[HN Gopher] Vancouver seaplane company to resume test flights wi...
___________________________________________________________________
Vancouver seaplane company to resume test flights with electric
plane
Author : seryoiupfurds
Score : 171 points
Date : 2021-01-25 15:58 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cbc.ca)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cbc.ca)
| timonoko wrote:
| One must think about seagulls and how they effortlessly stay
| airborne for hours. Every single feather has nerve endings and
| muscles for optimal aerodynamical performance.
|
| Also Neal Stephenson describes how a wingwoman departs from a
| space station in orbit and lands on terra firma and goes back
| only utilizing air currents. Totally believable me thinks.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Sailplanes effectively do this. The new high performance
| sailplane Nixus actually uses fly-by-wire to do
| microadjustments to optimize aerodynamic performance analogous
| to what you said, although skilled pilots can do similar.
| https://www.flyingmag.com/nixus-fly-by-wire-glider-takes-fli...
|
| Future long distance electric aircraft will resemble
| sailplanes.
| outworlder wrote:
| > Also Neal Stephenson describes how a wingwoman departs from a
| space station in orbit and lands on terra firma and goes back
| only utilizing air currents
|
| Goes back where? To orbit, using air currents?
|
| That's physically impossible.
| timonoko wrote:
| Be amazed: The orbit station is a "giant space wheel", whose
| central mass is in orbit, but has rotating pods synchronized
| with earths rotation, some 100 km below. There are some
| issues with centrifugal forces (which Neal also describes),
| but otherwise all the wingwoman has to do is to reach the
| altitude and speed of this pod. The energy needed to move
| this person from the pod to the central station comes from
| the sol and is quite miniscule.
| arecurrence wrote:
| The seaplane area in Vancouver stinks during the summer. I am
| very much looking forward to electrification eliminating that
| strong diesel smell. If there's enough planes transiting you can
| even see the haze (dozens of seaplanes use that terminal).
| eloff wrote:
| They don't run on diesel, but I think the kind of aviation fuel
| small planes use is pretty nasty. I've also heard it is still
| leaded, not sure if that's the case here or not.
|
| Many of the boats nearby in the marina do use diesel, for some
| of the large ones, maybe even the high sulfur bunker crude
| which is nasty stuff.
| tastyfreeze wrote:
| I worked on a seaplane dock as a teen. Radial engines use
| AvGas which is high octane gasoline. Turbine engines use Jet
| A which is a kerosene blend fuel.
|
| Most de Havilland Beavers in my area are still radial engines
| due to the nostalgia that sells to tourists. Most companies
| have converted their de Havilland Otters to a turbine engine.
| I have seen turbine Beavers from other areas. You can
| visually identify the engine by the shape of the plane nose.
| A radial engine plane has a big, round, blunt nose and sounds
| like an idling drag racer with a deep glug glug glug noise. A
| turbine engine plane has a pointy nose and sounds like the
| high pitch whine of a jet engine.
| steffan wrote:
| > still radial engines due to the nostalgia that sells to
| tourists
|
| Given the relatively thin margins in aviation, I think it's
| probably less about nostalgia and more about the $1M USD
| price of e.g. a PT-6 turbine
| baybal2 wrote:
| There are no avia piston engines left above 500-600HP
| today, and 1000+hp are completely unheard off.
|
| This is why a lot of radial engine powered planes that
| are many decades old have no options for new engines if
| there are no turbine conversion available.
| tastyfreeze wrote:
| I am sure that is a consideration. The performance of a
| turbine Beaver is also not as much of an improvement as a
| converted Otter.
|
| Margins on transportation flights are thin. Margins on
| flightseeing are not. The company I worked for chartered
| a Beaver between $600-$700 an hour and a turbine Otter at
| double that. Seats for 45-minute flightseeing (through a
| national monument) were priced at $185-$250. 6 pax in an
| Beaver and 10 in an Otter.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| >Turbine engines use Jet A which is a kerosene blend fuel.
|
| I'm always amazed how people don't know this and think "jet
| fuel" is some magic stuff.
|
| I'm missing steps, but I think it's pretty much:
|
| oil >> tanker fuel >> diesel >> kerosene >> jet fuel
| [deleted]
| na85 wrote:
| I had a professor in school that hated turbines. You press
| a button, it whines, and with a small puff it starts.
|
| A radial looks, sounds, smells dangerous, like it's going
| to fly apart at any second, and that's awesome. Every so
| often some old warbirds fly over my neighbourhood and it's
| such a treat to hear those big radials thundering away.
| They should prescribe that sound as antidepressants.
| Maximus9000 wrote:
| They use jet fuel for most of their planes. Here is an
| environmental report. Jet fuel is basically diesel. See page
| 4
|
| https://www.harbourair.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2019/01/Harbou...
| alfalfasprout wrote:
| Most internal combustion (that is, non-turboprop or turbojet)
| aircraft use 100LL (100 octane low-lead) fuel. Here, up to
| 0.56g/L of lead content is used as an octane booster/anti-
| knocking agent.
|
| Many attempts have been made to remove lead from Avgas but
| it's fairly difficult since the substitute needs to work with
| the vast majority of current engines _and_ it needs to be
| easy to produce and distribute in large quantities around the
| country. Given the _much_ smaller demand for 100LL (primarily
| used in general aviation) compared to Jet-A used for turbojet
| aircraft there hasn 't been a big push.
| Naac wrote:
| Other than the Hackernews comment from a couple days ago
| suggesting this, do you have an links to sources saying these
| seaplanes use leaded fuels?
|
| I'm not disagreeing, I just want to make sure we're talking
| about real things and not starting rumors.
| coryrc wrote:
| https://www.kuow.org/stories/electric-floatplanes-could-
| help...
|
| Almost half Kenmore Air's fleet spews lead on us.
| jacurtis wrote:
| MOST seaplanes have piston engines that use 100LL AvGas,
| which is a gasoline with lead in it (the LL stands for "low
| lead" as opposed to "unleaded" in car gas). The lead keeps
| airplane engines, especially older ones from knocking.
|
| These planes are DHC-2 DeHaviland Beavers, which
| traditionally do have radial engines that would require
| leaded gas. So there is some significance to the rumors.
|
| BUT... Harbour Air (the airline featured in this article)
| is a large seaplane airline that have converted all their
| Beavers to Turbo-Beavers, so they use Turbo-prop engines,
| which is essentially a jet engine with a propeller on the
| shaft instead of a fan (turbo-fan is what most commercial
| jetliners use, these are essentially the same type of
| engine but using a propeller to convert engine revolutions
| into propulsion as opposed to a fan). So in this case,
| Harbour Air's beavers actually use Jetfuel which does NOT
| have lead in it.
| outworlder wrote:
| Yeah, most general aviation planes do. Has a lot to do with
| infrastructure and certification requirements. You have to
| modify, then re-certify the engine. Most manufacturers
| don't want to do that unless there's a clear benefit.
|
| Most people would prefer to use standard automotive
| gasoline. You can see people in the experimental/sports
| aircraft category rejoicing when they can find a "MoGas"
| pump.
| andrewmunsell wrote:
| I'm not familiar with the specific model of seaplane
| referenced here, but 100LL avgas is commonly used in small
| planes (and the LL stands for low-lead)
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas
| phaemon wrote:
| Apparently they were supposed to be phased out by 2018 but
| it's been delayed: https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/new
| s_story.cfm?newsId=1...
| bluGill wrote:
| 100 low-lead is a common aviation fuel. Most small aircraft
| use it. Piston engines generally use that, while jets of
| course use jet fuel. There are piston engine that run on
| jet fuel (often diesel), but they are rare and just
| starting to come out.
|
| I don't know about sea planes though. My guess is they use
| lead because that is the best educated guess.
|
| edit: others are claiming that these planes are mostly
| turboprops which would then use lead free jet fuel.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| I'm unaware of ANY certified piston aircraft that don't use
| leaded fuel by default.
|
| Most fuel farms at airports sell 100 octane leaded fuel by
| default. It is normally the odd exception that sells
| unleaded fuel.
|
| The piston engine seaplanes will be using leaded fuel (as
| will any piston powered small plane with the exception of a
| few homebuilts and trainers). The turbine ones use regular
| Jet A.
| biggieshellz wrote:
| The only one I can think of would be the Rotax 912, which
| is certified to run on mogas ("motor gas" / unleaded).
| But as you said, that's more for light sport and
| trainers.
| na85 wrote:
| Jet fuel (which powers the turbine engines that Harbour Air
| uses) is actually quite similar to Diesel. Some turbines have
| diesel listed as an approved emergency fuel, particularly
| military aircraft.
|
| You might be thinking of avgas which has lead in it, but
| turbine engines don't burn avgas.
| throwaway314158 wrote:
| Don't a lot of older small craft--such as seaplanes--have
| radial engines?
| na85 wrote:
| > Don't a lot of older small craft--such as seaplanes--
| have radial engines?
|
| Sure, lots of older aircraft (and lots of modern small
| aircraft) run on avgas or diesel, whether radial or
| inline. But Harbour Air's fleet is almost all turbines. I
| think they have just a single non-turbine aircraft: https
| ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-2_Beav..
| .
|
| >Viking DHC-2T Turbo Beaver
|
| >Remanufactured Beavers by Viking Air, upgraded with a
| Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-34 680 hp (507 kW) turboprop
| engine.
| jccooper wrote:
| Piston engines (running leaded high-octane fuel) in
| general are common in small aircraft. Radials do exist,
| but most, I think, are inline engines (usually opposed).
| TylerE wrote:
| Nonsense. There are hundreds of DC-3s still flying with
| 1200hp Twin Wasp radials. Service life of aviation
| engines is essentially infinite - they just keep
| rebuilding 'em.
|
| The Russian ASH-62 is still in production, and depending
| on spec can produce as much as 1100hp.
| codesnik wrote:
| diesel? I doubt you have jet-a seaplanes there. It's gasoline,
| (though, the nasty kind, with lead)
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| Vancouver and Seattle both have a ton of turbine seaplane
| traffic.
|
| The smell at the seaplane docks is definitely Jet-A not
| gasoline.
| Naac wrote:
| Other than the Hackernews comment from a couple days ago
| suggesting this, do you have an links to sources saying these
| seaplanes use leaded fuels?
|
| I'm not disagreeing, I just want to make sure we're talking
| about real things and not starting rumors.
| coryrc wrote:
| I'm fairly certain these are leaded as well:
| https://www.seattleseaplanes.com/fleet-training.php
| colechristensen wrote:
| Fuel for small engine (reciprocating engine) planes does
| indeed usually still contain lead.
|
| > Unlike motor gasoline, which has been formulated since
| the 1970s to allow the use of platinum-content catalytic
| converters for pollution reduction, the most commonly used
| grades of avgas still contain tetraethyllead (TEL), a toxic
| substance used to prevent engine knocking (detonation).
| There are ongoing experiments aimed at eventually reducing
| or eliminating the use of TEL in aviation gasoline.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Kind of interesting, but ethanol has SUPER high octane
| and could be used for avgas (although as we know with e85
| cars, soft goods may need to be changed out). But using a
| mix of ethanol and gasoline can cause problems with water
| absorption and phase separation especially in cold
| conditions.
| cameldrv wrote:
| The water absorption and phase separation problems are
| particularly bad with airplanes because airplanes operate
| in very cold conditions when they go up to higher
| altitudes. I think that these problems also would apply
| to pure ethanol.
|
| The other kicker with ethanol is that its energy density
| is significantly lower, so it would significantly
| negatively impact the range/payload of every small
| airplane.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| The energy density issue is pretty small. You lose maybe
| 30%. This is tiny compared to the challenges of electric
| flight, for instance.
| colechristensen wrote:
| 30% is huge for an aircraft. Not only do you need more
| fuel for each trip, you need extra fuel to handle
| carrying around the extra fuel. (not necessarily
| intuitive starting out but aircraft deal with
| amplification factors, energy added ounce of fuel will
| require a greater than unity number of additional ounces
| of fuel for equivalent performance)
|
| Comparison to electric flight is a bad comparison as
| until very recently electric flight was basically
| considered to be impossible with present technology.
| newsclues wrote:
| It's Aviation Gas
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas
| matheweis wrote:
| Harbor Air and Kenmore Air both fly a bunch of turboprops
| around the Pacific Northwest, I see them all the time ...
|
| Only one of planes listed in Harbor Air's fleet is a piston:
| https://www.harbourair.com/about/aircraft-fleet/
| notatoad wrote:
| >Only one of the planes listed in harbour air's fleet is a
| piston
|
| And that one is the one they're retrofitting with an
| electric motor
| matheweis wrote:
| It's true that the Harbor Air prototype is the Beaver,
| but Magnix has been testing another prototype of a
| Caravan in parallel:
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/magnix-all-electric-
| cessna-g...
| coryrc wrote:
| Stinks and probably full of lead, if they are like Seattle:
|
| https://www.kuow.org/stories/electric-floatplanes-could-help...
| sradman wrote:
| > The problem with lithium batteries is they are heavy...
| McDougall says battery technology is advancing quickly and he
| expects them to be even lighter and more powerful, as his project
| gets closer to flying commercially.
|
| > Antweiler says Harbour Air is in the "sweet spot" in the
| industry as its flights are short, meaning battery technology as
| it stands today makes the project viable.
| amacalac wrote:
| I'm interested to see how quiet it's going to be over the skies
| of downtown Vancouver and Victoria if they manage to get the
| whole fleet to electric
| notatoad wrote:
| It's been a few years since I was out on the coast, but I don't
| remember float plane noise being _that_ significant of a factor
| in the city.
|
| The people who live near the harbours they land at in the gulf
| islands, or on that lake in Whistler are going to be pretty
| happy though.
| acwan93 wrote:
| Do electric planes make any difference in terms of noise? When
| an electric vehicle is in motion most of the noise I can tell
| are from the tires.
|
| A electric powered propeller plane would most likely still have
| most of its noise generated by the propeller, not the internal
| combustion engine. I presume the same is with jets.
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| Yes in several ways:
|
| - No noise when idling and more fine grained control over
| power. You can't tell apart a plane that is idling from one
| that is completely off with electric. Some turbo props on the
| other hand provide so much thrust when idling that you need
| to be on the brakes or it will start moving to quickly during
| taxiing. So, that amounts to a lot less noise for electrical
| planes while the plane is on the airport (i.e. where noise
| matters the most).
|
| - Not all propellers are made the same. They are generally
| matched to torque and rpm that can be provided by the engine.
| With an electric engine you'd have a wider range of both as
| the engine torque and rpm are more easily controlled. That
| means you can optimize for performance, noise, or both more
| easily.
|
| - Generally propellers get noisy when their tips break the
| speed of sound. Bigger propellers mean this happens at lower
| RPM. Smaller propellers can spin faster without having their
| tips breaking the sound barrier. Electrical engines can be
| small and light; meaning that you can choose to have a lot of
| smaller, less noisy ones instead of the big noisy ones. Also,
| because they can deliver more torque, you can increase the
| number of blades on the propeller to deliver more thrust and
| power at lower rpm (at the cost of more drag).
|
| - The frequency of the noise matters too. High pitched noise
| doesn't carry very far. Low pitched noise can be heard miles
| away. Like the noise of tonnes of kerosine being burned when
| a big jet takes off. Not a thing with electric. Big
| combustion engines can be similarly noisy. It's part of what
| makes them sound so exciting.
|
| You are right they won't be whisper silent but they will be a
| lot more silent overall, and noisy far less often (only when
| they need to; basically during take off).
| bdamm wrote:
| High torque at lower RPMs is still an untapped potential of
| electrification for aviation. Having more options for
| placement of propeller (behind the rudder, for example, where
| a larger and slower propeller could be placed) is huge. NASA
| is also experimenting with many small propellers placed ahead
| of the wings which can result in higher efficiency at cruise,
| but unfortunately doing their most work when the plane is
| flying slowest (just before landing). We'll see! But many
| exciting possibilities.
| baybal2 wrote:
| I only see benefits given that electric powertrain is much more
| reliable, and quieter than piston engines, and that engines
| have much higher chance to stall on takeoff.
| bdamm wrote:
| Aero engines are exceptionally reliable and don't "stall".
| However, electric does have advantages; less costly to
| maintain (theoretically; this still needs to be actually
| proven) and the pilots will like the high torque available at
| lower RPMs. This can allow designs with slower propellers
| that in turn will lower prop noise.
| baybal2 wrote:
| Big jet engines, and turboprops are.
|
| Small jet engines, turboprops, and piston engines stall
| many times more frequently.
| steffan wrote:
| I think you're misinterpreting reports of stall-related
| incidents as being an engine stall, but the most common
| accidents are related to 'aerodynamic stall'. Engine
| stalls are virtually unheard-of.
| baybal2 wrote:
| > Engine stalls are virtually unheard-of.
|
| They do, and quite often
|
| https://airfactsjournal.com/2018/10/the-bad-news-and-
| good-ne...
| eeZah7Ux wrote:
| > theoretically; this still needs to be actually proven
|
| huh??
| ska wrote:
| > Aero engines are exceptionally reliable
|
| Isn't this only true due to the maintenance schedule? This
| seems to be highly coupled in the "will this make sense"
| conversation...
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| It's still going to be a propeller punching its way through
| air. The explosions may be gone, but prop noise isn't going
| anywhere.
| dan_quixote wrote:
| As a Seattle resident in a common float plane flight path,
| the piston engines can be quite loud. You can hear them
| inside with windows/doors closed and moderate household
| noises (like a shower or washing machine).
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| There's a video in the article. Sounds a little bit quieter,
| but still a lot of prop noise.
| alex_duf wrote:
| I think there's a helicopter around so it's really hard to
| judge
| jeffreyrogers wrote:
| Projects like these are neat, but I don't understand where the
| money for them comes from. At least electric cars had a use case
| that was achievable from the start (driving around locally) and
| are now usable for pretty much any kind of driving people want to
| do (maybe cross-country road trips are still challenging).
|
| But these electric planes are just clearly worse than
| conventional planes. The batteries take up a lot of weight and
| weigh the same at the start of the flight as at the end, and
| while I'm sure battery technology will continue to improve, the
| weight issue is going to be a problem for a long time. Trying to
| pursue this commercially just seems like a quick way to lose a
| lot of money.
|
| Edit: I'm not saying it won't work, just that it will be
| significantly more expensive than a conventional plane for the
| same performance for a long time to come.
| ozborn wrote:
| You may be right and this will lose money (I haven't done the
| math and don't know enough specifics), but you also need to
| figure in maintenance and fuel costs which are much lower with
| electric planes. The trick is picking the correct use case and
| short flights to an island are probably the first target for
| these aircraft.
| nickik wrote:
| Electric planes where used have already shown to be
| significantly cheaper to operate. Even if you need more overall
| energy, as electricity is cheaper then fuel, that is not
| necessary a problem.
|
| Also, I think people really need to think about this some more
| and not just look at first order effects.
|
| ery reductionist analysis.
|
| - Electric engines are far more efficient.
|
| - Electric engines have a significantly better trust-to-weight
| ratio.
|
| - Lighter engines mean less structural load
|
| - Batteries can be structural components, not just dead weight,
| unlike fuel
|
| - Potentially you can use gravity to recharge the battery
|
| - Electric engines have efficiency that stays the same, not
| optimized for one altitude
|
| - Electric engines can go higher and use less air resistant
|
| To achieve all of this you need to completely re-engineer
| planes and that is very expensive and batteries are only just
| getting close to the required power. The necessary investment
| to completely redesign plans to take advantage of these has not
| been made.
|
| If you look at Alice plain for example, they have taken
| advantage of some of these things I mention. They were able to
| get away with thin wings. However they still don't exploit many
| of these things as they are just an integration company. Their
| plane carries the battery like cargo, rather then having the
| battery be structural.
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| One other thing is electric motors are much more reliable
| than piston engines. And they can be ganged on the same drive
| shaft for redundancy.
|
| I don't have numbers myself but 'internet says' engine
| maintenance for light aircraft is around $10/hr of flight
| time.
| eeZah7Ux wrote:
| > Potentially you can use gravity to recharge the battery
|
| Good point. Airplanes waste tons of (potential and kinetic)
| energy while getting lower, slowing down for landing, and
| finally breaking.
|
| Energy recovery sound like an excellent safety (and energy
| saving) feature.
| novok wrote:
| Actually 'fuel' cost wise an electric plane is significantly
| cheaper. Avgas is also significantly more expensive in canada
| than the usa due to taxes. The 30m short hop propeller flying
| here is actually the sweet spot for electric craft and I
| estimate they will spend about 10x less in energy costs alone.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Most of Harbour Air's non-electric fleet are Jet-A burning
| turbines. Only the Beaver is possibly avgas fueled. (There
| are also turbine conversions of the Beaver.)
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| It's a defeatist attitude. Experiments have to start somewhere,
| right? People wrote the same kinds of comments about digital
| cameras. Fifteen years later it is difficult to buy anything
| else. So, let the engineers work on the problems.
| MisterTea wrote:
| > Trying to pursue this commercially just seems like a quick
| way to lose a lot of money.
|
| Yeah the best option is to just sit around and wait until
| better technology appears out of thin air. Much easier than
| wasting all that money and time on R&D.
| ska wrote:
| > But these electric planes are just clearly worse than
| conventional planes.
|
| This just isn't obviously true in all cases. Here we are
| talking about a successful small private airline that doesn't
| seem to be run by idiots, so it's pretty easy to make the jump
| to "huh, I'm probably missing something here". After all, it's
| not like they've committed to converting their fleet, just a
| pilot project to prove it out. Seems sensible.
| ericbarrett wrote:
| People need to look at the actual numbers, which I think are
| revealing.
|
| Top-end lithium-Ion batteries have an energy density, fully
| charged, of about 700 Watt-hours per kg, which converts to 2.5
| MJ/kg.
|
| Jet-A, and basically all similar refined hydrocarbons, have an
| energy density of 42 MJ/kg.
|
| Is an electric plane impossible? Clearly not. Are batteries
| getting better and better? Absolutely; a few generations ago
| their density was < 1 MJ/kg.
|
| But the numbers are still _bad_. 5% of the energy density for
| electric versus fossil fuels IF you use the latest & best.
| bluGill wrote:
| True, but these seem to be very short haul flights, so they
| can probably get by. Just don't expect it to scale to the
| general case.
| FL33TW00D wrote:
| You beat me to it. Any time someone mentions an electric
| plane the MJ/Kg jumps to mind.
|
| Until battery energy density increases by an order of
| magnitude electric planes aren't going to happen, at least
| commercially.
| nickik wrote:
| Very reductionist analysis.
|
| - Electric engines are far more efficient.
|
| Electric engines have a significantly better trust-to-weight
| ratio.
|
| - Lighter engines on the wing mean lighter overall plane
| structure
|
| - Batteries can be structural components, not just dead
| weight, unlike fuel
|
| - Potentially you can use gravity to recharge the battery
|
| You can also do far more with differential thrust and
| potentially remove the planes tail. Actually you could do
| that even with normal planes as Chief Scientist at NASA H.
| Bowers has discovered.
|
| Look at the next generation Tesla battery pack. The batteries
| are literally what is holding together the car and the
| resulting weight is not much larger then the structure you
| would have needed without the battery.
|
| We are not there yet, it takes a complex vertically
| integrated approach to build such a plane, but it is not
| impossible. Just like with EV you need to re-engineer and
| rethink every aspect of the plane.
|
| Your range might still not be as good, but hell of a lot
| better then 5% and also far, far cheaper to operate.
| na85 wrote:
| >Electric engines have a significantly better trust-to-
| weight ratio.
|
| Aerospace engineer here. This is not accurate, unless you
| are perhaps discussing cars. But for aircraft the torque
| supplied by the motor is not nearly so critical.
|
| First of all propeller thrust is a function of airspeed,
| and it falls off significantly as you accelerate,
| irrespective of whether your powertrain is electric or
| hydrocarbon. This is a direct consequence of physics that
| can't really be avoided and it's why we usually talk about
| propeller aircraft as being "power producers" rather than
| "thrust producers". Propeller horsepower is much easier to
| reason about, and more relevant to the performance of the
| aircraft, than torque.
|
| I'm not aware of any electric-powered turbojets/turbofans
| beyond the prototype phase but they would theoretically
| have better static thrust properties by virtue of not being
| props rather than any particular property of electric
| motors.
| nickik wrote:
| I stand corrected.
|
| Just to be clear for my understand, would this not only
| be true during optimal cruise? Outside of optimal
| operation, specially during the start, this would
| actually be an advantage of electric motors?
|
| I was looking into the potential of electric turbofans.
|
| I'm just happy you didn't shoot everything down.
| na85 wrote:
| >Outside of optimal operation, specially during the
| start, this would actually be an advantage of electric
| motors?
|
| When you say "this" do you mean "having more low-end
| torque than a gasoline motor"?
|
| In theory, you could tune your prop governor to take a
| bigger "bite" of the air at low airspeed and thus perhaps
| get better acceleration and a shorter takeoff roll. But
| aircraft performance is very rarely limited by the torque
| output of the engine itself. Usually the driveshafts and
| gearboxes are the limiting factors in power/torque
| transmission.
| deepnotderp wrote:
| Engines on the wings actually _reduce_ weight since they
| provide a counterweight to the wing's positive g forces
| during flight
| [deleted]
| mkonecny wrote:
| Not saying you're wrong, but go read the criticisms of Tesla
| when it first started, and your comment mirrors those.
|
| Of course there are difficult hurdles to overcome, otherwise
| everyone would be doing it
| notatoad wrote:
| The float plane operators in the lower mainland doing quick
| hops from Vancouver to Victoria or Whistler don't really have a
| lot of concern for money, I don't think. Their passengers
| aren't especially price-sensitive and there's more demand than
| supply a lot of the time. And the motor manufacturer is funded
| by a Singaporean private investor.
|
| It's a gamble that people will care about environmental
| concerns more than price. In Vancouver that's a decent bet.
| nostromo wrote:
| I don't believe this is correct. These aren't like chartered
| jets.
|
| I've taken seaplane flights around the Northwest and the
| folks on the flights tend to be middle-class vacationers and
| business commuters, much like you'd see on any other
| commercial flight.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| While the pax may not be sensitive to price, the providers
| still want to drive down their costs.
|
| Probably plenty of people in BC that would loooooove the
| combo of quick transport and looking down on those carbon-
| burning ferry/bus riders going to the islands/Whistler.
|
| Could likely sell tickets for more.
|
| Taking a gas plane and buying offsets sounds as unfun at
| parties as someone saying they bought a Corolla and offsets.
| Technical correctness matters less than image.
| notatoad wrote:
| The provider here is the one developing the plane though -
| harbour air isn't building a plane to sell to other
| operators, they're the one operating the flights. If they
| really want to drive costs down, they must have decided
| this is a good way to do it.
|
| But yeah, I think they're mostly selling the image here.
| Being able to fly to Whistler in half the time of driving
| _and_ tell the people you 're meeting there that you took
| the greener method is worth a lot to some people (and
| that's a good thing)
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Entirely possible the airline is getting paid to trial
| the tech.
|
| Not sure where else in the world people would even pay
| more for such short hops because it's electric.
|
| I'm sure Whistler city council is looking for a way to
| ban carbon av emissions on their landing lake. Probably
| can't because feds, but they would if they could.
| ska wrote:
| > Not sure where else in the world people would even pay
| more
|
| This doesn't match what the company is saying - they are
| looking at it as a way to reduce running costs, not
| increase ticket prices. As far as the benefits on
| emissions side, I suspect it has little to do with
| marketing "green" to ticket buyers, and more to do with
| mollifying groups pressuring the harbor authorities to
| reduce allowed # of flights.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| > mollifying groups pressuring the harbor authorities to
| reduce allowed # of flights.
|
| I doubt they'll be any happier if the flights were
| "green", but they may have shot themselves in the foot if
| pollution was their core complaint.
|
| But I've seen how these things go. Toronto Island airport
| wanted to expand to operate turbojets. Somehow complaints
| about noise helped kill the project, even though
| turboprops are basically turbojets with a wharbling
| propellor.
|
| The noise studies showed that the loudest things were
| loud cars and motorcycles at the waterfront...
| madhato wrote:
| I've flown Harbour Air before and the flight from Vancouver to
| Victoria is just 30mins. Electricity isn't too expensive in BC
| and also generated cleanly. Perfect testing ground for the
| viability of electric planes.
| 99_00 wrote:
| As a passenger, how noisy are the planes?
| ChrisKingWebDev wrote:
| Very noisy. I've flown on them a couple times from Nanaimo.
| They pass out earplugs to every passenger, and you need
| them. I think the electric ones will be much quieter.
| eloff wrote:
| Actually they're doing this not for environmental reasons but
| for financial reasons. There's been articles written about it,
| including interviews with the executives of the company itself
| talking about why they're making the switch, which you can find
| on Google if so inclined. It's cheaper to operate these
| electric seaplanes to the point where it's worth the capital
| investment for the company.
| throwawaygh wrote:
| _> Trying to pursue this commercially just seems like a quick
| way to lose a lot of money._
|
| Vancouver <-> Whistler/Victoria. If it's cleaner and quieter
| than the conventional planes then there will be a market.
|
| But yeah it's a niche "1%er + novelty" market for sure.
| ortusdux wrote:
| The best use case I have heard is flight schools. Last time I
| quoted lessons, half the cost was the fuel.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Spitballing a few more potential applications:
|
| Just imagine how cheap getting your multi-engine
| qualifications will become.
|
| Floatplane cert could become a lot cheaper too.
| francoisp wrote:
| I wonder if the rating would be electric only after a
| while... I would imagine that the various authorities would
| create a different license, like for seaplanes and IFR. It
| would make some sense as mis-managing the fuel-air mixture on
| a small piston plane can lead to catastrophic failure.
| (frozen carb for ex)
| bdamm wrote:
| It makes sense to me that moving from electric to piston
| would require an endorsement. Asking for a rating seems
| like overkill.
| steffan wrote:
| > It makes sense to me that moving from electric to
| piston would require an endorsement.
|
| For a long time, it will be the reverse; the default will
| be a requirement to be able to fly a conventional-engined
| airplane, with electric propulsion being an endorsement
| (probably devoted primarily to battery & power
| management)
| bdamm wrote:
| Perhaps either way should require an endorsement.
| Gasoline is hard to fly... tank switching, carb heat,
| warm-up requirements, power output limitations, mixture
| at takeoff, mixture at altitude, thermal management in
| power reduction, weight of fuel in load calculations. In
| some models even CG due to fuel load. The list goes on
| and on. Electric ought to be much simpler to fly.
| steffan wrote:
| > It would make some sense as mis-managing the fuel-air
| mixture on a small piston plane can lead to catastrophic
| failure. (frozen carb for ex)
|
| Carb freezing doesn't occur as a result of mixture
| mismanagement, but rather by failure to apply carburetor
| heat when flying in conditions conducive to carb icing.
|
| Mismanaging the mixture is far less likely to have any
| acute effects. Descending with a lean[er] mixture may cause
| issues at lower altitudes where the mixture would be too
| lean, but it would be unusual for that to lead to an engine
| stoppage.
|
| Further - a pilot inexperienced in mixture management would
| likely not lean the mixture at all and just fly full-rich
| which again, wouldn't likely lead to any acute failures,
| just higher fuel consumption and longer-term issues with
| the engine.
| earleybird wrote:
| I can see a series of errors causing issues; eg. flying
| rich long enough that any buffer fuel in the tanks is
| exhausted prematurely.
| jsight wrote:
| Unfortunately that is a fairly common cause of fuel
| exhaustion incidents.
| NegativeLatency wrote:
| > Antweiler says Harbour Air is in the "sweet spot" in the
| industry as its flights are short, meaning battery technology
| as it stands today makes the project viable.
| johnwalkr wrote:
| Harbour Air flights are mostly about 35 minutes long, so are
| essentially the equivalent use case to early electric cars (and
| I mean early as in 90s and 2000s, not the much earlier
| attempts).
| Hypx wrote:
| It's pretty obvious that the future of aviation is either
| hydrogen or some kind of synfuel. I'm amazed that people are
| still even thinking of batteries here. It's like people are
| still trying to push floppy disc drives or something.
| newsclues wrote:
| There is regular flights between the mainland and the island,
| and a more environmentally friendly option would get traction
| in the market even with a price premium.
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| > I'm not saying it won't work, just that it will be
| significantly more expensive than a conventional plane for the
| same performance for a long time to come.
|
| Let's have the folks who are actually doing this because they
| think they can make it economically viable determine whether
| that's true or not eh?
| inglor_cz wrote:
| The main advantage of electric planes is that VTOL capability
| is much easier with electric motors. You can have twelve cheap
| electric motors on the plane instead of one combustion motor.
| With that comes great maneuverability.
|
| The second advantage is that they are fairly quiet.
|
| Together, this is great for short "taxi" flights across natural
| barriers (fjords, mountain ranges), even at night and without
| need for actual airstrips at either end of the journey.
| MayeulC wrote:
| > The second advantage is that they are fairly quiet.
|
| Do you have data to back that up? I was under the impression
| that most of the noise came from the propeller, at least for
| non-ducted fans.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| You are probably right and I screwed up. It seems that the
| noise advantage is mainly against jet engines.
| baybal2 wrote:
| No, by far.
|
| Try to land such thing in a crosswind without lateral control
| authority.
|
| That's hard even with just 10kg quadcopters, and a "flying
| car" will be completely unlandable without extra rotor
| mechanisation, negating electric power advantages.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Why would there be a crosswind for a VTOL aircraft at the
| point of touchdown? Why not yaw the aircraft into the wind?
| baybal2 wrote:
| If the wind is any much changing, you will wobble the
| aircraft to pieces, and even if you try to, you will
| still not get enough control authority to land safely in
| such conditions.
|
| You don't get anywhere near the amount of control
| authority, and its speed if it depends on rotating the
| whole body of the aircraft weighting many tons.
| MayeulC wrote:
| Hmm, at least, it's way easier to put extra rotors where
| you want them to be, since you don't need a gearbox +
| transmission from the main engine, and can just put a
| secondary, smaller electric engine.
|
| Crosswind is really less of an issue near the ground, so
| you could first lower your altitude and precisely adjust
| later.
| baybal2 wrote:
| > Crosswind is really less of an issue near the ground
|
| Crosswind is a bigger issue near the ground.
|
| Yes, winds are slower at ground level, but the ground,
| and a crash into it is also closer!
| MayeulC wrote:
| You are right about that, I concede you the point.
|
| That said, I was mainly thinking of wind speed as you
| said (IIRC ~ haven't flown in a long time, and only
| ultralight: as you approach ground, you need to
| compensate for crosswind, but near the ground you need to
| stop compensating), but was also picturing the
| possibility of creating structures to break wind. Isn't
| it done sometimes for helicopters? Hangars surrounding
| helipads?
| baybal2 wrote:
| > Isn't it done sometimes for helicopters? Hangars
| surrounding helipads?
|
| No, helicopters can land in rather windy weather. They
| have lateral control authority, without having to change
| attitude, unlike quadcopters.
|
| A bit of wind actually makes it safer for helicopters to
| land because it blows away the vortex ring
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBGZH8PzfTI
| standeven wrote:
| From the article: "...Harbour Air is in the "sweet spot" in the
| industry as its flights are short, meaning battery technology
| as it stands today makes the project viable."
|
| While batteries may not be viable for longer commercial
| flights, these short hops make sense.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| With the Canadian/US land border closed, but 5m (minute or
| meter) flights over the border being kosher, the sweet spot
| right now is temporarily massive.
| lytfyre wrote:
| Looking at their website, Harbour has actually cancelled
| their usual Vancouver/Seattle flights due to Covid - they
| don't seem to be running cross border at all right now.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Interesting.
|
| But when? The snowbird business would have died off a
| month ago. It probably was a good business for them, and
| something that popped up in areas that didn't already
| have short-haul flights. Maybe they still do them as
| charters for those that don't want to sit with rando pax.
|
| https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/snowbirds-canada-u-s-
| border...
|
| But I'm sure many/most just flew down deeper into US and
| forwent their Canadian car (possibly buying a beater/long
| term rental for US).
| lytfyre wrote:
| Appears to have been at least initially cancelled back in
| March, initially until the end of April -
| https://www.vicnews.com/news/harbour-air-cancels-all-
| seattle.... I haven't seen any announcement of them
| resuming between now and then, but nothing that rules it
| out. I'm sure there are folks on HN who could tell us
| from public flight records.
|
| Not to say there haven't been problematic purposes for
| charter flights to non-us destinations going on, either -
| https://bc.ctvnews.ca/vancouver-couple-charged-after-
| charter...
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Better info on that one here:
|
| https://www.yukon-news.com/news/former-ceo-of-great-
| canadian...
|
| Unsure why any law gets passed with max $500 fines and 6
| months jail if they're not going to throw jail time at
| the most egregious cases.
| myself248 wrote:
| The "5 meter" comment has me wondering -- what's the
| shortest flight that's legally considered a flight?
|
| Is it the moment your gear is no longer touching the
| ground? The moment your wings leave ground-effect? (Is the
| ekranoplan technically a plane or a boat?) The moment you
| cross the property-line of the departing airport? (And how
| would that work for bush planes?)
| Scoundreller wrote:
| In reality, the 5meter thing wouldn't work as they'd need
| to land at an international airport.
| diet_mtn_dew wrote:
| Perhaps it is this one?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westray_to_Papa_Westray_fli
| ght
| aphextron wrote:
| >But these electric planes are just clearly worse than
| conventional planes. The batteries take up a lot of weight and
| weigh the same at the start of the flight as at the end, and
| while I'm sure battery technology will continue to improve, the
| weight issue is going to be a problem for a long time. Trying
| to pursue this commercially just seems like a quick way to lose
| a lot of money.
|
| It makes sense for short flights. The vast majority of costs
| associated with aviation are in maintenance, with the majority
| of _those_ costs coming from engine overhauls. This means you
| have a high fixed cost of operation per flight hour regardless
| of distance traveled /passengers carried. Electric motors will
| reduce that cost by orders of magnitude and make these small
| flights economically feasible.
|
| > I'm not saying it won't work, just that it will be
| significantly more expensive than a conventional plane for the
| same performance for a long time to come.
|
| The key is that you don't need the same performance of a piston
| engine aircraft. Batteries are _just_ good enough now for these
| types of short flights to be possible. And with the maintenance
| savings, you come out ahead. Electric motors will also be
| _vastly_ safer and more reliable than single engine piston
| aircraft, leading to insurance savings.
| Hypx wrote:
| Fuel cells will allow for the same level of reliability
| without the weight.
| sokoloff wrote:
| I don't think the data bears out that there's a _vast safety
| opportunity_ for electric motors.
|
| From the 2018 Nall report (the most recent I could readily
| find on my phone), mechanical failure is sub 20% of accidents
| and sub 7% of fatal accidents.
|
| Pilots are around 75% of the primary link in the accident
| reports.
| bdamm wrote:
| Yes, although there may be gains there too. Electric motors
| can provide high torque more quickly than piston engines,
| and of course much more quickly than turbines. Maybe this
| will result in faster stall recoveries, and with new uses
| of motors flight envelopes might get more stable as well.
| earleybird wrote:
| You don't have to worry about torque on the ground. In
| the air near stall speed more torque is not necessarily
| your friend.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| A lot of aviation mistakes can be resolved with more power,
| which electrics could supply more quickly.
| michaelt wrote:
| But presumably the maintenance requirements to carry
| passengers aren't discretionary - if the rules say gas
| engines must be rebuilt every 2500 operating hours at a
| cost of $10,000 whereas electric planes don't, there's a
| cost saving regardless of how many accidents are due to
| pilot error.
| sokoloff wrote:
| $10K is low by about a factor of 5-10 for piston aircraft
| engine overhauls, by the time the job is entirely done.
|
| Here's a factory reseller of a common engine type: http:/
| /www.airpowerinc.com/productcart/pc/engines.asp?search...
| Note that that's the uninstalled overhauled/new engine.
| Add freight, 75-150 hours of labor, and some accessory
| overhauls to get to the all-in number.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| On a single engine plane. The engine costs are MASSIVE.
| For planes like those a rebuild costs $50k, and the time
| between rebuilds is 1200 hrs.
|
| That doesn't include the amount of maintenance that goes
| into it between rebuilds either. I would imagine that
| $10-$20/hr would be a reasonable estimate for those
| engines
| matheweis wrote:
| > The vast majority of costs associated with aviation are in
| maintenance, with the majority of those costs coming from
| engine overhauls.
|
| This is it right here; the CEO of Harbor Air is on record as
| saying that this is exactly where they expect the biggest
| costs savings (millions of dollars per year based on their
| flight numbers) to come from:
|
| -----
|
| There would be savings on fuel costs, of course, carbon
| taxes, and the carbon offsets that Harbour Air buys. But the
| real savings would be in maintenance. With electric motors,
| there's next to no maintenance required, whereas with
| turboprop engines have significant maintenance and rebuild
| requirements.
|
| "You have a motor with a notional life of 10,000 hours - and
| that's probably being pessimistic - because it's so simple,"
| McDougall said. "We're looking at, in rough numbers, the same
| 10,000 hours in a conventional turbine will cost a couple
| million bucks in maintenance, rebuilds and all the rest of
| it, whereas 10,000 hours in an electric motor should cost us
| virtually nothing."
|
| -----
|
| https://www.piquenewsmagazine.com/bc-news/harbour-air-
| conduc...
| saberdancer wrote:
| The plane needs most power on takeoff. This partly mitigates
| the fact that batteries weight the same on takeoff and landing.
|
| You could probably use altitude to recover part of the energy
| expended by using the propeller to regenerate energy (like in
| braking), especially useful for emergency power.
| cvaidya1986 wrote:
| Electric planes will be one of the major drivers of reducing
| emissions, we all need them as soon as possible!
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| Not these ones, though. They're certainly going to reduce
| emissions in the local area, but their solution inherently
| cannot scale up. Their planes are tiny, and their flights are
| super short. It's basically as different from regular
| commercial flights as you can get, while still working with
| airplanes.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| These types of trips are very dirty however, so reducing them
| has a bigger impact than it would seem at first.
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| But not a "major" impact. The vastly bigger problem where
| Harbour Air operates is "real" flights (because it's the
| YVR area) and cargo shipping (because it's also the port of
| Vancouver).
|
| And for this area specifically, it'd be nice if we stopped
| having a giant, uncovered piles of sulphur pellets, full of
| sulphur powder from being dumped in piles, literally
| getting dispersed every second there's even the faintest
| amount of wind. Which, given that it's the pacific north
| west, is "every second of every day".
| saberdancer wrote:
| We need electric cows!
| cvaidya1986 wrote:
| Mooooores law
| throwawaysea wrote:
| FYI, the Vancouver company here operates the flights and owns the
| aircraft. But the electric propulsion bits comes from a company
| in Washington state in the US (and before that they were located
| in Australia). The article mentions "Seattle area", which is true
| but a bit imprecise/misleading. MagniX is located in Redmond, and
| they're moving their headquarters and manufacturing further
| North, to Everett, where Boeing's big factories are located
| (https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-
| aerospace/elect...). MagniX is also selling their electric
| propulsion products to other airlines (see
| https://www.geekwire.com/2020/magnix-universal-hydrogen-team...).
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| To be fair, it's not like you can tell Redmond isn't just more
| Seattle on a map. Same for Everett: everything from Lakewood to
| Everett is just "Seattle" to everyone except for the folks that
| live/work there.
| walrus01 wrote:
| also worth mentioning, that I think the reason why MagnaX is in
| its location is proximity to Kenmore Air, which is one of the
| most experienced and high-volume aircraft workshops that has a
| specialty niche business in retrofits, repairs and upgrades of
| Beavers, Turbo Beavers, Otters and Twin Otters.
|
| It's located at the north end of lake Washington.
| emptybits wrote:
| I know there will still be prop noise galore but this is great. I
| lived in Coal Harbour across from their water runways for years.
| It was my every-morning wakeup call whether I needed it or not.
|
| Aside: If you are in the Vancouver area, I recommend taking one
| of these flights, internal combustion or not. To/from Victoria,
| for example. The views are just stunning, especially over the
| Gulf Islands -- better than any high elevation or large plane
| window seat can give you. As a longtime resident, it's still
| goosebump gorgeous.
| eigenvector wrote:
| A seaplane flight over the west coast of Vancouver Island from
| bases in Tofino or Gold River is a wonderful and affordable
| flight-seeing excursion as well (around $500/hour total for 3
| passengers).
| stevewillows wrote:
| These flights are awesome! I had to go to the island earlier
| this year and wanted to avoid the ferries at all costs.
|
| Like you said, that region is goosebump gorgeous. The flights
| are fairly cheap, too, all things considered.
| munk-a wrote:
| Amusingly the prices of the seaplane (if you get the super-
| saver version) ends up being $180 for two vs. $107 for two
| people (or 110 vs. 90 for one)[1] which is a pretty depressing
| highlight of just how overpriced BC Ferries is (possibly due to
| running such large vessels).
|
| 1. Both of these assume you're boarding the ferry with a
| vehicle which I think is a fair assumption given how insanely
| inconvenient the ferry terminal is.
| jermaustin1 wrote:
| I've been seeing these news articles popup every few weeks. Some
| new startup is flying with an electric motor and batteries. It
| always leaves me wondering, why are so many of these GA retrofits
| going with batteries instead of a hydrogen power plant? Is it
| just "simplicity" or are they betting that batteries are going to
| shed substantial weight in the coming years?
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| Procuring hydrogen, hydrogen fuel cells, or hydrogen storage is
| a bit of an unsolved problem. The infrastructure is simply not
| there. Also I don't think there are aviation rated fuel cells
| available yet. And storing lots of hydrogen under high pressure
| is also a bit of a weight issue for planes given it requires
| extreme pressures and heavy duty tanks. Also, there's the cost
| of fuel. Hydrogen is not cheap. Electricity is.
|
| And that's before you consider the infrastructure. A battery
| can be plugged in anywhere you can get electricity. Which is
| pretty much everywhere. Hydrogen requires (currently) non
| existent supply chains, transport, storage, pumping, etc.
| infrastructure.
|
| There are some decent batteries on the market and better ones
| are on the way. Also, there's a difference between shoving a
| tonne of battery into an existing plane and using e.g.
| structural batteries to strengthen the fuselage of a purposely
| designed plane. So, yes, you should expect some improvements in
| range with the coming few years as technology, designs, and
| thinking evolves. I think 2-3X range improvement is basically a
| given in the next 15 years or so. Current electric planes
| actually flying use technology that was certified years ago
| (it's a slow process) that are hardly state of the art at this
| point.
| na85 wrote:
| I'd wager it's because a lot of them fly to places where
| electricity is widely available but pressurized hydrogen
| refueling is not.
| ogre_codes wrote:
| This is more or less the idea platform for aircraft
| electrification.
|
| - Short distances means they can use smaller batteries.
|
| - In small aircraft noise is a big problem.
|
| I'm skeptical we are ready for larger scale aircraft
| electrification, but for some specific uses like this, it makes
| sense.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-25 23:01 UTC)