Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Electric Airplane Revolution May Come Sooner Than You Think (robbreport.com)

Posted by msmash on from the behind-the-curtains dept.

An anonymous reader shares a report: An all-electric mini-airliner that can go 621 miles on one charge and replace many of the turboprops and light jets in use now -- flying almost as far and almost as fast but for a fraction of the running costs -- could be in service within three years. But this isn't another claim by another overoptimistic purveyor of electric dreams. It's using current technology, and the first planes are being built right now. In fact, the process of gaining certification from aviation regulators for what would be the world's first electric commuter plane has already started.

The pressurised Alice from Israeli company Eviation is a graceful-looking composite aircraft with one propeller at the rear and another at the end of each wing, placed to cut drag from wingtip vortices. Each is driven by a 260 kW electric motor, and they receive power from a 900 kWh lithium ion battery pack.

Alongside its 650 mile range, the pressurised $3 million-plus Alice can carry nine passengers and two crew, and cruise at 276 mph -- up there with the speed of the turboprops that are widely used in the commuter role, if not anywhere near that of jets. But crucially, says Eviation chief executive Omer Bar-Yohay, "operating costs will be just 7 to 9 cents per seat per mile," or about $200 an hour for the whole aircraft, against about $1,000 for turboprop rivals.

24 of 336 comments (clear)

  1. Cool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Looked pretty good till I got to the bit about only carrying 9 passengers.

    1. Re: Cool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Point you are missing is that a CHEAP smaller plane may be economic with small passenger numbers.

      Conventional planes need higher passenger numbers to break even and I know here (Oz) those rural destinations really hurt because of that.

    2. Re:Cool... by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It actually looks utterly awful, because it's still using traditional propulsion style of a small amount of fairly large engines. The revolution in electric flying is that you can use a large amount of very small engines, to the point where you can turn your entire control surface into a mass of tiny engines, allowing for significant aerodynamic advances.

      I.e. something like NASA's x-57 test bed:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      The unsolvable problem remains the energy density of batteries. At least until we figure out something like lithium air batteries in terms of energy density with has been perpetually "two decades away" for something close to half a century.

    3. Re: Cool... by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or just burn the hydrogen in a conventional engine?

      No, that's a very bad idea. Fuel cells can deliver as much as 80% of the chemical energy of the hydrogen + oxygen -> water reaction as electrons on the wire. The best internal combustion engines will lose at least half of that power as waste heat, and will be even worse when outside of the specific pressure and temperature range that they're designed for.

      Whenever we start using hydrogen for aviation fuel, fuel cells powering electric fans is the way to go.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    4. Re:Cool... by Barsteward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why? a lear jet carries about the same amount of passengers.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    5. Re: Cool... by Barsteward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      they can buy a Lear jet for that. This is probably good for a small operator making a entry into air taxis - UBER of the skies :)

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    6. Re: Cool... by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's almost as if you've missed all the stuff about driverless cars and pilotless 'planes that's been happening in the last decade.

      --
      No sig today...
    7. Re: Cool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Are you kidding? Small planes are used to "puddle jump" between regional airports in the US, particularly in the NE, all the time. They have been for a long time, and I've flown on them many times. There is most definitely a use for a 9-passenger commercial electric plane.

    8. Re: Cool... by michelcolman · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yeah, I'd like to see an automated system handle a situation like Qantas 32. Or the Hudson crash.

      And before someone goes "but most crashes are caused by pilot error": the vast majority of would-be crashes that would have been caused by automation are actually prevented by the pilots. Automation screws up all the time. In fact, many crashes that were caused by automation problems are actually classified as "pilot error" because the pilots should have been paying attention and prevented the crash. For example the Turkish Airlines crash in Amsterdam where the airplane stalled during a fully automatic approach, yet the pilots were blamed for not intervening when the airspeed dropped below approach speed. I have actually had a similar situation but reacted correctly, resulting in... an air safety report filed after landing. Didn't make the papers ;-)

    9. Re:Cool... by Whibla · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's a passenger airplane. 650 miles is basically useless.

      The distance from London to Glasgow, to give just one commonly traveled route, is about 420 miles, and the estimated driving time between the two is just over 7 hours.

      In other words this place would very easily fill the role of carrying business passengers (or MP's, or...) between the two, with fewer carbon emissions, in less than a quarter of the time it would otherwise take. Another advantage is that we're talking about a small aircraft, meaning it can take off from, and land at, smaller, regional, airfields.

      That you cannot see a use-case for the aircraft says more about your imagination or experience of the world than it does about the actual utility of the vehicle.

    10. Re: Cool... by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The recent Lion Air crash is a perfect example. Beyond the fact that the plane probably wasn't airworthy the MAX 8 also had the MCAS which Boeing seemingly failed to disclose and therefore pilots were never trained on it. Fortunately for the crew and passengers on the Lion Air flight the day before the crew performed a checklist that involved disconnecting the stabs which effectively disabled the MCAS. The crew of the flight that crashed apparently didn't. So even though no one was aware of the system and the pilots weren't trained for it, Boeing is still likely pushing for a "pilot error" designation.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    11. Re: Cool... by unimacs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are puddle jumpers and there are puddle jumpers: https://www.mayaislandair.com/...

      I flew on one of those when we went to Belize. The Alice could replace any of Maya Island Air's planes except perhaps the largest. But even then I'd argue that since they are so much cheaper to fly, you could just add a few flights per day to make up the 1 or 2 seat difference between the Alice and the larger plane.

      Something else to consider is that along with the cheaper fuel costs, the maintenance costs of the electric engines would be much much lower.

    12. Re:Cool... by Baldrake · · Score: 3, Informative

      Looked pretty good till I got to the bit about only carrying 9 passengers.

      I live in a city of about 150,000 people. The most common airplane operating out of our airport is the Beechcraft 1900D, which seats 19 people. Trips are to the closest centres, which are all within 300 km.

      So 9 passengers is a little low for replacing these planes, but it's only off by a factor of two. And range is just fine. So there's a market right here for planes that aren't that far off from what this company is offering.

  2. Something doesn’t feel right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    260kw engines x3 = 780 Kw power draw from engines at full throttle. Control surface actuators, radio, aircon, navigation, lighting all have to draw power from the same battery pack... I’d wager this has barely an hour of flight endurance at full engine power. Worse if wing de-icing were also battery powered.

    They claim 650 mile range at 276 mph, which is a bit more than two hours flight time... I realize the engines shouldn’t have to be at full throttle for most of a flight, but this still seems like not enough to provide an operating reserve to divert to another airport or wait in a holding pattern for long

    If these fly I can only see them being approved for very short hops.

    1. Re:Something doesn’t feel right... by Njovich · · Score: 4, Informative

      I realize the engines shouldn’t have to be at full throttle for most of a flight

      For the vast majority of the flight most airplanes are nowhere near full throttle. According to the wiki page, the powerplant uses 280 kW at cruise speed and the 966km range includes a reserve. At this point we just don't have any real info other than these manufacturer provided numbers, and given that they have lots of incentives to hype up their plane, we have no reason to trust these numbers. Purely based on the data provided by the manufacturer it's all possible, but who knows how it performs in real life.

  3. Replace commuter turboprops? by Guspaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is a nine-passenger aircraft. No matter how cheap it is, it can't replace a common turboprop commuter aircraft like the Q400, which seats 80-90 people.

    Below a certain capacity, the cost-per-seat doesn't matter because airlines can only get so many landing and gate slots, and general aviation airports aren't equipped to deal with the sort of volume that would be needed to replace them... not to mention that general aviation airports are usually MUCH worse accessible in terms of public transit and distance from population centers.

    1. Re:Replace commuter turboprops? by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wait, you're saying that a startup company's first aircraft isn't going to suddenly displace the many tens of thousands of turboprop commuter aircraft operating today?

      Gee, too bad their business model assumes that their first aircraft will displace all current turboprop business, I presume based on no evidence whatsoever and against all common sense.

      --
      Seen on a Japanese food processor: "Not to be used for the other use."
    2. Re:Replace commuter turboprops? by Rei · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Q-400 fuel tank = 6526L. At $1,50/l for aviation fuel, that's about $10k in fuel costs per trip, for a typical 82 passenger capacity configuration (90 max configuration), about $119 per passenger.

      Alice battery = 900kWh. At commercial rates of $0,08/kWh, that's $72, which works out to $8 per passenger

      Even when you factor in the range difference (2040km vs. ~1050km), clearly the energy costs are far lower for the latter per-passenger per unit distance. Practically irrelevant.

      As for how much everything else costs (pilot, maintenance, depreciation, etc), I can't say. But as for energy, it's a blowout comparison. Aviation fuel is expensive even compared to road fuel costs, which are expensive compared to residential electricity rates, which are expensive compared to commercial electricity.

      Obviously such an aircraft is not designed for busy routes. But it looks like an obvious contender for lesser-trafficked routes. It would be awesome for our domestic flights here in Iceland; our airports could probably charge at around $0,06/kWh, but fuel here is crazy-expensive. Scaled-up aircraft for busier routes will come when their smaller brethren prove their worth in their roles.

      Today's battery tech already supports electric aircraft in such "puddle jumper" roles. Battery tech advancement is only required for longer-range air service.

      --
      Seen on a Japanese food processor: "Not to be used for the other use."
    3. Re:Replace commuter turboprops? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wow, it's like nobody has ever thought about multiple battery packs that can be swapped.

    4. Re:Replace commuter turboprops? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 3, Informative

      Q400 is a bad example. It is a very inefficient turboprop, built for speed as a jet replacement for quick turnaround times. Since it is quite a bit faster, fewer units are required to serve a route. Also faster airplanes usually get higher (hence more efficient) flight levels from the ATC.

      This is, by the way, why the cost per unit distance is the wrong measurement.

      That Alice is not this kind of a commercial aircraft anyway, more a replacement for the King Air kind of aircraft, or, judging from the looks of it, is meant to directly compete with the Piaggio P180.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    5. Re:Replace commuter turboprops? by sc0rpi0n · · Score: 3, Informative

      A comparable turboprop (PC-12 and TBM 850, 6-8 passengers) has a variable cost of about $600 per hour to operate and a similar purchase cost:
      https://www.avbuyer.com/articl...

      The Q400 costs significantly more per hour: https://prijet.com/operating_c...

  4. Battery weight? by orzetto · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They claim "current technology", but with current technology 900 kWh weigh about 9 tons (considering the battery pack). Ultimate density for Li-ion, according to this report (figure 6-12), could get it to 3 ton or just below.

    That's in any case a lot more than the payload for a plane that size. In general, current battery technology cannot be used on regional flights, much less intercontinental ones. Hydrogen may be an alternative for regional (still not long-range), though it might require making the plane look like a beluga to accommodate the tanks.

    900 kWh on a 9-seater? Vaporware, unless they show what battery pack they are using.

    --
    Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
  5. Re:Let me clear this right up by rkordmaa · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "Electric airplanes are right up there with perpetual motion devices".

    Um... no. You can buy an electric airplane such as Pipistrel no problem. And obviously it's possible to scale it up. Question is though, where are the practical engineering and economics limits? Just as obviously as it's possible to scale up electric airplanes, it's currently not feasible to scale it up to rival an intercontinental airliner. But there is a lot of middle ground between a Pipistrel and A350.

  6. Re:Ever seen a Tesla battery pack go up in flames? by geekmux · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ever seen a Tesla battery pack go up in flames?

    Kind of hard to stop and jump out at 20000 feet.

    Ever seen what a shotglass worth of vaporized gasoline can do with regards to explosive power?

    Kind of hard to use your argument when the risk factor doesn't really change regardless of fuel source.