First Commercial Electric Airplane set to fly

[rsn48]

Harbour Air is a smaller airline in British Columbia servicing many smaller locations but some popular ones as well, Nanaimo for example. This coming Wednesday December 11/2019 the first electric aircraft will take to the air. The aircraft is a converted Beaver, in itself an historical craft. This flight will be the first commercial endeavor in the air industry in the world.

The reason I post this in a trawler forum is that I know many are following electrical propulsion trends in boating and most likely other areas as well. Initially the Beaver will only be allowed to fly in non-rainy weather but I suspect this requirement will soon be lifted. Harbour Air has announced that eventually it wants to go electric on all the aircraft.

https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle...air-ceo-will-pilot-worlds-first-electric.html

 

[Ski in NC]

For short runs, it can make sense for both air and water travel. But that is it, presently. Just not enough energy stored in the battery to make longer trips.

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

The key would be longevity and weight of the batteries.

 

[C lectric]

Yes, as long is this is kept being pushed, better and more suitable batteries will be sorted out.
We are already seeing many improvements. Not only better batteries but the cost keeps dropping as the whole system develops from mfg. to the use point.
.

 

[Arc]

Batteries generally don’t like cold. It’s very cold at high altitudes

 

[bogranjac1]

Sorry about the thread drift, but read this article in the Sunday paper.
Volvo Penta electric prototype.
It mentions lithium-ion power packs - more power and torque at low speeds compared to similar diesel engine. Potential for up to four hours or 20 nautical miles zero-emission cruising.
My ignorant question is after 4 hours then what?
call Greta for a tow home ?

 

[JDCAVE]

We met this couple at Montague. The boat is solar powered, with a golf cart motor and batteries. About a 5 hour range on a sunny day before needing a full recharge.



Jim

 

[ssobol]

Batteries generally don’t like cold. It’s very cold at high altitudes

DHC-3s don't fly that high. Some of the battery power can be used in heaters to keep the battery warm, like in Tesla cars.

Even if they have successful test flights, it'll be a few years before they can operate them commercially.

 

[FF]

"My ignorant question is after 4 hours then what?"


In the photo it seems to have sails!

 

[diver dave]

Its a great start. Battery inventions will be coming, and its time to get the airframes redesigned to accommodate such a large change in design features. Charge ports, a large liquid reservoir conversion to fixed batteries, electronic controls and monitors, weight and balance changes, much different safety protocols, crash worthiness, EMC with close-by radios and high current source emitters and much more. These all need to be done concurrently with energy density improvements.

 

[MRRiley]

Along with a environmental way to produce and dispose of silicon and lithium.

 

[Nocanvas]

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.

 

[Steve91T]

Electric airplanes are a very long ways away. 1-2 person light sport planes are already flying. But anything that’ll be able do do more than fly around the pattern...many years.

 

[sunchaser]

Kudos to HA. Their experience will prove a valuable stalking horse. There are more than a few buts though -

At some point economics enters the decision making process. Using the automobile business as a guide, will the governments pony up six or seven figures as a rebate for a new plane? Saving the planet from float plane exhaust is with more than a few skeptics, especially if real world costs and impacts are utilized.

The success and failure of the float plane commercial business is based upon revenue and costs. Quick turnarounds are essential. The current status of the best battery recharging setups would result in inordinate shut down time as compared to existing gas and go situations.

The airframe re-design, certifications and necessary ground location changes will not be cheap. Remembering of course, float planes fly to where there are no ground facilities. Then the capital cost. Combined with considerable ground time losses, to move from the "neat idea" one off to viable overall fleet category will be an interesting watch.

For those with Southwest Airline history, the revolution they started was quick turnarounds, single plane fleets, great ground maintenance and thereby lower fares.

Too bad Marin, a true float plane expert, isn't here to add some brevity and additional discourse.

 

[DDW]

One category of electric aircraft that is commercially viable is auxiliary powered sailplanes. In the past these have used small internal combustion engines, usually a one or two cylinder two stroke or a Wankel. Recently there have been a number introduced using electric motors with LiIon batteries. The more powerful ones are "self launch", that is they can take off on their own power. Most are "sustainers", that is they can maintain altitude and climb slowly if caught with no thermal lift to continue the flight. Sailplanes are super efficient and require very little power to fly (15 hp enough to sustain, 30 enough to launch). Even so, the best of these will only run about 10 minutes at full power climb. They also use Lithium polymer or lithium Cobalt batteries, much higher power density than the LiFePo4 that we use in boats, but also a much higher danger of thermal runaway and fire. One version has already been recalled due to three battery fires. A high profile experimental electric plane in Europe (a converted Extra) caught fire and burned in flight with loss of crew.

While it's great that HA is experimenting with this, a breakthrough in battery tech will be required before it is commercially viable and acceptable to regulators. Even with the best LiPo batteries, the energy density is less than 1/10 of Avgas. It needs and order of magnitude increase.

 

[ssobol]

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.

I bet somewhere along the line battery, electric motor, exotic materials development, or other associated technology has been paid for in part by your taxes.

Certainly, the rules and regulations they must comply with as well as approvals and inspections are paid for by taxes.

 

[Ski in NC]

At some point there will be a hard wall as to how much electrical energy can be stored in a battery. We may be close to that now. I'm not expecting an order of magnitude improvement in batt capacity. Would be thrilled if we did, but not expecting it.

 

[ssobol]

I'm sure some university researcher using a government grant will crack it someday. Might even get a Nobel for it.

 

[rsn48]

The flights will be short, I don't think Seattle will be serviced. So flights to and from Vancouver and Vancouver Island. The flight to Nanaimo may be 20 minutes and that probably includes ground time.

 

[DC36Monk]

I bet somewhere along the line battery, electric motor, exotic materials development, or other associated technology has been paid for in part by your taxes.



Certainly, the rules and regulations they must comply with as well as approvals and inspections are paid for by taxes.

Agreed. An empty assertion that this was developed solely by unaided capitalism. And besides that, I thought we didn’t do politics here.

 

[ssobol]

The flights will be short, I don't think Seattle will be serviced. So flights to and from Vancouver and Vancouver Island. The flight to Nanaimo may be 20 minutes and that probably includes ground time.

An Israeli company is developing an electric 9 place aircraft with a range of 650 miles. Supposedly going to fly in the next year or so.

Not a seaplane though.

 

[sbu22]

At some point there will be a hard wall as to how much electrical energy can be stored in a battery. We may be close to that now. I'm not expecting an order of magnitude improvement in batt capacity. Would be thrilled if we did, but not expecting it.

its a physical chemistry problem. There is a hard thermodynamic threshold for the energy density (mega-joules/kilogram) of a given medium. Crude oil calculates to about 50 mj/kg of chemical potential energy. Lead acid batteries = 0.1, LiO = 0.5.

Even exotic storage processes are thermo limited. There's a good summary of the subject at https://thebulletin.org/2009/01/the-limits-of-energy-storage-technology/ .

 

[rochepoint]

She is flying, initial testing on the Fraser River.......

 

[DDW]

its a physical chemistry problem. There is a hard thermodynamic threshold for the energy density (mega-joules/kilogram) of a given medium. Crude oil calculates to about 50 mj/kg of chemical potential energy. Lead acid batteries = 0.1, LiO = 0.5.

Even exotic storage processes are thermo limited. There's a good summary of the subject at https://thebulletin.org/2009/01/the-limits-of-energy-storage-technology/ .

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.

Another issue in airplanes: you have to carry the fuel you burn, but half way through the flight it's half gone. Batteries, you carry for the whole flight and have to land with them. Part of the flight is less efficient, even if batteries were on par. Commercial jets do not land with a full load of fuel, it is considered unsafe. Nothing to do with fire risk, it's just the weight.

Getting a battery powered plane type certified for passengers is probably a 10 year regulatory effort if all is ready to go and tested today.

There are some of the reasons this isn't going to happen by Christmas.

 

[ssobol]

...Commercial jets do not land with a full load of fuel, it is considered unsafe. Nothing to do with fire risk, it's just the weight. ...

Current commercial aircraft always land lighter than they takeoff because some of the fuel is always consumed just getting off the ground. However, they COULD be designed to land at the same weight as when they take off, they just aren't. Further, any commercial aircraft can land at any possible weight the plane can be. A bit more care is needed if it is heavy, that's all. Sort of like driving your truck when towing your boat vs. when not towing anything.

All that is required is an inspection after a landing heavier than the max landing weight. If the inspection is passed, the plane is good to go. Newer planes will automatically generate a maintenance message indicating when an overweight (or hard landing) inspection is required.

 

[FF]

" However, they COULD be designed to land at the same weight as when they take off, they just aren't."


They aren't because some air ports charge for each landing at the max weight the aircraft is certified land at.

 

[ssobol]

" However, they COULD be designed to land at the same weight as when they take off, they just aren't."


They aren't because some air ports charge for each landing at the max weight the aircraft is certified land at.

But that is an economics reason and has nothing to do with physical design constraints or safety.

 

[diver dave]

When the wheels blow out plugs go due to braking heat, that is considered a safety issue for the ground crew. Still, safer than the easiest alternative.

 

[DDW]

The aircraft would need to be designed to land at max gross weight every time. Airframe, brakes, gear, etc. It will be heavier (not as efficient) and probably require more runway as a result. Not insurmountable, just another factor that electrics have to overcome. Anyway, that is for commercial jet type aircraft, and battery powered 737s are a very long way down the road, if ever.

Even sailplanes don't land at full gross weight. Racing gliders are ballasted with water to make them fly faster, but the ballast is always dumped (per the op manual) prior to landing except in an emergency. The water ballast - like the fuel in a jet - is in the wings to have minimum impact on spar loads. A hard landing with full fuel is like pulling inverted Gs - designers don't like the idea.

 

[rochepoint]

The Harbour Air ePlane successfully completed its first flight this morning in Richmond BC......