Electric Regional Aircraft in Service by 2026?

[27/09]

Saw this today.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/green-travel/300384673/couldnt-be-prouder-sounds-air-locks-in-electric-plane-deal

This is the company who is making the aircraft. https://heartaerospace.com

Frankly I think they are being a tad optimistic with their 2026 operational date. Right at the moment I see it as just attention grabbing headline pie in the sky stuff. It could happen one day but not this decade in my opinion. I wonder what other people think.

Certifying an new airframe and new propulsion technology along with having to develop all electric systems for air con/pressurisation etc will be a challenge.

[Ascend Charlie]

Might work in NZ for the hop across the Straits or over their steep hills. The 750m runway length sound a little optimistic for a 19-seater, though?

As 27 September says above, the time line for certification seems pretty brave.

[43Inches]

The 750m runway length sound a little optimistic for a 19-seater, though?

Electric engines are light and high torque, and with that arrangement across the wing would all lead to good field performance. One huge advantage to electric is you can have multiple motors for very little weight penalty. Downside, the batteries more than make up for the loss of engine weight, and don't get lighter as you fly either.

[KeepItStraight]

Might work in NZ for the hop across the Straits or over their steep hills. The 750m runway length sound a little optimistic for a 19-seater, though?

As 27 September says above, the time line for certification seems pretty brave.
750 metres does indeed seem a little optimistic. Though that's pretty much in line with all the other optimism they show about what it'll be capable of and when it will fly.

Interestingly there's an outfit in the US doing a hydrogen fuel conversion on a couple of Dash 8's. They already have a proven airframe and their projected certification is towards the end of the decade and yet Heart is spruiking 5 years away for a brand new airframe and propulsion system. I really think they have their ambitions and abililty in the wrong order.

[43Inches]

I agree it's ambitious, but 750m is achievable for that size of aircraft if the wing and lift devices are right for it. Do 228 is around 800m at MTOW and the Dash-7 which is a similar layout using propwash to aid lift production is under 700m.

[Anti Skid On]

The logical solution (and I believe Boeing are working on this) is a hybrid. We all know most energy is used during taxi and climb to cruise. Having an APU to generate electricity to power the motors also means you don't need fully charged batteries (and you have to consider how long they would take to recharge).

At cruise and descent the APU would be off, relying only on batteries

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/97651526/boeingbacked-hybridelectric-commuter-plane-to-hit-us-market-in-2022

[KeepItStraight]

The logical solution (and I believe Boeing are working on this) is a hybrid. We all know most energy is used during taxi and climb to cruise. Having an APU to generate electricity to power the motors also means you don't need fully charged batteries (and you have to consider how long they would take to recharge).

At cruise and descent the APU would be off, relying only on batteries

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/97651526/boeingbacked-hybridelectric-commuter-plane-to-hit-us-market-in-2022
Zunum are no longer. I think their concept had a better chance of success than Heart's EP19. I wonder how long Heart will survive.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zunum_Aero

[43Inches]

Charging rate for batteries is dropping dramatically each passing year, there's talk of 5 minute car chargers in the next few years. Some are already down to 15 minutes. That aircraft they are talking 40 minute full charge.

Battery technology is really advancing at a massive rate, that will be the main driver of everything electric from aircraft to farm vehicles, trucks, cars and ships.

Hybrids just carry too much weight of having the two systems combined, the whole trip you are paying the fuel price of the extra weight of whatever is not being used.

[27/09]

Charging rate for batteries is dropping dramatically each passing year, there's talk of 5 minute car chargers in the next few years. Some are already down to 15 minutes. That aircraft they are talking 40 minute full charge.

Battery technology is really advancing at a massive rate, that will be the main driver of everything electric from aircraft to farm vehicles, trucks, cars and ships.

Hybrids just carry too much weight of having the two systems combined, the whole trip you are paying the fuel price of the extra weight of whatever is not being used.
I'm not sure everyone agrees about the use of batteries.
https://youtu.be/19Q7nAYjAJY

Hydrogen aircraft being developed here https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/hydrogen-powered-aviation-will-be-tested-on-turboprops-at-new-moses-lake-venture/

[cattletruck]

Wouldn't it be cheaper and perhaps more sensible to take say a Dash-7 and create a hybrid job out of it with electric engines for number 1 and 4.

But if you did go fully electric, could you redefine fast charging by flying near a Cb looking for a lightning strike. Don't laugh, current fast charging for cars is looking at pumping 600kW into their batteries in just a few minutes which is quite a bomb of energy.

Ho-hum, yet another glossy CGI rendering of the future, yawn.
To paraphrase Yogi Berra, "The future ain't what it used to be."

[43Inches]

Hydrogen would be the natural go to for the big companies, you can then control the fuel like oil now. It might be clean burn energy but it still costs a lot of energy to make mass amounts of hydrogen. Pure electric you can charge off the wind, sun, tide, thermal for free once you set it up. Great for the masses but not so great for collecting taxes and supporting infrastructure.

You could make your own hydrogen, but why bother when you can just power your vehicle with the energy directly without complicating the situation.

[Anti Skid On]

Wouldn't it be cheaper and perhaps more sensible to take say a Dash-7 and create a hybrid job out of it with electric engines for number 1 and 4.

But if you did go fully electric, could you redefine fast charging by flying near a Cb looking for a lightning strike. Don't laugh, current fast charging for cars is looking at pumping 600kW into their batteries in just a few minutes which is quite a bomb of energy.

Ho-hum, yet another glossy CGI rendering of the future, yawn.
To paraphrase Yogi Berra, "The future ain't what it used to be."
Not quite the same, but the RNZAF P-3 Orions use two engines to increase endurance on patrol

[smiling monkey]

I wonder how you'd carry 30 minutes holding in an electric powered aircraft? Carry an extra powerbank in your nav bag? :confused:

[morno]

I wonder how you'd carry 30 minutes holding in an electric powered aircraft? Carry an extra powerbank in your nav bag? :confused:

How do you carry it now? In a Jerry can?

Think hard. Imagine a battery being just like your fuel tank, and the charge on the battery being the fuel that you put in the tank :hmm:

[Shackeng]

Not quite the same, but the RNZAF P-3 Orions use two engines to increase endurance on patrol

As did Nimrod.

[Global Aviator]

The first commercial electric aircraft -

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2019/december/10/harbour-air-flies-first-electric-beaver

So yes using old airframes has been proven to work.

[43Inches]

The first commercial electric aircraft -

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/...lectric-beaver (https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2019/december/10/harbour-air-flies-first-electric-beaver)

So yes using old airframes has been proven to work.

It works yes, good to prove a point and get things rolling. A long lasting successful design will need to be optimised for the technology, therefore offering much better efficiency and operating costs. Using the technology to its full extent means you can save a lot of weight and offer better performance over the present machines.

If you look at cars simply retrofitting a petrol design works, but it is increased weight and poor weight distribution. A purpose built car with in hub motors, batteries set low along the chassis and low weight structure that does not have to carry the forces of engine torque and transmission makes fro a much more efficient vehicle. Hence when you weigh up hybrids, the technology is eco consumer appealing but doesn't achieve much in actual cost savings.

Dash-7 is a 40+ seat aircraft, and limited airframes remaining. Not really sure it would make a great test bed, to carry the two outer heavy turbine engines and accessories the wing structure has to be heavier, wasting weight on structure that's not required.

BTW engine efficiency for electric is very different to turbine or petrol. So switching off engines in flight is not really any better than keeping them running at low power/drain, it's probably worse, as the dormant engine will just create drag.

[No Idea Either]

Read an article a few years back from RMIT IIRC about Aluminium ion batteries in development. They didn’t hold much MORE charge than a Li ion battery but you could plug them in and fully charge them up in a few minutes……that would be a game changer!!

[27/09]

Read an article a few years back from RMIT IIRC about Aluminium ion batteries in development. They didn’t hold much MORE charge than a Li ion battery but you could plug them in and fully charge them up in a few minutes……that would be a game changer!!
That doesn't solve the issue of energy density which is the other big stumbling block which I'd argue is more of an issue than the charging time.

[27/09]

The first commercial electric aircraft -

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2019/december/10/harbour-air-flies-first-electric-beaver

So yes using old airframes has been proven to work.
Everything I've seen so far on the electric aircraft front whether it be small like the Pipstrel, or Beaver/C208 size, is there's about 1 hour of endurance. That's a long long way short of the normally accepted endurance. Sure 1 hour is OK for niche markets but it doesn't cut the mustard for most routes and especially IFR where alternates are required. A long way to go yet. One article I read said up to 20 years before commercial services with electric aircraft became common place.

[43Inches]

I think it quotes 400km range, so yep about 1 hour. Not applicable to virtually anything in Australia especially with alternate concerns. As said earlier battery technology still needs about 10 years of advancement at current pace to get to a reasonable range. So 20 years is probably a good mark.

[KittyKatKaper]

Technical rip-apart at ;
https://leehamnews.com/2021/07/08/the-true-cost-of-electric-aircraft-part-2/

TLDR; "Tell 'em they're dreamin"





(also has articles on hydrogen fuel)

[No Idea Either]

Leehamnews is a trusted and reliable source for all things aviation. That article drives a nail in the coffin me thinks…..

[MickG0105]

Technical rip-apart at ;
https://leehamnews.com/2021/07/08/the-true-cost-of-electric-aircraft-part-2/

TLDR; "Tell 'em they're dreamin"

The energy density for lithium-ion batteries seems to be very much understated in that article. The author writes,

To reach these values, we used a 92% efficiency for the electric propulsion chain, battery-to-propeller-shaft, with 0.250 kWh energy per kg of battery (the energy density on a system level). Densities are today at typically 0.160 kWh per kilo but we upped this with 56% to cater for development in batteries during this decade.

So he is calculating the required battery weight using 0.250 kWh/kg, a figure he purports to be a 56 percent stretch improvement over current technology of 0.160 kWh/kg. However, current technology, the Panasonic 2170 battery used in the Tesla 3, is already delivering 0.260 kWh/kg. A 56 percent stretch on that would be 0.405 kWh/kg, pretty much bang on what Musk was predicting (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-batteries/teslas-musk-hints-of-battery-capacity-jump-ahead-of-industry-event-idUSKBN25L0MC) a year ago.

Leehamnews is a trusted and reliable source for all things aviation. That article drives a nail in the coffin me thinks…..I would normally agree wholeheartedly but his assumption on energy density seems to be out of whack on this. I think that he is overstating the requisite battery weight by about 50 percent.

[No Idea Either]

8 tonnes of battery did sound an awful lot……….

[MickG0105]

8 tonnes of battery did sound an awful lot……….
4 tonnes is still a lot, we're just talking degrees of awfulness. Make no mistake, when trying to apply electric propulsion systems to aviation, battery weight is the most significant impediment by a long margin.

[KittyKatKaper]

-> MickG0105 ; the "(the energy density on a system level)" caveat is important.
An individual cell might have an impressive energy-to-weight ratio but on its' own it is of not much use.
Cells need to packaged into robust battery stacks and battery-monitoring/charging/protection must be added, all of which will reduce the energy-density of a usable 'battery'.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

I dunno.....
If I cannot consign Li-ION batteries in the cargo hold because of the fire risk, why oh why would you want to put them internally within the wing or fuselage area?
Oh, I know, tow them behind by the power cable...well clear of the aircraft....Turn them 'ORF' on landing and wind them in......so they don't get caught on the fence....or the ILS.....

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

An electric beaver? Do you need dark glasses and your collar turned up when you go into the dealer and ask for one? For a friend, of course.

[machtuk]

These people are away with the fairies when it comes to commercial EP aircraft but sure does make for amusing reading! -)

[rans6andrew]

I had a hearty conversation, recently, with a gentleman who already has an electric powered GA training aircraft in operation. The aircraft has a one hour duration with a one hour charge time which makes it OK for typical pilot training missions. There are also a few airfields withing the one hour circle of Damyns Hall, where the aircraft is based, which have on airfield charge points. He did come out with some gems from airfield operators when he approached them with a view to getting more on airfield charge points such as:

"why would I want to supply free electricity to aircraft when I am still trying to build up customers for my Avgas supply?"

Because the cost of the battery charge is only a couple of pounds and your landing fee is 15 quid!

"but what about the loss of Avgas sales?

Doh, the electric aircraft users are not going to be buying your Avgas and so won't be flying in and paying your landing fee.

Interestingly most of the on airfield charge setups are using solar power and recycled truck batteries to provide charging from off grid solar systems. This removes many of the restrictions imposed on the feed in grid tie familiar to most of us domestic solar installation owners and thus also gets them away from paying for grid supply and the tax associated. It would seem to be win win for airfield and aircraft operators.

Rans6......

[27/09]

I had a hearty conversation, recently, with a gentleman who already has an electric powered GA training aircraft in operation. The aircraft has a one hour duration with a one hour charge time which makes it OK for typical pilot training missions. There are also a few airfields withing the one hour circle of Damyns Hall, where the aircraft is based, which have on airfield charge points. He did come out with some gems from airfield operators when he approached them with a view to getting more on airfield charge points such as:

"why would I want to supply free electricity to aircraft when I am still trying to build up customers for my Avgas supply?"

Because the cost of the battery charge is only a couple of pounds and your landing fee is 15 quid!

"but what about the loss of Avgas sales?

Doh, the electric aircraft users are not going to be buying your Avgas and so won't be flying in and paying your landing fee.

Interestingly most of the on airfield charge setups are using solar power and recycled truck batteries to provide charging from off grid solar systems. This removes many of the restrictions imposed on the feed in grid tie familiar to most of us domestic solar installation owners and thus also gets them away from paying for grid supply and the tax associated. It would seem to be win win for airfield and aircraft operators.

Rans6......
If only it were as simple as the battery charge being only a couple of pound v the 15 quid landing fee. What about the cost of setting up the charging system? Why would you invest in a system that will be only used sporadically and you'll very likely never get your money back on?

For the time being I don't think any airfield owner is going to lose sleep over any electric aircraft that don't visit.

[TURIN]

Can we draw an analogy with supermarkets, pubs and other businesses who are installing EV charging points?
I assume they are doing it to attract custom but they are probably getting subsidised too.

[cattletruck]

What happens if you land an electric aeroplane at an airport that doesn't have a proper charge point (say as a precautionary emergency - passenger sick)? I guess you'd be stuck there for a while until somehow you find a way to get enough charge to fly out and make it to somewhere that does have a proper charge point.

[Chris2303]

What happens if you land an electric aeroplane at an airport that doesn't have a proper charge point (say as a precautionary emergency - passenger sick)? I guess you'd be stuck there for a while until somehow you find a way to get enough charge to fly out and make it to somewhere that does have a proper charge point.

Roll out a diesel GPU

[43Inches]

What happens if you land an electric aeroplane at an airport that doesn't have a proper charge point (say as a precautionary emergency - passenger sick)? I guess you'd be stuck there for a while until somehow you find a way to get enough charge to fly out and make it to somewhere that does have a proper charge point.

The same as when your battery goes flat now, from what I read batteries are not integral and are "plug and play". So you can add/remove batteries to control range vs payload. Just roll up with a charged battery set and fly out, or possibly they can be charged from a normal socket in the wall albeit a much slower rate, which would just require the adapter and extension cord.

[Ollie Onion]

What happens if you land an electric aeroplane at an airport that doesn't have a proper charge point (say as a precautionary emergency - passenger sick)? I guess you'd be stuck there for a while until somehow you find a way to get enough charge to fly out and make it to somewhere that does have a proper charge point.


Same thing that happens now if I land my jet at an airport that doesn’t have the correct stairs or refuelling facilities….. you be stuffed.

[machtuk]

Plenty of obstacles for the dreamers of EP pax carrying commercial Ops. A/C have lots of elect gizmos to support their operation, lights, avionics, retractable U/C (if the pie in the sky stuff ever got that far!), flaps, AC & or fans, ice protection all cutting into that precious batt supply! Even sitting in a cue awaiting to T/off is eating into yr reserve of FF!

I hope I am around to see these in service, maybe in my next life -)

[Deltasierra010]

There is no logic in making electric airliners until all land based transport is running on renewable fuel, that is going to be a very long time, all electricity has to be converted to renewable or nuclear first. For aviation low pollution high density liquid fuels for turbines is going to be the norm for decades yet.

[43Inches]

There is no logic in making electric airliners until all land based transport is running on renewable fuel, that is going to be a very long time, all electricity has to be converted to renewable or nuclear first. For aviation low pollution high density liquid fuels for turbines is going to be the norm for decades yet.

Guess we should just convert all the city trains and trams to diesel then.

That's like saying there's no point going to mars until we develop faster than light travel to make it quick. Technology does not advance without purpose, so waiting until you have perfect conditions for the technology to start developing it means you start years behind where you could be.

Now we all know the issues like an electric train running off coal fired generators. Does not mean there are additional benefits, like that pollution can be limited to one area rather than distributed around where you live by smaller less efficient personal systems, also easier to capture and prevent release of polution from a large static power plant than individual mass produced especially mobile units. Also electrical power does not really care for altitude etc, not so much reliance on optimal altitudes and optimal ranges. The example of the aircraft waiting in line for take off, the electric engines just switch off and don't consume any power, yeah some power is still drained by AC and fans and system but this is minute compared the energy an idling turbine consumes.

Simplistic arguments of electric vs fossil fuel is not possible as there are vast differences of operation between the two technologies.

The main hindrance to electric vehicles in general is weight and volume of batteries required to make range effective. As that is solved the technology will flourish and not just from ecological point of view but they are far cheaper to run.

[TurningTheSpanners]

4 tonnes is still a lot, we're just talking degrees of awfulness. Make no mistake, when trying to apply electric propulsion systems to aviation, battery weight is the most significant impediment by a long margin.

No, I don't think this is the main issue, per se.

The point that all the electric 'boosters' seem to miss (or deliberately skip over) is that you don't jettison battery cells as they go flat, unlike any liquid-dinosaur powered aircraft which get lighter by the minute as they head to their destination.

Two other issues are that you have to carry "full tanks" (weight wise) on all your flights be it a short hop or maximum range.

Also, the glossy advertising brochures say as an example "one hour endurance", I'm going to bet that is from take-off to the fan stopping without allowing for weather, diversions or reserves.

What is the real-world, CASA approved, endurance compared to the advertising brochure endurance?

It'll be a cold day in Hell before electric flight is "Commercially viable".

TTS

[Deltasierra010]

[QUOTE=43Inches;11100197]Guess we should just convert all the city trains and trams to diesel then.

That's like saying there's no point going to mars until we develop faster than light travel to make it quick. Technology does not advance without purpose, so waiting until you have perfect conditions for the technology to start developing it means you start years behind where you could be.

Now we all know the issues like an electric train running off coal fired generators. Does not mean there are additional benefits, like that pollution can be limited to one area rather than distributed around where you live by smaller less efficient personal systems, also easier to capture and prevent release of polution from a large static power plant than individual mass produced especially mobile units. Also electrical power does not really care for altitude etc, not so much reliance on optimal altitudes and optimal ranges. The example of the aircraft waiting in line for take off, the electric engines just switch off and don't consume any power, yeah some power is still drained by AC and fans and system but this is minute compared the energy an idling turbine consumes.

Simplistic arguments of electric vs fossil fuel is not possible as there are vast differences of operation between the two technologies.

The main hindrance to electric vehicles in general is weight and volume of batteries required to make range effective. As that is solved the technology will flourish and not just from ecological point of view but they are far cheaper to run.[/


The topic is about COMMERCIAL exploitation of electric airliners not research comparable to journeys to Mars, it’s going to be decades before we see airliners powered by COMMERCIAL renewable fuel.

[43Inches]

The topic is about COMMERCIAL exploitation of electric airliners not research comparable to journeys to Mars, it’s going to be decades before we see airliners powered by COMMERCIAL renewable fuel.

I think you might not know what an analogy is.

The point is someone has to start offering the technology, like these companies are, governments get interested, and we see development in the area. If you just sit and wait for the technology to be perfect, you are already too late. In the past a lot of engineering has been done with anticipated technology in mind, it just puts your company ahead of the curve.

All independent electric vehicles share the same issue, battery capacity vs weight and space. Whether its a commercial airliner, car, train, bus or ship. The Commercial airliner is just waiting on the right batteries to enable it, at current rate of progress one will be flying in possibly 10-20 years, hence why designs are already being highlighted. You throw out a basic design, other unrelated parties start thinking about the engines and batteries for it, you get together and make money (or lose lots of it). 10 years ago some would've scoffed at cars like Tesla existing on Australian roads in the same manner.

[machtuk]

No, I don't think this is the main issue, per se.

The point that all the electric 'boosters' seem to miss (or deliberately skip over) is that you don't jettison battery cells as they go flat, unlike any liquid-dinosaur powered aircraft which get lighter by the minute as they head to their destination.

Two other issues are that you have to carry "full tanks" (weight wise) on all your flights be it a short hop or maximum range.

Also, the glossy advertising brochures say as an example "one hour endurance", I'm going to bet that is from take-off to the fan stopping without allowing for weather, diversions or reserves.

What is the real-world, CASA approved, endurance compared to the advertising brochure endurance?

It'll be a cold day in Hell before electric flight is "Commercially viable".

TTS

well said, most know that EP planes of the caliber we are talking about is still at the 'Jetsons' stage, fantasy:-)

[Rabbitwear]

Wonder where to put the fire bottles , on the engines or the battery packs or both .

[43Inches]

Wonder where to put the fire bottles , on the engines or the battery packs or both .

Just like now I assume the batteries will be in packs in a position they just melt through the floor and bomb down flaming plasma balls on unsuspecting plebs, that's how NiCad packs are positioned in modern airliners. Never heard of one going critical yet though...

[cattletruck]

The Commercial airliner is just waiting on the right batteries to enable it

The right battery has been a problem for over 2000 years - bulky and cumbersome to handle and never enough oomph. Extrapolating from there forward doesn't inspire at all.

My helicopters don't do full fuel and full pax at the same time, there is no need for it really and you can do the best for the environment (and your pocket) because of it. Batteries start the day at a weight disadvantage which continues until the end of the day.

Just like now I assume the batteries will be in packs in a position they just melt through the floor and bomb down flaming plasma balls on unsuspecting plebs, that's how NiCad packs are positioned in modern airliners.

I found that quite funny, and would be disappointing if true. Image all the bushfires such incendiary would start, Greta would be very angry.

[43Inches]

Right now the current aviation battery pack (on the Alpha Electro) weighs in at about 70kg per 11kWh, way too heavy, but that's already down from about double that only a few years ago. With companies like Tesla in the game now battery tech is really getting strong.

Have a look at all the stuff John Deere is toying with now that decent batteries are coming to market, it's really going to change farming methods.

https://www.deere.co.uk/en/agriculture/future-of-farming/

[nomorecatering]

Tecnam have taken a novel idea.
Just replace the battey with a fresh one just like your cordless drill.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/rolls-royceplc/albums/72157718597353877

[43Inches]

Not quite novel, the Alpha Electro is already designed with that in mind. Either charge insitu for 1 hour or just replace the batteries with a charged pack and fly while the others charge.

In that John Deere page I linked there is a Drone "hive" for spraying drones. They land get auto refilled and batteries changed and then head off again, the spent battery chucked back in the rack for charging so the drones can keep working all day, all automated.'

The main issue I see for pilots coming is the automation, if those drone hives take off, no more aerial spraying using piloted aircraft. Plus the automation level where it can identify individual weeds, the type, select a weed killer fly and zap that weed only, and keep doing that all day long with no human input. Scary to think pilotless/driverless is advancing so rapidly, mine sites are very quickly developing automated mine vehicles, trucks, buses etc, planes are not far off being targeted.

[Foxxster]

This is another company. Already lost one prototype due to a fire, in the batteries. Seems their claims of range etc are always being scaled back.

https://www.eviation.co/aircraft/#Greater-Than-The-Sum-of-Her-Parts

[fab777]

This is another company. Already lost one prototype due to a fire, in the batteries. Seems their claims of range etc are always being scaled back.

https://www.eviation.co/aircraft/#Greater-Than-The-Sum-of-Her-Parts

So finally, somebody told those guys that, if tailwheels have been dropped in favor of tricycle gear sixty years ago, and pusher props have never been installed at wingtips, there may be a reason? Funny to watch all those kids just fresh out of business school, who want to start something "disruptive" and attract investor's money, rush on the new hype of the electric aircraft. A few years ago, that was "urban air mobility". Good, but they should consider involving real engineers at the design stage.

[Global Aviator]

The Eviation looks pretty good, at 400nm it becomes a useful aircraft. Not only is it a 9 seater but it’s speed is not bad. One could say finally a Chieftain or 402 replacement.

Battery technology will only improve with time.

It is not if, it’s when this becomes reality.

[27/09]

The Eviation looks pretty good, at 400nm it becomes a useful aircraft. Not only is it a 9 seater but it’s speed is not bad. One could say finally a Chieftain or 402 replacement.

Battery technology will only improve with time.

It is not if, it’s when this becomes reality.
400 nm translates into about 200 nm useful once you start thinking about alternates and reserves. That's assuming they even get 400 nm.

Yep basically a Chieftain replacement at 2.3 times the weight. I estimate the batteries to weigh over 10,000 lbs.

I find the take off and landing figures ( circa 700 to 800 metres) a tad optimistic for the weight (16,500 lbs) and power (1700 hp) unless they're just quoting ground roll.

Typical cruising altitude stated as 10,000 which tends to indicate it's unpressurised.

[MickG0105]

Typical cruising altitude stated as 10,000 which tends to indicate it's unpressurised.
They quote a 32,000 foot ceiling and there was some talk of a pressurised version some years back. But when you think about it, with no compressor stage to draw bleed air from and no hot bits to heat it, pressurization would be just one more thing that would have to draw power from the battery pack. It would be interesting to see what sort of impact pressurization would have on range.

[43Inches]

https://electrek.co/2021/08/03/dhl-to-deploy-12-redesigned-alice-eplanes-from-eviation-testing-begins-this-year/

Battery weight in there stated at;

The website now says Alice will cruise at 220kt (407km/h) and have 440nm range, with power coming from an 820kWh lithium-ion battery system weighing 3,720kg (8,200lb). Previously, Eviation has said Alice would cruise at 240kt and have 540nm range and 920kWh battery system weighing 3,600kg.

Some sort of deal with DHL where 12 will be used on freight runs as a test bed.

DHL plans to build the world’s first electric air cargo network with the electric plane, noting that Alice can be flown by a single pilot and will carry 1,200 kilograms (2,600 lbs). It will require 30 minutes or less to charge per flight hour and have a maximum range of up to 815 kilometers (440 nautical miles).

By my calculations that leaves just over 2000kg for the weight of everything else, structure, fittings etc. 7500kg MTOW - 1200kg load - 3720kg batteries - 400 kg powerplant = 2180kg left over for structure, fit out, etc. It sounds feasible, but tight.

I was wondering why the engines had air intakes, turns out the electric motors are liquid cooled.

[machtuk]

This is another company. Already lost one prototype due to a fire, in the batteries. Seems their claims of range etc are always being scaled back.

https://www.eviation.co/aircraft/#Greater-Than-The-Sum-of-Her-Parts


That's a flash glossy brochure, I like the word 'Alice', j
add ' in wonderland' and there you have it, pure fantasy -)
I don't know what drugs these lunatics are on but I want a pound of it! -)

[27/09]

They quote a 32,000 foot ceiling and there was some talk of a pressurised version some years back. But when you think about it, with no compressor stage to draw bleed air from and no hot bits to heat it, pressurization would be just one more thing that would have to draw power from the battery pack. It would be interesting to see what sort of impact pressurization would have on range.

Have to wonder what impact the de-ice/anti ice equipment would have too.

machtuk; I liked the "Alice In Wonderland" comment

[43Inches]

Have to wonder what impact the de-ice/anti ice equipment would have too.


Depends what they use;

Heat elements, goodbye batteries.

Fluid type like cirrus, possible for the short ranged nature of them.

Or, like new Russian aircraft they could go Electro-Mechanical Expulsion Deicing, which can be fitted to all surfaces and runs off a 9v battery. Western tech are slow with it because they don't want to pay for the Russian patents on it, they had offered it as a retrofit for SAAB 340 aircraft, the SAAB kit dropped the weight of deicing system by about 90%. The reason it wasn't adapted 'Russian technology is not accepted by the west'. NASA tried to bridge the technology by making a hybrid boot that combines heat and EMED, but this has issues with with run back due to having a heat component.

[MickG0105]

Western tech are slow with it because they don't want to pay for the Russian patents on it, they had offered it as a retrofit for SAAB 340 aircraft, the SAAB kit dropped the weight of deicing system by about 90%. The reason it wasn't adapted 'Russian technology is not accepted by the west'.

Innovative Dynamics Inc, a US company, filed for a patent for their electro-magnetic expulsion de-icing system over 25 years ago. The patent, US6102333A (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6102333A/en), was granted in 2000. The systems are built in the US by Cox and Co for a variety of aircraft, not the least of which being Boeing's P-8 Poseidon anti-submarine aircraft. Apparently US Navy has no aversion to "Russian technology".

[43Inches]

Innovative Dynamics Inc, a US company, filed for a patent for their electro-magnetic expulsion de-icing system over 25 years ago. The patent, US6102333A (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6102333A/en), was granted in 2000. The systems are built in the US by Cox and Co for a variety of aircraft, not the least of which being Boeing's P-8 Poseidon anti-submarine aircraft. Apparently US Navy has no aversion to "Russian technology".

Yes aware of the Cox system, was supposed to be included on some business jets. The Russian EMEDs was first implemented back in the 70's on an IL-74 or 76 and was first fitted to a commercial design on the IL-114 in the 90s for full wing, tail and belly deicing. Unfortunately at the time Russian planes were on the nose, even in Russia as this was just after the collapse of the Soviet union. From what I heard the IL-76 system operated without fault for 70,000 cycles, compare that to a pneumatic rubber boot system....

The 'Russian tech' comment is why SAAB aerospace didn't proceed with it.

EMEDS technology has been around in Russia for years, its used to deice structures like pipelines and buildings.

IL-114-300 looks like it may have needed that system on its first flight....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEID1aO-9N8

[27/09]

Not a regional aircraft but another electric/hybrid aircraft.

Seems a complicated propulsion system.

https://www.voltaero.aero/en/feature-stories/cassio1-first-public-presentation/