Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Pilot Lounge > Aviation Technology
All electric commuter (9 pax) aircraft >

All electric commuter (9 pax) aircraft

Notices
Aviation Technology New, advanced, and future aviation technology discussion

All electric commuter (9 pax) aircraft

Old 06-20-2019, 03:22 PM
  #1  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,088
Default All electric commuter (9 pax) aircraft

600 mile range
240 kts
$200/hr operating cost
Israeli design
$4m purchase price

https://youtu.be/aXR_jiKBaoY

https://youtu.be/yyQaWEBGNxg
Name User is offline  
Old 06-20-2019, 03:47 PM
  #2  
The NeverEnding Story
 
BoilerUP's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,475
Default

How long to recharge between flights?

How many cycles in battery life?
BoilerUP is offline  
Old 06-20-2019, 03:55 PM
  #3  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,088
Default

Originally Posted by BoilerUP View Post
How long to recharge between flights?

How many cycles in battery life?
So they quote a 2:1 recharge time, in other words you fly two hours you charge one hour. Seems fast, maybe they are using three phase 480v power found at most airports coming into jetways?

Did not mention cycles. It's a 920kwh "useful" battery. Which means it will have a higher capacity but be limited to preserve life.

Side tangent, keeping your battery between 40%-80% charge will significantly increase its lifespan. Something like 6x the lifespan vs always charging to 100%. Low voltage and high voltage contribute to damaging cells at a faster pace, which is why leaving your device charging overnight is so bad. I have only charged my non work phone and iPad to 100% a half dozen times (by accident) and rarely let them go below 40%.

Of note on batteries, the inventor of the current day lipo battery has discovered a new way to produce them. No degradation and tens of thousands of cycles, no fire risk, and lighter. He has street cred. Hopefully it pans out, it could revolutionize transportation.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise...RHREsifQ%3D%3D
Name User is offline  
Old 06-20-2019, 05:42 PM
  #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
atpcliff's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: Capt
Posts: 3,215
Default

Cape Air ordered at least 10 of these...

Eventually, wide body aircraft will be all-electric...
atpcliff is offline  
Old 06-20-2019, 06:01 PM
  #5  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 4,116
Default

And pilotless...
BobZ is offline  
Old 06-21-2019, 06:07 AM
  #6  
:-)
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Default

I highly doubt that battery technology makes it out of the regional jet size, not enough energy density. Biofuel has a better future if it can be made using solar, or nuclear energy.
Mesabah is offline  
Old 06-21-2019, 09:56 AM
  #7  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,097
Default

Originally Posted by atpcliff View Post
Cape Air ordered at least 10 of these...

Eventually, wide body aircraft will be all-electric...
No. No possible battery chemistry can provide the required energy density/specific energy. Chemistry is a very mature science, we're not going to suddenly find a new molecular structure when can store ten times the energy.

All we can do with batteries is improve the efficiency of known chemistry towards the theoretical max. Also improve cycle life and charge cycle degradation characteristics.

Right now mature (commercially viable) battery technology can get to around 200 W hours/KG. Theoretical chemical limit is about 1,000 Wh/KG.

Jet A is 12,000 Wh/KG...

There's no uncharted territory in molecular chemistry which is going to provide an order of magnitude+ improvement in specific energy. The answer is going too be biofuel.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 06-21-2019, 11:15 AM
  #8  
Perennial Reserve
 
Excargodog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,407
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
There's no uncharted territory in molecular chemistry which is going to provide an order of magnitude+ improvement in specific energy. The answer is going too be biofuel.
Cheaper - by far - to just use fossil fuel and offset the carbon release with carbon capture technology. Doubt that will change in the next several decades, at least not without a hellacious capital investment that would take even more decades to recover.

Or build a nuke power plant and count the natural gas you are NOT burning as recapture.
Excargodog is offline  
Old 06-21-2019, 11:46 AM
  #9  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,097
Default

Originally Posted by Excargodog View Post
Cheaper - by far - to just use fossil fuel and offset the carbon release with carbon capture technology. Doubt that will change in the next several decades, at least not without a hellacious capital investment that would take even more decades to recover.

Or build a nuke power plant and count the natural gas you are NOT burning as recapture.
Science, math, and logic favors offsets. But politics probably will require elimination of the carbon output, to remove the big target on the aviation's back (ala OAC). Aviation industry sponsored carbon capture (one for one) might suffice, and that could very well be cheaper than biofuel.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 06-22-2019, 04:56 AM
  #10  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,022
Default

I wonder if they’ll provide video games in the airplane that you can plane with the controls like you can in the Tesla while you wait for the batteries to recharge...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
4V14T0R is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
AboveGround
Aviation Law
27
01-16-2019 02:06 PM
EZBW
United
131
05-04-2017 08:19 PM
cgull
United
3
12-20-2012 10:15 PM
APC225
United
13
05-29-2012 10:35 AM
woodfinx
Hangar Talk
16
08-04-2010 10:59 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices