Largest all-electric aircraft to make maiden flight

It's cool to see these tech and battery advancements, and you need technology demonstrators, but it will be even cooler to see this on a clean sheet design, as opposed to a caravan, etc
 
Noting more that a size/weight/power density puzzle of batteries to solve that is getting better and better.

Did not see projected range/run time anywhere.

Heck, I have a Onewheel electric board that will do 19mph and had a range of 20 miles on a singe charge...in want is essentially an electric skateboard...so technology is getting there.

Thanks Elon.
 
I watched a documentary on this a while back and believe it is larger, but I guess it depends on what metric they are using to determine it the largest. The one in the documentary definitely wasn't an option for carrying many people as I think it was at max weight with just the pilot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Impulse
 
With a full 7 minutes of flight time, and a horrific ecological impact on the planet, we are poised to leap into the future.

Sorry. Too much science in my background to drink this particular flavor of Kool-Aid.
 
Shepherd said:
With a full 7 minutes of flight time, and a horrific ecological impact on the planet, we are poised to leap into the future.

Sorry. Too much science in my background to drink this particular flavor of Kool-Aid.
Click to expand...
By "horrible ecological impact" I assume you mean battery production? Anything else? Central electrical power generation seems to be better and more efficient than individual ICE engines.

Where did you find the 7 minutes of flight time stat? That seems quite impracticable.
 
AKBill said:
https://www.flightglobal.com/airlin...ercial-aircraft-a-dhc-2-beaver/135711.article
DHC-2 Beaver on floats converted to electric power. It flies a 30 min commute and the plane has a 30 reserve.
Click to expand...
It's not in service yet and might not be for some time. As far as I know, all they've done is the eight-minute test flight in December. One article I came across said that they were waiting for better batteries. That might take awhile. They're working through the complex certification process.

The demonstrator Beaver carried 135Wh/kg lithium batteries – a relatively low-density battery that, while close to aviation standard, generally lacks sufficient power-density for viable commercial operations, McDougall says.
Today’s better lithium batteries generate up to 235Wh/kg, but McDougall expects 400Wh/kg batteries will be available by the time Harbour starts passenger flights.
https://www.flightglobal.com/aerosp...s-as-certification-work-begins/136071.article
 
JOhnH said:
By "horrible ecological impact" I assume you mean battery production? Anything else? Central electrical power generation seems to be better and more efficient than individual ICE engines.

Where did you find the 7 minutes of flight time stat? That seems quite impracticable.
Click to expand...

The 7 minutes? I made that up, but it appears I was pretty close. I'm sure the run-time for the engine is at least 20 minutes.

The ecological impact? Every aspect of lithium battery creation and disposal is super toxic, as is every aspect of the chip manufacturing for the computers and boards that control the motor.
I was part of the team that created sub-micron circuitry. When we were done, we had to dig hundreds of bore holes to test for pollution.
The site was so polluted that IBM immediately sold it to the town to get out from under any legal liability for creating the mess.
At the plant that actually makes the chips, the water is undrinkable for miles around the plant. IBM has to provide testing, water purification systems or replacement water for (nearly) every house in that area of town. It's slowly making it's way to the entire town.
Some of the byproducts are toxic in extremely small quantities. Exposure to arsine concentrations of 250 ppm is rapidly fatal: concentrations of 25–30 ppm are fatal for 30 min exposure, and concentrations of 10 ppm can be fatal at longer exposure times.Symptoms of poisoning appear after exposure to concentrations of 0.5 ppm.

Progress is wonderful. I'm merely pointing out that there is a cost and consequences for everything.
 
Shepherd said:
The 7 minutes? I made that up, but it appears I was pretty close. I'm sure the run-time for the engine is at least 20 minutes.

The ecological impact? Every aspect of lithium battery creation and disposal is super toxic, as is every aspect of the chip manufacturing for the computers and boards that control the motor.
I was part of the team that created sub-micron circuitry. When we were done, we had to dig hundreds of bore holes to test for pollution.
The site was so polluted that IBM immediately sold it to the town to get out from under any legal liability for creating the mess.
At the plant that actually makes the chips, the water is undrinkable for miles around the plant. IBM has to provide testing, water purification systems or replacement water for (nearly) every house in that area of town. It's slowly making it's way to the entire town.
Some of the byproducts are toxic in extremely small quantities. Exposure to arsine concentrations of 250 ppm is rapidly fatal: concentrations of 25–30 ppm are fatal for 30 min exposure, and concentrations of 10 ppm can be fatal at longer exposure times.Symptoms of poisoning appear after exposure to concentrations of 0.5 ppm.

Progress is wonderful. I'm merely pointing out that there is a cost and consequences for everything.
Click to expand...
Good information. I'll be able to use that.
 
There are certainly some applications where electric flight could be useful.. but as it is now the energy density is nowhere near what it has to be

We use Tesla as this example "if they could do it with cars, why not planes" .. but just take a look at the endurance a Tesla has, the weight of its battery, and imagine trying to apply that to a Bonanza/210/SR22 type scale. You're not going to have a plane that can carry ~1,000+ lbs 3+ hrs. And Tesla has poured loads of cash and resources into battery development..

Chemically, I'm wondering if this massive leap is even possible. Fossil fuels contain and release energy during the combustion process, but there's only so many electrons you can pack into an anode. Battery advancements take place.. but they're slow, and as pointed out above, they have a host of environmental issues

Gas turbines, thermodynamically, continues to be remarkably efficient, with a clean and well burning engine primarily spewing out CO2 and water in the exhaust.. surely that can't be worse than lithium production
 
Tantalum said:
Gas turbines, thermodynamically, continues to be remarkably efficient, with a clean and well burning engine primarily spewing out CO2 and water in the exhaust.. surely that can't be worse than lithium production
Click to expand...

I would definitely accept a cost-efficient ($fuel x gph) turbine engine for GA, purchaseable at the cost of GA piston engines, in lieu of electric planes. Did that RR300 ever launch? Did that TP100 ever get its TBO over a few hundred hours? I'm greedy, I want a "TP300" for 40 grand a pop with an 1800 hour TBO or better. :D

Both seem to be unicorns, although I only grok the reasoning for the electric propulsion gap at the moment.

For electric, with automobiles headed in that direction, there are now massive incentives for solutions to the battery energy density problem. I think any e-plane moguls are hoping to be "in the right spot" to capitalize on them, should one of those magic developments happen.
 
The harbor air beaver I thought made some sense if the mission is 30min flights, but this thing seems completely pointless other than needing an airframe big enough to haul enough batteries to go anywhere.

If I was cynical, I'd think they are trying to make a quick buck off the corporations and governments so eager to throw piles and piles of cash at anything that looks remotely green.

But im sure it's not that.....
 
Tantalum said:
....but there's only so many electrons you can pack into an anode.
Click to expand...
Batteries don't store electrons. For every electron that leaves the negative terminal, another electron has to enter the positive terminal. Batteries propel electrons via chemical conversions within the battery, so you need chemicals that can propel vast quantities of electrons for long periods of time, but the whole thing has to be light, too. And the process has to be reversible so it can be recharged.

The reaction in a lead-acid battery:

upload_2020-5-30_9-38-30.png
 
I read another article that this caravan had a range of about 100 miles.
 
Bacho said:
I read another article that this caravan had a range of about 100 miles.
Click to expand...
Yup. On two tons of batteries. No room for people. https://www.seattletimes.com/busine...-electric-first-flight-of-a-cessna-turboprop/

The flight does not herald the near-term introduction of all-electric, passenger-carrying Cessnas. The cabin of the plane was obstructed by two tons of lithium-ion batteries and cooling equipment, with little room for passengers. It certainly wasn’t a cabin setup that would make any sense commercially.

“Yeah, I couldn’t fit a person in that aircraft. There was not even an attempt to put the batteries in a more convenient place,” said MagniX CEO Roei Ganzarski. “This specific eCaravan was designed as a flying test bed.”

The flight proves a plane this size can be powered by an electric motor.

Might be waiting awhile.
 
Shepherd said:
The 7 minutes? I made that up, but it appears I was pretty close. I'm sure the run-time for the engine is at least 20 minutes.

The ecological impact? Every aspect of lithium battery creation and disposal is super toxic, as is every aspect of the chip manufacturing for the computers and boards that control the motor.
I was part of the team that created sub-micron circuitry. When we were done, we had to dig hundreds of bore holes to test for pollution.
The site was so polluted that IBM immediately sold it to the town to get out from under any legal liability for creating the mess.
At the plant that actually makes the chips, the water is undrinkable for miles around the plant. IBM has to provide testing, water purification systems or replacement water for (nearly) every house in that area of town. It's slowly making it's way to the entire town.
Some of the byproducts are toxic in extremely small quantities. Exposure to arsine concentrations of 250 ppm is rapidly fatal: concentrations of 25–30 ppm are fatal for 30 min exposure, and concentrations of 10 ppm can be fatal at longer exposure times.Symptoms of poisoning appear after exposure to concentrations of 0.5 ppm.

Progress is wonderful. I'm merely pointing out that there is a cost and consequences for everything.
Click to expand...

Troll
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top