Originally Posted by
Big Pistons Forever
188 electric cars would presumably replace 188 ICE cars. Wouldn’t the net environmental benefit be much higher than replacing one 90 seat short haul airliner powered by fossil fuels with an electric version ?
It is possible to do both. It is beneficial to do both. And in this instance doing both in parallel is approximately equally environmentally beneficial. (There are no constraints apart from $$$capital and solving the 10 or so challenges that the paper sets out - there seems to be no unobtainium in there)
From an aviation industry perspective it is better to get such an airliner into service as soon as possible. Absent such an airliner the high speed rail networks will expand to cover a greater network than if such an airliner exists. Once high speed rail networks exist, then the ability of an airliner to get back into competition on those routes is very much more difficult. So for the benefit of both the operating part of the industry (airports, flight crews, etc) and the manufacturing part of the industry (airframers etc) it is better to push ahead with such projects faster rather than slower. Especially given that this airliner is aimed at the edge of the viability zone of the high speed rail network (4h rail vs 2-3h flight + airport).
(This is an entirely different commercial segment than the airtaxi EVTOL one, which requires a new business model to become viable, as well as new products. This aircraft satisfies an existing viable business model. That is a huge risk reduction).
That is why this is such a fascinatng paper.