First Commercial Electric Airplane set to fly

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Soo-Valley said:
Thanks, I did not know that. Do they fly differently when in commercial flight?
Click to expand...


They really don't fly different, but the certification, maintenance, testing and limitations are SIGNIFICANT! One small example. When I use my plane in the charter business, the insurance was 8 to 10 times as much. Inspections and requirements to keep it flying were double or triple, as were the crew requirements and the necessary maintenance.
 
sunchaser said:
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.
Click to expand...


That wouldn't even be able to dispatch for a legal commercial flight.
 
firehoser75 said:
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
Click to expand...


Tom,

I do have an aviation background, both in commercial, maintenance, charter and just fun... for almost 50 years. There IS a difference in the takeoff and landing weight requirements, and sometimes the operation needs a lesser weight to land legally, or at all. Now, if one never ventured into a marginal strip, probably not much of an issue. But the Beaver is built for that kind of operation. And, depending on conditions, there's time where the take off weight makes a no go situation. Yes, it's significant.
 
I'm optimistic, but very skeptical of this happening soon. Just the government certification could take a LONG time, let alone the development time.



And when it's ready, it will probably be a very small market. Very limited flights.


Yes, someday we will have alternate forms of energy for our transportation (boats included)... who know what it will be and how well it will work.


It wasn't that long ago when people were talking about nuclear power for everything.... even run your dishwasher with it.
 
Seevee said:
They really don't fly different, ....
Click to expand...

The physics of flight are the same. It is the handling requirements that are different and achieving the required handling constraints can affect the airplane design.

For instance, in the 737Max, as the aircraft approached stall (slowed down) at high power settings you could reach a situation where the stick force required to hold the nose up started decreasing. The requirement is that it keep increasing as the aircraft slows (i.e. positive maneuvering stability). The original purpose of MCAS was to artificially increase the pilot force when the aircraft slowed by messing with the trim.

Military fighter jets are designed to be unstable because it improves air combat maneuvering performance, but then computers are required to keep the thing in the air. If the computers all fail, the pilot punches out because he is not capable of flying the plane fully manually.

Since passenger ejection seats are impractical, and even though modern airliners have flight control computers, the aircraft design is such that even if all the computers fail the airframe has benign enough handling characteristics that the pilots can still fly and land the aircraft.
 
Last edited:
DDW said:
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.
Click to expand...

OH! So one is to presume the weight of all those batteries and motors per passenger mile will be inconsequential when compared to carbon fueled engines per passenger mile? Also the fuel weight penalty diminishes as the fuel is consumed.
 
ssobol said:
Since passenger ejection seats are impractical, and even though modern airliners have flight control computers, the aircraft design is such that even if all the computers fail the airframe has benign enough handling characteristics that the pilots can still fly and land the aircraft.
Click to expand...

Or, in the case of the Max, the pilots really don't know how to operate the aircraft without the computer, and don't know how to turn it off when it malfunctions (training, training, training...)

foggysail said:
OH! So one is to presume the weight of all those batteries and motors per passenger mile will be inconsequential when compared to carbon fueled engines per passenger mile? Also the fuel weight penalty diminishes as the fuel is consumed.
Click to expand...

Looks like you came aboard enroute, that was all covered well up thread. Energy density of the best batteries about 1/50 of avgas, but about 2/3 of that difference made up by better energy conversion, so practically only 1/10 - 1/20 the density, i.e., 10 - 20 times as heavy for the same duration. Consumption of fuel reducing weight inflight also mentioned - read post #24.
 
The regulatory process involved in certifying a new power plant in an existing airframe would be daunting. Just getting a different certified aircraft engine approved for an existing airframe is tough.

Just like automotive applications, range and charging infrastructure are significant obstacles. Safety could also be an issue. If you have a fire on board you can’t just coast to the side of the road.

I’d love to see electric airplanes become commercially viable. We have quite a ways to go.
 
DDW said:
Or, in the case of the Max, the pilots really don't know how to operate the aircraft without the computer, and don't know how to turn it off when it malfunctions (training, training, training...)....
Click to expand...

Not mentioning the fact that Boeing changed the operation of the MCAS system after getting FAA approval so that the system had a lot more authority and operated in more situations than originally specified and approved (not to mention a lack of redundancy or error checking). Or that the airlines were complicit by not looking too closely at the Max design because they really wanted a common type certificate.
 
Last edited:
ssobol said:
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.
Click to expand...

Trivial challenges when put to someone with vision and determination. Just a few years ago, when Jeff Bezos announced that Amazon would be delivering packages with drones, most of us laughed and thought of all the reasons it couldn't work. And yet, here we are today, with pilot projects already underway, and UPS has FAA approval.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/01/ups-wins-faa-approval-for-drone-delivery-airline.html
 
BrianSmith said:
I'm flabbergasted by all the naysayers on this thread, each giving one or more reasons that this is unlikely to work.".
Click to expand...

Brian
To me the gist of the responses are spot on. What I read is largely - Yes the plane will fly, overall economics enter the equation, range should be competitive with gas, downtime to recharge is a hurdle to jump and certification is a long road.

As an aside, the battery change out gymnastics for the drones used in stadium TV work is quite fascinating. It is both quite an art and science to behold.
 
The owner of HA and the aircraft in question has stated he is betting on newer better battery technology and I think he is safe in doing that. The playing field seems to be slowly moving towards electric versus many of the other technologies. Just prior to the Vancouver Winter Olympics in 2010, the governors in Cal, Organ and Washington, along with the Premier of BC agreed to a hydrogen highway from California all the way to Whistler in BC. Where I lived in North Vancouver, had a hydrogen fueling station.

The station was used but was never really busy. Eventually years latter it was removed and never re-installed elsewhere. I think in the short run, you will find mixed technologies, so battery operated aircraft for short runs and traditional fuel for longer runs.

We have seen electric technology in cars move along at a pretty brisk pace so I think assuming change and improvement in battery tech for aircraft isn't unreasonable.
 
Ganges to YVR by Beaver is 17 minutes. By Otter is 12 min. As HA gets better, their prices have stayed competitive and the route has become more popular, requiring more seats, so either more Beavers or switching to Otters. Personally, I like both Otters and Beavers, but I prefer 12 minutes in the air to 17. HA has seen the demand increase in those larger markets and has increased their fleets of both Otters and Twin Otters to serve those markets.

There will still be smaller centres where a Beaver is still the right plane for the job, that is where the eBeaver will need to establish itself, just not in larger markets like Nanaimo and Ganges.
 
It will be interesting to see what criteria the FAA can come up with to certify an electric motor for primary propulsion in a commercial (passenger or cargo carrying) airplane.

Ted
 
Wonder what the batteries and motor do to the Caravan payload capability.
 
In order to make the most of an airplane, you need to fly it. Unless there are quick ways to swap batteries, it takes too long to reload a large battery. Very recently there have been 800 volt chargers available for a faster charge in some cars but so far I see the slow turn-around requiring two a/c or more to do the work of one piston beaver.

I also see some opportunities for newer, quiet props as I was surprised to hear the racket a “normal” prop makes when the engine makes no noise. Presumably the incentive for prop design was efficiency and noise was not a factor if the engine covered it. 2-bladed Beaver props break the sound barrier and are very noisy so they are banned in YVR harbour. 3 blades are ok but the engines are the default for noise.

30 minutes covers almost all the routes HA flies. Why not?
 
There are others as well. Pipestrel already has an aircraft certified by EASA. They are selling them. Only has around a 400 lb useful load and a flight time of 50 minutes plus reserve. However Textron recently acquired the company. In my experience Textron moves fairly quickly in R&D. I would expect something with more capability soon.

https://investor.textron.com/news/n...mpletes-Acquisition-of-Pipistrel/default.aspx
 
BrianSmith said:
It's three years after DDW made the six-pack bet (that Harbour Air would not be flying electric planes in the next five year). Although they haven't put the plane(s) into service yet, this successful test flight took place only two years and nine months into the five years. I'm liking their chances on this one.
https://harbourair.com/harbour-airs-all-electric-aircraft-operates-first-point-to-point-test-flight/
Click to expand...
I think the bet was "convert the fleet to electric".

Either way. The project gets a lot of good press (and free advertising) for HA. It makes good business sense when airlines are the emerging target for the green zealots.
 
It is still The dumbest thing I have ever seen!!!
 
Last edited:
BrianSmith said:
It's three years after DDW made the six-pack bet (that Harbour Air would not be flying electric planes in the next five year). Although they haven't put the plane(s) into service yet, this successful test flight took place only two years and nine months into the five years. I'm liking their chances on this one.
https://harbourair.com/harbour-airs-all-electric-aircraft-operates-first-point-to-point-test-flight/
Click to expand...

I'm feeling real comfortable about my bet. It was the whole fleet of Beavers, but could just as well have applied to one. It is my understanding that the seats are removed and the passenger and baggage compartments are packed with batteries for these flights. That was known to be the case early on anyway.

I'm familiar with what it takes to fly electric, nowhere has the concept gotten farther than in self launched (and self retrieving) sailplanes (Pipestrel makes mostly sailplanes and light sport category aircraft). These are FAR more efficient than a Beaver, meaning the amount of power required to fly is far less for a given payload, and the payloads are very small. Yet there is no electric that comes close to the capabilities of the ICE versions. 45 minutes duration in a Beaver is pretty lame, but might be used on a short hop. If you can fit any passengers in the cabin. And assuming you can recharge it where you land. Without a breakthrough in battery tech, this isn't happening.

Convert the whole fleet? I can almost taste the free beer.
 
Northern Spy said:
I think the bet was "convert the fleet to electric".

Either way. The project gets a lot of good press (and free advertising) for HA. It makes good business sense when airlines are the emerging target for the green zealots.
Click to expand...

Green zealots travel by BTUs provided by jet fuel I betcha. I do know that anti mining groups buy and use ( plastic, Li, P, Cu, Ni, Co and Na) battery powered EVs.

Harbor Air's quest aside, the use of EV drones in so many applications appears a definite commercial success.
 
There are something like 800 companies developing electrically powered flying vehicles. Some will be for cargo and some will be for passengers. Yes the range will be short compared to ICE aircraft. They are being designed for ranges of about 150 miles.

They are coming.
 
sunchaser said:
Green zealots travel by BTUs provided by jet fuel I betcha. I do know that anti mining groups buy and use ( plastic, Li, P, Cu, Ni, Co and Na) battery powered EVs.
...
Click to expand...

I betcha those anti air pollution groups breathe air, too.

It is possible to oppose the abuses of past and current practices without total
abstinence from the benefits derived thereof while promoting improved methods.

You need not be a 'zealot' to see the inherent problem of unchecked mining access
to 'public' and indigenous peoples land without sufficient oversight and fees paid.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

koliver
Winterizing in Vancouver BC
Replies
0
Views
432
koliver
koliver
Portage_Bay
Electric tug under design and to be built
2
Replies
43
Views
3K
Hippocampus
H
Adopo
Stability and righting ability
Replies
19
Views
3K
Hippocampus
H
W
Learning how to fly fish (as in paravanes)
Replies
4
Views
815
Whodgins
W
G
Parts of this future are already here.
2 3
Replies
76
Views
3K
FF
FF

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom