
The age of electric flight is finally upon us - rbanffy
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48630656
======
tristanb
[https://twitter.com/BenBrelje_says/status/106484220091004108...](https://twitter.com/BenBrelje_says/status/1064842200910041089)

[https://twitter.com/BenBrelje_says/status/106485722028904038...](https://twitter.com/BenBrelje_says/status/1064857220289040384)

[https://twitter.com/BenBrelje_says/status/106491195862390374...](https://twitter.com/BenBrelje_says/status/1064911958623903744)

To recap, based on financial statements the company:

used to be a "waste management" company that failed and was sold as a "public
shell" to enable the formerly private company to go public and sell shares
(the waste management business it was engaged in was an effort to
commercialize a process to treat low-level nuclear waste developed by Russian
scientists)

has $64 mil in debt apparently unrelated to aviation

has spent $3.8 mil on R&D for this project

has 8 R&D employees

only 2 of those 8 have any evident experience related to designing aircraft
(pretty apparent from the "design").

~~~
nneonneo
Those tweets have been deleted, and where’s the evidence of these claims?

~~~
Robotbeat
Yeah, I see this kind of thing repeated any time Eviation comes up.

I don't believe them. The design is sound, if radical in the decision to be
mostly-battery. And I think that's partly why people are so skeptical: it
definitely goes counter to the industry grain. But it IS the right way to
build a serious electric aircraft for regional/commuter passenger travel.
Pressurized, extremely high lift-to-drag ratio, very high battery mass
fraction, focus on high propulsive efficiency by ingesting boundary layer with
the pusher propeller and countering wing-tip vortices with wing-tip propeller.
The passenger count is also right, at the limit of FAR-23, allowing you to use
a single pilot.

The only thing I would do differently is probably have a higher cruise
altitude and higher aspect ratio wings (and probably counter-rotating dual-
motor pusher propellers) instead of using wing-tip propellers and gettin, but
theirs is a valid design choice as well.

So much group-think especially with the larger aerospace companies. They
insist on hybrids for flight (notice how whenever Airbus or Boeing buy one of
these exciting electric flight startups, they all of a sudden switch to
hybrid?), which ends up compromising the design and adding a whole new
propulsion system to validate and certify. Others have a valid approach of
retrofitting electric onto older airframes, but that is not going to get
anywhere near the operational efficiencies of a clean-sheet design. And still
others insist on VTOL, but I have my doubts as to whether the focus on VTOL by
so many of these electric flight startups is going to really be worth it in
the end except for niche cases.

~~~
tristanb
The design is "sound" ? It is ridiculous! Those engines are at each end of a
wing. That is a 100% no no. They are feet from the ground, and would make one
engine out operation impossible. Even someone with a cursory understanding of
aerodynamic could see this is a ridiculous design.

~~~
Robotbeat
Better tell NASA, then, which is building a design (X-57) with the same kind
of wing-tip propellers:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No9Rq3VE0FI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No9Rq3VE0FI)

The key is that the Alice aircraft is _capable of take-off with just the rear
propeller._ That's possible because electric motors (unlike jet engines) can
operate at much higher power for short periods of time. It was addressed
recently at the Paris airshow Q&A for Eviation. If a wingtip motor (not
_engine_ ) fails, the other side is designed to immediately stop (electric
motors such as these respond immediately to input) and flight continues with
the remaining tail motor.

Additionally, electric motors are fundamentally more reliable than jet
engines.

~~~
Retric
Compare the number of propellers on NASA’s version. They have serious backup
in the event any single engine fails.

Being able to take off with one engine that’s rapidly overheating, does not
mean is safe to continue a flight with a single engine. Electric aircraft
don’t get lighter in flight because they don’t burn fuel.

~~~
naikrovek
The power delivered to the rear MOTOR (not engine) is not the same for take-
off and cruising.

A motor that would overheat at takeoff power won't necessarily overheat at
cruise and would be designed not to overheat in an aircraft application.

Motor control is not just on or off.

~~~
Retric
It’s possible that that could be the case, but it’s a poor assumption that it
will be the case. Especially as it’s such a useful feature they likely would
have mentioned it.

~~~
naikrovek
It's a very valid assumption. Cruise and takeoff throttle positions are
usually quite different.

------
markab21
As someone who regularly pilots a piston-single, I'm looking forward to what
hybrid or full electric can do for us little guys. The takeoff phase of flight
is a high-risk situation in events such as fuel contamination which could
prove fatal.

Having a small buffer, even a few minutes of battery power to rely on while
trying to get back to the field to land the "impossible turn" [1] would make
me feel a lot better and could be the difference between life and death.

There are various groups (Pipstrel[2], Diamond[3]) that I'm aware of that are
working on electric GA aircraft. For young pilots that are looking to train,
the cost of jumping in a Cessna 172, the gold standard in GA trainers will
cost at best $120-200/hr. Electric costs should be 1/5 (or better) of that in
reality due to the absolute bargain of replacing a TBO electric engine,
scheduled maintenance and relatively low level of complexity.

[1] [https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/air-safety-
institut...](https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/air-safety-
institute/accident-analysis/featured-accidents/engine-failure-on-climbout-
leads-to-impossible-turn)

[2] [https://www.pipistrel-usa.com/electric-
propulsion/](https://www.pipistrel-usa.com/electric-propulsion/)

[3] [https://www.flyingmag.com/diamond-da40-hybrid-electric-
proto...](https://www.flyingmag.com/diamond-da40-hybrid-electric-prototype-
flies/)

~~~
AdrianB1
As someone with a similar background, I find the cost argument idealistic: I
can fly a 172 for 100 EURO/hour ($110) any time, while a smaller plane (Cessna
152 or an LSA) are about the same price, even if the LSA fuel consumption is
half or less. I am looking at options to fly cheaper for a decade, there is
very little elasticity in the price per hour versus fuel price, especially in
Europe; the market is not competitive enough, the offer is small, the demand
is small, the prices are staying high no matter what. Electric trainers should
be a dream - cheap and safe; but they are not :(

------
namirez
As others have noted, electric flights require a major breakthrough in the
battery technology. Here are energy density numbers for gasoline, jet fuel,
and lithium-ion batteries:

Gas and jet fuel specific energy density ~= 45 MJ/kg;

Lithium-ion specific energy density < 1 MJ/kg

Even worse, a jet engine is much better at generating power. A modern high-
bypass turbofan engine can generate 10 kW/kg whereas an electric motor is
around 1 kW/kg.

In short we need much better batteries and much lighter motors. This is not
going to happen anytime soon. A more reasonable option is to create carbon-
neutral fuels (biofuels, carbon sequestration, etc.).

~~~
Robotbeat
This is constantly repeated, but it's not true. I work in the field of
electric motors for electric aircraft, and the amount of nonsense constantly
repeated on the Internet about how electric flight cannot be done without a
breakthrough is breathtaking.

Electric motors can achieve FAR greater than 1kW/kg. Here's one used sometimes
on electric aircraft capable of 10kW/kg, same as a jet engine:
[https://emrax.com/products/emrax-268/](https://emrax.com/products/emrax-268/)

The specific energy of lithium-ion is poor, but jet fuel's USEFUL specific
energy is more like 10-15MJ/kg due to needing to be burned. There's also some
efficiency improvement possible, i.e. from airliner lift-to-drag of 16-20 (and
like 8-10 for a Cessna) to a more glider-like L/D of 25-35 (the best gliders
can do _70_ ). Additionally, improved modern materials means you can just have
most of your take-off mass be battery, compensating for the poorer specific
energy (general aviation craft are only like 10-15% fuel, but 777s can be
almost 50% fuel, and electric aircraft could be 60% battery).

So if you combine efficiency improvements and high battery mass, sure,
electric planes still may have a tenth the range of jet liners. But jets like
the 777 have a range of 10,000 to 15,000km. A tenth of that is still over
1000km! Quite doable for a very large portion of domestic flights. Since
domestic flights often involve multiple hops anyway (due to hub and spoke
model), you could fly basically anywhere up and down the eastern seaboard in
just the typical two hops. And faster than high speed rail.

But of course, there are already better lithium batteries that are available
in small quantities, like lithium-sulfur, metal electrode lithium batteries,
solid-state batteries, or batteries that combine those various features.
~1.5MJ/kg cells are already demonstrated and you can buy them on an evaluation
basis. ~2MJ/kg is feasible as well, enabling single-hop flights all over the
eastern seaboard and enabling multi-hop transatlantic flights (as low as
1200km is the minimum range needed for transatlantic flights if you really
wanted to do it).

~~~
namirez
Your numbers are not quite right.

> _jet fuel 's USEFUL specific energy is more like 10-15MJ/kg due to needing
> to be burned._

New turbofans have efficiencies close to 50%, so it's more like 20 MJ/kg.
Also, you need to take into account the prop efficiency for electric planes.
Beyond Mach 0.5, the efficiency degrades very rapidly. So it's not just
electric motor vs jet engine.

> _more glider-like L /D of 25-35 (the best gliders can do 70). _

This is not limited to electric planes. The reason no one has done it so far
is the aeroelastic divergence.

> _improved modern materials means you can just have most of your take-off
> mass be battery, compensating for the poorer specific energy_

Again, this can be done for any aircraft, not just the electric ones.

> _as low as 1200km is the minimum range needed for transatlantic flights_

Do you really believe there is a market for 1200km hops at Mach 0.5. We
already have ATR 72 and Bombardier Q400. Why no one is using them for long
haul flight?

~~~
FabHK
> > improved modern materials means you can just have most of your take-off
> mass be battery, compensating for the poorer specific energy

> Again, this can be done for any aircraft, not just the electric ones.

Not only that: you burn the fuel, so for the second half of the flight you
only need to carry half the fuel. But you have to carry the full battery mass
(modulo E=mc^2) all the way.

~~~
waterhouse
Dumb idea: If the weight of the batteries is significant, then dump out the
empty ones with parachutes partway through the flight?

~~~
Robotbeat
Indeed, there are various ways to handle "staging" of aircraft, including
parachuting batteries, electric towplanes, assisted groundlaunch, piggyback,
etc. These may have niche uses, particularly for cargo flights, but I suspect
that will only happen if 1) jet air travel pays for its full climate cost and
2) we stop making any progress in battery technology.

It'd be fun to try, though.

------
marvin
I fly gliders. Absolutely can't wait until my local club finally decides to
get an electric single-seat self-launching glider, preferably with enough
endurance to do some additional tens of kilometers after the launch, in order
to avoid landing out if the weather dies out. It's a gamechanger with regards
to both costs and convenience. No towplane, towplane pilot, no outlandings.

~~~
maxxxxx
How about a battery that can glide by itself? You attach a big battery for the
launch and once you are up you disconnect and it glides back to the airfield.
That should be possible today technically. Not sure how safety would work.

~~~
mannykannot
What you are thinking of is not very different than an aerotow from an
electric airplane.

~~~
maxxxxx
I was just thinking about something autonomous. Basically a battery with
wings. That way you don't need a plane with pilot.

~~~
dalbasal
Parachute not enough?

~~~
maxxxxx
I don't think so. You cant steer a parachute well and you don't want some
bypasser to get hit by a heavy battery on a parachute. The descent speed on a
parachute is very high so it will hurt or more.

~~~
dalbasal
Parachutes can be steered.

------
mannykannot
A battery fire is a scary prospect unless the fire can be effectively
contained and the hot gases vented (I don't suppose extinguishing one is
likely to be an option.) There has been at least one crash involving fire,
though I have not been able to find out if it was a propulsion battery fire.
[1]

In Eviation's Alice, the failure or shutdown of one of the wingtip's motors
would require the shutdown of the other, on account of asymmetric thrust. It
can be flown on the rear motor alone, but I do not know how well it would
climb in the case of a motor failure on takeoff. Maybe an EE can step in and
say whether electric motors can be over-powered for relatively short durations
(in this case, a few minutes to return to the airfield) without much increase
in the risk of it failing?

BTW, I see that this prototype is a tail-dragger, though rendered images show
a tricycle gear.

[1] [https://electrek.co/2018/06/04/siemens-electric-plane-
protot...](https://electrek.co/2018/06/04/siemens-electric-plane-prototype-
fire-crash-death/)

~~~
marcosdumay
Why so few motors? Electric motors have low cost and low maintenance, so I
would expect electrical planes to have many of them.

Overpowering the motor during the entire take-off would bring a high risk of
having it fail too. But overpowering it to overcome the most common obstacles
is perfectly viable in an emergency.

Anyway, about fires, they are a reasonably easy problem to deal with. Fires on
liquid are much more dangerous than fires on solid, and batteries have a lower
tendency of exploding and creating fumes than the gasoline that propels
smaller planes. I imagine the largest problem of a fire would be on losing
power. You can mitigate this by creating many independent battery banks, but
this adds weight.

~~~
mannykannot
A fire in an airplane is a lot more scary than a loss of power (proportionally
more so in a small airplane, where an off-field landing is feasible, and
increasingly they have ballistic parachutes), while there is currently a well-
known problem of fires (that can't be extinguished) in high-power-density
batteries. Gasoline is dangerous, but we have learned how to handle it safely.

~~~
rbanffy
You could mount batteries on pods that could be released if needed. Additional
benefit would be that the pods could be replaced on the ground by fully
charged ones for faster turnaround.

~~~
vosper
You can't really rain burning battery pods down on the landscape, though. What
if the plane is over a populated area?

~~~
zdragnar
Or a dry forest, or grassland. Burning lithium probably can't be all that good
for ponds, rivers or lakes either.

~~~
frenchyatwork
Burning lithium in a pond sounds awfully spectacular, with an emphasis on the
awful.

~~~
_ph_
One is actually supposed to use water for large lithium battery fires, Tesla
recommends this. The lithium in batteries isn't elemental and thus does not
react strongly with the water.

------
iambateman
From the article: conventional fuel for a 100 mile flight costs $400, while
electric energy would cost $12.

This seems like such a tremendous difference that the market would be in an
arms race to make it a reality. Especially considering electric motors have
fewer moving parts and so require less maintenance. Oh and it would be so
quiet.

~~~
Patrick_Devine
It's a game changer for airlines such as Harbour Air in British Columbia and
Mokulele Airlines in Hawaii. These are small regional airlines which operate
from the water or from small airports with flight times usually less than an
hour, and most of their operational expenditures are in fuel costs. Typically
for these airlines you show up 15 minutes before the flight and there is no
security screening, so it's very hassle free.

Think of what it could do in other areas as well too though. Imagine a flight
from the SF waterfront to Tahoe via seaplane in 45 minutes (instead of 4+
hours) with no TSA screening, or potentially even SF to LA in 90 minutes.

~~~
drainge
Unfortunately the battery weight is also currently prohibitive for small
companies such as Harbour Air and Mokulele.

Several weeks before the Harbour Air / MagniX announcement I ran through an
exercise to determine the range/payload of an electric Cessna 208 (Caravan)
for a typical flight profile here in the bay area: the daily FedEx flight from
Oakland International to some nearby city, such as Petaluma. This involves a
5min climb from take-off to 2000ft, some period of cruise flight (ultimately
determined by range), and a 7min decent to land.

This calculation assumes that the C208 swaps the swaps its turbine (PT6A-114A)
for the Magni500, saving 85lbs. It also accounts for the substantial increase
in conversion efficiency between the MagniX and PT6 (roughly 0.94 from 0.32).
Not accounted for are any differences in aircraft systems (de-ice, prop pitch,
electric instruments, plumbing, etc).

The results are not surprising given what others have noted about the enormous
difference between the specific energy densities of Jet A and LIB. At the
specific energy density of today's production batteries, 250 w-hr/kg, the
electric C208 could carry one 175lb pilot approximately 100mi in 39min. Due to
FAA VFR regulations, this would in reality limit the flight to 9min (FAA
requires daytime reserve of 30min), with the subsequent loss in range.

Let's consider the putative solid state battery at 500 w-hr/kg. Now a 60min
flight time (really 30min plus 30min reserve) will allow 1080lb payload.
Fantastic! That's a pilot plus 4-5 passengers. The catch, of course, is that
the timeline for road worthy SS batteries is 5-10 years. How long for before
an air worthy battery is available?

With this information parsing the press statements is a little easier. Will
the Harbour Air / MagniX Beaver carry 6 passengers over a 30min flight? No. It
may demonstrate electric flight of a utility category air frame with the pilot
as the "soul" payload. After that both companies will likely be in the same
position as the rest of us -- waiting on better battery technology.

------
taf2
I wonder if with electric we can fly higher like much higher maybe 80k to 90k
since we don’t have to worry about the engine stalling. Could this also make
the flight times comparable or faster? For sure less turbulence. As someone
who lives on a flight path I’m eager for the change in noise pollution too-
though I’m worried the transition will take decades...

~~~
base698
Engines don't stall, planes do. Plane stalls are about aerodynamics, and
nothing to do with the engine.

Current engine designs operate poorly at higher altitudes for a number of
reasons: less air density meaning less oxygen to burn and less air to push
against. Turbine engines can flame out, which maybe that's what you were
referring:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flameout](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flameout)

~~~
whamlastxmas
Stalling is a term also used with engines, and it's pretty clear he's talking
about engines not working at altitude so "stall" is probably the correct term

~~~
base698
Only with layman and in the media when incorrectly describing an aerodynamic
stall and conflating two.

~~~
roghummal
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stall_(engine)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stall_\(engine\))

~~~
base698
That's about manual transmission automobiles. I've never heard it referenced
in aviation other than non-pilots or people who know airplanes.

------
dreamcompiler
I know nothing about Eviation other than what this article says. They're
claiming 650 miles of range with nine passengers on batteries, and to that I
will not say I'm merely skeptical. I'm saying they are flat-out liars selling
bullshit, and I'll stake my engineering reputation on that statement.

~~~
jacquesm
> I'll stake my engineering reputation on that statement

Such forceful claims should not be made anonymously. I'm with you on the claim
itself but feel that if you want to make that statement and stand by it that
you should do so with your name and 'engineering reputation' attached to the
claim itself.

~~~
dreamcompiler
Fair point. Here I am on Linkedin.

[https://www.linkedin.com/in/shannon-
spires-66b4ba44](https://www.linkedin.com/in/shannon-spires-66b4ba44)

------
ginko
I'm surprized hydrogen fueled flight isn't looked into more. Hydrogen can be
produced using electrolysis and it's packs significantly more energy per
weight even than kerosene.

The main drawback is the low density which would require larger fuselages, but
that should be offset by the significantly lower weight.

~~~
gambiting
1kg of kerosone can be kept in a plastic tank that weighs nothing. 1kg of
hydrogen has to be kept in a pressurized, pure-lead 70kg bottle, and even then
hydrogen will diffuse through it in just few weeks. So to take 1kg of hydrogen
with you you're taking a lot of weight in the tanks too.

~~~
ggreer
Some rockets use hydrogen and their pressure vessels aren't so heavy as to
keep them stuck on the ground. You only need to contain the hydrogen for
hours, not weeks.

~~~
hfkajshfaks
Few though, and only the largest ones and they have incredibly complicated and
long (and dangerous - imagine having to deal with refueling a cyrogenic liquid
after every leg) fueling.

Most rockets use hydrocarbons for this very reason.

------
Yizahi
Simple electric wheel on aircrafts for taxiing (as compared to the electric
powered flight) took almost 10 years from first demo tests and it still hasn't
entered production on commercial airlines. And that thing is completely
possible with modern tech. I highly doubt we will see electric powered
aircrafts (bigger than small* experimental crafts) in our lifetimes. Way too
much limitations existing today. But it would be nice if for some reason it
will happen sooner.

PS: *small in capacity. I do know that for example Solar Impulse is the
biggest aircraft by wingspan.

~~~
bdamm
Electric wheel propulsion on aircraft seems like an entirely unnecessary
feature. Airplanes have no difficulty using their primary form of propulsion -
moving air - to move on the ground, and it takes very little energy to do it
compared to the energy required to move through the air while off the ground.

~~~
ac29
No, that's exactly backwards -- jet engines are far less efficient at low
speed than at cruise speed. Various numbers I found say 100-300 kg of fuel
used taxiing for single aisle planes like 737 [0][1] all the way up to two
tons of fuel for large aircraft like 747 at large airports like JFK [0].

This can be extremely relevant for shorter flights: "[taxiing] aircraft fuel
burn which is estimated to be as high as 27% of total fuel burn for a
90-minute flight where waiting in queue adds to the time on the ground" [2]

[0]
[https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=747735](https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=747735)

[1] [https://www.aviationtoday.com/2019/05/01/electric-taxiing-
sy...](https://www.aviationtoday.com/2019/05/01/electric-taxiing-systems-past-
present-possible-future/)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxiing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxiing)

~~~
sokoloff
The taxi fuel is not primarily used for motivation of the airplane around the
airfield, but just from idling the engines. (It's about minutes of ground
operation more than miles of ground operation.)

Electric drive wheels don't eliminate that unless you don't start the engines
until near the hold short line (in which case, you don't have air conditioning
or electric power, meaning you end up running the APU [itself a small jet
engine] to provide that power).

~~~
ac29
Yes, you'd need at least enough battery power to power not just the drive
wheels, but the other things that engine power provides for like air
conditioning. I wonder how large a pack would actually be required (of course
there are huge differences between airports - some of them youre in the air
only a few minutes after leaving the gate, some it can be 20-30 minutes).

If it was a large amount of battery, it would be cool if the batteries were in
a small autonomous vehicle that disconnected from the plane when it was time
to spin up the main engines and returned on its own to be recharged. Seems
like a solvable problem.

~~~
sokoloff
Anecdote, but relevant, we were on the ground in Las Vegas in a 787-400 (an
all-electric, no-bleed airplane) and due to a 15 minute ground hold while they
sorted an issue with a brake indication, the APU powered pack alone was not
able to keep up with the Vegas environmentals. (They couldn't run a main
engine because they were doing maintenance in that area.) They were able to
bring in ground-based chillers to take some of the edge off, but it was
uncomfortably hot in the cabin _with_ an APU running.

A 787 may be ideal for an electric conversion (since it's already a no-bleed
airplane). Even then, you probably might as well run the APU for electrics on
the ground, since you're going to be carrying around that amount of weight
anyway.

------
Johnny555
Would it make sense to jettison the discharged batteries shortly after takeoff
to reduce cruising weight? The "takeoff battery pack" could be in some sort of
autonomous drone that pilots itself back to the airport so it could be
jettisoned after reaching cruising altitude.

Does weight make a significant difference once the aircraft is at cruising
altitude?

~~~
newnewpdro
Yes, planes for ages jettisoned any fuel before landing because of the weight.
Keeping the landing weight down to a minimum does wonders for the airframe
design.

Nowadays they just do a better job of loading only the fuel necessary, and
circle pointlessly to burn excess fuel before landing. It's still an issue,
they just don't dump the fuel on the neighborhood below like they used to.

~~~
Johnny555
I was thinking more about helping with the energy density issue, by discarding
the discharged, yet just as heavy as when charged, batteries after reaching
the energy intensive climb to cruising altitude.

------
PunksATawnyFill
Just in time for corrupt local politicians to finish destroying the USA's
airports and selling them off to developers.

See: Santa Monica, CA

------
gingabriska
I wonder if it can be possible to tap into the human body's energy store and
use that to make flights over short distance.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Average human _at rest_ puts out about 100w of heat. That's probably not
enough to keep the cabin warm let alone power the aircraft.

Burning human fat stores seems a mite dystopian. ;)

Edit: Human _at rest._ I imagine Ryanair might be keen on pedals for everyone,
but I can't see that being popular with the holidaymakers.

~~~
username444
[https://www.cascadebiketrainers.com/news/2015/09/01/calculat...](https://www.cascadebiketrainers.com/news/2015/09/01/calculating-
your-wattage-output-when-on-your-bike-trainer-or-exercise-bike/)

Seems a trained person can do 150-250w

~~~
anticensor
We can extract 400 watts if we also suck power from the brains.

------
nielsole
How feasible would replacing the battery during the flight via a flying
refueler ( similar to how fighter jets operate) be?

------
Havoc
Surprised at the hybrid comment. I would have expected electric for the cruise
phase not takeoff and landing

~~~
opportune
Electric is more burstable so it makes more sense for periods of rapid
acceleration/deceleration. Hybrid cars work the same way

~~~
Gibbon1
Lack of turbine lag with an electric powered fan is probably a big deal. Means
when the pilot decides he needs power now he gets it now. Not in a few
seconds.

------
falcolas
This plane wouldn’t even be capable of getting me to the closest aircraft hub
at its maximum range, let alone with a safety margin (I live an hour and a
half, by jet, from Denver). Not to mention it will be slow and badly impacted
by storms (since it has an operating ceiling of 10,000 ft).

~~~
dewey
It's a prototype.

~~~
falcolas
Which indicates that the "age of electric flight _is not_ finally upon us".
People have been putting electric engines in gliders for a lot more mileage
and flight time for years.

