Slashdot Mirror


JetBlue and Boeing Are Betting Big On Electric Jet Startup 'Zunem Aero' (theverge.com)

A new startup called Zunum Aero is aiming to reinvent how users travel short distances, such as from San Francisco to Los Angeles. "The Kirkland, Washington-based company [...] plans to build a fleet of hybrid electric jets to sell to major carriers for service on densely traveled regional routes like San Francisco to Los Angeles or Boston to Washington, DC, "reports The Verge. Two aviation giants, Boeing and JetBlue, are reportedly backing the startup. From the report: Lower operating costs (i.e., no fueling) will allow carriers to reduce fares by 40 to 80 percent, they predict. And by flying a smaller aircraft that would be subject to fewer TSA regulations, Zunum claims it will take less time to go through security before boarding one of its planes. Zunum aims to build several models of hybrid-electric propulsion jets. At launch, its first class of aircraft will be tiny, in the 10-15 foot range, with a 10-passenger capacity and a range of up to 700 miles on a single charge. (Think San Francisco to Portland or Atlanta to DC.) Those planes can be expected to roll off the assembly line by the early 2020s, the company's CEO Ashish Kumar told The Verge. By the 2030s, as electric battery technology improves, Zunum hopes to build larger aircraft that can carry up to 50 passengers and travel up to 1,000 miles on a single charge. (Think Seattle to LA or Boston to Jacksonville, Florida.) Zunum's aircraft will feature hybrid electric motors with the capacity to accept recharging power from a variety of sources. Because airplanes are typically kept in service for up to 30 years, Kumar says its important for Zunum's aircraft to be future proof. That means designing them to be compatible with future battery designs and range-extending generators, with an eye toward ultimately switching from hybrid propulsion to fully electric motors once the technology catches up.

32 of 163 comments (clear)

  1. LOL airlines reducing fares by adjustinthings · · Score: 4, Funny

    yeah right

    1. Re:LOL airlines reducing fares by mattack2 · · Score: 4, Informative

      ...except the fact that airline fares are way cheaper, adjusted for inflation, than they used to be...

    2. Re: LOL airlines reducing fares by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Informative

      Jesus that is scary as fuck. It's certainly not the oil, aluminum, food, flight attendants, or pilots that have gotten any cheaper, so I assume most of the cuts have been to safety.

      Oil: Wrong
      Aluminum: Wrong
      Food: What food?
      Flight attendants: Wrong
      Pilots: Way wrong

      Not to mention:
      Much smaller seats
      Odds of sitting next to an empty seat to spread out onto: used to be good, now nearly zero.

      As for safety, there used to be major air disasters in the USA about once per year. How long has it been now? I don't recall one in the last decade.

    3. Re:LOL airlines reducing fares by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      This is where the savings come from. And yes, prices have been dropping, All you need to do is look at a chart.

      Prices have not been dropping. Fares have been dropping because many of the necessary services (baggage, for example) have been "unbundled" from the price of flying.

      If you compare, apples to apples, the price of flying has outpaced the rate of inflation since 1974.

      The government's data come from the reliable Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), but suffer from outdated methodology that ignores the airline industry's relentless drive to strip products and services from the published airfare. In fact, a deeper dive into the BTS report claiming fares are lower than in 1995 reveals that it covers just 70 percent of the revenue airlines now derive from passengers. And a separate BTS study released on Monday says that airlines last year collected more than $6 billion in checked-luggage charges and ticket-change fees, which represents roughly half of the industry's 2013 operating profit.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re: LOL airlines reducing fares by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2

      You realize that was exactly point I was making, right?

  2. Can you say "energy density" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's a problem the snake oil salesman known as Ashish Kumar is willfully ignoring.

    Yes, batteries will get better, but 40 times better ? That remains to be seen, and there is NO guarantee
    it will ever happen.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densities_of_common_energy_storage_materials

    1. Re:Can you say "energy density" ? by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      One thing that is going to happen is the ceasing of the use of fossil fuels. Even the jurisdictions making their fortunes (such as there are to be found these days) know it, which is why the smarter petro-states have set up large sovereign wealth funds.

      One way or the other, the future won't be powered with fossil fuels. It's really that simple. So we're going to have to produce energy storage systems capable of replacing oil, and really, unless you know of some physical constraint, what we're talking about is a technical problem, and not some insurmountable physical barrier.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re: Can you say "energy density" ? by blindseer · · Score: 2

      "men, women and transexuals."

      You forgot to mention the other 48 genders. Racist!!

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    3. Re:Can you say "energy density" ? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's a problem the snake oil salesman known as Ashish Kumar is willfully ignoring.

      Yes, batteries will get better, but 40 times better ? That remains to be seen, and there is NO guarantee

      What the AC is willfully ignoring here is that the efficiency of the system is what matters, not energy density. If you have a chemical system that 10 times the energy density but only 10% the efficiency and the electrical system would have an equal amount of power. It's more complex than such a simple example but the fact remains it's the system that matters, not the energy storage medium.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    4. Re:Can you say "energy density" ? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 2

      [snipped airplane powered by batteries theory] It's really that simple.

      Everything is simple to simple people.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    5. Re:Can you say "energy density" ? by Solandri · · Score: 3, Informative

      What you're willfully ignoring here is that the efficiency is not all that matters. A plane has a certain payload capacity, and the fuel/battery load counts against that. Your 10x greater efficiency (actually it's closer to 2x) does no good if the energy density of batteries is so low that you now have zero remaining payload for passengers and cargo. And you get most of the 2x worse efficiency back by the fuel being burned (and thus no longer having to carry its weight) throughout the flight.

      Anyhow, TFA describes hybrid electric jets. All the energy the electric motors use will come from burning fuel. So the overall system-wide efficiency of the electric motor will by definition always be worse than using the fuel for thrust. At least under nominal conditions. That's the catch which makes hybrid-electric jet engines viable - you can't always operate the engines at nominal (highest efficiency) thrust. If you tune the engines for optimal efficiency at cruise, they end up being inefficient at low thrust. So the idea is to run the engines at cruise power a bit longer to charge some batteries, then you turn the engines off and use an electric motor powered by the batteries to provide the minimal thrust needed during descent.

      TFA openly admits the technology is not yet there to make a fully electric jet viable. Which was AC's point.

    6. Re:Can you say "energy density" ? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      That means range might not be as great, it doesn't mean the technology is infeasible, it means to start with it would be limited to medium range flights.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    7. Re: Can you say "energy density" ? by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 2

      It's worse than that. Metal-air batteries work by turning metal (that you have) and oxygen (that you get from the air) into metal oxide (that you have to carry back). So unlike an airplane or a rocket that gets lighter as it flies, this fucker will get heavier.

      Also, cables and windings for electric motors area heavy. Ever held and industrial electric motor in your hand? Then you're the strongest man alive.

  3. Electric jet? by manu0601 · · Score: 4, Informative

    How can a jet be electric?

    1. Re:Electric jet? by baker_tony · · Score: 5, Funny

      Pff, they don't require refueling because they have a wind turbine on top, charges itself as it flies. Dah.

    2. Re:Electric jet? by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      and not require refueling

      Hamsters, lots and lots of hamsters.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    3. Re:Electric jet? by manu0601 · · Score: 2

      I know there is lots of research into electric compressors, but I didn't realize they were getting that competitive

      It could be that, or alternatively, a clueless journalist incorrectly used the term "jet". The picture in TFA suggests the later explanation.

    4. Re:Electric jet? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      Just as long as it isn't snakes.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    5. Re:Electric jet? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2

      So you're saying that the railroad industry has been greenwashing ever since the early 20th century with the term "diesel-electric locomotive"?

    6. Re:Electric jet? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

      How can a jet be electric?

      A jet can be fully electric if it uses the atmosphere from the intake to create a combustible fuel and then combusts it. This would require a lot of energy but it is possible since our atmosphere can be broken down into combustible components.

      However, when this article refers to a jet, they are referring to the class of airplanes known as business jets and their variation on business jets is electric.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    7. Re:Electric jet? by LordHighExecutioner · · Score: 5, Funny

      > How can a jet be electric?

      It is easier than you think. Just install batteries from Samsung, and ignite.

    8. Re:Electric jet? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually passenger jets do have wind turbines! Many have an emergency turbine that can be deployed if the electrical generator connected to one of the engines fails for some reason. It folds out of the body and generates enough power to run essential systems like flight, navigation and control surfaces.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  4. What abuot the weight problem? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While it might work during cruise and landing, will the extra fuel need for takeoff and possibly to support flight at cruise altitude, and thus extra fuel burn and the need to carry such fuel, outweigh the benefits in reduced fuel consumption. AC manufacturers go to great lengths to save a pound given the cost savings over a plane's lifetime, this seems to be a bit of a pipe dream right now. For example, they pulled airphones once usage dropped to the point the companies supplying the tech and paying a fee to put it on airplanes lost money, just as pulling in seat video makes sense with the addition of wifi and the increase number of passengers carrying tables and cell phones made it more economical to provide wifi access to the in seat features that way. they were carrying the weight anyway in passenger luggage, why not get rid f the in seat weight to save money. Add in the potential for a catastrophic fire while flying due to a battery problem and you have some reall hurdles to overcome, I can see Boeing and JetBlue putting some money into it to get access to the technology if it pans out, just as investing in experimenting with alternate fuel sources makes sense.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  5. Re:That's funny by aXis100 · · Score: 2

    Tell that to people that make jet boats.

    Sure, there's no combustion gasses coming out the back and the compressor is electrically driven, but that just means it's an "electric ducted fan" and not a "gas turbine". Both of them still operate on the principles of jet propulsion.

  6. One potentially useful application - taxiing by knorthern+knight · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Using direct jet power to taxi at 10 mph from the gate to the runway, and visa versa, is damn inefficient, fuelwise. One commonly-quoted factoid is that a Concorde would use more fuel taxiing from gate to runway, than a standard airliner would use in an entire short-haul European flight. Even ordinary jetliners waste a lot of fuel in the process.

    Electric motors connected to the wheels might be a more economical way to move the the plane around on the ground. We'd have to compare fuel saved taxi-ing, versus weight of batteries+electrical gear. The electrical motor gearing would have to be disengaged when the plane comes in for landing... but wait a minute... could the plane use re-generative braking to partially recharge its batteries whilst landing?

    There are 2 possible implementations of electrical taxi-ing

    1) A battery. That would be the heavier solution.

    2) An induction-powered motor drawing power from cables just beneath the runway surface. That would eliminate the need for batteries.

    --

    I'm not repeating myself
    I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
    1. Re:One potentially useful application - taxiing by TheSync · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Or a robotic electric tug that can autonomously find and attach to the airplane, then be controlled wirelessly by the pilot, then be released from the plane and autonomously (and safely) leave the runway and return for a charge.

    2. Re:One potentially useful application - taxiing by PPH · · Score: 2

      The electric drive idea has been proposed and prototyped. But it operates off APU/engine generator power. APUs are more fuel efficient than main engines. And main engine driven generators can produce appreciable levels of power even at idle or reduced thrust settings. Also, these drive systems can push the plane backwards, eliminating the need for a pushback from a tug. Although a few crazy pilots have been known to push back from a gate using reverse thrust.

      Two things have prevented widespread adoption of this technology. First, for safety reasons, ground personnel are still needed to walk the plane out of a gate and prevent collisions with other objects. And second, airlines and pilots like to start, warm up and run engines on the ground at some thrust level prior to takeoff in order to ensure their subsequent proper operation during takeoff and climb (critical, high thrust flight segments). So the engines will be run on the ground regardless of tugs and electric motor technology.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  7. Re:It's not April 1, and yet ... by onkelonkel · · Score: 5, Informative

    You have no idea. Small airplanes have much less stringent security requirements. I flew from Vancouver to Victoria last year on Harbour Air (10 seat floatplane). I called to find out how far in advance i had to be there. HA - What time is your flight?. Me - 7 AM. HA - be there no later than 10 to 7. No security check of any sort. At 7:00 on the nose the pilot walked into the lounge, announced the flight and we all walked down to the dock together. This was downtown to downtown, and the from the time I arrived at the "Airport" to the time I walked off the dock in Victoria was 35 minutes. Pure awesome.

    --
    None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
  8. 1/2 the size of a Cessna, but 3x the passengers? by GGardner · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A Cessna 172 is 27 feet long, and carries 4 people, including one or two pilots. This thing claims to be 10 to 15 feet long, and carry 10 passengers + a pilot or two? How's that gonna work?

  9. Re:1/2 the size of a Cessna, but 3x the passengers by BoogieChile · · Score: 2

    Two possibilities; either that's wingspan, not overall length, or alternatively, notice they never mentioned how tall the plane is

  10. No Prototype by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The important thing to know about this company is that there is no prototype yet. The news is that they are "Working with FAA", but given that they don't actually have an airplane,

    even one worthy of the "Experimental" designation, there hardly seems a point in working with the FAA.

    We'll get electric aircraft eventually. I suspect not from these folks, and we might have to wait a bit longer for the battery technology.

  11. Battery-first series hybrid airplane by steveha · · Score: 2

    I found an article with a better description of the proposed technology.

    https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/this-startup-is-building-an-electric-airplane

    The aircraft will be a battery-first series hybrid, or an electric-powered aircraft with a range extender -- sort of like General Motors' Chevy Volt. All of the propulsion will come from the electric motor, said Kumar, and if there's enough battery power to run the entire flight, the jet fuel won't need to kick in. The company will also offer all-electric options.

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely