Originally Posted by
wrench1
True. But if you take the current business model and existing aircraft but utilize 100% SAF fuels in those aircraft then there would basically be no risk. So how would that compare to this new electric airliner in your opinion?
The paper does look at that. Drop in liquids are in my opinion an illusion being deployed for distraction. But even if they were to become available at quantity then they are very costly. I expect them to get reserved for long range transoceanic and military, and other niche applications - driven largely by high costs. So whilst capex of running on existing design types with dropins is low, the opex is high. So first mover takes the risk but gets a good reward, unless of course simultaneous first movers emerge in the airframers.
Originally Posted by
procede
While I believe the design is technically possible, I see few issues:
800km still does not make the aircraft versatile enough for most airlines. It can only serve a limited number of routes, compared to the already lacklustre Q400, which has more than twice the range. Also see Dassault Mercure.
Fully draining the batteries will wear them out very quickly. Normally you should not drain them below 20%, leaving the rest only for reserve.
Charging them to 100% means a turnaround of at least 1.5 hours. Not ideal for scheduling or crew planning. Making 36 tonnes of batteries in the wing replacable on the stand is not realistic.
The study looks at the cyclic life and charge times, both of which fit with 45-min turnarounds and 1/year hangar maintenance.
Routes and flexibility would be an issue if up against an unconstrained opposition. But if up against expanding TGV network (and EV users) at bottom end; and drop-in liquids at the top end, then it begins to look very advantageous.
The technology growth curve graph for battery energy density doesn't need to hit a brick wall in 2030 at 10TWh cumulative, further improvements are possible. LHR-ATH is realistic in that timeframe, which serves a lot of the market.