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.
In logic there is an informal fallacy called “converse accident”, which means assuming that an exceptional case establishes a general rule.
Many stories about electric vehicles — particularly ships and planes — are cases of converse accident. Can you make an electric plane to carry passengers and cargo? Certainly. Does that mean electric planes can compete with conventionally fueled ones in cost and passenger appeal? Not at all.
As others have noted, in aircraft design weight is one of the top concerns — perhaps the top concern. This is why we build aircraft with aluminum, which is far lighter than steel for the same strength (wood and doped canvas being frowned on these days for safety reasons).
Getting a plane in the air requires generating sufficient lift by moving air past the wings to at least equal the total weight of the aircraft and fuel and passengers and cargo. Generating more lift always creates more drag, which requires more thrust to maintain forward airspeed. More thrust expends more energy, which reduces range. With a conventional aircraft engine consuming fuel reduces the total weight of the aircraft, which reduces the thrust required to maintain a given speed and altitude.
The emphasis on weight explains why small aircraft do not use diesel engines. Although more efficient than gasoline engines, the greater weight of the engine and fuel cancels out these advantages and then some. (The German Zeppelins used diesel engines, but I’m not aware of any others).
So basically, anything which increases the weight of an aircraft is an undesirable feature.
A commercial air service operator has the standard mix of capital costs and operating costs. Once purchased or leased an aircraft costs money every day, whether used or not. Actually flying it incurs additional operating costs: fuel, crew and insurance. The general goal of commercial operators is to keep an aircraft in the air with paying passengers and cargo as much of the time as possible. An aircraft that can be turned around (unloaded, refueled, re-provisioned and new passengers boarded) quickly is more likely to make a profit than one that has to sit on the ground for several hours between flights. Granted, electricity is going to be cheaper than jet fuel, but if it requires two electric planes to get the same effective carrying capacity as one fossil-fueled one, the fuel savings are unlikely to make up the increased capital costs.
Then there are traveler choices; in some places in the world passengers still get them. I can fly from Atlanta to Seattle non-stop in about 5 and a quarter hours. The unofficial Delta Skymiles calculator calls this 2,166 air miles, for an average speed of 413 miles per hour, or 665 km/hr. What would entice me to add three or four multi-hour stops to that trip to recharge batteries? It would take a very substantial discount, which means the electric aircraft operator has to make a profit on a lower fare, while carrying a larger inventory of aircraft. Impossible? probably not. Extremely unlikely? Certainly.
Back to the exceptional case which is the subject of this news story. Inquiring minds want to know more about the operator’s decision to convert this aircraft to electric. Is there some grant money that’s paying for this? Was the aircraft facing a required major engine overhaul the operator couldn’t justify? The article mentions the savings in engine overhaul, otherwise required every 2,500-3,000 hours. Since this is new regulatory territory they shouldn’t count on savings just yet; the FAA may require regular battery servicing based on discharge cycles or some other criteria. Again, converse accident: don’t assume one exception establishes the general case.
“The German Zeppelins used diesel engines, but I’m not aware of any others”
There have actually been a number of diesel aircraft engines, but none really successful. For military applications the big problem was actually the need for frequent and extreme changes of output, which diesel engines do not take kindly to.
I ain’t getting on that thing.
Period. Full stop.
Would have to go into the past, as with windmills, and start an airship line. Helium filled for take off and height and batteries for propulsion. Great! But slow. Otherwise the same problems with the source of the electricity. How would you like to fly (float) to Australia? Imagine all those airships arriving in Cancun or Lima for a climate conference.
Harbour Air suggests 60-100 mi is all they will need carrying the heavy loads of virtue signalling Greens commuting from Vancouver to their nests in the Gulf Islands. Government worker bees many of them.
How much of the 2100 lb payload will remain will be interesting to know.
The Electric Beaver fleet will be useless in emergencies as search and reconnaissance so I imagine that will need to be replaced with longer range FF aircraft on standby.
At least they will be flying over water and can land anywhere safely. I see no passenger risk.
I guess you don’t get many oceanic storms and raging seas in Arizona, Scouser.
e-Planes will offer either payload or range, but not both.
I wonder whether the enthusiasm will maintain its present buoyed nature after the first e-plane death.
Of course that airport operates with instantaneous efficiency where planes can get clearance and take off immediately maximizing that battery for transport purposes?
And the same with wherever the planes intend to land.
Quick battery charging requires 240 volt high amperage charging stations.
I doubt there are a lot of rural locations capable of installing fifty amp charge stations. Meaning that airline must stick to urbanized well gridded areas. Where the local electric supply line carries sufficient voltage and amperage without using the entire neighborhood’s potential.
Someone should insist that these planes must be recharged solely by wind or solar.
I can just imagine one of these planes, forced to emergency land where there isn’t a charging station? Perhaps the pilot will carry a portable solar kit?
When all of the coal mines and oil wells are closed down due to everything being electric-powered, how do they intend building more planes without the plastics/aluminium (sic – I’m an Aussie)/CARBON fibre and every other material that requires high energy density fossil fuels?
Why don’t they just go back to dirigibles with electric motors for propulsion? Seems that is a known technology.
Actually makes more sense than these electric airplane ideas.
‘“With magniX’s new propulsion systems, coupled with emerging battery capabilities, we see tremendous potential for electric aviation to transform this heavily trafficked ‘middle mile’ range,” he said in a statement.’
Why? They never say WHY they are going to do this transition. Is going electric its own reward?
I’ve been flying electric (model) planes for years, the same equations work as full size.
The basic idea is sound except for the usual problem.
Duration/range
Recharge time for standard lipoly batteries is one hour
Maintenance is zero on motor – just bearings, motor and gearbox.
All throttling done with electronic units. No moving parts
Ideal power train. Just wont fly you for much more than an hour.
Not today, not ever. unless you change the laws of chemistry.
Maybe lithium air will work. Then its as good energy density as fuel. But lithium air is lab tech. Years away. an not very safe
One big problem with lithium-air for aircraft: WEIGHT
Li + O2 -> LiO2
6.9 + 32 -> 38.9
So each pound of lithium will suck 4.6 pounds of oxygen out of the air an into the aircraft as the battery discharges. The aircraft not only does not get lighter as it flies, it grows heavier. So MLW will have to be larger than MTOW.
Yep. You are right on the money.
The problem is weight-per-kWh, especially relevant for aircraft (compared to landcraft). Doesn’t matter how we twist it, kg/kWh is the defining throttle on the practical utility of e-aircraft. Because as any plane owner will tell you, its a tradeoff: kg for passengers and payload, or kg for fuel, for creature comforts, for add-ons (like water landing gear).
Present battery tech — not the stuff being announced, but actual presently available best-of-breed — is appallingly poor in the mass-per-kilowatt-hour. I don’t think there are any available packaged-to-go batteries that do better (lower) than 3 kg/kWh. The Tesla Model S (85 kWh) weighs 540 kg as a pack, for a specific energy of 6 kg/kWh. The 75 kWh Model 3 battery is 460 kg, again achieving 6.2 kg/kWh.
By comparison, the Pratt & Whitney PT₆ turboprop (750 SHP ÷ 560 kW) engine requires 0.36 kg/kWh of fuel-to-power-output. Just kind of puts it in perspective, doesn’t it?
Just saying,
GoatGuy ✓
APRIL FOOL! JUST BEAT THE RUSH, THAT’S ALL.
Um, no.
Norway’s plan for a fleet of electric planes (BBC, Aug 2018)
The climatistas really are into electric aircraft. Be afraid. Especially if you have to fly in one.
Fossil fuel aircraft have the remarkable characteristic of getting lighter (and more efficient) as they go . . . the above is what stupid looks like.
Hmmm . . . . should I anti-ice and kill the batteries, or not anti-ice, and crash with power? What does the manufacturer say? “Flight in icing conditions prohibited” “Not certificated for flight in icing conditions” “FOR AMUSEMENT ONLY”
Yet another story about the wonderful future and what people are going to do. If they have found a way, if they really plan to convert the whole fleet, why are they not doing it instead of bumping their gums? Why not just blow us all away with the first flight of useful range/duration and payload?
Just more talk about what people are “gunna” do or think they can do. Just shut up and show me.
I am of the opinion that this COULD work right now for smaller aircraft which have small passenger counts as well as a very limited range. The R/C (radio control) aircraft hobby has made some drastic changes in going to electric engines, even ducted fans, in the past 15 or so years. The energy density increase with LiIon cells can make this a reality with the only weight penalty I see being the backup battery systems which will undoubtedly be required.
These battery cell will require a lot of cooling, just like the Tesla Wall battery, and can be modular which could also remedy risk from individual cell explosion, where if one or two modules fail, the rest of the primary battery system should be able to maintain flight. The modular system would also enable easy swap out by hand to recharged modules when the aircraft landed, no different than fueling an aircraft with fossil fuel. Still they would need a manual switch in pilot’s immediate access to switch over to an auxiliary (secondary) battery system in case of a catastrophic battery failure.
The airports that have terminals which these aircraft fly out of would need upgraded electric distribution to handle the heavy load fast charging these units would require, but again, this is very doable.
My only real negative concern lies with seeing floats on these planes. Are they suggesting that these float planes will be able to grab an existing charged battery from a normal but fairly isolated destination where the plane needs to land on water? If the areas has reliable electric, maybe they can overcome this obstacle.
Now is this technology ready for prime time air travel? Absolutely not. The range, speed and capacity would be very limited and this falls more into a niche market rather than a mainstream one. However that is NOT saying there won’t be technological advances in batteries which could better address mainstream air travel in the future.
In conclusion, I see this as very doable in this particular niche market with today’s technology. As I said above, R/C aircraft hobby has already proven the technology to be robust and reliable as long as there is a method to swap out and charge battery cells easily and at each destination, with charged units already waiting as the aircraft lands.
“Still they would need a manual switch in pilot’s immediate access to switch over to an auxiliary (secondary) battery system in case of a catastrophic battery failure.”
If there is a catastrophic battery failure with a li-ion battery there is only one alternative. Get onto ground (or sea) FAST. No need for secondary systems. If the battery pack is close to the cockpit emergency oxygen masks might be a good idea though.
One more thing. Since endurance will be critically limited electrical aircraft will probably need to be towed instead of taxying. Particularly at busy airports with queuing aircraft.
This would not be entirely novel. The russians did it with their first jet Tu-104, which was actually a modified Tu-16 medium bomber. The AM-3 engines did not have good fuel economy at low power to put things mildly.
Towing assisted takeoff of a waterborne in remote location bushplane on floats could rapidly turn graphic.
They could carry a supply of JATOs. But that would increase the the weight.
If I remember correctly, a brief (very, very brief) competitor with the ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) was an Internal Gunpowder Combustion Engine.
Carbon was involved but no fossil fuels. AOC hates fossil fuels. She should love it! (Of course more research is need.)
Hmmm … I wonder she confuses ICE with ICE and that’s why she won’t vote to fund it?
Shallow waters can have confusing currents.
“However that is NOT saying there won’t be technological advances in batteries which could better address mainstream air travel in the future.”
There won’t. It is strange that people don’t seem to understand that batteries will for ever be limited by the number of valence electrons per atom that can be pushed around a circuit. Lithium is already the best element in this respect and lithium-air (lithium-oxygen really) is the most power-dense reaction feasible. There simply aren’t any better atoms around (though the increasing weight during discharge will be a problem for aircraft).
Honestly, you don’t know what technological advances can or cannot happen in the future any more than anyone else. Why would anyone, given the amount of scientific and technological advances made just in the past 50 years, definitively say something cannot be done? I’ve seen unimaginably fascinating innovation and technological advances just in my lifetime. So for someone to say something absolutely cannot be done, I believe that is very close minded.
Again, KS_Referee, WHY?
It’s a technical maybe. But WHY do it? It’s going to be extremely expensive. What are they going to get for their money?
Why? Who cares why? It’s their money as well as their investor’s and their customer’s money. I’m all for free market innovation, as long as the people and companies wanting to do these things spend their own money on the projects. It’s when the government steps in, compelling tax payers to pay for some pie in the sky nonsense, that I have a problem.
Now if someone were to ask me if “I” would consider doing something like this if I owned a company like that? My answer would be a sound, “No.” I’m still of the opinion that fossil fuel provides unmatched energy density as well as portability.
What I won’t do is badmouth a company willing to put THEIR money where their mouth is, in an attempt to do what they believe is right. However the second they hold their hand out, demanding a tax break or worse yet, tax payer money in any form to pay for their idea, THEN I’ll take a stand against them. Until then… more power to them.
The person who proposed that should be retired from the company. He has clearly suffered a mental breakdown.
I can tell that the critics on these pages did not think this all the way through.
Obviously this plane will fly and will never run out of power.
All that is needed is for a wind turbine be installed on the tail.
Then, when the plane is flying, the wind created by the spinning propellers will spin the turbine. The turbine will then charge the batteries. The plane will never be short of power.
Obviously, if the plane is used only for short haul flights, it will generate excess electricity. This can be sold back into the grid; thereby cutting operating costs even more.
This operator has a schedule with 20 minute flights, so it is a rare case where battery technology could work… on paper. Perhaps they will have a pod under the fuselage for the battery pack and swap it out during each turnaround. As stated earlier, it will require about the equivalent of 3-5 Tesla S battery packs to handle the huge current loads and capacity requirement, so almost the entire payload will be consumed by battery, probably requiring extreme payload restrictions and resulting very high fares, but there is likely a well-heeled “virtue market” at that location. I hope the operator maintains dock cams to capture the first time they drop a charged pack into the water. This being commercial operations, the propeller/engine/airframe/battery combination will require certification which will make this “test” case very expensive.
“In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.” — Yogi Berra
“I hope the operator maintains dock cams to capture the first time they drop a charged pack into the water. ”
I agree. It would be rather like accidentally dropping an armed depth charge – everybody running away and wondering how long before it goes boom.
“This being commercial operations, the propeller/engine/airframe/battery combination will require certification which will make this “test” case very expensive”
Possibly not. They may be planning to claim “grandfather rights”. The Beaver is a very old aircraft type so it may well have been certified by Part 3 rules rather than Part 23. Most utility aircraft were before 1965. Part 3 was quite lenient. That might explain why they are modifying such an old design rather than something more modern.
It is a ‘Major Repair/Modification’ and not unregulated by any stretch of the imagination – you can’t just alter an aircraft without voiding the airworthiness certificate.
It would be an”STC”, standard type certificate.
The cost problem is not one of convincing people to be a passenger, it will be convincing the insurance company that the risk to the passengers is not any greater than it is now.
Do the math.
Energy density:
Gasoline: 46 MJ / Kg
Lithium Ion Battery: <1 MJ / Kg
The theoretical maximum specific energy of lithium-air batteries is over 40 MJ/Kg. That’s close to jet fuel’s 42.8 MJ/Kg.
Fuel cells are essentially batteries with MJ/Kg comparable to jet fuel. So it’s theoretically possible for electric propulsion to rival the energy density of turboprops, but, as always, the devil is in the chemical engineering details.
As someone pointed out there is a vast difference between theoretical and practical. Practical LI-air batteries only get about 6 Mj/Kg. MIT supposedly developed a LI-oxygen battery using “solid” oxygen (I think that is oxygen trapped in something like glass) cathodes back in 2016 but after three years they have yet to produce a commercially viable product. It supposedly gets around many of the problems with a LI-air battery but I don’t think they ever established what the practical output of the battery would be.
I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting.
Why bother.
On the test flight mentioned above, I read that the pilot and “passenger” had strict diet requirements. I also have noted that HA passengers are mostly government employees. I rarely have seen an underweight government employee. Just saying
“Harbour Air is embarking on what is believed to be a world first, adding an electric plane to its fleet”. They are to test an electric-powered Cessna Caravan in August 2019.
https://aviationweek.com/future-aerospace/electric-aircraft-motor-developer-sets-base-seattle
Harbor Air has to get Transport Canada approval. If TC say no they can always blame it on them.
TC approval won’t suffice. It is a US-built aircraft certified by FAA to Part 23 standards, so they will have to get a supplementary type certificate from FAA for such a major modification. Otherwise it won’t be airworthy. And as I said above Part 23 is pretty tough.
The underbelly cargo pod would be handy for the batteries, but I’m not sure if it can be used with the floatplane version.
I’m wondering about weight differential between an electric motor and a gas engine. The Beaver currently uses a Pratt & Whitney R-985 Wasp engine weighing 620 lbs. Westinghouse currently sells a 750 HP electric motor that weighs 4,410 lbs. Installing it on a 6,000 lb Beaver sounds optimistic. This does not include the weight of the batteries, significantly heavier than the fuel carried on the Beaver.
https://robbreport.com/motors/aviation/gallery/pictures-magnix-electric-aircraft-engine-2819947/
See the photos in that link. It does not look big or heavy; it looks quite nice.
That is the 350 hp model, the Magni250. It weighs 110 pounds. The 750 hp model is called Magni500.
They use an oil-based liquid cooling system. The 750 hp model is called Magni500 and is said to be a bolt-in replacement for a Pratt and Whitney PT6 turboprop engine. MagniX claims 5 kW/kg and is working on improving that.
https://www.wired.com/story/magnix-electric-plane-motor/
First spin video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDtduvin9Mw
It’s nice to see the R&D on the motors. Now, about that R&D on the batteries…