4 ms·

From the article: "charging times correlate closely to flight times, says Ganzarski. That means the batteries would need about 30-40min of charging following a

From the article: "charging times correlate closely to flight times, says Ganzarski. That means the batteries would need about 30-40min of charging following a 30min flight. The weight of the batteries makes swapping spent cells for fresh cells unfeasible between flights, he says." Does utilization for these short-hop routes correlate to this sort of down time?

eigenvector 6y ago
It becomes more and more feasible the shorter the flight is, since the 'turnaround' time on the ground starts to become longer than the actual flight time. That's why Harbour Air, which operates ~20 minute seaplane flights from Vancouver, will probably one of the first airlines to operate electric aircraft in commercial service. https://www.harbourair.com/about/corporate-responsibility/goingelectric/ https://www.harbourair.com/about/corporate-responsibility/go...
ShakataGaNai 6y ago
It's probably longer than required for passenger flights. The Caravan is 9-13 passengers (depending), plus a little baggage. Wouldn't be hard to unload/load 10 people in less than 30 mn. However the question is how many small commuter airlines are operating a flight with repeated as-fast-as-possible turn around? Cargo configuration, certainly seems like you could charge it faster than a load/unload. The thing about fast turn around's is that planes only make money when flying. However a big part of flying is the expense of fuel. So if you can make your hour flight in $12 of electricity, that brings the cost way down. That offsets the cost of sitting on the ground for an extra X minutes. Also gotta take into account the electric versions reduced need and cost of maintenance. So there is reduced aircraft downtime for less maintenance, and it costs less each time. Overall, that probably greatly increases the time available to fly and therefor the profit potential for the plane.
- dzhiurgis 6y ago
  > Wouldn't be hard to unload/load 10 people in less than 30 mn. Ryanair is probably best at it, executing within time above but in a 737. You can hate Ryanair for some things, but I admire for how affordable they make flying.

eigenvector 6y ago

It becomes more and more feasible the shorter the flight is, since the 'turnaround' time on the ground starts to become longer than the actual flight time. That's why Harbour Air, which operates ~20 minute seaplane flights from Vancouver, will probably one of the first airlines to operate electric aircraft in commercial service. https://www.harbourair.com/about/corporate-responsibility/goingelectric/ https://www.harbourair.com/about/corporate-responsibility/go...

ShakataGaNai 6y ago

It's probably longer than required for passenger flights. The Caravan is 9-13 passengers (depending), plus a little baggage. Wouldn't be hard to unload/load 10 people in less than 30 mn. However the question is how many small commuter airlines are operating a flight with repeated as-fast-as-possible turn around? Cargo configuration, certainly seems like you could charge it faster than a load/unload. The thing about fast turn around's is that planes only make money when flying. However a big part of flying is the expense of fuel. So if you can make your hour flight in $12 of electricity, that brings the cost way down. That offsets the cost of sitting on the ground for an extra X minutes. Also gotta take into account the electric versions reduced need and cost of maintenance. So there is reduced aircraft downtime for less maintenance, and it costs less each time. Overall, that probably greatly increases the time available to fly and therefor the profit potential for the plane.

dzhiurgis 6y ago
> Wouldn't be hard to unload/load 10 people in less than 30 mn. Ryanair is probably best at it, executing within time above but in a 737. You can hate Ryanair for some things, but I admire for how affordable they make flying.