
Startup Announces Plan for 150-Seat Battery-Powered Plane - Misha_B
https://electrek.co/2017/03/22/electric-plane-startup-150-seat-battery-powered-plane/
======
nradov
Already discussed:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13929950](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13929950)

------
bsilvereagle
" If batteries don’t get dramatically better in the next decade, we design our
plane as a hybrid with electric motors, like a Volt. It still has great cost
savings as compared to today’s planes, and it doesn’t require massive battery
advances. If batteries do get a lot better in the next decade, our plane is
fully-electric and has fantastic cost savings. See chart #2 below; a near-
future jump to a chemistry like Li-Metal doesn’t seem beyond the realm of
possibility." \-
[https://weflywright.com/blog/](https://weflywright.com/blog/)

I'm glad to see they have a contingency plan for not being fully electric.

~~~
SigmundA
Seems like this would be a step backward in efficiency. Direct mechanical
drive is more efficient than double conversion at cruise speeds. Even the Gen1
volt connected engine to wheels at highway speed because it was more
efficient, Gen2 they went to a more conventional hybrid design like a Prius
with mechanical power splitting because its more efficient even at lower
speeds.

Airplanes are even simpler using variable pitch props the ICE just runs at it
most efficient rpm with no or minimal transmission and nearly zero mechanical
losses.

Also a hybrid design is heavier than a direct mechanical and airplanes would
seem to not benefit from hybrid advantages such as regenerative braking and 0
rpm torque.

------
ryanwaggoner
Aviation as a field is littered with dozens (hundreds?) of startups that have
blown through millions and decades trying to build certified aircraft and
going bankrupt in the process.

Not the first to say this, but there is zero chance that this startup designs
and builds a certified electric airliner in the next decade. I highly doubt
we'll have these in 20 years. In ten years, we _might_ have battery technology
where it starts to make sense, but the most experienced builders of large
aircraft in the world generally spend at least a decade and _billions_ of
dollars developing new planes. And this will be with completely untested
technologies, new safety procedures, engines, etc. Boeing spent $32 billion
bringing the 787 to market. On the smaller end, Bombardier spent ~$5 billion
on the C series, which looks comparable to this, and I'd expect costs on this
to be MUCH higher since it's a lot of new and untested tech, instead of
iterating on decades of prior experience.

This is either appallingly naive on the part of this team and / or their
investors, or this is an acquisition play. I doubt the latter makes sense, and
I wonder if this is just VCs not having any knowledge of the field or how
unrealistic this is.

------
phmagic
The plane does look sexy.

I'm not clear on how this works out economically.

Gas turbines are more efficient than electric at high altitudes and long
distances. So the regional hops are where this could make an impact.

IMO regional hop planes are less efficient at moving cargo than trains (or
hyperloops). America just doesn't like high speed trains for some reason.

Between trains and jet turbine planes, I'm not seeing where electric passenger
planes like this make a huge image.

------
saosebastiao
I get it, fuel costs are huge for airlines. But fuel costs are still small
beans compared to capital utilization. I hope they have a feasible plan for
recharging and getting back in the air without significant delays. That is a
very significant amount of energy to shove into a plane in such a timeframe.
If recharge times are anywhere close to an hour, this idea is DOA.

~~~
jcoffland
You could swap batteries.

~~~
saosebastiao
That does seem to be the current model for fast recharges. It's not out of the
question, but these are going to be extremely big batteries and the planes,
batteries, and auxiliary equipment need to be designed for it up front. The
thing with planes is that design is extremely expensive and design costs are
expected to be amortized over a long lifecycle, which means that a technical
constraint today could end up being very costly if the constraint goes away in
the near future.

Wright Electric likely knows all this and is working on it...a partnership
with a low cost airline would surely inform them of what is needed for
success. I'm just complaining that the article is not very substantive.

~~~
jcoffland
You are right. Weight distribution would be an important factor so you cannot
just swap out a big block of battery on one end of the plane. Perhaps a long
tube running down the plane. You push charged batteries in one end and pull
discharged ones out the other. The track they run on connects them to the
electrical system.

------
djrogers
This is so clearly a great opportunity for electric tech - Airplanes can be
used on fixed trips of known distance, and shooting for the 150 passenger size
seems ideal for the limitations that electric would entail.

Think SF-LA, there are probably 1000 flights / week between these two areas,
and some of those could be handled by a plane like this.

~~~
kogepathic
_> Airplanes can be used on fixed trips of known distance, and shooting for
the 150 passenger size seems ideal for the limitations that electric would
entail_

Yes and no. The major problem for electric planes (apart from the fact that
the energy density of the best batteries is piss poor compared to Jet-A) is
the weight does not decrease throughout the flight. This means you need more
robust landing gear as the MTOW and MLW are essentially the same. More robust
landing gear = more empty weight = less payload capacity = less paying
meatbags/cargo.

There is also the issue of time to recharge. Short flights such as SFO-LAX
that you mentioned would not require much in terms of refueling time (on the
order of 20 minutes or so maximum). It would take a lot of good engineering to
charge a plane this quickly.

Overall, I think all companies tend to underestimate the cost and time
associated with designing a new airplane. Bombardier was billions over budget
and years behind schedule for their C series.

Same for Airbus with the A350.

Same for Boeing with the 787.

tl;dr - Making planes is hard.

~~~
logicallee
I find it very hard to believe that landing gear isn't fine with landing under
full starting weight -- after all what if you need to land shortly after
taking off for some reason? (return to leaving airport.) So I "plane" don't
believe it's an issue.

Regarding fuel weight not decreasing - could hydrogen fuel cells be burned and
the resulting (h2o, water vapor) simply be left as contrails?

Reference: [https://www.quora.com/What-does-hydrogen-give-off-when-
burne...](https://www.quora.com/What-does-hydrogen-give-off-when-burned) "In a
flame of pure hydrogen gas, burning in air, the hydrogen (H2) reacts with
oxygen (O2) to form water (H2O) and releases heat."

~~~
dexterdog
First, that would be an emergency landing. Second, they would likely dump the
fuel.

~~~
logicallee
This doesn't pass the smell test for me. The vertical velocity when it lands
it not very great - if landing gear has no trouble supporting the plane during
taxi off under full weight, I find it preposterous (and reckless) that it
would be insufficient for landing. The idea that planes routinely dump fuel if
they have to circle around and land immediately after take-off is absolutely
ridiculous to me: if there is nothing wrong with a plane, highly combustible
fuel is far safer inside than outside of it.

I found your suggestion so ridiculous I Googled "do planes dump fuel" and got
this top answer

[http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/29232/do-
airplan...](http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/29232/do-airplanes-
dump-fuel-before-landing)

"Do airplanes dump fuel before landing?"

For which Google picked the summary: "There have been many explanations given
but ultimately the answer to your question is "No, aircraft do not dump fuel
prior to landing unless it is absolutely necessary.""

Reading that page: as a rule fuel is not dumped!

~~~
nradov
You're not seeing the whole picture. Airliners don't routinely dump fuel
during normal operations. However, if there's an emergency and the pilots
decide to divert they will often dump fuel (if possible) or simply fly in
circles to burn off enough to bring the airplane down to a safe landing
weight. Safety isn't just a matter of preventing the landing gear from
collapsing. A higher weight means a higher landing speed due to stall limits
and thus a longer stopping distance and greater risk of brake failure or
runway overrun.

~~~
logicallee
But we're not actually talking about emergencies here at all, but rather "by-
design" in which nothing is wrong. And a future design at that!

I hope you can see why I am skeptical that a future landing gear for electric
airplanes would not be able to support the fully loaded landing weight, which
is not reduced as the batteries are depleted.

The idea that landing gears just "can't" support all that weight seems silly
to me. The solution can be as simple as having twelve wheels instead of six,
or another set of shock absorbers, or something short of "well sorry, you'll
never build a landing gear that lands safely at that weight. Can't be done."

Note that I focused on just the weight the landing gears support - your other
observations can remain on-point. I just don't buy that particular argument,
just about the landing gears.

~~~
dexterdog
I was specifically talking about an emergency situation. Planes don't do early
landings when nothing is wrong.

------
d--b
How safe is this? Having more efficient batteries seems to imply more risks of
spontaneous exposions, as we've seen in various phones, cars, and computers.

And what about the lifetime?

------
HarryHirsch
On the face of it, it's a very scary proposal. The energy density of
hydrocarbon fuels is high, and they are well understood. A comparable battery,
on the other hand - it sounds like a fire hazard the size of a planeload of
Samsung phones.

------
analognoise
I bet six months until they pivot to some meaningless garbage and put out a
press release claiming that whatever shiny new toy they're peddling is
"changing the world".

