
London-Paris electric flight 'in decade' - oinkgrr
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-39350058
======
fridek
Currently the shortest LGW-CDG flight is 1h. There is LCY-CDG lasting 1h 20m.
For both cities it takes 30 - 60m to get to the airport from central location
and you should be there at least 1h before the departure (for a total of 2-3h
non-flight time). This makes total travel 3h - 4h30m.

For comparison, the fastest train is 2h 25m. I guess you need to travel to and
from the train station too, but it's definitely more central (2x15 min) and
you can easily hop on train even five minutes before the departure - although
I usually plan at least another 15 min buffer. That is a total of a little
over 3 hours.

I don't pretend to know enough about economy of future trains vs future
electric flights, but it looks like short distances will always be a tough
sell for airplanes. Personally I also find trains more comfortable and I was
never given a free massage for carrying scissors in my pocket when boarding
one.

~~~
dx034
The better idea for the first electric flight is probably LCY-AMS. It's a
35-40 min flight but there's no alternative to it (train 4+ hours, ship 8+
hours). There's a lot of demand for that route, you have more than 15 flights
per day across all London airports.

~~~
TorKlingberg
I wonder why there is no fast London - Amsterdam train. It's not that much
farther than Paris.

~~~
gns24
UK border security. On Eurostar journeys all border checks are done at the
departure station, and only Paris, Brussels and Lille have the facilities for
that. That said, it should be coming this year.

~~~
TorKlingberg
Ok, good. It seems it will make a 30 min stop in Brussels for the border check
though. Unfortunate.

------
koolba
I'm not at the forefront of this field so maybe I missed some great advances
in battery technology or airplane efficiency, but how could this possible work
when the energy density of a battery (.3-.9 MJ/kg) is 50x less than that of
jet fuel (46 MJ/kg)[1]? Or is that simply enough for (very) short haul
flights?

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density)

~~~
fdej
That's correct, but note that an electric motor is about twice as efficient as
a combustion engine, reducing the factor to about 25x (at least ideally).
Typical medium range aircraft burn about 3 kg fuel per km [1], so to fly 1000
km you would need about 3 * 25 * 1000 kg = 75 tonnes of batteries. This should
be in the ballpark of what we can pack into an aircraft already, but I guess
at least another 2x improvement is needed to make it economical (we want to
haul some useful payload, not just the batteries).

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft)

~~~
JustSomeNobody
What's the turnaround for the aircraft though? If they can't turn around an
aircraft in 15-30 min, we'll need more aircraft or prices will skyrocket (no
pun).

~~~
notahacker
Any sensible proposal for electric systems for commercial aircraft is going to
aim for batteries to be safely swappable in 10-15 minutes. (Though they can
still make delays from unexpected diversions to airports without a stock of
batteries worse)

~~~
jpm_sd
The structural penalties for making "most of the weight of the aircraft"
removable will probably lead to a plane that doesn't fly.

~~~
greglindahl
... for example, putting the batteries in the existing form-factor of
removable cargo containers used in jumbo jets.

------
D_Alex
I am really quite confident that no serious development of electric passenger
aircraft will take place during the coming decade.

And it is not a question of feasibility, but rather of priorities. There is so
much low hanging fruit to be collected! By the end of the decade, if all goes
well, we will be in the middle of replacing petroleum fuelled cars and busses
with electric ones, and maybe turning our attention to other land-based
petroleum consumers such as trucks, agricultural equipment, mining machinery
etc.

Airplanes are so far down the list of things we can easily swap over to
batteries that it is not yet worthwhile to work in this field.

~~~
Entangled
Siemens disagree

[http://www.siemens.com/press/electric-
aircraft](http://www.siemens.com/press/electric-aircraft)

~~~
jpm_sd
They specifically mention "hybrid-electric propulsion systems", which means
electric propulsion powered from a fuel-burning generator.

------
ptaipale
TL;DR: If I read things right, the BBC article is highly misleading and the
plane still uses jet fuel.

Longer version:

The article mentions "removing the need for jet fuel" but does not explain how
the engines of this "electric" plane work. Propellers run by electric motors,
or what?

No. Wright Electric's own site is scant on technical details and concentrates
on praising the great team in its blog. From browsing other sites [0] it
appears that the engines are still using conventional jet fuel to generate the
thrust; it's just that the external systems (pressurization, de-icing, landing
gear mechanics, fuel pumps etc) that are powered by electricity are using
battery power instead of generator in the current jet engines.

This may be a step ahead in energy efficiency but is not that revolutionary,
and calling it "electric flight" is simply wrong.

I hope I misunderstood, but Wright Electric really should tell how their
electric plane is supposed to work if it is really electric.

[https://electrek.co/2017/03/22/electric-plane-
startup-150-se...](https://electrek.co/2017/03/22/electric-plane-
startup-150-seat-battery-powered-plane/)

~~~
alex_duf
I think the image you can see on the electrek article is from this blog post:
[https://weflywright.com/2017/02/12/wright-weekly-weport-
feb-...](https://weflywright.com/2017/02/12/wright-weekly-weport-feb-12-2017/)

The legend for that image is:

>This image shows the potential subsystems that could be powered electrically.
(Note: an fuel plane can also install electric subsystems – for example the
787 is making headway in this direction – but the subsystems in an electric
plane will be all electric!)

From what I read from the blog, it looks like they are going all electric. So
I'm not sure what magic they intend to use in order to propel the plane, but
I'll assume propellers until proven wrong.

~~~
taneq
Wow, apparently I've been driving an electric car for years! It uses quite a
bit of petrol too though.

------
notahacker
It's good to see YCombinator funding some ambitious and really hard projects,
but I'll believe the "in a decade" when I see it. Even if a decade's worth of
battery technology improvements allows it to get off the ground, there's still
a lot of painful certification processes to work through (and certification
authorities likely to be less-receptive than average due to it being a new
entity and having less commonality with previous generation aircraft)

A little surprised they seem to be going after the ultracompetitive A320/737
market rather than the shorter-haul, lower-speed, turboprop market as well
(closer to their starting point, less competition, even more fuel price-
sensitive, airline customers less conservative etc.)

------
6stringmerc
Okay, I had to stop reading and chuckle for a moment at this bit of logic:

> _Wright Electric said by removing the need for jet fuel, the price of travel
> could drop dramatically._

Note to self: Bring back Zeppelin travel.

------
thriftwy
What's the point if you can just take an electric train? Isn't it basically 'a
flight' on rails?

They should have chosen a better city pair.

~~~
notahacker
Tell that to the double-digit number of airlines already flying between London
and Paris...

It's a [hypothetical] aircraft, not a hyperloop. It can fly other routes.

~~~
lorenzhs
Eurostar have around 80% market share on Paris–London for good reason. At 2hrs
15mins from city centre to city centre it's faster, less hassle, and more
comfortable than flying. Security is less strict (you can take liquids) and
you don't have to check your bags. Two large items of luggage are also
included for every passenger. It's not even more expensive than flying if you
book in advance if you include the price for airport transfer.

London–Paris is just an example in the article to demonstrate the range of
that hypothetical aircraft. It could also be useful as a demonstrator.

~~~
aninhumer
I assume that's just market share of travel specifically between the two
cities? There's also the market of connecting flights to consider.

~~~
selectodude
There aren't any flights to anywhere in the world out of London that would
connect through Paris unless you require a flight on Air France.

~~~
mcintyre1994
I think the parent might mean eg. travel from the UK outside of London to
Paris, and France outside of Paris to London. In that case you'd probably
spend longer traveling to the Eurostar in your own country than on the
Eurostar. The same would be true if you traveled to an airport in London/Paris
to fly, but there's the alternative of flying from a regional airport direct
to London/Paris instead.

~~~
aninhumer
Nah, I was just overestimating Paris's status as a flight hub. Although I do
wonder if connecting in Paris might make more sense from some of the smaller
London airports.

------
macspoofing
>A new start-up says that it intends to offer an electric-powered commercial
flight from London to Paris in 10 years.

There is no way a startup without any experience in aviation will design,
build, certify and sell a commercial 150-seat airplane in 10 years. Not even
mention the immense R&D groundwork required to even prove the concept of using
batteries to power short haul flights.

Why do they put out bullshit like this? It just hurts their credibility.

~~~
koolba
Normally I'd agree with you but seeing that SpaceX was able to go from zero to
sending stuff into orbit in a decade, building a plane in that same time
period doesn't seem totally unreasonable.

I'd be more concerned with the realities of battery technology not being ready
and existing regulations/testing stretching the timetable v.s. pure technical
ability of a team to design something that would be fit for purpose.

~~~
wiz21c
SpaceX has re-done something that was already done. It's no small feat, but
the proof of concept existed years ago.

An electric plane with 100+ person on board has no POC so far...

~~~
jhbadger
Also, SpaceX is fine with having their vehicles occasionally explode. Which is
considered par for the course in spaceflight circles, but not so much in jet
travel.

~~~
koolba
Well they're a startup in the traditional sense as rockets tend to "move fast
and break things".

------
verulito
Maybe I don't understand combustion well enough but why isn't there more hype
about fuel cells? They seem so much more compelling, in cars or otherwise.
Just seems like if Elon Musk decided to pursue fuel cell cars rather than
electric cars that those might be more dominant on the market today.

------
jakozaur
I appreciate Y Combinator at grabbing ppl attention. We need to do more of
this ambitious projects.

However, I'm rather disappointed lack of even fundamental technical vision. I
get that if you shoot to fly in a decade you can optimistically base your
model on other technical advances (e.g. better batteries), but too much short-
term hype can be deceiving.

It will take many years to get there and probably it would be easier to create
first small turboprope electric plane. Something like:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Dash_8](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Dash_8)

------
m-j-fox
Why not hydrogen? Stuffing a Mirai's guts into a turboprop is a project we
could do today. Solves the waiting/hoping for battery technology problem and
saves Toyota's $billions invested in r&d from the toilet.

~~~
gjjrfcbugxbhf
How do you store the hydrogen?

~~~
m-j-fox
However Toyota stores it. Probably something resembling lab cylinders.

~~~
m-j-fox
Which turn out to be carbon-fiber tanks.

------
lutusp
Airlines that switch to electrics will have to resolve a logistical issue --
do you switch batteries between flights, or do you need to buy twice as many
aircraft, so half are flying and half are charging? I suspect that battery-
switching will be the answer, even though the batteries will be a significant
percentage of the aircraft's volume.

~~~
rz2k
It's already possible to swap the battery pack on a Tesla Model S faster than
a gasoline car can be refilled.[1] That is special equipment, but presumably
modular batteries that are quickly bolted into a large cavity on the underside
of a plane would be possible. It might only make sense in hubs, or highly
traveled routes to put the equipment in place, though. Slower charging when
the plane is on the ground overnight at a regional airport for example
probably wouldn't be a problem.

------
yongjik
I wonder if any company is seriously considering nuclear-powered planes? The
energy density alone would make it extremely competitive.

And, let's be honest, in case of a crash, I'd rather walk away (or be hauled
away without a limb or two) to die of cancer ten years later, than be burned
to crisp in a huge fireball. Fear of radiation is overrated.

~~~
nether
Well, I don't think there's much consideration of nuclear power in the first
place by most countries. A nuclear-powered B-36D (large bomber) was explored
in the '60s though. Complications included the weight of the lead shielding to
protect occupants, and that doing some routine operations in the radioactive
areas required a remote controlled robot. The reactor was never used to power
the aircraft, and test flights just explored the effects of radiation on
everything.

------
asteli
I see some back of the napkin calcs happening here, and feel compelled to
point out that in addition to in-flight fuel, current regs require planes to
have reserves sufficient to:

* maintain a holding pattern for 30 minutes (45 for recip. engines) PLUS

* perform a missed approach at destination, climb out again, and perform a landing at an alternate PLUS

* contingency fuel (5% of trip fuel)

------
baldfat
Add it to the list of 10 years from now

1) Dozens of new battery technology

2) Graphine will change our world

3) Genetic cures for thousands of diseases and birth defects

4) Linux Desktop :(

~~~
mirimir
> 4) Linux Desktop :(

Have been using one for 10 years :)

~~~
baldfat
I've been since 2004 :)

------
anovikov
Why not, a jet powered plane can fly 17,300km, electric plane must have about
2x energy efficiency (70-80% vs 35-40% overall) because it's not a heat
machine, so with 50x less energy density it translates to 700km. Actually it
can be more because batteries are a lot denser than jet fuel so plane will be
thinner, thus having a lot less air resistance, so 800km is possible. As you
can see they are shooting for 500km, must be easily possible.

Airbus works on a 1000km battery powered regional plane (catch is, it's
probably a turboprop) by 2030, by the way.

~~~
kgabis
You've contradicted yourself by saying that batteries are both less and more
dense than jet fuel...

~~~
anovikov
LOL energy density is much much lower, but volumetric density is several times
higher. Meaning, they take less space for same weight -> airframe can have
smaller profile and have less air resistance.

~~~
kgabis
I don't think that's true, both volumetric and mass densities for lithium ion
batteries are very low
([https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Energy_d...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Energy_density.svg)).

------
jlebrech
we could save a lot on fuel if they reordered flight plans into a grid, you
might not be going direct to somewhere far and popular but they overall impact
or the environment would be huge.

~~~
charlesdenault
What do you mean by a grid? Long-haul direct flights offer many benefits, such
as lower drag at cruising altitude, engine efficiency at altitude, etc. [1]
Biggest fuel savings are going to come from more efficient engines and weight
reduction (composites). 1:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft)

~~~
jlebrech
you find the optimal distance for a flight and create a mesh out of those
flights. and stop lines from crossing.

------
tuna-piano
"Second flight will be after the battery recharges, approximately 10 years
after the first flight"

------
jlebrech
what about passenger gliders?

------
CalRobert
They picked the one city pair already served well by rail??? One where there
will be substantial time lost to immigration queues anyway, thus reducing the
relative benefit of high speed travel?

SF-LA, London-Dublin, etc would have made a lot more sense.

~~~
pale-hands
Good point, but this is just the BBC giving an example of a distance that its
audience can easily grasp.

~~~
jacquesm
I hope the took the requirements of _two_ alternates to heart in their range
calculations otherwise - bad pun - this won't fly.

