[HN Gopher] Electric seagliders could enable short-haul emission...
___________________________________________________________________
Electric seagliders could enable short-haul emissions-free air
travel
Author : cheinyeanlim
Score : 52 points
Date : 2022-07-19 07:46 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (singularityhub.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (singularityhub.com)
| JasserInicide wrote:
| Really getting tired of seeing the "emissions-free" weasel phrase
| in everything electric. Until the electricity is 100% renewable,
| it's not "emissions-free".
| VyseofArcadia wrote:
| I read "emissions-free" as "theoretically emissions-free".
| mjamesaustin wrote:
| Except they literally are emissions free. Nothing is emitted
| from the vehicle over its operable lifetime.
|
| Carbon footprint and emissions are not the same. Even if
| fueling via electricity had as large a carbon footprint as
| gasoline (it doesn't), it would still be better because it
| moves all that pollution out of urban environments.
| magwa101 wrote:
| jaclaz wrote:
| Somehow I feel that if this ekranoplanes (or sea gliders,
| changing the name doesn't change the substance[1]) start being
| employed massively, having these thingies zipping at >100 mph on
| water won't be particularly appreciated by maritime authorities,
| that will introduce any number of specific regulations.
|
| Besides the electric powering, the general idea can be
| appreciated in the vidoes of this company in Singapore (that at
| least has built the actual vehicle):
|
| https://www.wigetworks.com/
|
| AFAICU the sea needs to be flat or almost flat, which I believe
| it's not very common in the ocean near the Hawai, no idea how it
| would behave with waves.
|
| [1] they were once called GEV (Ground Effect Vehicles), now they
| seem to be called WIG (Wing in Ground Effect)
| contingencies wrote:
| Given this is being marketed more for law enforcement and high-
| speed ferry applications (read: rich people who want transit to
| island resorts), I don't think the shipping industry will be in
| a position to complain - or nearby. It is certain these will
| have AIS + radar + GPS (and potentially ADS-B) which should be
| enough to resolve any issues. Reading the background, however,
| it seems this design was largely purchased from Germany and
| tested 20 years ago and it is unclear how much innovation they
| have actually made and whether they can bring something to
| market. I wonder if they would consider doing a desert hopping
| version for central Australia?
| jaclaz wrote:
| If you compare these to planes, planes have airways, and have
| different flight levels on a same airway (and all the
| technology you mention + 2 pilots capable of using that
| technology + air control) .
|
| If you compare these to cars, cars have roads.
|
| Imagine a very large square where cars are free to go up to
| 180 MpH with the "only" rule that the car coming from the
| right has precedence, which is more or less what boats/ships
| do now (but they do this at 0-40 MpH top).
|
| Not that the possible issues cannot be solved, but surely
| there will be the need of a license that - if not directly
| comparable to a commercial airplane license - will be anyway
| much more complex than a plain boat license.
| contingencies wrote:
| Boats/ships also have shipping channels: any somewhat busy
| waterway will have defined lanes. Ships of any size have to
| broadcast where they are, current speed and heading. Small
| boats generally move slowly. Visibility on water is
| typically much better than on roads. But yes, accidents are
| possible.
| Turing_Machine wrote:
| There are a lot of people who ride ferries (even over
| considerable distances) who aren't necessarily "rich people".
| Island nations like the Philippines come to mind immediately.
| 12many wrote:
| Every one of these "new electric plane" companies never have an
| actual product. It's always "we're working on the design and
| hopefully test our prototype next year." The possibilities?.. "12
| passengers a total of 180 miles"... haha so economically to have
| 10 planes do what 1 can do in half the time. And really more than
| 10 planes if you factor in charging time to get that 180 mile
| range.
| taneq wrote:
| Adding a hydrofoil is a cool idea but I'm not sure that plus
| electric propulsion qualifies it as that novel compared to the
| Ekranoplan which, two paragraphs later, it describes as a
| 'proposed design' (also interesting wording for a vehicle with
| fully functional full scale prototypes). Ultimately the problem
| with ocean-going ground effect vehicles is that they combine the
| worst of both worlds; all the expense, fuel usage, load
| limitations and risk of a plane perpetually two seconds after
| takeoff, but still at the mercy of rough seas and weather like a
| boat.
|
| Looking at their page, it looks like 'seaglider' is more like a
| model name than a vehicle classification. It's also interesting
| that they quote "over 325 sold with a $6bn order backlog" when
| they haven't even built a full sized working prototype yet. I
| guess they must cost $18 million each?
| dTal wrote:
| >all the expense, fuel usage, load limitations and risk of a
| plane perpetually two seconds after takeoff
|
| Well not quite; the appeal of the ekranoplan is that it uses
| considerably less fuel and/or can carry considerably more
| weight than an aircraft of similar size. The risk profile is
| also different if catastrophic failure simply means you
| unexpectedly become a boat.
| nicgrev103 wrote:
| "Perhaps the most important factor, though, is that because WIGs
| are not classed as aircraft the regulations that govern them are
| far less onerous. That means that they don't need to carry the
| kind of backup power that an aircraft would need for emergency
| landings, and they don't need to be flown by trained airline
| pilots."
|
| Just what every passenger wants to hear haha
|
| They say this is a solution for the fact electric airplanes are
| going to only be able to hop between cities and then says how
| this can only go 180 miles with 12 passengers, hardly a long
| distance, oh and it has to be across a body of water... and the
| water can't be too rough... sounds like a great solution!
| ch4s3 wrote:
| Might be nice in Sweden?
| ElevenLathe wrote:
| Potentially between Great Lakes cities (Milwaukee-Chicago-
| Detroit, though probably not Detroit as its a long detour
| through the Straight of Mackinac) or as fast riverboats.
| euroderf wrote:
| Buffalo NY (via Lewiston NY) <=> Toronto had a fast
| hovercraft service for some years. This might work there
| with a speedy transfer between Lewiston and Buffalo.
| Toronto to Rochester NY too. Erie PA.
| uxp100 wrote:
| Yeah, that dumb Milwaukee to Chicago flight. The Hiawatha
| doesn't go to Ohare (an existing right of way, would add
| time a little bit of time to the main downtown to downtown
| trip, but it's so dumb it doesn't have at least a glenview
| to ohare connection), just the Milwaukee airport, and
| anyway I suppose airlines would rather you be in their
| system as soon as possible. But such a dumb flight. Take
| off, then land, hope you don't spend more time taxiing than
| in the air.
| ElevenLathe wrote:
| I've needed to go to Kalamazoo several times, connecting
| through O'hare. On the return trip, because of the
| timezone change and the extremely short flight (~15m
| IIRC), the arrival time printed on your ticket is earlier
| than your departure time.
| moffkalast wrote:
| It's just an ekranoplan with a lower range, lower speed and
| less capacity than a traditional jet powered one. And even
| those didn't catch on because of the calm seas requirement and
| because it's easier and more practical to just fly.
| spoonjim wrote:
| That's why the Soviet Union is the country that consistently
| invested in ground effect vehicles... because they have the
| Caspian Sea and Black Sea (which does have waves but usually <3
| ft)
| gonzo41 wrote:
| So what I'm hearing is we need to just invest in more trains.
| darknavi wrote:
| Screw trains. Lets rip them out and build man-made rivers so
| we can use our water planes!
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| Single missed rogue wave and everyone is dead... Trialing with
| cargo might work tho.
| z9znz wrote:
| You wouldn't be flying this over bodies of water which could
| have rogue waves. Those are generally open sea scenarios, and
| this is really only practical for hops between relatively
| close bodies of land, over water. There are a lot of such
| places around the world, even some where the water is
| technically connected to an ocean.
|
| In terms of risk of life, it's probably less risk than taking
| a 180 mile bus ride... even if it were crossing water which
| could conceivably have a rogue wave appear.
| AustinDev wrote:
| Yeah Miami to Nassau seems like a decent candidate.
| CraigJPerry wrote:
| >> a phenomena called "ground effect" to significantly boost
| flight efficiency
|
| I've been following rctestflight's efforts to make an R/C ground
| effect vehicle https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x617U3s3lcc&t=670s
|
| The interesting thing he's experienced (there's many videos, i
| don't have a single succinct link to share) is that staying in
| ground effect is hard. If an r/c plane has enough power to take
| off, then it has enough to break out of ground effect, and almost
| certainly it will break out.
|
| The suggestion then is that something like the ekranoplan might
| have been able to fly normally to some extent. I don't know how
| much the aerodynamics of rc planes scales up though, e.g. i don't
| think KF airfoils are a thing in full size aircraft but they're
| super effective and popular in rc scale.
| WJW wrote:
| I imagine that it is easier to keep a big plane in ground
| effect than a small one because the relative size of the
| boundary layer to the size of the airplane is a lot larger with
| increasing wing area. The Soviets had several working
| prototypes that managed just fine while carrying heavy loads,
| and there's plenty of videos of glider pilots effortlessly
| gliding along for hundreds of metres in ground effect over
| runways and the like.
|
| Also no offense to rctestflight's impressive skills, but his
| aerotech skills seem to be mostly self-taught (he studied
| "applied film at business knowledge according to linkedin).
| There would be a huge different between what a talented amateur
| can achieve and what a team full of trained professionals could
| build. Staying in ground effect seems like an ideal job for a
| flight computer to manage btw, autopilots never tire and always
| stay focused.
| meheleventyone wrote:
| He actually uses a flight computer for his most successful
| published effort.
| pohl wrote:
| I have no idea how any of this works, but I recall reading that
| the ground effect threshold is some proportion of the
| aircraft's wingspan (half, I think?) so it could be that it's
| more difficult for a model just because it's smaller. (Maybe
| that was the wisdom behind making the spruce goose so big?)
| z9znz wrote:
| I find this much more practical and likely to result in something
| benefiting the population compared to the repeated efforts at
| making flying cars.
| otabdeveloper4 wrote:
| Sounds extremely dangerous.
| ge96 wrote:
| I thought seagliders meant the ones that are underwater/use
| bouyancy/gravity to move.
|
| I got into an argument with someone about emissions-free since
| the electricity/production probably produces emissions somewhere.
| Until the entire process is clean.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| Its not a silly concept, but that render is a bit off.
|
| If you want a ground effect plane, then you need your wings much
| closer to the floor. that plane looks like you'd need to be
| operating in really calm weather or not at all.
|
| Also, I suspect that tail is nowhere near big enough, as its
| operating outside of ground effect.
| dTal wrote:
| I agree; high wing ekranoplans aren't a thing, and for
| excellent reason. But if we're being charitable, we might
| surmise that they have calculated that their "blown wing"
| design increases the margin for ground effect to work, and the
| high wing is necessary to avoid prop strikes. In traditional
| low-wing ekranoplan designs, a separate high-wing pylon is
| usually needed for the propulsion, which their design
| eliminates.
| [deleted]
| jaclaz wrote:
| The people that _will make_ this did make a tiny prototype (or
| a huge r /c model, it depends on how you see it) and released a
| video:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2XW4n0nn2c
|
| where the model seemingly completely fails to reach ground
| effect and simply travels on its hydrofoils.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Yeah, logically thinking placing the wing at top of fuselage
| for ground effect vehicle is waste as the ground effect is from
| bottom of the wing. With aeroplanes it matters lot less. And
| higher clearance from ground for engines is even preferred.
| reggedtorespond wrote:
| Who is the target market for this? People that can afford a
| private plane ride for short distances but also care about
| reducing their emissions? It seems like there isn't much of an
| overlap there.
| tiahura wrote:
| Think island short haul. E.g. Tahiti to Bora Bora.
| BizarroLand wrote:
| I wonder if it would work in remote parts of Alaska? There
| are many communities that are only accessible via seaplane or
| boat, and Juno is one of them. Being able to quickly travel
| 180 miles would open up that territory quite a bit.
| ghastmaster wrote:
| The nice thing about traditional flight is that once you are high
| enough above the earth, you can recover from failures, taking
| advantage of the time before you hit the ground.
|
| Travelling at 180mph slightly above the ground sounds like a
| recipe for disaster.
| z9znz wrote:
| If you have a critical failure (such as losing a wing or major
| control surface), you may have more time starting from high
| altitude, but you're still probably doomed.
|
| At least in this case your trajectory is already about parallel
| to the surface. Unless you suddenly nose straight in, you have
| a decent chance of survival - especially if you can glide it in
| like some of the successful emergency water landings of
| traditional planes.
| entropicgravity wrote:
| On the other hand, if it's foggy and there's a ship in your
| path with a broken beacon then being parallel to the sea
| surface would not matter much.
| z9znz wrote:
| You're still worse off as an airplane at an airport. Runway
| incursions are a big problem. One of the worst air
| disasters ever was when two large passenger jets collided
| on a runway.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-20 23:03 UTC)