First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C. • Hacker News Board

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#31

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Dec 11, 2019, 8:09 PM UTC

agurk wrote: post #21

abakker wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think "Electric Jet" is like saying "Electric Internal Combustion Engine" - A Jet is a type of engine, so an electric aircraft wouldn't be a jet. I know people call Jet-powered aircraft "jets" but, that's really an abbreviation. I think what you're asking though, is whether there are any electric propulsion systems with the same characteristics as jets - i.e. more thrust relative to speed. AFAIK, there are not, bec…

The jet in jet-engine refers to the fact it uses jet propulsion - i.e. producing movement in one direction by ejecting a fluid in the opposite direction. This means that lots of things are actually jet engines - rocket engines and water jets being two common ones. The propulsion of a 'jet engine' is normally through a gas turbine, which is a type of internal combustion engine, so you wouldn't get an electric gas turb…

[deleted]

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#32

Post by lemmox » Wed, Dec 11, 2019, 8:10 PM UTC

Adding a little context: Harbour Air is a short-hop seaplane operator working out of downtown Vancouver. Most of their flights are ~ 100km across the Georgia Straight to Victoria and Nanaimo on Vancouver Island. Trips are ~ 30 minutes IIRC. There is no bridge to this island and the alternative is a fairly large commute involving a ferry. It's quite convenient to have a direct connection between downtown Vancouver and downtown Victoria.

Fuel is quite pricey here, they might end up saving a couple hundred dollars per hour in fuel and engine upkeep costs.

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#33

Post by jsjohnst » Wed, Dec 11, 2019, 8:11 PM UTC

mrlala wrote: post #8

roywiggins wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you could, how could that even be useful?

>to charge the batteries Free power?

There’s 20M lightning strikes per year in the US according to a quick web search, with the vast majority of those happening in Florida and very few on the west coast.

Let’s assume west coast flights don’t apply, only ones in the SE United States. Even then, you could maybe be “lucky” enough to get one strike per day.

Doing some very rough napkin math, a lightning bolt can provide ten billion watts of power, but for something way less than a millisecond (most sources I’ve seen say closer to a nanosecond, but let’s be optimistic and go with 1/1000th). Assume we have the ability to buffer this (we don’t, to my knowledge), that gives us 10MW for one second assuming 100% efficiency. A 747 takes 90MW of power just to get airborne and it needs that for longer than a second even for that. So basically you’d need something like at least 100 lightning strikes just to get the 747 airborne (assuming that’s doable in 11ish seconds, I think it “might” in extreme circumstances).

I’m sure my math is grossly flawed in some way, so don’t expect scientific accuracy at all, but it should clearly show the absurdity of using lightning as a power source for jet flight.

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#34

Post by boatswain » Wed, Dec 11, 2019, 8:13 PM UTC

aphextron wrote: post #16

scottmsul wrote: post #9

Still seems a bit far from replacing jet engines? This article was going on about fuel emissions in the entire aviation industry, this is just an electric propeller. Anyone know how far we are from electric jets? Is such a thing even possible?

>"Anyone know how far we are from electric jets? Is such a thing even possible?" Electric will never replace long haul jets barring a revolutionary breakthrough in battery technology. But that's not the point. Much of commercial aviation takes place on distances of around 100 to 500 miles. That is, too far to drive but not quite far enough to take advantage of the efficiency of jet engines at high speed, high altitud…

Would a hybrid model be more effective? Using diesel generators to power electric motors?

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#35

Post by ghostpepper » Wed, Dec 11, 2019, 8:18 PM UTC

seabrookmx wrote: post #11

I look at the Harbour Air planes out my office window! Super neat project, although I agree with other commenters that "fully-electric commercial flight" is misleading. If I walk down there and book a flight, I'm not going to be in an e-plane. It's still very much experimental.

If you can see the seaplane terminal in downtown Vancouver from your office then, IMHO, you have one of the best views in the city. Enjoy :-)

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#36

Post by nordsieck » Wed, Dec 11, 2019, 8:19 PM UTC

giarc wrote: post #6

I suspect this would be much, much quieter than a regular gasoline engine correct? These smaller planes are loud.

I believe the real benefit of electric planes is the maintenance cost. Most small planes require that the engine be torn down and inspected / parts replaced on a regular (per flight hour) basis.

An electric motor may have a longer service life than an engine, and is almost certainly much less expensive to service.

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#37

Post by Gravityloss » Wed, Dec 11, 2019, 8:20 PM UTC

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #27

You can do small aircraft like this, no problem. The trouble is you can't scale it up, due to how quickly the power and energy demands go up. This thing is 560 kW and gets a range of 86 nmi; an A320 is around 40 000 kW and has a range of 3 500 nmi, while an A380 is around 80 000 kW and has a range of 8 500 nmi. Going from this DHC-2 to the A380 requires an increase in energy storage by a factor of around 14 000x, whi…

How would planes would look like if fuel prices increased a few fold? I would assume probably less jets and more turbine aircraft, at least on short trips. Straight wings and slower speeds. Boeing and Airbus might lose some market share. Boeing never had a turboprop, Airbus owns 50% of ATR.

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#38

Post by deepspace » Wed, Dec 11, 2019, 8:21 PM UTC

seabrookmx wrote: post #11

I look at the Harbour Air planes out my office window! Super neat project, although I agree with other commenters that "fully-electric commercial flight" is misleading. If I walk down there and book a flight, I'm not going to be in an e-plane. It's still very much experimental.

Yes, when you start digging into the details, it turns out that they filled the plane, a de Havilland Beaver, to the gills with batteries. The batteries physically consume all the interior space, leaving no room for passengers, and they bring the takeoff weight to the max that the (electric) engine can manage.

With all that, the range is 15 minutes, with a 25 minute reserve. That is not even enough to reach Nanaimo, which is the closest town the planes could potentially serve.

So, neat demonstrator but a long, long way off from viable commercial operation.

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#39

Post by james_pm » Wed, Dec 11, 2019, 8:21 PM UTC

ghostpepper wrote: post #35

seabrookmx wrote: post #11

I look at the Harbour Air planes out my office window! Super neat project, although I agree with other commenters that "fully-electric commercial flight" is misleading. If I walk down there and book a flight, I'm not going to be in an e-plane. It's still very much experimental.

If you can see the seaplane terminal in downtown Vancouver from your office then, IMHO, you have one of the best views in the city. Enjoy :-)

I would get no work done in that office. When in Vancouver, I spend a good amount of my down time sitting at the Convention Centre watching the comings and goings in the harbour.

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#40

Post by apendleton » Wed, Dec 11, 2019, 8:21 PM UTC

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #27

You can do small aircraft like this, no problem. The trouble is you can't scale it up, due to how quickly the power and energy demands go up. This thing is 560 kW and gets a range of 86 nmi; an A320 is around 40 000 kW and has a range of 3 500 nmi, while an A380 is around 80 000 kW and has a range of 8 500 nmi. Going from this DHC-2 to the A380 requires an increase in energy storage by a factor of around 14 000x, whi…

That's all undoubtedly true, but fortunately, most flights don't require the capabilities of an A380, and in fact, demand for that specific set of capabilities is apparently low enough to stop building them altogether. Even for A320 flights, most are not 3500 miles, even if the aircraft is capable of it.

If we could make progress targeting just short hops targeted by DASH-8s or CRJs or whatever, we could still make significant progress, even if it meant leaving the longer-haul flights alone, or targeting their emissions with different technologies (synthetic fuels from carbon capture, maybe).