4 ms·

This is not true. It's easier to scale up. You get more efficient. Scaling up an electric motor is not particularly hard. Some of the largest machines in exist

This is not true. It's easier to scale up. You get more efficient. Scaling up an electric motor is not particularly hard. Some of the largest machines in existence are electric. Power is not a challenge for electric. In fact, this electrified seaplane has much more power (560kW) than the original radial piston engine one (336kW), and even more than the turboprop conversion (510kW). A LOT of very confident people on the Internet post lots of very wrong and/or outdated misinformation about electric aircraft (and electric vehicles in general). Energy is a challenge, but the answer there is to increase efficiency and increase the mass of the vehicle which is battery. Both of those together give you a usable range of about 1000km. The same motor provider, Magnix, is also providing the motors for the 1000km range Eviation Alice. Just because a conventional aircraft maker thinks something isn't possible, doesn't mean someone can't make it work. It most certainly doesn't require 30 times the energy density. For the same exact reason why electric cars don't require batteries with 30 times the energy density to compete with gasoline cars.

ben_w 7y ago
All depends on what you want. You can have “infinite” range with “no” battery — gliders are a thing, you can rise on thermals and turn the potential energy into kinetic to get wherever. But if you want to go as fast as a chemical engine and sustain that for as long as a chemical engine, you either need at least the energy density of a chemical fuel or some way to refuel in-flight. Fuel efficient often means “slow”. Great for cargo, not so much for passengers. Edit: Just to add, I’m looking forward to a future of short-range electric personal aircraft, I’m just not expecting pure electric intercontinental for anyone other than hobbyists — unless there’s a big breakthrough in density or wireless power transmission.
- Robotbeat 7y ago
  The longest range conventional chemical aircraft flew around the world without landing. It's not necessary to equal that range for any commercial application. Kerosene is better than it needs to be. Fuel efficient for aircraft doesn't necessarily mean slow, however (unlike ships). What matters is cruise lift to drag ratio. As long as you can adjust cruise altitude for peak efficiency and as long as all the flow is fully subsonic, then lift to drag ratio is mostly independent of speed (as you can increase altitude where the air is thinner to compensate). So yeah, electric aircraft might stay at Mach 0.5 or so, but they don't need to be slow. Mach 0.5 is still much faster than any passenger high speed rail service and MUCH faster than car or bus or boat. Pure electric intercontinental may be feasible for near-term chemistries like lithium-sulfur if you continue to push efficiencies (both structural and aerodynamic). Very long haul, like LA to Tokyo, will need lithium-air technology which is a few decades off.
- cjbprime 7y ago
  Electric motor gliders should be great! You only need the battery/prop for takeoff and occasional sustaining flight and the glide ratio is ~4x better than general aviation planes.
semi-extrinsic 7y ago
I'm not saying it's impossible to make a 5, 10, 15 seater all-electric work. I'm saying a 100 passenger all-electric will never fly without a revolution in battery tech. You say "just increase mass of the vehicle which is battery". If you read about this airplane you find that since they are using batteries with an appropriate safety rating for aviation, they've used all the space and mass already: "this eBeaver isn’t carrying passengers — there isn’t room — and will only have a 15-minute endurance with a 25-minute reserve." https://www.skiesmag.com/news/harbour-air-makes-history-with-electric-powered-beaver-flight/ https://www.skiesmag.com/news/harbour-air-makes-history-with... I tried finding concrete info about the Eviation Alice, but the best I could find was a photo of an unpowered full-scale model. They've been saying the first flight test is a couple of months away for more than one year it seems.
- dmix 7y ago
  I’m curious if there is some monetary trade off for the sound level: >> the plane’s four-bladed Hartzell composite propeller generated all of the remarkably quiet takeoff sound — a fraction of the thunder from the legacy Beaver’s radial piston Maybe they’ll get a special class to be able to launch closer to cities without the noise complaints. Although I’d imagine it’s still pretty loud. Also the bit after the paragraph about the batteries filling up the back mentions they didn’t use fully efficient batteries... they purposefully chose very safe but underpowered batteries previously used and flight tested by NASA for their own testing purposes instead of the higher end batteries used today in EV cars.
- Robotbeat 7y ago
  They're using an existing certified battery for the prototype, not for operations. It takes time to certify battery chemistries. And small general aviation aircraft like these usually only have a small portion of their takeoff weight as fuel, maybe 20-25%. But passenger aircraft may have 50% of their takeoff weight be fuel (for instance, 777 on long haul flights). Electric aircraft like Eviation will need to go further (55%). This is something you can do with a cleansheet design like Alice, but can't with a mere conversion designed literally over 70 years with manufacturing and materials from 70 years ago. And you can apply the same principle of increasing take-off weight fraction for kerosene-powered aircraft as well. The Virgin GlobalFlyer was 82% fuel on takeoff. It flew around the world and then some. Kerosene is much better than it needs to be to enable modern flight. You're absolutely right about Alice being late, but the design concept is a good example of what is possible. You combine state of the art but existing lithium ion chemistry (which needs some work for aviation certification but IS used on the ground already) with state of the art lift to drag ratio (and perhaps additional innovations, like wingtip propulsion to reduce losses from wingtip vortices) with efficient enough structural mass to enable 55% of the takeoff weight (as well as landing weight, of course) to be battery. These things multiply together to enable long range.
manigandham 7y ago
Cars are not airplanes. Electric cars are much heavier but weight isn't a big problem on the road. That's why they work, and they're still catching up to traditional range expectations. With airplanes, you have to lift that weight using the same energy stored within. In that case, energy density is the absolute issue. Nothing else matters. There's no magical solution, a high-school physics class will teach you how to calculate the potential energy requirement to lift up a certain amount of weight, and dividing by energy density and volume of current battery tech does not lead to a working jet any time soon.
- mcsb4 7y ago
  > the potential energy requirement to lift up a certain amount of weight, and dividing by energy density and volume of current battery tech does not lead to a working jet any time soon. E=mgh E=(1kg * 9.81m/s^2 * 10.000m) / 3600s = 27.25Wh. Tesla currently is at around 260Wh/kg thus roughly ten times the amount of potential energy needed to get to 10.000m altitude. I'd assume that till 2030 we get to ~500Wh/kg by improving current technology. And maybe some quantum leap to 1500-2000Wh/kg within 20 years. An A320 or A380 will likely always need a fuel cell but a 15 seater with 1000km range is only a question of time.
  - variaga 7y ago
    >Tesla currently is at around 260Wh/kg thus roughly ten times the amount of potential energy needed to get to 10.000m altitude. That's the energy - assuming 100% efficient conversion of battery power to altitude - to lift _only_ the battery to altitude (and then immediately fall back down). Actual engines are nowhere near that efficient and you'll presumably want to lift the rest of the airplane too. Then you have to keep using power to keep the plane aloft and land it safely. Your hypothetical 2000Wh/kg future batteries still have a specific energy less than 1/5 that of aviation fuel (Jet A = 11950Wh / kg). A 15-seater electric with 1000km range based on those magic (7.5x better than state-of-the-art) batteries would instantly upgrade to a 5000km range if you tore out the batteries and replaced them with a gas tank of equal weight. Batteries need a ~40x improvement in their specific energy density to make sense as an energy source for aircraft that depend on thrust for lift. Tragically, physics doesn't care that battery powered planes would be cool.
leoedin 7y ago
It's almost like you didn't read the comment you're replying to. It makes the absolutely valid point that the power requirements of a small jet airliner are many orders of magnitude greater than the power storage capabilities of any current battery technology. I don't really see how you refute that. Nobody's arguing you can't make a small electric plane work (clearly - the article is about one which works). Big ones are another thing altogether.

ben_w 7y ago

All depends on what you want. You can have “infinite” range with “no” battery — gliders are a thing, you can rise on thermals and turn the potential energy into kinetic to get wherever. But if you want to go as fast as a chemical engine and sustain that for as long as a chemical engine, you either need at least the energy density of a chemical fuel or some way to refuel in-flight. Fuel efficient often means “slow”. Great for cargo, not so much for passengers. Edit: Just to add, I’m looking forward to a future of short-range electric personal aircraft, I’m just not expecting pure electric intercontinental for anyone other than hobbyists — unless there’s a big breakthrough in density or wireless power transmission.

Robotbeat 7y ago
The longest range conventional chemical aircraft flew around the world without landing. It's not necessary to equal that range for any commercial application. Kerosene is better than it needs to be. Fuel efficient for aircraft doesn't necessarily mean slow, however (unlike ships). What matters is cruise lift to drag ratio. As long as you can adjust cruise altitude for peak efficiency and as long as all the flow is fully subsonic, then lift to drag ratio is mostly independent of speed (as you can increase altitude where the air is thinner to compensate). So yeah, electric aircraft might stay at Mach 0.5 or so, but they don't need to be slow. Mach 0.5 is still much faster than any passenger high speed rail service and MUCH faster than car or bus or boat. Pure electric intercontinental may be feasible for near-term chemistries like lithium-sulfur if you continue to push efficiencies (both structural and aerodynamic). Very long haul, like LA to Tokyo, will need lithium-air technology which is a few decades off.
cjbprime 7y ago
Electric motor gliders should be great! You only need the battery/prop for takeoff and occasional sustaining flight and the glide ratio is ~4x better than general aviation planes.

semi-extrinsic 7y ago

I'm not saying it's impossible to make a 5, 10, 15 seater all-electric work. I'm saying a 100 passenger all-electric will never fly without a revolution in battery tech. You say "just increase mass of the vehicle which is battery". If you read about this airplane you find that since they are using batteries with an appropriate safety rating for aviation, they've used all the space and mass already: "this eBeaver isn’t carrying passengers — there isn’t room — and will only have a 15-minute endurance with a 25-minute reserve." https://www.skiesmag.com/news/harbour-air-makes-history-with-electric-powered-beaver-flight/ https://www.skiesmag.com/news/harbour-air-makes-history-with... I tried finding concrete info about the Eviation Alice, but the best I could find was a photo of an unpowered full-scale model. They've been saying the first flight test is a couple of months away for more than one year it seems.

dmix 7y ago
I’m curious if there is some monetary trade off for the sound level: >> the plane’s four-bladed Hartzell composite propeller generated all of the remarkably quiet takeoff sound — a fraction of the thunder from the legacy Beaver’s radial piston Maybe they’ll get a special class to be able to launch closer to cities without the noise complaints. Although I’d imagine it’s still pretty loud. Also the bit after the paragraph about the batteries filling up the back mentions they didn’t use fully efficient batteries... they purposefully chose very safe but underpowered batteries previously used and flight tested by NASA for their own testing purposes instead of the higher end batteries used today in EV cars.
Robotbeat 7y ago
They're using an existing certified battery for the prototype, not for operations. It takes time to certify battery chemistries. And small general aviation aircraft like these usually only have a small portion of their takeoff weight as fuel, maybe 20-25%. But passenger aircraft may have 50% of their takeoff weight be fuel (for instance, 777 on long haul flights). Electric aircraft like Eviation will need to go further (55%). This is something you can do with a cleansheet design like Alice, but can't with a mere conversion designed literally over 70 years with manufacturing and materials from 70 years ago. And you can apply the same principle of increasing take-off weight fraction for kerosene-powered aircraft as well. The Virgin GlobalFlyer was 82% fuel on takeoff. It flew around the world and then some. Kerosene is much better than it needs to be to enable modern flight. You're absolutely right about Alice being late, but the design concept is a good example of what is possible. You combine state of the art but existing lithium ion chemistry (which needs some work for aviation certification but IS used on the ground already) with state of the art lift to drag ratio (and perhaps additional innovations, like wingtip propulsion to reduce losses from wingtip vortices) with efficient enough structural mass to enable 55% of the takeoff weight (as well as landing weight, of course) to be battery. These things multiply together to enable long range.

manigandham 7y ago

Cars are not airplanes. Electric cars are much heavier but weight isn't a big problem on the road. That's why they work, and they're still catching up to traditional range expectations. With airplanes, you have to lift that weight using the same energy stored within. In that case, energy density is the absolute issue. Nothing else matters. There's no magical solution, a high-school physics class will teach you how to calculate the potential energy requirement to lift up a certain amount of weight, and dividing by energy density and volume of current battery tech does not lead to a working jet any time soon.

mcsb4 7y ago
> the potential energy requirement to lift up a certain amount of weight, and dividing by energy density and volume of current battery tech does not lead to a working jet any time soon. E=mgh E=(1kg * 9.81m/s^2 * 10.000m) / 3600s = 27.25Wh. Tesla currently is at around 260Wh/kg thus roughly ten times the amount of potential energy needed to get to 10.000m altitude. I'd assume that till 2030 we get to ~500Wh/kg by improving current technology. And maybe some quantum leap to 1500-2000Wh/kg within 20 years. An A320 or A380 will likely always need a fuel cell but a 15 seater with 1000km range is only a question of time.
- variaga 7y ago
  >Tesla currently is at around 260Wh/kg thus roughly ten times the amount of potential energy needed to get to 10.000m altitude. That's the energy - assuming 100% efficient conversion of battery power to altitude - to lift _only_ the battery to altitude (and then immediately fall back down). Actual engines are nowhere near that efficient and you'll presumably want to lift the rest of the airplane too. Then you have to keep using power to keep the plane aloft and land it safely. Your hypothetical 2000Wh/kg future batteries still have a specific energy less than 1/5 that of aviation fuel (Jet A = 11950Wh / kg). A 15-seater electric with 1000km range based on those magic (7.5x better than state-of-the-art) batteries would instantly upgrade to a 5000km range if you tore out the batteries and replaced them with a gas tank of equal weight. Batteries need a ~40x improvement in their specific energy density to make sense as an energy source for aircraft that depend on thrust for lift. Tragically, physics doesn't care that battery powered planes would be cool.

leoedin 7y ago

It's almost like you didn't read the comment you're replying to. It makes the absolutely valid point that the power requirements of a small jet airliner are many orders of magnitude greater than the power storage capabilities of any current battery technology. I don't really see how you refute that. Nobody's arguing you can't make a small electric plane work (clearly - the article is about one which works). Big ones are another thing altogether.