5 ms·

I’m not particularly superstitious, but getting on a “Bye” airplane still seems a bit like asking for it. More seriously though, the claimed cruise speed looks

by qzw 6y ago

I’m not particularly superstitious, but getting on a “Bye” airplane still seems a bit like asking for it. More seriously though, the claimed cruise speed looks competitive, but a 500nm range is a serious deficiency in this class of aircraft. I’m sure battery tech will get there one day, but there’s still a ways to go. I applaud the companies that are pushing the envelope, but I’m bearish on their chance of commercial success at this point.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
kicat 6y ago
DC to Boston and London to Paris both fall well within 500nm.
- dsr_ 6y ago
  Short flights are dominated by ground transport times (door-to-door). Assume that you need an hour to get to a general aviation airport, and an hour from the other GA airport to your final destination. Assume that you are a qualified pilot and have a driver's license and access to cars anywhere you want to go. 280 knots puts you in the air for not quite two hours, so a full-length flight is 4 hours or so door to door, moving you 560 miles or so. That's quite an improvement over a 10 hour car trip. But a 4 hour car trip will get you 220 miles, whereas the EFlyer still needs 2 hours 45 minutes to do that. The EFlyer can't get you anywhere in less than 2 hours, so anything under 120-150 miles you definitely want to do by car. If you have a bunch of cities that you want to visit often, which are more than 200 miles apart but less than 500 miles apart, all of which have general aviation strips convenient to your destinations, and most especially if you have 4-7 other people who all want to make the same trips... this could be a winner. Or you could telecommute.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    This range is also the sweet spot for high-speed rail which is far more efficient, in energy and travel time. France has even banned short-haul flights for this reason.
    - durandal1 6y ago
      But why would they ban short hops for highly efficient electric aircraft?
      - manigandham 6y ago
        They didn't. There are no commercial electric aircraft yet. They banned current commercial airliners due to carbon emissions.
  - durandal1 6y ago
    An hour to get to a GA airport is really uncommon in the US, most people live within 20 min. If you're a pilot-owner, then sure, it adds to the time, however this aircraft will most likely be professionally flown.
FDSGSG 6y ago
I think most commercial flights with these sorts of planes are sub 500nm, no? Think routes like ANU-SBH, TOB-MVY or MLE-Hotel. Where do you see frequent PC-12 ops requiring 500nm range?
d_silin 6y ago
Operational costs is the killer advantage here ("..one-fifth the operating costs of traditional twin turboprops...").
- tyingq 6y ago
  That feels like an extraordinary claim that calls for extraordinary detail and proof. Electric cars have lower operating and maintenance costs than ICE cars, but nothing huge like that...not even "half"...perhaps "3/4". I get that the spread would be larger for aircraft but "1/5" is a big claim. Maybe they are cherry picking the shortish time period before the aircraft needs its first major maintenance event? Edit: It's not the lower cost I'm disputing. It's the 1/5th bit. That's a huge claim that should come with some detail. How much of that is fuel cost, maintenance...over what time period?
  - laverya 6y ago
    I think it's quite possible that the maintenance events for an electric airplane are further apart and simpler than for a traditional engine, and those maintenance costs are a very major component of total infrastructure costs.
    - tyingq 6y ago
      Oh, me too. Just not to the degree that it would have 1/5th the operating costs. Especially considering the fuel doesn't get lighter as it's spent. One-fifth is a very strong claim.
  - andrepew 6y ago
    Engines are complicated and the maintenance and certification requirements on such a complex system in the context of aviation is very expensive. Airplane engines must be rebuilt at set time intervals even if they’re working perfectly because of what is at stake if they fail. Electric motors are vastly simpler devices with far less moving parts. Much less to go wrong, much less to inspect and replace. These are savings even before you get to talk about energy efficiency. These savings aren’t realized in the car market because if the motor of a car fails, it is just an inconvenience. All that extra work doesn’t exist. These savings aren’t theoretical either —- there are smaller scale electric aircraft used for pilot training on the market already. An hour of time in a Cessna costs $150ish/hour, these new electric planes are boasting costs of around $30/hour.
nostromo 6y ago
> 500nm range is a serious deficiency in this class of aircraft My thoughts exactly. What happens when you fly 400 miles and need to divert to another airport because you can’t land at your destination. Talk about range anxiety! Batteries make sense for cars, but I doubt aircraft will ever be mostly electric. There are other ways of making them green that make more sense, like hydrogen.
- stickfigure 6y ago
  You don't just go up in the air and wander around yelping various airports; air travel is meticulously planned. There's no "range anxiety", your destination is either within range or not and you figure that out on the ground.
  - nostromo 6y ago
    Hah... you should talk to more GA folks, which are the people who will be flying this plane. Think: doctors, software engineers, and car dealership owners.
- ipython 6y ago
  Gasoline powered engines also fail once the tanks are empty... This is why you have the 45 minute fuel (battery) reserve, to deal with scenarios like this. It’s well covered in all pilot training.
- jeffreyrogers 6y ago
  > There are other ways of making them green that make more sense, like hydrogen. Or just producing fuel in a carbon neutral way. Seems crazy to add the weight of batteries which are less energy dense when you can have higher energy density fuel that gets lighter as the flight goes on.
- TylerE 6y ago
  The 500nm is quoted, as with all aircraft ranges, with the legally-mandated 45 minute reserve. So it's 500nm + 45 minutes at cruise speed (= ~200nm or so)
thrill 6y ago
Wanting 1500 nm range if 500 is sufficient is the airborne version of unnecessary range anxiety.
jiofih 6y ago
This is targeting regional flights - a quick search tells me the average regional flight distance is exactly 495 miles.
azepoi 6y ago
There is another one called Boom. I am aware it is about sonic boom but still.

by qzw 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

kicat 6y ago

DC to Boston and London to Paris both fall well within 500nm.

dsr_ 6y ago
Short flights are dominated by ground transport times (door-to-door). Assume that you need an hour to get to a general aviation airport, and an hour from the other GA airport to your final destination. Assume that you are a qualified pilot and have a driver's license and access to cars anywhere you want to go. 280 knots puts you in the air for not quite two hours, so a full-length flight is 4 hours or so door to door, moving you 560 miles or so. That's quite an improvement over a 10 hour car trip. But a 4 hour car trip will get you 220 miles, whereas the EFlyer still needs 2 hours 45 minutes to do that. The EFlyer can't get you anywhere in less than 2 hours, so anything under 120-150 miles you definitely want to do by car. If you have a bunch of cities that you want to visit often, which are more than 200 miles apart but less than 500 miles apart, all of which have general aviation strips convenient to your destinations, and most especially if you have 4-7 other people who all want to make the same trips... this could be a winner. Or you could telecommute.
- manigandham 6y ago
  This range is also the sweet spot for high-speed rail which is far more efficient, in energy and travel time. France has even banned short-haul flights for this reason.
  - durandal1 6y ago
    But why would they ban short hops for highly efficient electric aircraft?
    - manigandham 6y ago
      They didn't. There are no commercial electric aircraft yet. They banned current commercial airliners due to carbon emissions.
- durandal1 6y ago
  An hour to get to a GA airport is really uncommon in the US, most people live within 20 min. If you're a pilot-owner, then sure, it adds to the time, however this aircraft will most likely be professionally flown.

FDSGSG 6y ago

I think most commercial flights with these sorts of planes are sub 500nm, no? Think routes like ANU-SBH, TOB-MVY or MLE-Hotel. Where do you see frequent PC-12 ops requiring 500nm range?

d_silin 6y ago

Operational costs is the killer advantage here ("..one-fifth the operating costs of traditional twin turboprops...").

tyingq 6y ago
That feels like an extraordinary claim that calls for extraordinary detail and proof. Electric cars have lower operating and maintenance costs than ICE cars, but nothing huge like that...not even "half"...perhaps "3/4". I get that the spread would be larger for aircraft but "1/5" is a big claim. Maybe they are cherry picking the shortish time period before the aircraft needs its first major maintenance event? Edit: It's not the lower cost I'm disputing. It's the 1/5th bit. That's a huge claim that should come with some detail. How much of that is fuel cost, maintenance...over what time period?
- laverya 6y ago
  I think it's quite possible that the maintenance events for an electric airplane are further apart and simpler than for a traditional engine, and those maintenance costs are a very major component of total infrastructure costs.
  - tyingq 6y ago
    Oh, me too. Just not to the degree that it would have 1/5th the operating costs. Especially considering the fuel doesn't get lighter as it's spent. One-fifth is a very strong claim.
- andrepew 6y ago
  Engines are complicated and the maintenance and certification requirements on such a complex system in the context of aviation is very expensive. Airplane engines must be rebuilt at set time intervals even if they’re working perfectly because of what is at stake if they fail. Electric motors are vastly simpler devices with far less moving parts. Much less to go wrong, much less to inspect and replace. These are savings even before you get to talk about energy efficiency. These savings aren’t realized in the car market because if the motor of a car fails, it is just an inconvenience. All that extra work doesn’t exist. These savings aren’t theoretical either —- there are smaller scale electric aircraft used for pilot training on the market already. An hour of time in a Cessna costs $150ish/hour, these new electric planes are boasting costs of around $30/hour.

nostromo 6y ago

> 500nm range is a serious deficiency in this class of aircraft My thoughts exactly. What happens when you fly 400 miles and need to divert to another airport because you can’t land at your destination. Talk about range anxiety! Batteries make sense for cars, but I doubt aircraft will ever be mostly electric. There are other ways of making them green that make more sense, like hydrogen.

stickfigure 6y ago
You don't just go up in the air and wander around yelping various airports; air travel is meticulously planned. There's no "range anxiety", your destination is either within range or not and you figure that out on the ground.
- nostromo 6y ago
  Hah... you should talk to more GA folks, which are the people who will be flying this plane. Think: doctors, software engineers, and car dealership owners.
ipython 6y ago
Gasoline powered engines also fail once the tanks are empty... This is why you have the 45 minute fuel (battery) reserve, to deal with scenarios like this. It’s well covered in all pilot training.
jeffreyrogers 6y ago
> There are other ways of making them green that make more sense, like hydrogen. Or just producing fuel in a carbon neutral way. Seems crazy to add the weight of batteries which are less energy dense when you can have higher energy density fuel that gets lighter as the flight goes on.
TylerE 6y ago
The 500nm is quoted, as with all aircraft ranges, with the legally-mandated 45 minute reserve. So it's 500nm + 45 minutes at cruise speed (= ~200nm or so)

thrill 6y ago

Wanting 1500 nm range if 500 is sufficient is the airborne version of unnecessary range anxiety.

jiofih 6y ago

This is targeting regional flights - a quick search tells me the average regional flight distance is exactly 495 miles.

azepoi 6y ago

There is another one called Boom. I am aware it is about sonic boom but still.