From The Vancouver Sun
Somebody check me here, but doesn’t this seem like a whooooolllllleeeee lot of wishful thinking?~ctm
A B.C. airline and a Seattle-area engine maker say they’ve found a quicker route to electrification by converting a small bush plane with batteries and an electric motor
Jeff Bell, Victoria Times Colonist
Updated: March 26, 2019
A transition from seaplane to e-plane is set to begin.
Harbour Air is embarking on what is believed to be a world first, adding an electric plane to its fleet — a zero-emission aircraft powered by a 750-horsepower electric motor.
The company has 42 planes and 12 routes, and operates from centres such as Victoria, Vancouver and Seattle. It is North America’s largest seaplane airline, serving 500,000 passengers on 30,000 commercial flights every year.
“The intent is to eventually convert the whole fleet,” said Harbour Air’s founder and CEO. Greg McDougall. of the move to electric planes. “It would be a staged situation because the range of the (electric) aircraft presently, with the present battery capacity, would be around a half an hour with a half-an-hour reserve.
“But that’s changing very rapidly with the development of the battery technology.”
The first plane to be converted will be the six-passenger DHC-2 de Havilland Beaver, which is used across Harbour Air routes.
“The first one would be a prototype, which is basically proving the technology for Transport Canada and getting toward certification,” McDougall said.
Harbour Air is taking on the electric-plane venture with Washington state’s magniX — a company specializing in creating electric propulsion for air travel. The partners anticipate conducting the first flight tests in November.
McDougall said nobody has ever flown a fully electric commercial flight.
“If you think about it, it’s the evolution of transportation toward electric propulsion,” he said. “The internal combustion engine is all but obsolete, really, for future development.
HT/Toto
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
““But that’s changing very rapidly with the development of the battery technology.”
What advances are those? A fossil fuel plane can be fueled and turned around in less than a hour. Can those “new” batteries be recharged to full capacity in less than a hour? How many recharge cycles can they stand?
““The first one would be a prototype,”
In other words they have absolutely no idea how it will work! But it’s going to save us from global warming!
I applaud people for trying to innovate and develop better technologies. I hope this works but I wouldn’t put my money on it.
And as for “The internal combustion engine is all but obsolete, really, for future development.”
Why is it that just when mankind perfects a technology like the internal combustion engine, people want to scrap it for something less reliable, and less efficient?
Do they even stop to think before spending such a lot of time and money on a project? In what way is an electric motor “zero-emission” ?? Are they collecting lightning bolts or rubbing a rabbit skin on a nylon rod?
Electricity is a storage medium, NOT a source of energy. There is not such thing as “zero-emission” energy.
“If you think about it… ” . Which obviously he did not !
He was concentrating on being ready for Earth Hour tonight ?
So couldn’t think of anything else .
First commercial aircraft powered by coal and natural gas
Is it just me or does the plane in the pic forecast an empty battery dive into the water..?
I can see it clearly now, with the successive dumbing down of education and the general lack of knowledge about the real world , they’ll have no shortage of test pilots as these things drive themselves into the ground with each full-weight landing.
Older, wiser folk can be ignored, they’re ‘negative’ – so progressively younger and younger ‘engineer science’ graduates (that’ll be a thing, mark my words) will screw their eyes tighter and tighter and wish harder and harder to pull it off as they use successively older and older aircraft since all the functional ones will have gone elsewhere, they’ll be forced to raid museums for planes..
Meanwhile young idealist dipsies will line up for their Instagram moment of fame as their reality TV test pilot careers begin (and end).
In the distance if you strain you’ll hear old folk shouting ‘it’s the weight, stupids!’
In 2017, Alaska’s electricity came 43% from natural gas, 25% from hydro, 15% from diesel, 9% from coal and 4% from wind and biomass. The only new coal power plant built anywhere in the US was completed in Alaska in 2018. See http://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=AK. Thus electric aircraft in Alaska will hardly be zero emission. Indeed, I suspect the electric power systems in many of the out-of-the-way places Harbour Air serves are powered by diesel. If a competent engineer runs the numbers, it may turn out that the electric aircraft is responsible for more emissions than the conventional one due to the energy inefficiencies of the overall electric power system.
Harbour Air doesn’t fly to Alaska.
It covers Vancouver Island, the mainland coast of BC and WA opposite and Puget Sound only as far south as Seattle.
https://www.harbourair.com/flight-info/flight/schedules/#1551485323213-5abd2fa9-460f
Its AO is one of the most hydropowered areas on the planet.
Seattle City Light’s mix of electrical power sources are 88% hydroelectric, 5% nuclear, 4% wind, 1% coal, 1% natural gas, 1% biogas.
Puget Sound Energy however relies some 37% on coal, but it serves areas outside Seattle.
Harbour Air just Might be able to fly electric from Victoria on Vancouver Island down across the Straight to Port Angeles in Washington. We’ll see. It’s obviously a Big Virtue Signal from Harbour Air to show the Greens that are always aghast & against flying a reliable gasoline powered seaplane from Victoria Harbour.
I’ve flown via Kenmore Air from Victoria down to Seattle in a safe, reliable AvGas fueled Beaver and it works GREAT! They will still be flying the same GREAT aircraft many years from now, I predict, because there will be NO revolutionary battery technology to change the status of Commercial Aviation in the next few decades.
Fossil Fuels RULE!
Dan
Hydro electricity powered aircraft based out of Burnard Inlet is a great idea.
A 750 hp electric motor can be inspected every 250 hrs in a few minutes. Try that with a turboprop. A complete teardown every 1000 will take a couple of hrs. They that with a supercharged flat six.
The cost of operating a an electric aircraft will be a fraction of the current offerings.
Crispin sez:
A 750 hp electric motor can be inspected every 250 hrs in a few minutes.
Not sure a 750 hp electric motor has ever run for any significant amount of time on batteries. And that motor would be really heavy (battery weight not included).
Beng, you can’t inspect a DC motor in a few minutes. You have to take it apart far enough to check the commutators for wear, the mechanical brushes or solid-state equivalent for wear and/or signs of heat damage, and to check the bearing surfaces for wear.
People who think electric motors are simple with one or two moving parts have never worked with an electric motor, not even in an old “slot car” kids used to race.
Tim,
and not just the bearing surfaces, the shaft may slowly go away too.
(I think there was a nuke plant in Florida that had this repeated problem)
“rubbing a rabbit skin on a nylon rod”
i prefer cat skin, with the cat still in it, but instead of rubbing i give it a good flogging.
Thanks for stating the obvious Gre, because many people seem to forget it.
I would suggest Harbour Air is not long of this world. The leaders of the company are putting ideology before business.
Knowing their profits are going down hill they trying to pull a Solyndra. They are looking for government subsidies.
I doubt that will meet FAA or the Canadian equivalent for operational requirements to carry passengers. A review of a thorough analysis of electric aircraft written by an industry opinion maker is available at https://leehamnews.com/?s=electric+aircraft&submit=Go
I presume that these are the planes that fly between Seattle and the San Juans. All of the electricity there comes from hydroelectric generators. So, in this instance, the flights would be emissions-free.
Harbour doesn’t have regularly scheduled service to the San Juans, but does to and from the Gulf Islands:
https://www.harbourair.com/flight-info/flight/locations/
Nor would I put my body on such a flight. I want every plane I fly on to have a minimum safety margin of spare fuel. Who would get on a plane knowing that it might only have a few minutes extra flying time than that calculated as necessary for even a short flight? Certainly not me.
So, how long will it take for them to wind it up and how many rubber bands will that require?
Because players, at that point, are set. And it’s hard to break into the market and make money. So best to try to force the existing, efficient, perfected technology to the sideline and enter with $NEWSTUFF that you can hopefully lead the world in, and make billions.
All the better if you can use Government to force the obsolescence plan…
“Ladies and gentlemen, we are so pleased that you chose to travel in our new, innovative, all-electric airplane. That said, as it is cold outside today, there will be not heat in the plane, no lights or any other services, to protect our reserve battery power.”
20 minutes later: “Ladies and gentlemen, due to bad weather conditions at our planned destination, we have been diverted to an alternate airport, which is 30 minutes away at this point. Normally, we would have the reserve to get there, but somebody left the light on in the bathroom and we will not make it. Please lean over, grab your ankles, and kiss your ass goodbye. Thank you for flying with us.”
Anybody every notice that our current passenger fleet ALWAYS has lots of reserve air time (fuel) to cover emergencies?
“Please lean over, grab your ankles, and kiss your ass goodbye. Thank you for flying with us.
We know that you have a choice when deciding who to fly with…and it looks like you made the wrong one today.”
The good news is that these are sea planes, and most of their routes are over/near water. So they can usually find a place to land. Don’t know how they do with big waves though.
Well, the same thing happened with steam engines. They reached a high degree of sophistication relative to their origins, but the tech. was dumped as internal combustion took over. Its now mostly lostech: we now -dont know- completely how pinnacle steam tech worked.
Moreover, this has happened a number of times in history with replaced technology. The difference we see here is that combustion engines are being forced unnaturally into obsolescence before replacement renewable tech is ready. Previous transitions have occured over time as a result of market forces.
Aircraft carriers and boomers use steam turbines. Electric batteries and DC motors are not new technology. My great-grandmother drove an electric car a century ago. They are great for fork lifts and golf carts. Airplanes, not so much. Airplanes are great with gas turbines, so are peakers. But they haven’t worked in cars and trucks.
It is a question of fitness for purpose.
There will be nuclear fusion planes before there will be battery powered planes.
Because it is neither less reliable nor less efficient. Current light aircraft, like the seaplane in the photo, are generally running with 1960s vintage Lycoming engines because the FAA certification process for a new engine is too expensive for the market to sustain.
I’m an electrical engineer by training. The IEEE Spectrum, an international journal aimed at a non-specialist audience, did a cover article on the potential for electric aircraft a couple of years ago. The target market was two-seat trainers like the ubiquitous Cessna 152. Due to advances in motor (largely magnet) technology, electric motors designed specifically for the speed range needed for direct drive of the propeller (no transmission) are about 95% efficient. The motor in the test plane I read about weighs 20kg (44 lb), 10cm deep and 30cm diameter. An equivalent ICE weighs 140 kg and measures 120 x 90 x 90 cm. The electric motor generates 3 HP/lb vs. 2 for Lycoming engines, and avoids the weight of transmission and exhaust as well. Furthermore, the electric can regenerate some power on descent, reducing battery consumption 13% in typical 1-hr training flights. Fuel cost for an hour’s instruction: $3 of electricity vs. $40 in avgas. With only 1 moving part in the motor, maintenance will be far less expensive as well.
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2018/august/16/fleet-of-sun-flyers-sold
Diogenes, you compare the weights of the motors but neglect to compare the weight of the fuel vs the weight of the batteries to drive the electric motor. As mentioned many times, the landing weight of the plane with the electric motor and attached batteries will be far higher than the landing weight of the plane with an IC engine and reserve gas. The wear and tear on all parts of the airplane frame and components will be far higher with the fixed weight of the electric motor and attached batteries. The maintenance cost of the airplane and the shortened life of the airplane will probably far offset the difference in the cost of the av gas.
And were will that wonderful battery juice come from?
These people act like the electricity to the battery will be supplied by the forward propeller.
What happens if the batteries catch fire in flight?
It will come as a shock.
And they may not make it ‘Ohm.
I see the current trend in this thread. The potential is easily rectified…
Icarus, we follow thee!
Not something to get Amped up over just yet
Since they are seaplanes flying over water, will just glide down and dip the battery!
You are suggesting they “dip” lithium batteries?
There’s an instant explosive flameout and short circuit in one.
At least it’s a sea plane so if can just act like a dead duck instead of going down like 737 Max.
The course is renegotiated. The airline’s stock rate plummets. Passengers are refunded post mortem. The batteries will go flat. Passengers might go flat as well.
“What happens if the batteries catch fire in flight?”
Flight will probably be grounded!
It is not the “world’s first”…..
and a chap somewhere in WA Aus converted a small plane I gather
wasnt all that wonderful from the clip i saw some time ago
if AOC wanted people to NOT fly then stunts like this would work rather well.
‘A fossil fuel plane can be fueled and turned around in less than a hour. Can those “new” batteries be recharged to full capacity in less than a hour?’
Probably not, but you can still fuel and turn around in less than an hour if the thing is designed to allow fast and easy swap out of the discharged battery for one that has been fully charged offline. You may need to increase the overall fleet charge rate by charging a lot of them simultaneously so a proper refill is always available instead of waiting for the one most recently discharged to refill. Think RV with empty 20 lb propane tanks which can be swapped out for full ones at the supermarket exchange.
Properly built batteries and receivers will become known as charge ‘cartridges’ would solve that problem for planes and for cars. In a plane the ‘reserve cartridge’ will be shifted into the non-reserve rotation before its performance degrades substantially. In a car, you can accept the reserve battery degradation until you can’t but it isn’t but running out of fuel won’t cause it to fall from the sky, although people have frozen to death in that situation.
I’m still not thinking it is a good idea but it is not constrained by charge rate. Range is the killer plus it can get pretty damn cold at altitude which means electric heat. Or maybe not. Maybe you just use propane heaters? lol.
‘
No one has yet pointed out that *double* the battery capacity will be required to protect against catastrophic failure of the “in-use” battery. Even with “cartridge” type batteries the system will be subject to this requirement, especially since plug-in type equipment is more prone to failure than hardwired equipment. This will add significantly to the weight penalty that must be hauled in both directions.
Keeping an inventory of charged, high capacity, high current batteries on hand is a lot bigger investment than keeping a tank of fuel on hand. Fuel can be replenished on an as-needed basis. Not so with a fixed investment in batteries. You will always have a tension between on-hand battery inventory and charge rate. Higher charge rates mean batteries wear out quicker but save on fixed inventory sitting and producing zero revenue.
I just have my doubts that any technological breakthrough will happen that will make the profit equation for batteries better than for fossil fuels. Profit equals revenue minus expenses. Batteries will always represent a higher expense than fossil fuel, at least for the foreseeable future.
Another thought. Liquid fueled aircraft get lighter and more efficient as fuel is burned. The battery will remain the same dead weight from takeoff to landing.
Yes I see the point Tom.
However, onsite aviation fuel waiting to fill an empty plane is also inventory . It sits in an expensive tank and has been transported by an expensive pipeline or rail tanker.
The ‘fixed investment in batteries’ is similar to the fixed investment in fuel and tanks both inside the plane and at the fuelling float.(Seaplanes).
Remember, you won’t be needing gas tanks in an electric plane.
But..I too have my doubts. The whole thing kind of smells of government signal virtue grant money.
Lee, Investment in fuel is not fixed. Fuel is a just in time type of inventory. Battery investment is fixed, the investment has to be made ahead of time and kept current (no pun intended) while earning a return on investment the whole time the asset is owned. Fuel prices can be negotiated over time, battery investment cannot. It’s like the difference between renting a truck to haul a load vs owning a truck to haul loads. As load size decreases and increases you can rent different size trucks to fit the load thus minimizing cost. When you own the truck you must size the truck for the maximum load you might be contracted to carry. Thus your cost is maximized for the whole productive life of the truck and you must earn enough revenue to repay the investment.
If the CEO actually had any develop,ments in mind, they might have been among these:
https://www.pocket-lint.com/gadgets/news/130380-future-batteries-coming-soon-charge-in-seconds-last-months-and-power-over-the-air
If plane batteries could be recharged in flight, or even just rapidly on the ground, some of the handicaps of electric power could be overcome.
If they can be recharged in the air, they’re unnecessary.
An interim advance in battery tech could be the combo of lithium, sodium and graphene:
https://www.rdmag.com/article/2019/01/graphene-silicon-combo-could-be-key-next-gen-lithium-ion-batteries
They’re going to need some really long extension cords. 😁
Or microwave signals or sound inaudible to humans and any animals liable to be affected. Plus maybe plants and fungi.
The useful payload capacity will suffer greatly. Additionally, as we calculate range we account for fuel consumption. Batteries don’t change weight as they discharge (not any that matters).
Heat loading will be different as well. What will they do for cabin heating? Windshield deicing?
There are a lot of ancillary systems that use the “waste heat” generated by the engine.
Just because it can be done doesn’t mean it should be done. In the engineering world we call these:
“A bad idea whose time has come.”
meh…give them their 15 minutes of attention. I’d rather have mine whilst not being stupid.
Aircraft engine waste heat is mostly wasted in reciprocating engine airplanes. Single engine planes use a shroud around the exhaust pipe for cabin heating, which is why you see little carbon monoxide indicator buttons on the dashboard. Cabin heating for multi-engine recips (Beech Barons to DC-7s) doesn’t come from the air cooled engines, but from combustion heaters. Aircraft windshield deicing is electric.
Why would the need to be charged in plane? Just run multiple sets per plane and swap while the passengers are loading/unloading.
To extend range without landing.
And to save weight and space from fewer batteries.
Even worse, fast-charging virtually all battery technologies reduces their usable life.
So fast-charging (to save money/time) costs money.
Maye they got some technology from Mercedes 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k1tbf8muMc
Cheers
Roger
http:///www.rogerfromnewzealandwordpress.com
There are actually quite a few electric and hybrid electric aircraft in development now and for the last half decade, including both commercial aircraft makers as well as the FAA and Airbus. The better bet is hybrid electrics including fuel cell aircraft which can provide equivalent range to conventional internal combustion engines. Several are already flying, and many more are in design development.
Electric power, especially hybrid electric, provides quite a few advantages over conventional powered aircraft, including lower operating costs, and better redundancy (instead of a single prop, or two, an electric aircraft can feature many smaller props, such that if one fails, it is literally no big deal), and much lower noise emissions (a big deal).
Duane: I cannot find anything on the internet about any current hybrid electric aircraft being in production. Flight tests done around 2015 by Boeing and others showed that the maximum takeoff weight for such an aircraft was about 1000lb using current battery technology. Adding more battery capacity was a losing proposition. I don’t think anything has changed since then.
The more propellers you add the more you increase maintenance costs, thus operating costs go up and not down. The lift provided by a propeller is based on the volume of wind it provides and thus the wind speed it generates over the wing. Smaller propellers would require more “bite” (angle of attack) from the propeller to move the equivalent amount of air at the same speed as a larger propeller. This means more power must be applied to move the propeller (or higher speeds on the propeller which also takes more power). And this doesn’t even begin to address the problems with turbulence caused by multiple air streams over the same wing from multiple smaller propellers.
I simply don’t agree that hybrid electric power provides quite a few advantages over conventional powered aircraft. The concept may sound good but the engineering problems associated with the concept are legion.
Electric motors are vastly simpler mechanisms than internal combustion engines, and vastly more energy efficient too. An electric motor has exactly one moving part, while IC engines, whether piston or turbine, consist of hundreds of moving parts, all trying to fly apart and fail at the worst possible time to kill you.
As for specifics,you didn’t look at all, for if you did a Google search or Bing search on “hybrid electric aircraft” in milliseconds you’d have gotten over 6 million results. Examples include:
https://newatlas.com/hybrid-electric-aircraft/35342/
https://www.flyingmag.com/hybrid-electric-aircraft-motor-powers-up (Pipestrel is a significant manufacturer of aircraft in Europe).
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=hybrid+electric+aircraft&view=detail&mid=E01B57C8A3C641A2639CE01B57C8A3C641A2639C&FORM=VIRE
Also, Rolls Royce is working on hybrid electrics, as is Airbus:
https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2017/11/airbus–rolls-royce–and-siemens-team-up-for-electric-future-par.html
Electric aircraft and hybrid electric aircraft already exist and are flying now. They will eventually take over the short haul commercial transport world, and potentially even the long haul world.
Read all the others, and gazillions more in any google search of the topic.
The world’s largest aircraft manufacturers (Boeing, Airbus) are developing new electric aircraft including airliners, both all battery and hybrid electric, and major light aircraft manufacturers are doing the same. Major industrial partners include Siemens which is building a wide range of electric aircraft motors that are far lighter than equivalent powered IC engines.
Some of the companies that have already designed, built and flown hybrid electrics include Diamond, one of the world’s largest manufacturers of light trainers and high performance personal aviation aircraft, as well as Pipestrel, one of the largest developers of training aircraft.
You guys just aren’t keeping up! This is real, and it has been going on for at least the last decade.
One manufacturer team consists of Airbus, Rolls-Royce, and Siemens, who are jointly developing the E-fan X hybrid electric airliner, for which a demonstrator is slated to begin flying next year. A small hybrid backed by Boeing conducted flight testing last year. DARPA is also developing a hybrid-electric aircraft with 24 small electrically powered ducted fans. Uber is also developing a VTOL hybrid electric aircraft for point to point air service within congested urban areas.
You obviously didn’t look very hard.
There are lots of companies, including the biggest aerospace companies in the world, as well as small aircraft makers engaged in designing and building and certifying hybrid electric aircraft. Just Google it and you’ll get at least 6 million hits.
Here is a recent article from Aviation Week about just one of them:
https://aviationweek.com/vertical-flight/engine-makers-step-hybrid-electric-work-meet-uam-demand
Others include:
https://www.flyingmag.com/hybrid-electric-aircraft-motor-powers-up
https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/news/a28540/boeing-backed-electric-plane-fly-2020s/
https://www.engadget.com/2017/11/28/airbus-e-fan-x-hybrid-electric-aircraft/
https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/hybrid-aircraft/
Duane, from the first site you give:
“Many of the vehicle concepts under study for the coming wave of urban air mobility (UAM) are the size of today’s small helicopters, so it is perhaps no surprise that major propulsion players in the current vertical-lift market are laying out plans to compete for this next big opportunity. ”
There is nothing here about anything actually being in production. “Concepts under study” is meaningless when it comes to actual timelines for commercial introduction!
Multi-prop electric motors is indeed the way to go … electric motors are vastly simpler, and therefore safer mechanisms than internal combustion aircraft engines, whether piston or turbine. An electric motor has exactly one moving part, vs. hundreds of moving parts all of which can and occasionally do fail in IC engines.
Controlling a twin engine aircraft with one failed engine is one of the most difficult challenges in aviation, and loss of control with one engine out is one of the leading causes of aviation accidents. With half a dozen or a dozen small electric props or fans, the loss of any single one has no effect on the controlability of the aircraft.
I’m not sure you understand electric motors very well. An electric motor run from DC power requires all kinds of extra equipment to make the motor run, e.g. a commutator and brushes. Another option would be an inverter to take the DC and convert it to AC but you are talking *big* time cost, weight, and expense for an inverter needed to run an aircraft engine! If you use a split-ring commutator and brushes then each of those would have to be checked on a regular basis to see if they are within operating tolerances. The more of them you use the higher the cost to tear them all down on a regular basis for maintenance, and that cost includes downtime where the plain would be producing no revenue. In a DC motor with a mechanical commutator and brushes the battery is hit with a short every time the armature completes a half rotation when the brushes are flipping the current direction. That is *not* good for any kind of battery where long life is expected. If you are doing solid state controls instead of brushes then you are again talking *heavy* duty equipment to handle the field current necessary for a high horsepower motor. None of this even addresses the needs for bearing surfaces being oiled at each end of the armature to prevent wear or the means keeping the armature clean of dirt and contaminants over a long period of time.
It’s just not as simple as it sounds. I suspect that is one reason Boeing found out that with current technology there is definitely a weight limit on usability. It’s one thing to show viability on a one-time experimental flight. It’s a far different thing when you are talking commercial service over a 20-40 year lifetime.
I understand exactly how electric powerplants run – I’m an engineer, with education and experience with nuclear power plants as well as civil and environmental engineering.
The numbers I am quoting are real. Just spend some time researching the topic and you’ll see that electric aircraft are multiplying like bunnies, and it’s not some crazy inventors operating out of their garages but the world’s largest makers of airliners and personal aircraft, teaming up with major industrial powers like Siemens.
They exist. They fly. They are practical, and they will soon take over aviation.
This is not the future – this is today.
If they are indeed sticking with the 750 hp version motor, just the batteries for a 1 hr flight will weigh in the neighborhood of 2200 lbs. Add motor, prop, and controllers (400 lb at least). Total power system weight 2600+ lb. The radial Beaver engine, and fuel for several hours, weigh approx. 1300 lbs. That is a lot of disadvantage to overcome, not to mention cabin heat, anti-ice (if so equipped), etc etc.
Longer nose with the electric will require modified vertical and possibly horizontal stabilizers.
No room there for payload. I don’t think this is ready for prime-time yet. But we’ll see! The maintenance cost, at least for the motor, will be significantly lower than those old radials.
Boeing and Airbus and Siemens are actually working on the design and development of regional airliners, much bigger than this seaplane, using a combination of hybrid electric and all electric power. They foresee eventually the use of long haul airliners powered by hybrid electrics.
Actually, the radial engined 450-hp Beaver has an engine weight of 640 pounds plus 1,203 pounds of fuel, for a total engine-fuel weight of 1,843 pounds.
Electric motors do NOT require longer noses, indeed, shorter nose length is available – current generation Siemens electric motors are very small, much smaller than any IC engine, and much lighter weight too.
Check out the Siemens electric aircraft motor already in production at https://newatlas.com/siemens-world-record-electric-motor-aircraft/37048/
This tiny motor puts out 348 horsepower yet weighs only 110 pounds – about 1/6th the weight of the Wasp 450 hp engine that is standard on the Beaver. That means that a Beaver could feature up to 1,700 pounds in a battery pack and still weigh no more than the standard engine and full fuel tanks on a Beaver.
Instead of an all electric seaplane a better bet would be a hybrid electric model, combining a small very efficient IC powered generator and smaller battery pack that would produce equivalent range to the existing IC powered beaver … but would be far less noisy, and cost far less to operate.
The single biggest hourly operating expense of any IC powered aircraft is the hydrocarbon fuel that it consumes.
The fossil fuel engine will land missing those 1200 lbs of fuel. The battery powered one will land with the full load. The wear and tear on the plane from full-load landing will soon eat up any savings you might see from the smaller electric motor. Tires, shocks, air frame, structural components will all see shortened lives.
I was not planning full fuel for the conventional IC Beaver. My estimate stands. You have grossly underestimated the battery and systems weight (controllers, cooling). I know of what I speak…the large well-known aerospace company for which I do engineering is developing both “pure” electric and hybrid propulsion systems for a variety of applications.
Aircraft are always required to be certified at max takeoff weight, so there is no issue with landing with or without the full fuel load.
There is no wear and tear on a electric motor that is not 10,000 times worse on any IC engine.
Dude – aren’t you getting it? There is only ONE moving part in an electric motor, vs. hundreds in any IC engine. And that electric motor is NOT subjected to intense, prolonged heat and variable stresses as is any IC engine component. No valves, no camshafts, no pistons, no piston rods, no crankshafts, no multi-wheeled compressors with hot sections .. none, zip, nada.
Electric motors are and always have been the world’s most long lasting and reliable technology to provide motive power.
Duane, take-off weight is *not* the same as landing weight when it comes to stress on every system in the airplane. Landing is *much* more stressful to every component in the airplane, from door latches to shock absorbers!
For the most part the electric motors you speak of as lasting forever are AC motors which do not require some kind of apparatus to act as a commutator so the motor can be spun up. Batteries do not produce AC without some kind of external conditioning apparatus. For the high currents needed for an electric motor producing the power needed for an airplane take-off that external conditioning system would be very expensive.
An electric motor in an airplane would incur all kinds of temperature stresses when moving from the ground to cruising altitude. There would also be variable stresses on the motor as prop speed is varied, especially during landing. This kind of usage is *not* the same as an AC electric motor used to drive an escalator which runs at a constant speed.
As for internal combustion engines, I traded in a Honda Pilot two years ago with 250,000 miles on the engine. It had two timing chain replacements (considered preventative maintenance) and consumable replacements at recommended intervals, i.e. filters, spark plugs, etc. The engine was still going strong. The AC motor driving my air compressor didn’t last that many operating hours!
Dude – these aircraft exist.
Stamp your feet on the ground all day and deny reality, but reality still wins, ever single time. Dozens of electric aircraft are already flying today, and many dozens more are in rapid development to appear in just the next two years. Backed by the very biggest names in aerospace design and engineering and manufacturing.
I mean, if you want to maintain that Boeing, Airbus, and Siemens, as well as major light aircraft manufacturers like Diamond and Pipestrel don’t know what they are doing, then you are simply living in a fantasy world of your own making, not reality.
All passengers are notified that all flights are cancelled. It is a cloudy, rainy, calm day in Victoria. The wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining, delaying the recharging of batteries. We sold our ICE aircraft last year. Check in periodically for updates.
‘What advances are those? A fossil fuel plane can be fueled and turned around in less than a hour. Can those “new” batteries be recharged to full capacity in less than a hour? How many recharge cycles can they stand?’ The answer is simple but costly. Do what Pony Express did with horses. Have a fully charge plane ready for takeoff. LOL
The electric training aircraft already in service now feature quick charging and/or replaceable battery packs – just slip in a fully charged battery pack in multiple modules and the aircraft is ready to fly.
Hybrid electrics don’t even need to worry about that at all – they land with a fully charged battery pack. Just like hybrid electric cars.
Quick charging *any* battery reduces its life span and therefore makes it more expensive. Replaceable modules don’t eliminate that downside. Replaceable modules bring along problems of their own, like how do you insure fail-safe connections. Both permanent and replaceable modules are going to suffer from needing heavy-duty fire and smoke prevention should a short occur and a fire start. In addition, how do you manage replacement modules? Are you going to keep a centralized inventory of charged modules or is each operator going to have to keep an inventory of their own? What are the core charges going to be with a centralized inventory to keep unscrupulous operators from cycling bad batteries into the replacement module inventory? Those core charges could be quite hefty! How many replacement modules of different sizes and capacities would have to be maintained in either a centralized inventory or in an operator inventory? One size fits all would be extremely inefficient.
It’s just not as simple as it sounds.
Dude – quick charging of Lithium ion batteries has been well established for decades. Used on everything from battery powered Tesla sports cars to your laptop and cell phone.
And of course, that is not an issue at all anyway with hybrid electrics, which already do and will continue to dominate both highway vehicles and aircraft design and production. With a hybrid, the battery virtually never gets drawn down anywhere near its capacity.
Welcome to the 21st century.
The more often you run down and recharge your cell phone battery the shorter life it will have! It’s the same for *any* lithium battery whether it is in your over-the-ear headphones or your flashlight! It’s why police replace the lithium batteries in their flashlights and laser attachments on a regular basis. You can only recharge them so many times and you don’t want it dying on you when you need it the most!
If the battery in a hybrid setup never gets discharged significantly then of what use is it? Why not just run off internal combustion engine doing the charging of the battery?
If energy density (mostly wrt mass) didn’t matter, Duane, then they wouldn’t bother charging you more for extra baggage at the airport.
Electric cars are generally not yet economic without laws to make them so. The case of aeroplanes is far more challenging. Within-city transport, maybe. But that is only because of the economics of congestion for surface transport.
We will probably never see long haul electric aeroplanes because the point at which batteries can store a lot more energy simply means that they are effectively just a bomb waiting for a trigger. Known chemical thermodynamics indicates there is really nothing left to try that is better than using hydrocarbons in an oxygen-rich environment.
My thoughts as well was how much would it cost for the “parking” charges for the plane whilst the battery recharges as most large airports charges are in the thousands £/$ per min for fueling and servicing.
I’m sure those traveling to the latest climate fest wouldn’t mind as other people will be paying but the rest of us wouldn’t be able to afford to travel (suppose that’s what they want)
James Bull
Coming from the Seattle area, and knowing Harbor as a long time carrier there, I thought they had more sense….well, if the battery goes dead in the middle of the flight, there’s always Puget Sound to land on….
…they work really good in freezing weather
and when the fog rolls in and they have to turn around and go back
Now we need a company to name itself EFO………Electric Flight Orchestra
note to CTM: This should be followed up every few months or so…
This should be fun to follow. 1/2 hour range? Maybe 150 miles? Then recharge for an hour+ before return? “Rapid” development of battery technology? Take off weight = landing weight limitations on airframe? This appears to be some Greenies that are going to show those in doubt how it’s done. 🙂
The Beaver has a cruising speed of about 145mph, So the range would be about 70 miles. Powered by gas it has a range of abut 450 miles.
I fly in one regularly. Fantastic been there done that aircraft with the aerodynamics of a fridge door. Cruising SOG is approx. 100kts, no head/tail wind.
Their reliability comes from a 9 cyl P&W radial engine with gobs of torque.
Electrifying one these work horse bush planes makes no sense as the batteries would take away what little internal luggage space they have and Harbour Air’s CEO is doing some very PC green virtue signalling.
Will not happen, neither on the Beaver nor on the Caravan they use.
I assume that the half hour flight time includes takeoff, reaching altitude, descending, holding and landing.
They would be foolish to fly further than fifty miles (eighty and a half kilometers).
I suspect they’re planning on a large wing area for maximum lift to minimize required battery weight.
And that’s 45 minutes in the weather after sundown. With anti-icing and conservative fuel efficient speed. A little bit of nose up, flaps 5, 10 maybe ?
On an a/c that was already bingo fuel on departure.
Is it me or that’s not the most recommended situation to be even in an amphibian ?
Well if they can’t dump fuel to reduce landing weight, then they’ll have to dump luggage and passengers instead. The pilot of course, always goes down with his plane.
May have better odds to dump the passengers rather than ditch w/ lithium batteries.
Maybe 150 miles?
…half that…their weather can change too fast….turn around and go back….then reserve
Washington State Gov Jay “Defeat Climate Change” Inslee has proposed a joint venture between Washington State and British Columbia. The venture, projected to cost only 200 billion USD, will install very very tall electric lines between Seattle and Vancouver, BC. The result will be a “cable car in the sky”.
When asked about all the other air traffic affected by this joint venture, “The other airlines will have to up their game, so they can use our system. This will be better for customers and the homeless in our state. And will defeat climate change. We must have a static climate. Change is bad. Climate change is killing our forests….” Inslee said. He is proposing a new sales tax of 500% on sugary drinks to pay for the project, but only for “rich people”.
Canadian officials could not be reached for comment.
Just in case /sarc
Electric commercial flights are also planned by Norway…
https://www.thelocal.no/20180618/norways-first-electric-aircraft-to-take-off-on-monday
“Solvik-Olsen will be the only passenger on board the aircraft, which has a capacity of two people and has a two-hour charging time.”
Really? And these parameters are going to make the airline into a productive entity with profits enough to convert the rest of the fleet?
“The aim of the flight is not to demonstrate the practical viability of the aircraft, Riise said.
“This aircraft shows it is possible to fly on electricity. The point of the flight is to show it’s possible,” she said.”
Really? You could prove this with a battery powered RC-airplane!
For some reason griff can’t tell the difference between a press release and an actual, in service plane.
Griff always do the same. Reads the headline, he search over the internet for something similar, and he posts the link here without even checking the content of the link. One of these days he is going to post some pr0n.
You will really swallow absolutely anything no matter how absurd, won’t You Griffie?
That aircraft can carry one (1) passenger and 20 lb of luggage plus the pilot. If neither pilot or passenger
is overweight that is.
Technical data are here:
http://flypipistrel.com/info-packs/Pipistrel-Taurus-Electro-Information-Pack.pdf
Oddly enough there are no data at all on endurance or range, but they can be calculated from the operating weight (1212 lb) and optimum sink-rate (0.7 ms-1). The largest (and heaviest) battery pack is 9.1 kWh. If we figure 90 % efficiency for the complete power train (battery + transmission + engine + propeller) which is very optimistic, and suppose that the flight can be made entirely at optimum speed (94 km/h), that there is zero wind, and that the extra energy needed during take-off and climb can be completely regained by gliding at the destination (which it can’t), then the endurance of the aircraft (=battery) is 2 hours and 10 minutes, which translates to 204 km (127 miles) range.
By the way I hope that battery capacity is not the total capacity since a li-ion battery is ruined if you empty it completely.
Thanks for the link tty.
Good lord, this ‘aircraft shows it is possible to fly on electricity’ claim is even more pathetic than I envisaged.
On the basis of the pipistrel demonstrating the future of commercial electric flight and bearing in mind that bicycles are now an integral part of Noregian town planner’s planning for daily office commuting: https://www.visitnorway.com/media/news-from-norway/norwegian-proposal-goes-viral-may-spend-1-billion-on-bike-highways/ , why should Avinor aim so low?
Gossamer Albatross demonstrated that it is possible to fly on ‘clean’ pedal power after all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacCready_Gossamer_Albatross, so why not set a target for all short haul air travel to be pedal powered by 2040?
Come on Norway! you need real ambition to set a shining green example.
I am not sure that the image being presented of Norwegian towns and cities being like Nordic equivalents of placid , Green Amsterdam is entirely accurate . Just a few years ago we were on holiday in Norway , and being summer , and with long, light evenings wanted to sit out at pavement cafes near the centre in Oslo. It was made nearly impossible because every night there were hordes of leather clad motorcyclists roaring up and down the main streets on powerful motor cycles with no apparent concern for any speed or sound restriction.
I suspect that it will be a while yet before a Green tinged version of civilisation finally catches up with this Viking nation.
However that is the way they want to live – it is not for me, just a visitor, to try to change them.
Correct me for an error
1 HP hour equals 748 watt hours.
750 HP hours equals 561 Kwatt hours
@750 HP a 9.1 Kwh battery can supply energy for about 58 seconds.
That number should be 746. I used my failing memory.
This is not ignorant or stupid, it is as Will Rogers would say just plane dumb.
lol
Yep. The Pratt & Whitney PT₆ can consume as little as 0.3 kg per kWh of output power. Most 10 passenger craft carry 400 liters of so of jet fuel. Good for 7+ hours cruising at maximum-range throttle. 1,100 nmi. 1,250 miles, 2,000 kilometers. Works out to what, 350 kg of fuel ÷ 7 hours = 50 kg/hr nominal, with each kg supplying about 3.3 kWh of power, for 165 kW output continuous. 1,150 kWh.
At a best-of-breed battery pack weighing 3 kg/kWh, that’d take 3,500 kg of battery. Which is to say, almost the entire gross weight of the same aircraft, passengers, fuel, engines and all.
Dunno. Seems like a non-starter to me.
GoatGuy
Humm – 58 seconds eh? Should be enough to just get airborne so the participants can be nominated for a Darwin award, or Nobel Peace prize – posthumously.
Griff, just in case you’re another of the green team who habitually paste links to articles you haven’t actually read, let’s contemplate how electric flights are planned by Norway from the article:
” The electric aircraft, an Alpha Electro G2 produced in Slovenia, is scheduled to take off from Oslo Airport on Monday afternoon and will be flown by Avinor CEO Dag Falk-Petersen.
Solvik-Olsen will be the only passenger on board the aircraft, which has a capacity of two people and has a two-hour charging time.
The aim of the flight is not to demonstrate the practical viability of the aircraft…
“This aircraft shows it is possible to fly on electricity. The point of the flight is to show it’s possible”
The rest is some wishful thinking about ‘all commercial flights’ (which actually means flights less than 1.5 hours long) being electric by 2040 according to Norwegian environmentalist NGO ‘Future in Our Hands’.
One bloke flying an experimental kite designed to take two for joy flights is not exactly ‘commercial’. Referring to a bureaucratic ‘target’, which as the Paris gentleman’s agreement shows us is a pompous pseudonym for ‘wishful thinking’, as ‘planning’ is hardly compelling either.
This nonsense talk is normal for Norgrey, who seem to have an incurable guilt complex about going from rags to riches on the back of exporting oil, but if it floats your boat you believe what you want.
“Both Falk-Petersen and Solvik-Olsen said they had been on strict diets before the flight.”
The development of electric driven aeroplanes is at a level comparable to the Wright brothers of the ICE system.
Wilbur and Orville also made a short flight, landed unhurt and had no payload.
Do the destinations have recharge capabilities? If not, the half hour flight time (plus reserve) is actually only 15 minutes; 15 minutes there + 15 minutes back = 30 minutes flight time. And what is the recharge time? Or do they plan to use the descent to turn the propeller (a windmill?) to recharge the batteries? Inquiring minds and all that. It is, after all, veeery close to the first of April.
Of course ICE is almost obsolete…humans will live and die within 50 miles from where they’re born in all the comfort mud and wattle can provide.
Don’t forget we will also have to paint our faces with woad, for some good environmental reason that temporarily escapes me.
They are going to have to get FAA approval.
Or Transport Canada approval….:^)
It does not consume fossil fuel? So I guess they have PV and wind turbines at the recharge stations, or they just plug it in to an outlet (coal fired) for recharges.
The Pacific Northwest does have lots of hydropower. It’s just limited to mainland mostly where grid connections are possible. And remote islands don’t have underwater power connections unless they are close to shore and grid power is close by.
They can always have big diesel generators hidden back in the woods near their base operations. They’d just have to hide them from view to maintain their fake virtue.
“The first one would be a prototype, which is basically proving the technology for Transport Canada and getting toward certification,” McDougall said.
If that’s anything like the FAA, I wouldn’t hold my breath.
You mean if like the FAA, Canada requires airplanes be airworthy?
I wonder what the competing technologies are?
Rubber bands?
Or compressed air?
Being in the electrical trade,I am just fascinated by what these “rapid advances in battery technology” are.
Or the aviation bugbear,Power to weight ratio.
“I wonder what the competing technologies are?”
Hamsters on steroids.
Rubbing rods with rabbit skins, as suggested above.
There really is no competition; not when aviation fuels run about 100X the energy density of their batteries. Different engine weights don’t come close to making up the difference. especially when you consider that the expended fossil fuel is discarded and not hauled back for recharge.
Quote : I am just fascinated by what these “rapid advances in battery technology” are.
Me too. Been in the heavy battery and DC voltage industry for 50 years.
I’m still waiting for the rapid advances.
Still waiting for the the laws of physics to change also.
It’s not the battery technology which has changed so much, it’s the technology and light materials which the batteries supply voltage too have changed dramatically.
Those little button batteries which power your watches – they’ve been round for 60+ years. The batteries in your cell phone are just a collection of button batteries or derivation of.
I’ve got it in mind that commercial flights have to have a fuel reserve over that needed for the journey.
Is this correct?
Does this apply to electric aircraft and included in the specifications?
Seems to be just a PR move for the airline. Maximum range on their “prototype” will be 30 mins so no way that could ever be certified for commercial use due to the lack of safety margin. They get 3 years of free advertising before having to say they need more development time. There’s no chance that Lithium-ion batteries could ever improve efficiency enough to make it practical so they are completely dependent on a technology breakthrough that’s likely to be far in the future.
If you mess around with Father Time you risk getting your clock stopped.
“The internal combustion engine is all but obsolete, really, for future development.”
Maybe that’s because it doesn’t NEED and future development. ICE engines are very
clean these days.
I’ve read of several potential developments that can squeeze out a few more percent of efficiency.
The energy density of batteries is about 1/10th to 1/15th that of fossil fuel, so batteries in aircraft are a bit of a non-starter. Plus the batteries do not ‘burn off’ during the flight, as with fossil fuel aircraft, which makes the latter more and more efficient as the flight proceeds.
This claim is probably correct in that they could get an hour’s duration from batteries. The electric engine is much lighter than a piston engine, and a a bit lighter than a turbine, so that can offset some of the extra battery weight. But the batteries would severely limit range and turnaround time. The only way this would be feasable is if the flights were just a quick wizz around the bay, and the batteries could be exchanged with new ones on the return. Now that might work – but only for a very specific type of operation.
Ralph
The Boeing 787 used new light weight lithium-ion batteries to power up the APU to replace the standard heavier batteries. Some earlier fires within the lithium-ion batteries caused grounding of the fleet to allow redesign of the battery enclosures to contain the smoke and fire. The weight added by the enclosure offset all the weight gains made by going to lithium-ion batteries. As we all know these fires can be severe and catastrophic in a plane.
And like you said, when flying a plane you only add enough fuel to cover the distance you are flying, and as the fuel burns the plane becomes more efficient. Since I believe the planes are not designed to land with a full load of fuel, when making an emergency stop far short of the original distance the plane was fueled to fly, they have to jettison some of the fuel. So will they be designing these planes to add only the battery capacity the plane is expected to use (plus standard reserves) by each leg of the journey? Can they jettison the batteries if need be? LOL, I don’t think so.
“Since I believe the planes are not designed to land with a full load of fuel”
You are right, they aren’t. If a heavily loaded aircraft has to land quickly after take-off, fuel has to be dumped. In an extreme emergency (for example an onboard fire) an overweight landing can be made, but this is dangerous since the landing speed will be abnormally high and the strain on the aircraft structure, particularly the landing gear, will be extreme.
Yes, like joy flights in a hot air balloon?
It is about 50:1 by weight, gasoline to Lithium Ion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
That’s best-case… worst-case is closer to 100:1
Note that the range requirement for a passenger-carrying aircraft is “Alternate + 30 minutes”. That means that to fly for example to a destination 30 minutes flight away, you must arrive at the destination with enough fuel to fly to an alternate field plus fuel for 30 minutes more. If there is no alternate then a 45 minutes reserve is required.
Being a seaplane alternate airports are all around you.
Tom t March … at 3:05 pm
Being a seaplane alternate airports are all around you.
Excellent point (-:
Not really, you need a protected, fairly large (along the direction of wind), obstruction-free area of water, which may not always be easy to find.
Admittedly the Puget Sound area is probably one of the better places to operate sea-planes.
It’s more like criminally insane.
“The internal combustion engine is all but obsolete, really, for future development.”
I don’t think so, Tim.
~ Al Boreland
I read that and thought, “Hm, I bet whoever wrote this PR bit probably used an ICE to get somewhere in the last week. So much for ‘obsolete’.”
“Somebody check me here, but doesn’t this seem like a whooooolllllleeeee lot of wishful thinking?~ctm”
Actually,
Somebody check me here, but doesn’t this seem like a whooooollllleeeee lot of virtue signalling?~jmo”
As for the commercial viability of such a plane, they will certainly find that a battery powered plane will be quite limited in range, endurance, and to a lesser degree payload/pax capacity, especially compared to a Jet-A powered turboprop Beaver, or a Cessna Caravan (turbo prop).
The first and most obvious is the batteries replacing the wing fuel tanks. And you cannot put heavy battery packs behind the passenger compartment due to c/g balance issues. And they cannot put those lithium battery packs in the pontoon floats (most of their fleet are float planes) due to probability of salt water intrusion there and the shocks the pontoons take when they land in choppy water.
Frequently pilots adjust take-off fuel load for the intended mission and payload. How do you do this with fixed batteries in wings that require structural integrity? And as a flight in fossil fueled aircraft progresses, fuel burn off results in improved performance. What this means is that every flight from start to finish will be operating a nearly 100% certificated maximum gross weight (MGW). That is brutal on the airframe and pilot’s nerves, year after year.
The Pratt-Whitney PT6A-34 engine kit (680HP) turbo prop is a marvel of packed light-weight, power and performance, and reliability. And while an electric motor will produce much more immediate HP and torque for the same weight, the PT-6 produces all the power needed to carry 6-11 passengers and their luggage (depending on range needed and luggage weight-volume) on 4 hour flights.
What will likely happened with an electric version is range and payload will be severely limited to probably no more than a 60-90 minute flight time, thus range will be in 150 mile area, compared to 5 hour (4 operating+1 reserve hour) flight times giving it 600 mile range for Turbo-Beaver. And passengers probably maxed out a 6-8 to keep landing weights in reasonable ranges (since there is fuel weight burn down).
One thing that these operators frequently do is the same plane and pilot can make two complete pax runs before having to refuel. Refueling takes less than 30 minutes, probably around 20 minutes before the palen is ready to go back out again. Fast charging a battery-Beaver would probably be a 3 hour affair. And repeated fast charging degrades the battery packs much faster due to added heating.
And wherever it lands, an electric aircraft with less than 35% charge must then have access to a high current charging system, otherwise it is stuck until another plane can ferry in charged battery packs. That limits its usefulness to flights between fixed base operations unless it can land with at distant point with at least 50% battery to make a safe return.
The further stupidity (blind virtue signalling) is that where does the electricity for the charging come from? In Vancouver and Washington State mainland sites, it can and does come from hydropower. But how many smaller islands where they operate into have hydro power? So it’s still fossil fueled airplanes anytime they charge from the grid that isn’t predominately hydro power. I suppose they could always put in diesel powered generators to charge the battery packs, they’d just have to keep them out of sight to maintain their fake virtue.
No make no mistake, this is not a sound business decision unless they are pricing in the value of virtue and selling “green virtue” to gullible well-heeled passengers.
Turbo Beaver spec sheet.
https://www.vikingair.com/sites/default/files/documents/TurboBSheet_print.pdf
5.9 hours endurance, 600 sm rrange.
186 gallons Jet-A x 6.66 lbs/gallon = 1,240 pounds.
And that’s a full fuel load which burns down as the flight progresses improving performance immensely.
And the engine is about 1,200 lbs too.
Nope. A PT6A weighs from about 300 lb to about 500 lb depending on model. Power-to-weight ratio is from 0.4 to 0.6 lb per hp.
Checked. Turbo-Beavers use the PT6A-34 model, that is 331 lb (150 kg) and nominally 750 hp (550 kW), though they are apparently downrated to 680 hp (507 kW).
PT6A’s are often downrated since it dramatically increases maintenance intervals and thereby decreases cost
OPALCO co-op utility in the San Juan Islands gets its power from BPA, ie mainly hydro.
https://www.opalco.com/about-us/history-of-opalco/
Hydropower is now a fixed resource; any additional electric load must come from fossil fuels or expensive ‘renewables.’
Some of the Columbia River system dams could support additional generators, but water is now spilled for salmon that could have been used to generate power.
Not in BC.
Everywhere, nc. Try building a new hydropower facility.
Yup. BC still has room to grow its hydropower:
https://www.bchydro.com/energy-in-bc/projects/site_c.html
It’s one among many such projects:
https://www.bchydro.com/energy-in-bc/projects.html
Beaver aircraft carry it’s fuel in the belly.
As described, the converted aircraft will have limited utility, given the 30 minute maximum flight time combined with the need for recharge capability at the destination. If 30 minute flights represent the majority of Harbour Airs commercial business, they may be able to make the business case ‘close’.
That’s pretty much my take as it looks like an ideal early application for electric passenger airliners. With foreseeable battery technology, I don’t see any chances of electric airline routes greater than 500 miles. On the other hand, my guess is developing such electric aircraft would be cheaper than the California high speed rail project.
my rough calculations with a load of 2 persons gave it a range of around 70km, assuming you have the ability to recharge it at the other end, otherwise you’re looking at 30-35km. Neat if you need a pond hopper.
and for giggles here’s a guy hitting a LiIon battery.
https://youtu.be/CVD5KFB7478?t=337
Now all they need is to wish and dream into existence a battery with 5 to 10 times this capacity 😉
Math, and sanity, check: a 750 horsepower electric motor is equivalent to a 560 kW electric motor. Peak horsepower would only be used briefly for takeoff (and perhaps for a go-around on a botched landing attempt). However, the aircraft’s battery and wiring would have to be sized to supply this much peak power. It is reasonable to assume that most of the cruise flight would be about 30% of peak power, with the extra power needed for climbing to cruise altitude basically offset by the reduced power during descent from cruise altitude. So, if the aircraft is planning for 30 minutes normal flight time and 30 minutes of reserve as stated in the above article, we are looking at a minimum battery size of 560*.30*1 = 168 kWh.
To put that in perspective, a Tesla Model S 100 battery pack at 100 kWh rating (actually, only about 80 kWh usable without permanently damaging the battery) weighs around 1,400 pounds. Based on this, the proposed electric-powered “bush plane” would need to carry about 2,800 pounds of battery pack(s) versus about 630 pounds for 100 gallons of gasoline (which would incidentally give it several hours of flight time).
Say bye-bye to the electric plane being able to haul the same number of people or anywhere close to the same amount of payload.
What about all the other electrical needs? I assume that ice engines produce the electrical power necessary in addition to that needed for actual flight. I would think that the batteries in an electric plane would need to be kept heated, too, drawing a measurable amount of power.
30% peak power??
IIRC, When I flew small airplanes we cruised at 70-80% peak power. . .
The drag force is proportional to velocity squared and power is proportional to velocity cube. For the aircraft DHC-2 Beaver:
cruising speed = v1 = 143 mph
cruising power = P1 = ?
max. speed = v2 = 158 mph
max. power = P2 = 336 kW
P1/P2 = (v1/v2)^3
P1 = P2 (v1/v2)^3 = 249 kW
Energy capacity at 1 hr flying = 249 kwh
1400 lbs per 100 kwh = 14 lbs/kwh
weight of battery = 249 (14) = 3487 lbs
That’s heavier than the empty weight of the aircraft (3,000 lbs) excluding passenger and cargo. Doubtful if it can even takeoff.
I mistyped my name LOL
Battery recharge speeds not so critical these days – the upcoming Porsche Taycan can recharge to 80%
in less than 20 minutes. Batteries can be recharged LOTS of times. It’s not unusual for a 100,000 mile pls Tesla to still be using the same battery pack. Figure over 12 years and perhaps up to 19 years for an EV car battery.
The battery’s weight is a big problem for aircraft.As mentioned, these first electric airplanes look to have a short range of less than 100 miles and reserve of the same (in case the airport is fogged in) if there is a need to go to an alternate airport. At this point,electric airplanes are simply not practical. However, they will be more reliable , just as electric cars (all things being equal) are simpler and more reliable than gas powered cars.
General Motors has developed an electric drivetrain which one will be able to buy as a crate engine/battery
for powering GM V8 muscle cars. Three power levels : 750, 450 and 300 HP – they bolt right up to any GM transmission used for inline rear drive GM vehicles. Consumer interest has been very strong . New Camaros with 750HP electric motors have run 9 second quarter miles – that’s fast.
You can charge them fast. Or you can charge them lots of times. You can’t do both.
How many actual Tesla’s have actually made it to 100K miles?
Those numbers are laboratory simulations run in ideal conditions. They aren’t real world numbers.
“However, they will be more reliable”
You don’t have much experience of PT6A engines I take it. It is just about the most reliable engine in human history. It is the only engine ever to be certified for SEIFR (Single-Engine Instrument Flight Rules) commercial operations on account of its extreme reliability.
No prototype electrical system is likely to come even close. Particularly not with li-ion batteries.
Pilatus PC-12 uses it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilatus_PC-12
I have doubts that electrical engine required controlling circuit boards will withstand lightning strikes or even lightning strike near misses.
If I hear “it’s the wave of the future” one more time, I will be forced to do something very unladylike to the fool speaking those words. They have it coming.
Dippin’ Dots is the ice cream of the future since 1988 and fusion is the power of the future since the 1960s so, there is no reason to believe that this is not (and always will be) “the wave of the future” .