First Commercial Electric Airplane set to fly

[firehoser75]

My neighbour is a retired commercial pilot with hundreds (if not more) of hours experience flying "Beavers" in his early career. He does not see an issue with using an electric powered float plane for short hops.
As to the weight issue (I am not a pilot and only speaking from what I think is "common sense"), float planes often take off and land multiple times on one trip. Often the first landing will be with the plane fully fueled (only a small amount burned) and loaded with a full load, so based on that, (and not knowing the actual weight differences between the electric and the conventional versions or any "adjustments" that may have been necessary to the aircraft) I wonder if the weight added? (don't know but suspect the electric would be heavier due to the batteries) for landings would really be a major issue? I think I will ask my pilot friend next time I see him to get an informed opinion.
Just some thoughts,
Tom

 

[DDW]

The weight issue was more about commercial jets. Beavers land and take off at gross weight with no problem. On a Beaver I'd think the challenge is more about getting sufficient duration to be useful, and turn around time (refueling vs. recharging). The duration at current technology will be about 1/10 what is possible with Avgas. Recharging will take a long time, like overnight, vs. 10 minutes to refuel. So even if the duration is sufficient for short hops, the turn around time may be too long to be viable. On self launch sailplanes (electrics have been commercially available for 10 years) a 10 minute engine run takes 8 hours of charge time to replace. That is state of the art. There are faster charging technologies, but they require active cooling and are hard on cycle life.

Float planes in general and Beavers in particular are not particularly efficient airplanes, and not great candidates for early conversion to electric.

 

[BrianSmith]

Float planes in general and Beavers in particular are not particularly efficient airplanes, and not great candidates for early conversion to electric.

And yet, a company whose main business is flying Beavers on floats has decided that it makes perfect sense to convert their entire fleet to electric. I'm guessing they know something we don't.

I, for one, love the idea, and hope we'll see more and more electric planes in all aspects of aviation. There are a number of electric trainers available for sale today, and virtually every major aircraft manufacturer is doing research on electric flight. It's gonna happen.

 

[firehoser75]

I agree with BrianSmith. Harbour Air, which operates a lot of flights daily out of my home port (Nanaimo, BC, Canada) is planning on potentially switching over to electric on all of their Beavers (at least so they say now before the first one is actually "put into service"). However, I would be surprised if they have not considered this from all angles of their business (but I have been surprised before).

I am hopeful of two things (from a somewhat selfish POV). I am hopeful it will reduce the soot (and oily film) that accumulates on my boat quite quickly, especially in the spring and summer when they are flying in and out several flights per hour, and also that the new engines will be quieter than the fuel driven engines.

I do not know how fast they can recharge or the range they can achieve on a single charge.

 

[DDW]

And yet, a company whose main business is flying Beavers on floats has decided that it makes perfect sense to convert their entire fleet to electric. I'm guessing they know something we don't.

I love the idea too, but I'll bet a six pack against anyone that it won't happen in the next 5 years. At least one beer that it won't be in the next 10. I don't think I'd bet on 20 - a lot can happen in 20.

I wish then luck, but one only has to go back and look at all the articles in Popular Mechanics from the 50's through the 90's to see something like 90%+ failed tech predictions.

 

[oscar]

I don't have the energy to type it all up, but with a few exceptions there's a whole lot of bad information up here. And why the hell bring politics in to it?

The point of MLW/MTOW (Max Landing Weight versus Max Takeoff Weight) is a valid one, for large commercial aircraft. Not an issue yet, and certainly no factor here.

The Beaver on floats is about as efficient as a 76 Impala with a four barrel big block. Where is Bert Rutan when you need him... oh yeah.... he's focused on the space thing. Someone needs to put this technology into something carbon fiber. Half the drag and half the weight. But that would take even longer to get certified. Good luck with that.

This is not going to carry a paying passenger for at least two years. IF the Feds even sign off on it. They are not the most forward thinking people. Whether it works or not matters little.

That said, for the Harbor Air mission profile it could make sense, depending on the charge time. Airplanes need to fly to make money. Not sit on the ground charging.

We're getting there, and the RATE of change is increasing.

What makes me talk like this? 33 years of flying.

 

[Baker]

I'm with Ski on this one.....ain't gonna happen anytime soon. And I am willing to bet there is a SIGNIFICANT amount of grant money or sponsorship or whatever....I seriously doubt HA is footing the bill entirely by themselves. Cars have not got to the point where it is a break even business and they are not even fighting gravity and the FAA!!

 

[SteveK]

a video
https://globalnews.ca/video/6278729/harbour-air-plane-with-electric-engine-takes-flight-in-richmond/

 

[BrianSmith]

DDW, I'll take that bet. I'll put it on my calendar for three years from now, for the early pay-off. Warning - I like GOOD beer!

Here's another short-hop carrier who is also making a commitment to electric:
https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/u-k-company-building-short-hop-electric-airliner/

 

[sunchaser]

McDougal, the very bright founder of Harbor Air, said the prototype Beaver now under certification testing will have a range of about 30 minutes with a 30 minute reserve. Distances to their common routes from Vancouver seem pretty well limited then unless charging stations are added at the short hop end.

 

[DDW]

DDW, I'll take that bet. I'll put it on my calendar for three years from now, for the early pay-off. Warning - I like GOOD beer!

Here's another short-hop carrier who is also making a commitment to electric:
https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/u-k-company-building-short-hop-electric-airliner/

OK, We'll pay off in Nanaimo harbor as we watch HA Electric 1 take off and fly towards Vancouver. But I'll be drinking free beer.....

Nanaimo to Vancouver is about as short a hop as they make, 30 nm. At 100 knots, that's 20 minutes, add 5 at each end for taxiing, there's your 30. Now charge for at least several hours. Meantime the avgas fueled unit has done the trip many times, it easily has the duration on a single fillup. This would be at best a publicity stunt - but it won't happen as a 5 year regulatory approval cycle for that powerplant is unheard of.

 

[Philkoury]

Foss has hybrid harbor tugs. https://www.foss.com/foss-innovation/the-hybrid-tug/

 

[diver dave]

OK, We'll pay off in Nanaimo harbor as we watch HA Electric 1 take off and fly towards Vancouver. But I'll be drinking free beer.....

Nanaimo to Vancouver is about as short a hop as they make, 30 nm. At 100 knots, that's 20 minutes, add 5 at each end for taxiing, there's your 30. Now charge for at least several hours. Meantime the avgas fueled unit has done the trip many times, it easily has the duration on a single fillup. This would be at best a publicity stunt - but it won't happen as a 5 year regulatory approval cycle for that powerplant is unheard of.

I take it these aircraft are operating as experimental? Or is there a prototype category?

 

[DDW]

I think Canada has roughly similar regulatory requirements. As far as I know, there are no electric aircraft in the US operating with a standard airworthiness certificate. All the electric sailplanes are Experimental. It is a lengthy, often multi year process to even change a small part on an already certified aircraft power plant. Electrics have a large hurdle to jump there, the Boeing battery fires not helping in that regard. In the US, Experimental are not allowed to carry paying passengers. Maybe HA will offer these flights for free?

 

[diver dave]

Yeah, gotta be careful of the behind the scenes tricks. I paid for a ride one time on a paraplane; we flew down the length of Government Cut in Miami, then a turn around above Star Island, then landing in a park downtown. The PIC/owner lost his medical, so had no valid Commercial ticket. His rationale was this was a "demo" flight, to show off the aircraft pre-purchase! A $50 demo ride.

 

[BrianSmith]

OK, We'll pay off in Nanaimo harbor as we watch HA Electric 1 take off and fly towards Vancouver. But I'll be drinking free beer.....

Nanaimo to Vancouver is about as short a hop as they make, 30 nm. At 100 knots, that's 20 minutes, add 5 at each end for taxiing, there's your 30. Now charge for at least several hours. Meantime the avgas fueled unit has done the trip many times, it easily has the duration on a single fillup. This would be at best a publicity stunt - but it won't happen as a 5 year regulatory approval cycle for that powerplant is unheard of.

Everyone is assuming the batteries will be recharged while still in the airplanes. What if they design a system in which the entire battery pack can be dropped out and a new one installed in no more time than it takes to refuel with avgas? Certainly not an impossible task.

At any rate, I've put a reminder on the calendar for three years from now. Of course, if Harbour Air starts flying paying passengers before then, I'll probably remember this wager.

 

[foggysail]

Yes, the raw energy density difference is 2 orders of magnitude. However one must also consider the conversion efficiency which is 90%+ in electric and 30% or less in internal combustion. That's why I said one order of magnitude.

Please explain where that plane will charge its batteries from a source
that provides almost loss free generated and delivered energy.

 

[sunchaser]

Everyone is assuming the batteries will be recharged while still in the airplanes. What if they design a system in which the entire battery pack can be dropped out and a new one installed in no more time than it takes to refuel with avgas? Certainly not an impossible task. .

Good thought. Having been at virtually every location that HA scheduled flights occur, some newly constructed serious undercover solid facilities will be needed for that exchange to occur. Doable, just takes time and $$$.

 

[Tiffany]

Capitalist versus socialist trawlers

I think it's important to mention that this amazing innovation is brought to you by Capitalism and not Socialism. Also you and I were not forced to pay for this innovation in our taxes, free markets at play.

If we want to discuss issues of economics, politics and innovation there might be a forum to do so, but I really doubt that using this boating/trawler forum is the place for you to drawl on about your stunted understanding of the world.


For example it would be useful to examine your comments within the context of the most recent Social Well Being Index, which shows the top 40 OECD countries to all be social democracies (Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark) far outranking the US ranked at 36th. The index measures scales of education, lifespan, infant mortality, social mobility, among other indicators of well-being across the national populations.


Then again, if we follow your contentious philosophy about capitalism and innovation, we would have to ask why it would even be possible for this innovation to arise from the socialist swamp of Canada, if possessing national universal healthcare were such a blight on invention and experimentation.

 

[sunchaser]

To keep the discussion moving, the issue is not where the genius behind HA was born or where the power pack is being designed (a surprise awaits on both counts) but isn’t it a neat thing to watch it move forward. The test of course is going to be based upon economics, safety and reliability. HA is a unique opportunity due to its flight schedules and locations.

 

[ssobol]

Good thought. Having been at virtually every location that HA scheduled flights occur, some newly constructed serious undercover solid facilities will be needed for that exchange to occur. Doable, just takes time and $$$.

That might require a licensed mechanic, inspections, etc., each time the battery is changed. I expect that the battery(s) will weigh several hundred pounds at least. Probably not all that doable with a floating plane next to a dock on a windy day.

 

[BrianSmith]

I'm flabbergasted by all the naysayers on this thread, each giving one or more reasons that this is unlikely to work. Do you think the Wright brothers had every possible problem figured out, or even thought of, before they decided to build a flying machine? Do you think when JKF said we would land a man on the moon by the end of the '60's that they had even a clue what they were up against? When the automobile was invented, there wasn't a single gas station anywhere - OMG! How could such a contraption ever work?!?!
Thank goodness there are innovative thinkers in the world who aren't mired in the mud of "what's possible today".

 

[ssobol]

I'm flabbergasted by all the naysayers on this thread, each giving one or more reasons that this is unlikely to work. Do you think the Wright brothers had every possible problem figured out, or even thought of, before they decided to build a flying machine? Do you think when JKF said we would land a man on the moon by the end of the '60's that they had even a clue what they were up against? When the automobile was invented, there wasn't a single gas station anywhere - OMG! How could such a contraption ever work?!?!
Thank goodness there are innovative thinkers in the world who aren't mired in the mud of "what's possible today".

Lot less government regulation/nanny state back then. Wright Brothers would have never got off the ground if they had to get design approval or certification from the FAA (or it would have taken a lot longer). "Mr. Wright, please show the tests results showing your aircraft can withstand 150% of the design load and that the pilot's seat is certified to 16Gs."

Nowadays, if you take your home built contraption and try and fly it in a National Park you're going to get stopped pretty quickly, possibly even arrested. Granted, where they flew wasn't a National Park until sometime after they flew there.

Same for cars and NHTSA.

 

[SteveK]

But, but, this plane took off and flew for the 10 minute planned first flight. I am sure gubberment was involved allowing the test

 

[ssobol]

But, but, this plane took off and flew for the 10 minute planned first flight. I am sure gubberment was involved allowing the test

Big difference when you are operating an experimental aircraft on a test flight and one in commercial service.

 

[SteveK]

Big difference when you are operating an experimental aircraft on a test flight and one in commercial service.

Thanks, I did not know that. Do they fly differently when in commercial flight?

 

[diver dave]

I walked up to Kitty Hawk one time and flew my ridiculous flying craft. Nobody seemed to mind. For sure, no paying pax!

 

[ssobol]

Thanks, I did not know that. Do they fly differently when in commercial flight?

Yes, there are different handling requirements if you fly transport category vs. experimental.

In experimental category pretty much anything goes if you can convince the FAA (or Transport Canada in this case) you are not too likely to hurt non-participants. They don't much care if you kill yourself as long as there is no collateral damage.

Certifying an aircraft to carry fare paying passengers is a whole different ballgame. Even Boeing seems to have a hard time getting it right just now.

 

[DDW]

Please explain where that plane will charge its batteries from a source
that provides almost loss free generated and delivered energy.

While that is the soft underbelly of electrics, not really the point of my post. The aircraft has to carry both the motor and its fuel, and the power available to do that is the product of the energy in the fuel and its conversion efficiency to thrust. Internal combustion engines are around 30% while electric are better than 90%. The electric can take advantage of the fact that the 70% loss occurred back at the power plant.

I'm flabbergasted by all the naysayers on this thread, each giving one or more reasons that this is unlikely to work. Do you think the Wright brothers had every possible problem figured out, or even thought of, before they decided to build a flying machine? Do you think when JKF said we would land a man on the moon by the end of the '60's that they had even a clue what they were up against? When the automobile was invented, there wasn't a single gas station anywhere - OMG! How could such a contraption ever work?!?!
Thank goodness there are innovative thinkers in the world who aren't mired in the mud of "what's possible today".

I'm not a naysayer of the technology at all (though, it has a ways to go to be practical). I AM a naysayer of the stated schedule. If all they did was design a new gas engine of conventional design, getting it through all the regulatory hassles is probably at least a 5 year (and very expensive) effort. I'll just point out that in the USA, a LiPo battery of over 100 Wh is prohibited in commercial aircraft at this time. Can't be air shipped, can't be carried on board. What do you think they are going to say about 100KWh?

 

[diver dave]

... a LiPo battery of over 100 Wh is prohibited in commercial aircraft at this time. Can't be air shipped, can't be carried on board. What do you think they are going to say about 100KWh?

It belongs in the floats, and you can't stray far from a water landing?