Electric aircraft set to take flight by 2026 under new agreements • Hacker News Board

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

#41

Post by bamboozled » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 1:00 PM UTC

wongarsu wrote: post #3

Small aircraft on short routes are quite a niche market right now, but electric aircraft have a very good value proposition there, reducing both fuel and maintenance costs drastically. Depending on how things work out, in 10 years we might see a lot more flights in 10-30 seat electric aircraft, e.g. as connecting flights to tiny airports.

Also consider that hangers are often huge and could be covered in solar panels making the electricity to charge the planes.

Drastically reducing fuel costs.

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

#42

Post by choeger » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 1:05 PM UTC

bserge wrote: post #26

Aardwolf wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

This. People tend to grossly underestimate the expense and effort to build new rail tracks in an industrialized country. Most land is owned by someone already, there are environmental concerns, other (rail-)roads and generally obstacles must be crossed, and -worst of all- you have to repeat the process basically for every single town you want to connect.

Side remark: The same holds for roads, of course, with the notable caveat that roads form a flexible network automatically. Planes are just superlinear in their flexibility: If you have n airports and add one more, you get n new connections.

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

#43

Post by choeger » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 1:07 PM UTC

Milner08 wrote: post #18

iagovar wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trains take a lot more time, even HSR. I'm going to Madrid in the near future and I don't think I'll take a train, it's at least 6+ hours, and most of it is HSR.

How long is the flight in comparison? And have you factored in the airport time into that? I was looking at taking the Eurostar from London to Amsterdam, and a friend was dismissing it as it took 4 hours where as the flight is ~45 mins. Except its not, the flight its self maybe 45 mins, but you have to get to heathrow (which is further away than St Pancreas) plus get there an hour early. Then we would have to deal wi…

It also depends on train stations being accidentally close to where you depart/arrive. Most people don't live closer to a large train station then to an airport, I'd think.

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

#44

Post by thunderrabbit » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 1:09 PM UTC

itsrajju wrote: post #12

Wendover Productions (who else?!) recently released a video[1] on the future of electric planes. Quite a lot of information in there! [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH4b3sAs-l8

Wow this video was indeed so great that I signed up for their sponsor mentioned at the end!!

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

#45

Post by hu3 » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 1:09 PM UTC

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…

What's CAFE?

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

#46

Post by 5555624 » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 1:11 PM UTC

gameswithgo wrote: post #38

tokai wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably even worse, as fuel can be dumped.

you can dump batteries too

That could be more of a problem. Regardless of the height, dumping a battery means a projectile falling, which could injure someone or cause property damage.

If fuel is dumped high enough, it pretty much evaporates and doesn't fall to the ground. If the plane is low when it dumps fuel, it can hit the ground and bystanders; but, it's not going do much, if any damage. (Assuming it doesn't hit someones barbecue or a smoker.)

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

#47

Post by SonicScrub » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 1:11 PM UTC

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…

The Youtuber Real-Engineering (aerospace engineering background) has a good video discussing the viability of electric aircraft. Barring some dramatic revolution in battery energy density, electric aircraft beyond a certain range are simply not-feasible. They are very feasible for short-range routes though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNvzZfsC13o

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

#48

Post by GravitasFailure » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 1:12 PM UTC

bserge wrote: post #26

Aardwolf wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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 chance of being profitable, and I doubt it even makes environmental sense if you have to lay 70 miles of track to support it.

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

#49

Post by GravitasFailure » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 1:15 PM UTC

hu3 wrote: post #45

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…

What's CAFE?

Corporate Average Fuel Economy. It's a regulation mandating fuel efficiency for vehicles.

https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/corporate-average-fue... is the full explanation.

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

#50

Post by VBprogrammer » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 1:16 PM UTC

sandworm101 wrote: post #40

JasonFruit wrote: post #33

Note that they have agreed to buy them "conditionally… once the aircraft meet United's safety, business and operating requirements." The 2026 number in the title is probably without meaning. Nobody's meeting those requirements just yet.

>>Nobody's meeting those requirements just yet. Someone is. What is very interesting about Harbour Air's approach is that they are not creating new aircraft but rather retrofitting electric propulsion onto their existing fleet. This is not an electric engine filling a niche application. Rather, this is electric replacing combustion engines on very longstanding commercial routes. https://www.harbourair.com/harbour-air…

The eBeaver is about as relevant to conventional air travel as the existence of electric milk floats and forklifts was to ground transport for the past 50 years.