same time period doesn't seem totally unreasonable. I'd be more concerned with the realities of battery technology not being ready and existing regulations/testing stretching the timetable v.s. pure technical ability of a team to design something that would be fit for purpose.

SpaceX has re-done something that was already done. It's no small feat, but the proof of concept existed years ago. An electric plane with 100+ person on board has no POC so far...

Rocket launches have pretty high failure rate of 0.8 - 8%[0]. That is not acceptable for commercial flights. Would you fly a plane that fails mid-air one flight out of twenty?

0. http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/8566/what-is-the-su...

Re: London-Paris electric flight 'in decade'

#33

Post by notahacker »

Retric wrote: post #12
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…

Retrofitting an existing jet seems like a vastly more viable option in 10 years. But, with sufficient funding it's possible to start from scratch and get there in 10 years.

Not when you're dependent on (i) aviation authorities to certify your aircraft and (ii) third parties to improve battery technology to the point where it can happen

Re: London-Paris electric flight 'in decade'

#34

Post by JustSomeNobody »

ptaipale wrote: post #11

TL;DR: If I read things right, the BBC article is highly misleading and the plane still uses jet fuel. Longer version: The article mentions "removing the need for jet fuel" but does not explain how the engines of this "electric" plane work. Propellers run by electric motors, or what? No. Wright Electric's own site is scant on technical details and concentrates on praising the great team in its blog. From browsing oth…

So, basically, PR to get a stock bump?

Anytime I read anything that says 5 - 10 year, my initial reaction is, baloney.

Re: London-Paris electric flight 'in decade'

#35

Post by obstinate »

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…

Presumably they are hiring people with experience in aviation, though.

"There is no way a startup with no experience in spaceflight will be design, build, certify, and sell an orbiter in ten years." -- Someone just like you in 2002, when SpaceX was founded. It actually only took them six. Acknowledged they are different industries, but I'm wary of confident statements of impossibility, especially without all the relevant facts.

Re: London-Paris electric flight 'in decade'

#36

Post by JustSomeNobody »

fdej wrote: post #26
koolba wrote: post #2

I'm not at the forefront of this field so maybe I missed some great advances in battery technology or airplane efficiency, but how could this possible work when the energy density of a battery (.3-.9 MJ/kg) is 50x less than that of jet fuel (46 MJ/kg)[1]? Or is that simply enough for (very) short haul flights? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

That's correct, but note that an electric motor is about twice as efficient as a combustion engine, reducing the factor to about 25x (at least ideally). Typical medium range aircraft burn about 3 kg fuel per km [1], so to fly 1000 km you would need about 3 * 25 * 1000 kg = 75 tonnes of batteries. This should be in the ballpark of what we can pack into an aircraft already, but I guess at least another 2x improvement i…

What's the turnaround for the aircraft though? If they can't turn around an aircraft in 15-30 min, we'll need more aircraft or prices will skyrocket (no pun).

Re: London-Paris electric flight 'in decade'

#37

Post by raverbashing »

tankenmate wrote: post #5
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…

SpaceX? I realise that the world has very few Musks about, but it is possible; highly unlikely but it is possible.

SpaceX was still using "conservative" technology. It was more like a business model innovation than technological per se. And the reusable parts are being developed by steps

It's an important difference.

Re: London-Paris electric flight 'in decade'

#38

Post by charlesdenault »

jlebrech wrote: post #18

we could save a lot on fuel if they reordered flight plans into a grid, you might not be going direct to somewhere far and popular but they overall impact or the environment would be huge.

What do you mean by a grid? Long-haul direct flights offer many benefits, such as lower drag at cruising altitude, engine efficiency at altitude, etc. [1] Biggest fuel savings are going to come from more efficient engines and weight reduction (composites). 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft

Re: London-Paris electric flight 'in decade'

#39

Post by jakozaur »

koolba wrote: post #2

I'm not at the forefront of this field so maybe I missed some great advances in battery technology or airplane efficiency, but how could this possible work when the energy density of a battery (.3-.9 MJ/kg) is 50x less than that of jet fuel (46 MJ/kg)[1]? Or is that simply enough for (very) short haul flights? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

Maybe we should think outside of the box. What if, aircraft doesn't need to store all of the required energy on-board?

E.g. transmit energy wirelessly through microwave and just have enough fuel for emergencies.

Re: London-Paris electric flight 'in decade'

#40

Post by pale-hands »

CalRobert wrote: post #17

They picked the one city pair already served well by rail??? One where there will be substantial time lost to immigration queues anyway, thus reducing the relative benefit of high speed travel? SF-LA, London-Dublin, etc would have made a lot more sense.

Good point, but this is just the BBC giving an example of a distance that its audience can easily grasp.
Post reply on HN