Electric Regional Aircraft in Service by 2026?

[TurningTheSpanners]

Originally Posted by MickG0105

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]

Originally Posted by TurningTheSpanners

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/agricultu...re-of-farming/

[nomorecatering]

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

Flickr Slideshows (Photostreams)

[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/#Gr...m-of-Her-Parts

[fab777]

Originally Posted by 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/#Gr...m-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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 27/09

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-t...ins-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]

Originally Posted by 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/#Gr...m-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]

Originally Posted by MickG0105

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]

Originally Posted by 43Inches

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, 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".