This seems like such a tremendous difference that the market would be in an arms race to make it a reality. Especially considering electric motors have fewer moving parts and so require less maintenance. Oh and it would be so quiet.
> Even assuming huge advances in battery technology, with batteries that are 30 times more efficient and "energy-dense" than they are today, it would only be possible to fly an A320 airliner for a fifth of its range with just half of its payload, says Airbus's chief technology officer Grazia Vittadini.
> "Unless there is some radical, yet-to-be invented paradigm shift in energy storage, we are going to rely on hydrocarbon fuels for the foreseeable future," says Paul Eremenko, United Technologies chief technology officer.
> The big problem with this is that 80% of the aviation industry's emissions come from passenger flights longer than 1,500km - a distance no electric airliner could yet fly.
The market would be in an arms race if energy density was sufficient for long haul flights. Electric flight is awesome but until energy storage/density gets closer to hydrocarbons, conventional planes aren't going anywhere for the majority of travelers and cargo.
Batteries however, weigh the same amount regardless of charge level.
I wonder if this affects the calculations in an appreciable way.
I'm not sure of that quote either -- a lithium ion battery is currently about 1MJ/kg and 1MJ/litre. Jet fuel is 43MJ/kg and 35MJ per litre (values from from wikipedia)
So a battery that's 30 times more energy dense will be in the region of jet fuel, and thus would presumably be able to fly an A320 for its current range with its current payload.
To do current payloads at 1/4 range (what you'd need for those flights under 1500km) at A320 payloads, you'd need batteries to presumably be in the 5-10 times as dense level, and that's the range that lithium-air batteries would sit.
I somehow always thought that more weight of an aircraft lessened its range almost only because it needs much more power to take off and gain a cruising altitude.
So, to land at take-off weight, you’ll have to significantly strengthen the landing gear.
That already is 2.5 to 5% of the Maximum takeoff weight and 20% of the airframe direct maintenance cost (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_gear#Aircraft_landing_...)
So even if all those flights were switched to magic zero emission electricity, the aggregate improvement over the whole industry would barely beat the relative improvement between a 737 NG and a MAX. (yes, this is an apples to orchards comparison)
Grounded from carrying passengers, but not grounded entirely from flying, and certainly emitting in any case. The two on the map now are out of Boeing Field.
Jet fuel is really about 12-15 MJ/kg when you take thermodynamic losses into account. So you;d need a battery 10 times as dense. Which likely isn't happening any time soon, but still.
I think with full electric aircraft it's not a case of 'won't work' but how big of a niche they can carve out. Probably the sector they'd compete in are general aviation and puddle jumpers.
Think of what it could do in other areas as well too though. Imagine a flight from the SF waterfront to Tahoe via seaplane in 45 minutes (instead of 4+ hours) with no TSA screening, or potentially even SF to LA in 90 minutes.
Several weeks before the Harbour Air / MagniX announcement I ran through an exercise to determine the range/payload of an electric Cessna 208 (Caravan) for a typical flight profile here in the bay area: the daily FedEx flight from Oakland International to some nearby city, such as Petaluma. This involves a 5min climb from take-off to 2000ft, some period of cruise flight (ultimately determined by range), and a 7min decent to land.
This calculation assumes that the C208 swaps the swaps its turbine (PT6A-114A) for the Magni500, saving 85lbs. It also accounts for the substantial increase in conversion efficiency between the MagniX and PT6 (roughly 0.94 from 0.32). Not accounted for are any differences in aircraft systems (de-ice, prop pitch, electric instruments, plumbing, etc).
The results are not surprising given what others have noted about the enormous difference between the specific energy densities of Jet A and LIB. At the specific energy density of today's production batteries, 250 w-hr/kg, the electric C208 could carry one 175lb pilot approximately 100mi in 39min. Due to FAA VFR regulations, this would in reality limit the flight to 9min (FAA requires daytime reserve of 30min), with the subsequent loss in range.
Let's consider the putative solid state battery at 500 w-hr/kg. Now a 60min flight time (really 30min plus 30min reserve) will allow 1080lb payload. Fantastic! That's a pilot plus 4-5 passengers. The catch, of course, is that the timeline for road worthy SS batteries is 5-10 years. How long for before an air worthy battery is available?
With this information parsing the press statements is a little easier. Will the Harbour Air / MagniX Beaver carry 6 passengers over a 30min flight? No. It may demonstrate electric flight of a utility category air frame with the pilot as the "soul" payload. After that both companies will likely be in the same position as the rest of us -- waiting on better battery technology.
would it? I was under the impression that proppelers were much louder!
what is the biggest source of noise in an aircraft/type?
> The XF-84H was almost certainly the loudest aircraft ever built, earning the nickname "Thunderscreech" as well as the "Mighty Ear Banger". On the ground "run ups", the prototypes could reportedly be heard 25 miles (40 km) away. Unlike standard propellers that turn at subsonic speeds, the outer 24–30 inches (61–76 cm) of the blades on the XF-84H's propeller traveled faster than the speed of sound even at idle thrust, producing a continuous visible sonic boom that radiated laterally from the propellers for hundreds of yards. The shock wave was actually powerful enough to knock a man down.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_XF-84H_Thunderscree...
It would make about as much noise as it makes now. Nearly all the noise of a commercial aircraft is caused by the air being pushed to propel it, not by the engine internals.
(You can reduce noise and increase efficiency by pushing more air at a smaller speed. You do that by having more engines or larger ones. I would expect electrical planes to have more engines, but that's a small secondary effect.)
“Even assuming huge advances in battery technology, with batteries that are 30 times more efficient and "energy-dense" than they are today, it would only be possible to fly an A320 airliner for a fifth of its range with just half of its payload, says Airbus's chief technology officer Grazia Vittadini.”
I'm sure everyone would like to switch for environmental reasons but that sounds like a really big gap to fill.
Fewer moving parts doesn't mean reliable and not subject to catastrophic unforeseen failures. If it hasn't been out for five years you're a test pilot.
REDMOND, WA and VANCOUVER, B.C. – March 26, 2019 – magniX, the company powering the electric aviation revolution, and Harbour Air, North America’s largest seaplane airline, today announced a partnership to transform Harbour Air seaplanes into an all-electric commercial fleet powered by the magni500, a 750 horsepower (HP) all-electric motor. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19539796