18 ms·

Electric aircraft set to take flight by 2026 under new agreements

165 points by fdalvi 5y ago

Proven 5y ago
Why the hell would anyone choose to take those instead of what works today? Oh, I see: chaeper ticket prices due to taxpayer-subsidized operational costs...
wongarsu 5y ago
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.
- username_my1 5y ago
  I mean in Europe all capitals are within 100s/1000s of km from each others... and inner country travel is definitely within the 100km range. This has a huge potential, but I don't know if it will improve overtime, since energy density of Li-ion is a hard limit.
  - rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
    We already have trains, you know.
    - iagovar 5y ago
      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.
      - Milner08 5y ago
        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 with Schiphol and getting to the center of Amsterdam. To me the prospect of spending 4 hours sat down on the train and arriving directly in central Amsterdam, all the while with more space than a plane is much better than the prospect of 4 hours of that. Now obviously that's a very niche case, and for most people it doesn't make as much sense, but I think people get scared off by the long train times but ignore the extra time needed around the flight.
        choeger 5y ago
        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.
        gspr 5y ago
        Large train stations are far more common than large airports in Europe, so you got this the wrong way around.
        choeger 5y ago
        How many of these train stations have been built after 1950? And what defines "large" in both cases?
        jeltz 5y ago
        The train station in my city has 80 million travellers per year compared to the airport which only has 27 million. And while I do not think many train stations have been built since the 1950s many have been expanded.
    - bertil 5y ago
      Trains are great in many cases, but there’s some limit to tunnels and bridges: you can go from Stockholm to Berlin directly, but Stockholm to Helsinki is harder (that’s actually the destination that the plane is likely to cover); Manchester to Amsterdam is feasible by train in theory, but given the constraints around London and the Channel Tunnel, unlikely to loose its flight connection. Same for Aberdeen to Oslo. Many of those are over seas, so an ekranoplane would make sense, if you want to lower the energy output, but a tradition train won’t work for many cases.
      - rjsw 5y ago
        Manchester to Amsterdam is further than the distance targeted by these first electric aircraft, getting between a runway and a gate at Schiphol is probably beyond their range too.
        bertil 5y ago
        I feel like you could handle Manchester to Lowestoft by train, then fly over the water The Hague and finish on a train. Don’t get me started on the distances in Schipol: had too many race to catch tight connections at that airport…
      - fogihujy 5y ago
        Helsinki - Stockholm has too many travellers for a 19-seater. :) Planes like this will most likely be used for routes from very small local airports to larger regional ones. I'd guess it's more likely to cover things like Rønne - Copenhagen, or Mariehamn - Helsinki.
      - Robotbeat 5y ago
        I wanted to love ekranoplanes, but although they have greater lift for a given span, they don’t have superior lift to drag ratios, which is what limits efficiency.
        bertil 5y ago
        You could imagine a propulsion or even a lift mechanism closer to what is used for a hydrofoil. Modern sails or kites could improve the propulsion and handle the drag better. I feel like we can make fast trains really worth it, but it makes the few connections I mentioned under-supported if you want to remain below a certain carbon footprint.
    - Robotbeat 5y ago
      Every time someone points out how we “have trains already” it makes me think: It’ll take less time to have operational electric passenger flights than it would to build a new high speed rail route. Particularly in the US (Europe is admittedly much better than the US in that regard).
  - dillondoyle 5y ago
    For me only if we figure out how to shorten airport time. Otherwise train in europe is easier - and usually located directly downtown or close instead of an hour in a car with traffic.
    - mastax 5y ago
      If someone gets a bomb on a train we'll figure out how to lengthen train station time...
      - jeltz 5y ago
        If? Spain has security checks on major train stations which makes it slower than in other countries but still way faster than airports. Trains have way more doors for example and it is easier to get a timeslot to leave than it is to get one to taxi.
    - Robotbeat 5y ago
      Small aircraft can operate from regional airport which are much, much faster to board and disembark from then the large airports that behemoths have to use. I really don’t understand all the hate for a smaller electric aircraft. There are tons of advantages, and the difference in pilot labor costs are practically trivial. (I think a big driver for larger aircraft had been reducing number of engines per passenger as jet engines are expensive to maintain and the larger ones are also more efficient, but this isn’t really applicable to electric motors.)
    - marcosdumay 5y ago
      In principle, smaller planes could have a shorten airport time and use a closer airport. I don't think it will happen, or at least that it will happen any time soon, but this is one problem that can be solved.
  - canadianfella 5y ago
    I mean.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    Small electric planes do not fly as fast as the current passenger Jets, theor speed is going to be comparable to a high speed train. In fact i'd say europe could avoid airplanes entirely if it could sort out it's rail network, but, alas, going from Londom to Prague I'd have to change like 6 trains. You have to cross many different national signalling systems, gauge sizes and ticket offices.
    - iSnow 5y ago
      Track gauge is the same all over western and central Europe. And Europe is slowly but surely moving towards ERTMS/ETCS() for train control. Different voltages and frequencies are a problem but less than in the past thanks to modern electronics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Train_Control_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Train_Control_System
- z303 5y ago
  Harbour Air in Vancouver are an example of that. Hopefully in service much earlier https://www.flightglobal.com/aerospace/harbour-air-to-resume-electric-powered-beaver-flights-as-certification-work-begins/136071.article https://www.flightglobal.com/aerospace/harbour-air-to-resume...
  - cpncrunch 5y ago
    Update here: https://skiesmag.com/news/harbour-air-magnix-join-forces-h55-certify-first-electric-commercial-airplane/ https://skiesmag.com/news/harbour-air-magnix-join-forces-h55...
- jillesvangurp 5y ago
  Potentially they have about the same cost profile as a taxi over the same distance long term. Low noise also means access to smaller and more conveniently located airports. Initially, the novelty value will mean high demand, pricing, and relatively low cost compared to flying a small traditional plane. So great business opportunity if you can get a few planes.
- bamboozled 5y ago
  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.
  - kevincox 5y ago
    That seems irrelevant as that electricity could be collected and used whether or not it is used for planes. So while that may be a good idea it has little if any influence on whether or not it makes sense to use electric planes.
    - bamboozled 5y ago
      When it comes to affecting the price of flights it would? Imagine if an airline could generate it's own power and not have to pay a third party for electricity to charge planes.
      - kevincox 5y ago
        But they could equivalently sell the electricity and buy jet fuel with the profit. Sure, the margins are slightly worse but it doesn't significantly change the equation.
- dheera 5y ago
  How much of their weight is batteries?
thedrbrian 5y ago
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_aircraft#Commuter_flights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Commu...
- ZanyProgrammer 5y ago
  It’s 130 miles from Portland International to SeaTac, and there absolutely are a ton of Alaska Airlines flights between the two cities.
  - apendleton 5y ago
    True, but if you don't have a car and are going downtown to downtown, it's probably faster to take a train or bus, given that it takes almost an hour to get from downtown Seattle to SeaTac by transit and a shorter-but-still-nontrivial amount of time into Portland on the Max on the other end, plus ticketing, boarding, etc. I think it really only makes sense if you're connecting.
- kylehotchkiss 5y ago
  It's all connecting to bigger flights. 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. The smaller cities in question for these routes aren't going to have any sort of usable bus service for making a flight on time. To answer your cargo question: probably not much. The distance is within a normal delivery range of some rural UPS/Fedex/DHL routes. Making people in these smaller cities go to the airport to pick up boxes just makes a lot of work for them. source: my own experience taking loud proppy planes between Roanoke VA to Charlotte, NC to connect to a larger flight
  - 5y ago
itsrajju 5y ago
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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH4b3sAs-l8
- canadianfella 5y ago
  Why “who else”?
  - scrollaway 5y ago
    I suspect it was in jest, but the reason why is that he is obviously immensely passionated about aviation and logistics. He makes really, really good videos about both, I'd recommend his channel to anyone. PS, I had to vouch for your comment to reply, as it was dead. Had a look through your profile… I think there's often a lot of value in asking simple questions, but a lot of your comment history is just extremely low value (eg. correcting people's spelling). If you don't have anything meaningful to add to a discussion, maybe consider not replying at all.
    - itsrajju 5y ago
      It was indeed in jest! Wendover's videos have been consistently increasing in quality over the years. The amount of research that goes into each one is phenomenal. So much so that lately if I ever come across any aviation topic on the internet, there's already a Wendover video about it. :)
      - neither_color 5y ago
        The only reason I pay for youtube premium is for creators like Wendover, Extreme Engineering, Smarter Every Day, etc. There are a lot of independent science, economics, and history channels there that are too good for YT but depend on the traffic for survival. Some have made attempts to switch to other platforms like Nebula but they dont have the mass yet.
mustafa_pasi 5y ago
Digging through their website[1] trying to figure them out. Seems to me that the whole business proposition depends on their understanding that Norway, Sweden, (and I guess they expect others to follow) will mandate all short flights being electric in the next decade. They also say turboprops are higher maintenance and this expense reduces the viability of short flying routes, and I guess their implication is that electric will be cheaper. I am not sold on that one. 95% of the maintenance cost is the routine inspection. You'd have to do a routine inspection on electric propulsion as well. This is all just speculation until you see it in action. [1] https://heartaerospace.com/ https://heartaerospace.com/
- sandworm101 5y ago
  95% of daily maintenance costs. Overhaul costs of jet/turboprop engines are considerable, several hundred thousand dollars per engine. A reasonable operating budget is about 1000$/hour per engine. Electric engines should avoid overhaul costs, and the fuel costs would be practically zero.
- HPsquared 5y ago
  Gas turbine engines have critical components which can have gradual failure (fatigue particularly, and creep) which need regular inspection to catch small defects before they grow to critical size. They also have large numbers of high-temperature, stressed components. Electric motors are generally much simpler in construction and wouldn't need nearly as much mechanical inspection. The difficult/expensive part is the battery, but that's going to have more onboard condition monitoring and will be simply replaced periodically, not subject to regular teardown inspections. The cost of ongoing battery replacements might be significant, though.
spodek 5y ago
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 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 747s, aren't we just at the Wright brothers stage now, but am starting to conclude it's not possible.
- busterarm 5y ago
  Unless the energy density of batteries suddenly goes up 50x to meet avgas, then no it's extremely unlikely. Even with road vehicles, electric is only viable right now to the weight and load of your average 4-door sedan.
- SonicScrub 5y ago
  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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNvzZfsC13o
  - topkai22 5y ago
    I think the caveat here is "battery powered electric aircraft." Fuel cells have much higher energy density IIRC. It's not inconceivable that fuel cell electric planes could become a thing as well, especially if these early BEV show other benefits around maintainability, noise reduction, etc. I think its a long shot though, as jet fuel + carbon capture will probably be price competitive before fuel cell airliners become a thing.
    - benhurmarcel 5y ago
      Fuel cell aircraft are very much a thing, and are being researched by the biggest companies in the industry. But they’d be called hydrogen aircraft rather than electric by most people.
crossroadsguy 5y ago
Will one of the benefits be absence of copious amounts of highly inflammable liquid on it in the event of crashes?
- damsta 5y ago
  Won't batteries be a problem now?
  - zinekeller 5y ago
    Good point. The Dreamliner has such problems in its Li-ion batteries to the point that the weight savings due to composite construction was subsequently nullified by metal retrofits to contain battery fires (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner_battery_problems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner_battery_...). Additionally, IATA has put strict limits on Li-ion cargo due to Lithium being too reactive, so any plane with Lithium batteries must consider that.
    - mastax 5y ago
      It negated the benefits of the lighter batteries, not the benefit of the composite airframe.
  - tokai 5y ago
    Probably even worse, as fuel can be dumped.
    - gameswithgo 5y ago
      you can dump batteries too
      - 5555624 5y ago
        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.)
JasonFruit 5y ago
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.
- sandworm101 5y ago
  >>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-magnix-and-h55-partner-for-the-worlds-first-certified-all-electric-commercial-airplane/ https://www.harbourair.com/harbour-air-magnix-and-h55-partne... "After the successful first flight of the Harbour Air eBeaver powered by magniX in December 2019 and the ongoing flight tests since then, the companies have teamed up with H55 to bring their shared vision of clean, efficient and quiet commercial aviation to life by 2022. H55 will provide its proven modular battery technology to expand the eBeaver’s balance to weight ratio and endurance. The company’s battery modules have one of the highest energy densities on the market and will provide the entire energy storage system and redundant battery monitoring at the cell level for the eBeaver. "
  - VBprogrammer 5y ago
    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.
    - sandworm101 5y ago
      I take it that you have never been to Alaska. Or BC. Or Washington. Or anywhere else with more trees than people. Without bushplanes the entire resource extraction industry would grind to a halt. The conversion of a Beaver to electric follows on the past turbo-beaver conversion. It matters and is being watched by the industry.
dogman144 5y ago
I was professionally close with an engineer who used to work on a (rapidly dwindling headcount) team responsible for the programs and related QA for mission critical flight safety systems. Think one of the big manufacturers. The eng dealt with: The standard was scripts with mutable variables such as `G == , B == , C == , redefine G as something else later` responsible for the processes around pretty critical airplane innards. QA down to 1 or 2 headcount, and those 1 or 2 also doing the above program writing. Zero hand-off once leaving the job on the mission critical QA the eng was responsible for, not for lack of effort on the engs part. Managers not aware the eng was leaving until day-of. I could go on and on, but the point: I'm not sure how I feel about the safety of airplane travel after the above, but at least the engines were internal combustion so somewhat tied to physics vs. programming logic. A future with electric airplanes scare me a bit though. The software in them is aggressively, poorly done. I know airplanes are designed w/ fail-safes on the fail-safes and that eng had their own limited view of a complex system. But, it was bad.
- whoisthemachine 5y ago
  Most of your point is well made, but electric engines are just as tied to physics, unless I'm missing something? Doesn't mean quality of the control software is still not concerning.
  - karagenit 5y ago
    I think what they're trying to say is that the types of electric motors used in vehicles (like switched reluctance motors[1]) typically require a computerized controller that someone has to program, and therefore has an additional point of failure from a software standpoint. However, I'm pretty sure any modern internal combustion engine will have a highly advanced ECU computer too, so this is sort of a non-issue (though I'll admit I don't know much about aircraft engines specifically). [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switched_reluctance_motor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switched_reluctance_motor
    - whoisthemachine 5y ago
jcims 5y ago
This video from magniX shows one major advantage of electric aircraft: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDtduvin9Mw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDtduvin9Mw There's almost nothing to inspect or maintain.
- aerospace_guy 5y ago
  Huh? I see a lot of parts that can fail. What do you mean?
  - kaba0 5y ago
    Compared to a jet engine that moves at high speeds under great pressure and heat?
    - aerospace_guy 5y ago
      For sure, you're right that compared to a jet engine there are fewer parts. The caveat is you're comparing a large engine (and aircraft) with a much smaller one. Electric aircraft of today can't go anywhere near the range of jet engine powered aircraft, and hence the engine sizes are similarly sized. It's not a fair comparison, but you are right.
  - jcims 5y ago
    Tearing this down for inspection vs. a turboprop, for example, would be a dream.
    - aerospace_guy 5y ago
      I agree! Just that saying "almost nothing to inspect or maintain" is not true.
kragen 5y ago
This is unlikely to come to pass because batteries weigh something like 80× as much as the corresponding jet fuel: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=kragen https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=kragen This means much less efficient flight, because lift costs energy, or much slower flight. But it's more plausible for these very short flights than for longer flights. Solar-powered synfuel seems like a more likely mass alternative for the near future (02030-02050).
mch82 5y ago
Is there a list of other YCombinator aviation startups?
nazrulmum10 5y ago
Breakthrough Energy Ventures is the leading voice of investors who are supporting clean-energy technology creation
gamegoblin 5y ago
I recently had a pie-in-the-sky business idea and I would love for someone who knows more about the industry why it will definitely fail. I assume it's unworkable for a lot of reasons, but it is just plausible enough to be a fun idea for a sci-fi novel. Get a fleet of 2-4 seater unpowered glider planes [1] Get a bunch of rural properties spaced ~100km apart. Put little glider landing and launch strips on each property. Use a powerful electric winch to launch the gliders. Develop software that can fly the planes autonomously from strip to strip (I assume this is the really hard part, but I am under the impression that autonomous flying is a much easier problem than autonomous driving?). You now have the ability to shuttle passengers around your network of airstrips at ~200kph for the cost of electricity used by your winches and maintenance of the glider fleet. My thought is that the electricity of the winches is pretty minimal and could be served with some locally installed solar panels and batteries, and the maintenance is super low since the gliders don't have many moving parts onboard. The main use-case would be city-to-city short hops that are currently poorly served by rail. It's far easier to build a string of small airstrips than a whole rail corridor. This idea came to me when thinking about SpaceX's recent plans to catch their Starship boosters out of the air instead of having landing gear on them. The reasoning is that you can have essentially unlimited mass for ground support equipment, but mass on the booster is precious. So you offload the landing gear from the booster to the ground support equipment, even if it's big and complicated. This idea is like electric aircraft, but you've offloaded the propulsion and batteries to the ground support equipment. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glider_(sailplane) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glider_(sailplane)
- thehappypm 5y ago
  Gliders don't launch by winch. They are towed up to launch height by powered planes. Also, gliders are not really able to handle emergencies that well since they are unpowered -- if there's a need to divert or something, they're completely at the mercy of their own gravitational energy. Gliders are usually very safe to fly in because they're very light and maneuverable, and crash-landings are usually OK. That safety net completely evaporates with thousands of pounds of human cargo.
- Izikiel43 5y ago
  Wouldn't landing be the hardest part?
gunapologist99 5y ago
One of the things that helped Southwest dominate in the short-haul space, particularly in the Texas Triangle, was optimizing "turn-time" with a target of less than 10 minutes to both deplane and board passengers (10 minutes!)[0] I wonder how lengthy charge cycles will affect the viability of fast turn times, especially for the short-haul segments that they're targeting for these new airliners. It seems like they'll need to either have extremely fast charging or be prepared for significant downtime between flights; where will the planes be stored while they're charging? It's important to both invest in and appear to be investing in the future, but even a soft commitment of 100 planes seems like quite a bit, especially in the very competitive and cost-focused short-haul space. 0. https://www.npr.org/2015/06/28/418147961/the-man-who-saved-southwest-airlines-with-a-10-minute-idea https://www.npr.org/2015/06/28/418147961/the-man-who-saved-s...
- wtvanhest 5y ago
  That seems like an important question. Maybe they will have a lot of individual batteries that they can charge simultaneously. Alternatively, maybe they could swap out the bottom of the fuselage or wings.
- tadfisher 5y ago
  Battery swaps could be viable, barring some complications in gate infrastructure and airframe design. Obviously this would be impossible if airframe designers incorporate battery cells in structural members, as some suggest to offset the weight penalty.
  - nielsbot 5y ago
    The "more info" page on their website says they are ruling out battery swaps, at least for now, since a battery swap would require a mechanical certification every time it was done. They are swappable though: they explain that used battery packs can be replaced and that used packs can be used for a second purpose with less stringent requirements. For example, an energy storage facility at the airport.
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
Tempest1981 5y ago
Nova (PBS) had a show recently: https://www.pbs.org/video/great-electric-airplane-race-yija0p/ https://www.pbs.org/video/great-electric-airplane-race-yija0... (requires member login) It highlighted a few Bay Area startups. Sounded like smaller commuter planes would be first. There were also hybrid designs, which reduced fuel use significantly.
romski 5y ago
Green aside, this was an interesting video explaining that for short flights electric planes are extremely lucrative https://youtu.be/aH4b3sAs-l8 https://youtu.be/aH4b3sAs-l8 [wendover]
FabHK 5y ago
FWIW, TU Delft/EdX have a nice short MOOC on sustainable aviation: https://online-learning.tudelft.nl/courses/sustainable-aviation-the-route-to-climate-neutral-aviation/ https://online-learning.tudelft.nl/courses/sustainable-aviat... https://www.edx.org/course/sustainable-aviation https://www.edx.org/course/sustainable-aviation

165 points by fdalvi 5y ago

Why the hell would anyone choose to take those instead of what works today? Oh, I see: chaeper ticket prices due to taxpayer-subsidized operational costs...

wongarsu 5y ago

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.

username_my1 5y ago
I mean in Europe all capitals are within 100s/1000s of km from each others... and inner country travel is definitely within the 100km range. This has a huge potential, but I don't know if it will improve overtime, since energy density of Li-ion is a hard limit.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
  We already have trains, you know.
  - iagovar 5y ago
    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.
    - Milner08 5y ago
      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 with Schiphol and getting to the center of Amsterdam. To me the prospect of spending 4 hours sat down on the train and arriving directly in central Amsterdam, all the while with more space than a plane is much better than the prospect of 4 hours of that. Now obviously that's a very niche case, and for most people it doesn't make as much sense, but I think people get scared off by the long train times but ignore the extra time needed around the flight.
      - choeger 5y ago
        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.
        gspr 5y ago
        Large train stations are far more common than large airports in Europe, so you got this the wrong way around.
        choeger 5y ago
        How many of these train stations have been built after 1950? And what defines "large" in both cases?
        jeltz 5y ago
        The train station in my city has 80 million travellers per year compared to the airport which only has 27 million. And while I do not think many train stations have been built since the 1950s many have been expanded.
  - bertil 5y ago
    Trains are great in many cases, but there’s some limit to tunnels and bridges: you can go from Stockholm to Berlin directly, but Stockholm to Helsinki is harder (that’s actually the destination that the plane is likely to cover); Manchester to Amsterdam is feasible by train in theory, but given the constraints around London and the Channel Tunnel, unlikely to loose its flight connection. Same for Aberdeen to Oslo. Many of those are over seas, so an ekranoplane would make sense, if you want to lower the energy output, but a tradition train won’t work for many cases.
    - rjsw 5y ago
      Manchester to Amsterdam is further than the distance targeted by these first electric aircraft, getting between a runway and a gate at Schiphol is probably beyond their range too.
      - bertil 5y ago
        I feel like you could handle Manchester to Lowestoft by train, then fly over the water The Hague and finish on a train. Don’t get me started on the distances in Schipol: had too many race to catch tight connections at that airport…
    - fogihujy 5y ago
      Helsinki - Stockholm has too many travellers for a 19-seater. :) Planes like this will most likely be used for routes from very small local airports to larger regional ones. I'd guess it's more likely to cover things like Rønne - Copenhagen, or Mariehamn - Helsinki.
    - Robotbeat 5y ago
      I wanted to love ekranoplanes, but although they have greater lift for a given span, they don’t have superior lift to drag ratios, which is what limits efficiency.
      - bertil 5y ago
        You could imagine a propulsion or even a lift mechanism closer to what is used for a hydrofoil. Modern sails or kites could improve the propulsion and handle the drag better. I feel like we can make fast trains really worth it, but it makes the few connections I mentioned under-supported if you want to remain below a certain carbon footprint.
  - Robotbeat 5y ago
    Every time someone points out how we “have trains already” it makes me think: It’ll take less time to have operational electric passenger flights than it would to build a new high speed rail route. Particularly in the US (Europe is admittedly much better than the US in that regard).
- dillondoyle 5y ago
  For me only if we figure out how to shorten airport time. Otherwise train in europe is easier - and usually located directly downtown or close instead of an hour in a car with traffic.
  - mastax 5y ago
    If someone gets a bomb on a train we'll figure out how to lengthen train station time...
    - jeltz 5y ago
      If? Spain has security checks on major train stations which makes it slower than in other countries but still way faster than airports. Trains have way more doors for example and it is easier to get a timeslot to leave than it is to get one to taxi.
  - Robotbeat 5y ago
    Small aircraft can operate from regional airport which are much, much faster to board and disembark from then the large airports that behemoths have to use. I really don’t understand all the hate for a smaller electric aircraft. There are tons of advantages, and the difference in pilot labor costs are practically trivial. (I think a big driver for larger aircraft had been reducing number of engines per passenger as jet engines are expensive to maintain and the larger ones are also more efficient, but this isn’t really applicable to electric motors.)
  - marcosdumay 5y ago
    In principle, smaller planes could have a shorten airport time and use a closer airport. I don't think it will happen, or at least that it will happen any time soon, but this is one problem that can be solved.
- canadianfella 5y ago
  I mean.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  Small electric planes do not fly as fast as the current passenger Jets, theor speed is going to be comparable to a high speed train. In fact i'd say europe could avoid airplanes entirely if it could sort out it's rail network, but, alas, going from Londom to Prague I'd have to change like 6 trains. You have to cross many different national signalling systems, gauge sizes and ticket offices.
  - iSnow 5y ago
    Track gauge is the same all over western and central Europe. And Europe is slowly but surely moving towards ERTMS/ETCS() for train control. Different voltages and frequencies are a problem but less than in the past thanks to modern electronics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Train_Control_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Train_Control_System
z303 5y ago
Harbour Air in Vancouver are an example of that. Hopefully in service much earlier https://www.flightglobal.com/aerospace/harbour-air-to-resume-electric-powered-beaver-flights-as-certification-work-begins/136071.article https://www.flightglobal.com/aerospace/harbour-air-to-resume...
- cpncrunch 5y ago
  Update here: https://skiesmag.com/news/harbour-air-magnix-join-forces-h55-certify-first-electric-commercial-airplane/ https://skiesmag.com/news/harbour-air-magnix-join-forces-h55...
jillesvangurp 5y ago
Potentially they have about the same cost profile as a taxi over the same distance long term. Low noise also means access to smaller and more conveniently located airports. Initially, the novelty value will mean high demand, pricing, and relatively low cost compared to flying a small traditional plane. So great business opportunity if you can get a few planes.
bamboozled 5y ago
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.
- kevincox 5y ago
  That seems irrelevant as that electricity could be collected and used whether or not it is used for planes. So while that may be a good idea it has little if any influence on whether or not it makes sense to use electric planes.
  - bamboozled 5y ago
    When it comes to affecting the price of flights it would? Imagine if an airline could generate it's own power and not have to pay a third party for electricity to charge planes.
    - kevincox 5y ago
      But they could equivalently sell the electricity and buy jet fuel with the profit. Sure, the margins are slightly worse but it doesn't significantly change the equation.
dheera 5y ago
How much of their weight is batteries?

thedrbrian 5y ago

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_aircraft#Commuter_flights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Commu...

ZanyProgrammer 5y ago
It’s 130 miles from Portland International to SeaTac, and there absolutely are a ton of Alaska Airlines flights between the two cities.
- apendleton 5y ago
  True, but if you don't have a car and are going downtown to downtown, it's probably faster to take a train or bus, given that it takes almost an hour to get from downtown Seattle to SeaTac by transit and a shorter-but-still-nontrivial amount of time into Portland on the Max on the other end, plus ticketing, boarding, etc. I think it really only makes sense if you're connecting.
kylehotchkiss 5y ago
It's all connecting to bigger flights. 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. The smaller cities in question for these routes aren't going to have any sort of usable bus service for making a flight on time. To answer your cargo question: probably not much. The distance is within a normal delivery range of some rural UPS/Fedex/DHL routes. Making people in these smaller cities go to the airport to pick up boxes just makes a lot of work for them. source: my own experience taking loud proppy planes between Roanoke VA to Charlotte, NC to connect to a larger flight
- 5y ago

itsrajju 5y ago

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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH4b3sAs-l8

canadianfella 5y ago
Why “who else”?
- scrollaway 5y ago
  I suspect it was in jest, but the reason why is that he is obviously immensely passionated about aviation and logistics. He makes really, really good videos about both, I'd recommend his channel to anyone. PS, I had to vouch for your comment to reply, as it was dead. Had a look through your profile… I think there's often a lot of value in asking simple questions, but a lot of your comment history is just extremely low value (eg. correcting people's spelling). If you don't have anything meaningful to add to a discussion, maybe consider not replying at all.
  - itsrajju 5y ago
    It was indeed in jest! Wendover's videos have been consistently increasing in quality over the years. The amount of research that goes into each one is phenomenal. So much so that lately if I ever come across any aviation topic on the internet, there's already a Wendover video about it. :)
    - neither_color 5y ago
      The only reason I pay for youtube premium is for creators like Wendover, Extreme Engineering, Smarter Every Day, etc. There are a lot of independent science, economics, and history channels there that are too good for YT but depend on the traffic for survival. Some have made attempts to switch to other platforms like Nebula but they dont have the mass yet.

mustafa_pasi 5y ago

Digging through their website[1] trying to figure them out. Seems to me that the whole business proposition depends on their understanding that Norway, Sweden, (and I guess they expect others to follow) will mandate all short flights being electric in the next decade. They also say turboprops are higher maintenance and this expense reduces the viability of short flying routes, and I guess their implication is that electric will be cheaper. I am not sold on that one. 95% of the maintenance cost is the routine inspection. You'd have to do a routine inspection on electric propulsion as well. This is all just speculation until you see it in action. [1] https://heartaerospace.com/ https://heartaerospace.com/

sandworm101 5y ago
95% of daily maintenance costs. Overhaul costs of jet/turboprop engines are considerable, several hundred thousand dollars per engine. A reasonable operating budget is about 1000$/hour per engine. Electric engines should avoid overhaul costs, and the fuel costs would be practically zero.
HPsquared 5y ago
Gas turbine engines have critical components which can have gradual failure (fatigue particularly, and creep) which need regular inspection to catch small defects before they grow to critical size. They also have large numbers of high-temperature, stressed components. Electric motors are generally much simpler in construction and wouldn't need nearly as much mechanical inspection. The difficult/expensive part is the battery, but that's going to have more onboard condition monitoring and will be simply replaced periodically, not subject to regular teardown inspections. The cost of ongoing battery replacements might be significant, though.

spodek 5y ago

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 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 747s, aren't we just at the Wright brothers stage now, but am starting to conclude it's not possible.

busterarm 5y ago
Unless the energy density of batteries suddenly goes up 50x to meet avgas, then no it's extremely unlikely. Even with road vehicles, electric is only viable right now to the weight and load of your average 4-door sedan.
SonicScrub 5y ago
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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNvzZfsC13o
- topkai22 5y ago
  I think the caveat here is "battery powered electric aircraft." Fuel cells have much higher energy density IIRC. It's not inconceivable that fuel cell electric planes could become a thing as well, especially if these early BEV show other benefits around maintainability, noise reduction, etc. I think its a long shot though, as jet fuel + carbon capture will probably be price competitive before fuel cell airliners become a thing.
  - benhurmarcel 5y ago
    Fuel cell aircraft are very much a thing, and are being researched by the biggest companies in the industry. But they’d be called hydrogen aircraft rather than electric by most people.

crossroadsguy 5y ago

Will one of the benefits be absence of copious amounts of highly inflammable liquid on it in the event of crashes?

damsta 5y ago
Won't batteries be a problem now?
- zinekeller 5y ago
  Good point. The Dreamliner has such problems in its Li-ion batteries to the point that the weight savings due to composite construction was subsequently nullified by metal retrofits to contain battery fires (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner_battery_problems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner_battery_...). Additionally, IATA has put strict limits on Li-ion cargo due to Lithium being too reactive, so any plane with Lithium batteries must consider that.
  - mastax 5y ago
    It negated the benefits of the lighter batteries, not the benefit of the composite airframe.
- tokai 5y ago
  Probably even worse, as fuel can be dumped.
  - gameswithgo 5y ago
    you can dump batteries too
    - 5555624 5y ago
      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.)

JasonFruit 5y ago

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.

sandworm101 5y ago
>>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-magnix-and-h55-partner-for-the-worlds-first-certified-all-electric-commercial-airplane/ https://www.harbourair.com/harbour-air-magnix-and-h55-partne... "After the successful first flight of the Harbour Air eBeaver powered by magniX in December 2019 and the ongoing flight tests since then, the companies have teamed up with H55 to bring their shared vision of clean, efficient and quiet commercial aviation to life by 2022. H55 will provide its proven modular battery technology to expand the eBeaver’s balance to weight ratio and endurance. The company’s battery modules have one of the highest energy densities on the market and will provide the entire energy storage system and redundant battery monitoring at the cell level for the eBeaver. "
- VBprogrammer 5y ago
  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.
  - sandworm101 5y ago
    I take it that you have never been to Alaska. Or BC. Or Washington. Or anywhere else with more trees than people. Without bushplanes the entire resource extraction industry would grind to a halt. The conversion of a Beaver to electric follows on the past turbo-beaver conversion. It matters and is being watched by the industry.

dogman144 5y ago

I was professionally close with an engineer who used to work on a (rapidly dwindling headcount) team responsible for the programs and related QA for mission critical flight safety systems. Think one of the big manufacturers. The eng dealt with: The standard was scripts with mutable variables such as `G == , B == , C == , redefine G as something else later` responsible for the processes around pretty critical airplane innards. QA down to 1 or 2 headcount, and those 1 or 2 also doing the above program writing. Zero hand-off once leaving the job on the mission critical QA the eng was responsible for, not for lack of effort on the engs part. Managers not aware the eng was leaving until day-of. I could go on and on, but the point: I'm not sure how I feel about the safety of airplane travel after the above, but at least the engines were internal combustion so somewhat tied to physics vs. programming logic. A future with electric airplanes scare me a bit though. The software in them is aggressively, poorly done. I know airplanes are designed w/ fail-safes on the fail-safes and that eng had their own limited view of a complex system. But, it was bad.

whoisthemachine 5y ago
Most of your point is well made, but electric engines are just as tied to physics, unless I'm missing something? Doesn't mean quality of the control software is still not concerning.
- karagenit 5y ago
  I think what they're trying to say is that the types of electric motors used in vehicles (like switched reluctance motors[1]) typically require a computerized controller that someone has to program, and therefore has an additional point of failure from a software standpoint. However, I'm pretty sure any modern internal combustion engine will have a highly advanced ECU computer too, so this is sort of a non-issue (though I'll admit I don't know much about aircraft engines specifically). [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switched_reluctance_motor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switched_reluctance_motor
  - whoisthemachine 5y ago

jcims 5y ago

This video from magniX shows one major advantage of electric aircraft: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDtduvin9Mw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDtduvin9Mw There's almost nothing to inspect or maintain.

aerospace_guy 5y ago
Huh? I see a lot of parts that can fail. What do you mean?
- kaba0 5y ago
  Compared to a jet engine that moves at high speeds under great pressure and heat?
  - aerospace_guy 5y ago
    For sure, you're right that compared to a jet engine there are fewer parts. The caveat is you're comparing a large engine (and aircraft) with a much smaller one. Electric aircraft of today can't go anywhere near the range of jet engine powered aircraft, and hence the engine sizes are similarly sized. It's not a fair comparison, but you are right.
- jcims 5y ago
  Tearing this down for inspection vs. a turboprop, for example, would be a dream.
  - aerospace_guy 5y ago
    I agree! Just that saying "almost nothing to inspect or maintain" is not true.

kragen 5y ago

This is unlikely to come to pass because batteries weigh something like 80× as much as the corresponding jet fuel: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=kragen https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=kragen This means much less efficient flight, because lift costs energy, or much slower flight. But it's more plausible for these very short flights than for longer flights. Solar-powered synfuel seems like a more likely mass alternative for the near future (02030-02050).

mch82 5y ago

Is there a list of other YCombinator aviation startups?

nazrulmum10 5y ago

Breakthrough Energy Ventures is the leading voice of investors who are supporting clean-energy technology creation

gamegoblin 5y ago

I recently had a pie-in-the-sky business idea and I would love for someone who knows more about the industry why it will definitely fail. I assume it's unworkable for a lot of reasons, but it is just plausible enough to be a fun idea for a sci-fi novel. Get a fleet of 2-4 seater unpowered glider planes [1] Get a bunch of rural properties spaced ~100km apart. Put little glider landing and launch strips on each property. Use a powerful electric winch to launch the gliders. Develop software that can fly the planes autonomously from strip to strip (I assume this is the really hard part, but I am under the impression that autonomous flying is a much easier problem than autonomous driving?). You now have the ability to shuttle passengers around your network of airstrips at ~200kph for the cost of electricity used by your winches and maintenance of the glider fleet. My thought is that the electricity of the winches is pretty minimal and could be served with some locally installed solar panels and batteries, and the maintenance is super low since the gliders don't have many moving parts onboard. The main use-case would be city-to-city short hops that are currently poorly served by rail. It's far easier to build a string of small airstrips than a whole rail corridor. This idea came to me when thinking about SpaceX's recent plans to catch their Starship boosters out of the air instead of having landing gear on them. The reasoning is that you can have essentially unlimited mass for ground support equipment, but mass on the booster is precious. So you offload the landing gear from the booster to the ground support equipment, even if it's big and complicated. This idea is like electric aircraft, but you've offloaded the propulsion and batteries to the ground support equipment. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glider_(sailplane) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glider_(sailplane)

thehappypm 5y ago
Gliders don't launch by winch. They are towed up to launch height by powered planes. Also, gliders are not really able to handle emergencies that well since they are unpowered -- if there's a need to divert or something, they're completely at the mercy of their own gravitational energy. Gliders are usually very safe to fly in because they're very light and maneuverable, and crash-landings are usually OK. That safety net completely evaporates with thousands of pounds of human cargo.
Izikiel43 5y ago
Wouldn't landing be the hardest part?

gunapologist99 5y ago

One of the things that helped Southwest dominate in the short-haul space, particularly in the Texas Triangle, was optimizing "turn-time" with a target of less than 10 minutes to both deplane and board passengers (10 minutes!)[0] I wonder how lengthy charge cycles will affect the viability of fast turn times, especially for the short-haul segments that they're targeting for these new airliners. It seems like they'll need to either have extremely fast charging or be prepared for significant downtime between flights; where will the planes be stored while they're charging? It's important to both invest in and appear to be investing in the future, but even a soft commitment of 100 planes seems like quite a bit, especially in the very competitive and cost-focused short-haul space. 0. https://www.npr.org/2015/06/28/418147961/the-man-who-saved-southwest-airlines-with-a-10-minute-idea https://www.npr.org/2015/06/28/418147961/the-man-who-saved-s...

wtvanhest 5y ago
That seems like an important question. Maybe they will have a lot of individual batteries that they can charge simultaneously. Alternatively, maybe they could swap out the bottom of the fuselage or wings.
tadfisher 5y ago
Battery swaps could be viable, barring some complications in gate infrastructure and airframe design. Obviously this would be impossible if airframe designers incorporate battery cells in structural members, as some suggest to offset the weight penalty.
- nielsbot 5y ago
  The "more info" page on their website says they are ruling out battery swaps, at least for now, since a battery swap would require a mechanical certification every time it was done. They are swappable though: they explain that used battery packs can be replaced and that used packs can be used for a second purpose with less stringent requirements. For example, an energy storage facility at the airport.
- hutzlibu 5y ago

Tempest1981 5y ago

Nova (PBS) had a show recently: https://www.pbs.org/video/great-electric-airplane-race-yija0p/ https://www.pbs.org/video/great-electric-airplane-race-yija0... (requires member login) It highlighted a few Bay Area startups. Sounded like smaller commuter planes would be first. There were also hybrid designs, which reduced fuel use significantly.

romski 5y ago

Green aside, this was an interesting video explaining that for short flights electric planes are extremely lucrative https://youtu.be/aH4b3sAs-l8 https://youtu.be/aH4b3sAs-l8 [wendover]

FabHK 5y ago

FWIW, TU Delft/EdX have a nice short MOOC on sustainable aviation: https://online-learning.tudelft.nl/courses/sustainable-aviation-the-route-to-climate-neutral-aviation/ https://online-learning.tudelft.nl/courses/sustainable-aviat... https://www.edx.org/course/sustainable-aviation https://www.edx.org/course/sustainable-aviation