
Eviation’s Alice is an all-electric, nine-person aircraft - EastLondonCoder
https://robbreport.com/motors/aviation/eviation-alice-electric-airplane-revolution-sooner-than-you-think-2830522/
======
tristanb
I'm afraid this is a nonsense.

[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

------
ams6110
650 mile range may not be as much as it sounds like. I'm not a pilot but I
know there are regulations for reserve fuel.

So you need enough fuel (kWH in this case) for taxi, take off, the trip
itself, divert to alternate airport, plus reserve for 30-45 minutes of
holding, at least one missed approach/go-around, plus maybe more emergency
reserve beyond that. It might add up to only 300-400 of practical travel
range.

~~~
Groxx
I have no idea if this actually covers it or not, but the website[1] claims
"Range + IFR reserve: 650 miles".

[1]: [https://www.eviation.co/alice/](https://www.eviation.co/alice/)

------
bronco21016
Interesting concept.

I’m curious what voltage the pack runs at and how long it would take to
charge. Many of these types of aircraft operate in FAR Part 135 on-demand
operations. Aircraft and crew utilization are crucial for the business model.

Expensive airplanes and pilots don’t make money sitting on the ground. Of
course, if operating costs (fuel) are a fraction of a traditional aircraft
then margins get better but do they get good enough to offset 2-3x more
aircraft and pilots to operate those aircraft to be able to fulfill demand?

I hate to sound like the people who constantly naysay electric cars because of
charging times but in this industry turn around time is crucial.

~~~
aphextron
>I’m curious what voltage the pack runs at and how long it would take to
charge. Many of these types of aircraft operate in FAR Part 135 on-demand
operations. Aircraft and crew utilization are crucial for the business model.

This is the number one question I had as well, for the same reasons. Porsche
has a 1000V system in their new Taycan EV, so I'd assume they're at least at
that level. At 900kWh, a system like that could charge from 10% (assumed
minimum reserve) to 95% (Batteries are never _really_ charged to 100%) in
under 2 hours @ 400KW, which is about the power level of the beefiest EV
chargers being developed right now.

More likely they will have swappable batteries, which makes a lot more sense
from a thermal management point of view as well. You can either load up the
pack with all kinds of cooling and deal with the added weight, or just make it
passive air-cooled and swap it out between flights before it gets too hot.

~~~
technofiend
In my humble opinion swappable batteries on an airplane would run afoul of the
maintenance regulations that require an A & P to perform and sign off on
changes to the aircraft.

~~~
aphextron
>In my humble opinion swappable batteries on an airplane would run afoul of
the maintenance regulations that require an A & P to perform and sign off on
changes to the aircraft.

Pipistrel Alpha, the only real production electric plane shipping, is using
swappable batteries. There's really no other viable way with current
technology to have reasonable recharge times.

------
lolc
Is? No it's not. It could be.

> aims to have one flying early next year.

Using the present tense is not justified.

~~~
shaki-dora
Bilbo Baggings is a Hobbit.

~~~
azag0
Words are used in a context which shapes their meaning. “Is” there implies to
most that the aircraft already exists.

~~~
em3rgent0rdr
“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

~~~
azag0
Well, he was right about that, although there is little doubt his intent was
to deceive.

------
jillesvangurp
These cost reductions are a big deal and they are largely based on energy cost
reductions. It offsets some of the inconveniences of not so long range, lack
of infrastructure for charging, and having to wait for recharging.

For reference, typical business jets or twin props burn hundreds of gallons of
fuel on a single trip costing hundreds of dollars. They also need frequent
maintenance as there are a lot of things that need to be checked and fixed
with such planes. So, the proposition of charging with cheap electricity and
getting rid of most of the stuff that needs fixing and maintaining on a
regular basis is highly attractive. If it works as advertised, this plane will
sell like crazy. Electrical engines basically last a very long time and are
easy to check and service. Charging batteries is comparatively cheap to
burning fuel and likely to get cheaper in the future.

Practically speaking, if you have a home base with charging infrastructure but
most other airports do not (yet), effectively you are looking at a 300M range
for a return trip unless you are flying to a place with infrastructure to
charge. That's still fairly nice.

For commercial operations, there are plenty of use-cases that would be well
served by a plane like this. A plane like this gets passenger cost down to
something that is quite competitive with a train ticket.

~~~
Gravityloss
Jet engines are conceptually simple and very low maintenance but still very
expensive. Difficult materials and high precision. And use a massive amount of
fuel.

It is fascinating to compare with an electric aircraft. It's not so clear to
me what the economics would be like as a whole.

It's not just fuel but investment and maintenance cost.

To me it might make sense in a short high frequency operation. Like to some
island. Not as a business jet that mostly just sits around.

~~~
jillesvangurp
It's pretty clear what the economics are. Electrical engines are relatively
uncomplicated, small, light, and extremely reliable. Also, they tend to last
quite long. E.g. in many electrical cars, engine failures or battery
replacements tend to be relatively rare and are typically not needed until
after hundreds of thousands of miles on the road and usually not because they
failed but simply because of degraded performance.

With electrical planes you'd expect similar benefits. Maybe a regular quick
inspection of the few moving parts for wear and tear, make sure battery
performance is fine and that any sensor read outs don't hint at any problems
with cooling, performance, etc. Of course you still need to inspect the rest
of the plane as usual. However, the engine tends to be one of the more
expensive parts normally.

Jets are indeed reliable but they do need to be inspected regularly to ensure
they stay that way. If e.g. there's some hairline cracks or corrosion, the
engine might still work but be about to fail in some spectacular way.
Inspections for that are expensive and a regular thing. Same with piston
engines. Typically engines are certified for a fixed number of hours before
they need their overhaul. I expect similar inspections and overhauls to be
needed for electrical engines for the same reasons. But they should be much
cheaper to do and the engines could likely be certified for much longer
because there is less that can go wrong with them. So, less frequent
inspections and overhauls, and cheaper inspections are a good thing. Also
replacing parts / engines is likely to be a lot simpler if there are any
problems.

Other factors are that unused engines tend to need more attention when you
take them back into use. E.g. oil can solidify, fuel lines can clog up, etc.
Most planes need to be flow regularly in order to avoid extra maintenance
cost. To make sure things are functioning, you also have elaborate warmup and
runup procedures before take off. A jet or piston engine is not usable until a
few minutes after startup when everything is nicely warmed up and properly
lubricated. Then you need to typically still go through elaborate runup
procedures. Electrical engines are a lot less needy. Also they don't need to
warm up, you just flip a switch and they are ready to go.

And that's aside from the fuel cost of course, which is a big deal as well.

~~~
Gravityloss
But if you look at the whole plane, the electric one will be about double the
weight.

What about the landing gear? Brakes? Control surfaces? All double size.

The battery will likely be a somewhat complex system with active cooling and
monitoring and will need maintenance. They are aiming for higher than car
level energy to weight ratios.

If they use a battery with air as a component, that's also again somewhat more
complicated.

There's probably a trade off point in flight hours per year, above which the
electric plane is more affordable. Depends on finances, too since likely it's
more expensive to acquire.

------
ArtWomb
Audi also introduced a concept eVTOL with detachable "pod". It's an
interesting design choice. Creating modular components that could be shipped
across air, sea, and land boundaries.

[https://www.autoblog.com/2018/11/28/audi-demonstrates-pop-
up...](https://www.autoblog.com/2018/11/28/audi-demonstrates-pop-up-next-air-
taxi/)

------
reacharavindh
For reference: Model 3 apparently has 75 to 100 kWh. This plane seems to spec
out - Li-lon - 900 kWh. For a layman, it sounds like 9 times the battery
weight of a Model S flying in the sky...

Wonder how they made it light enough to be able to fly...

[https://www.eviation.co/alice/](https://www.eviation.co/alice/)

~~~
aphextron
>Wonder how they made it light enough to be able to fly...

You get a massive weight savings in the engines and all related components. DC
motors are multiple times smaller and lighter than the equivalent powered
turbine engine when you consider the entire system. On top of that you totally
eliminate the need for variable pitch props and the related transmission parts
since electric motors can adjust power instantly. You also negate a lot of
hydraulic systems (and their redundant backups) without the need for things
like fuel pumps, thrust reversers, etc.

It also seems they are not using anything like standard li-po tech. From their
site:

>Utilizing industry-leading lithium-ion batteries and a proprietary Aluminum-
Air system for range, we’ve surpassed the 400Wh/kg mark.

For reference this is nearly double Tesla's energy density. Of course the
cells will be much more expensive, but that matters a lot less for a low
volume, high usage application that can be amortized.

~~~
captainperl
> DC motors are multiple times smaller and lighter than the equivalent powered
> turbine engine when you consider the entire system.

Airplanes this size can use cruise missile engines, which are very light. See
the F-5 for more info (7:1 thrust to weight ratio.)

> On top of that you totally eliminate the need for variable pitch props

Why is that? Variable pitch props have nothing to do with engine type. They're
variable to be more efficient depending on RPM and speed.

> You also negate a lot of hydraulic systems (and their redundant backups)
> without the need for things like fuel pumps, thrust reversers,

Not really. A lot of flight controls are boosted with hydraulics, and thrust
reversers are for increasing drag (descending faster or slowing down.) None of
these depend on engine type.

The real issue with electric planes is that they're a fire hazard. Already
people have been killed when their electric plane's battery caught fire mid-
air:

[https://www.flyingmag.com/two-people-killed-in-first-
crash-e...](https://www.flyingmag.com/two-people-killed-in-first-crash-
electric-airplane)

The JAL 787 battery fire was a near-tragedy and resulted in interruption of
service to SJC for 2 months:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner_battery_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner_battery_problems)

I find the most erroneous posts on HN to be about airplanes and databases.

~~~
aphextron
>Why is that? Variable pitch props have nothing to do with engine type.
They're variable to be more efficient depending on RPM and speed.

Variable pitch props have everything to do with engine type. They exist
because turbine and piston engines have a very specific power/torque curve
which requires them to operate at certain RPMs for certain conditions to
achieve peak efficiency. With electric motors you have no need for this
because you get a constant increase of efficiency across the entire power
curve.

>Not really. A lot of flight controls are boosted with hydraulics, and thrust
reversers are for increasing drag (descending faster or slowing down.) None of
these depend on engine type.

Thrust reversers have nothing to do with descending faster or slowing down in
flight, they are used solely for landing retardation. But an electric aircraft
wouldn't even need thrust reversers. You literally just reverse the propeller
immediately at full power when touching down. You can even save on less flaps
required because the motors will be able to "windmill" on the descent and slow
the aircraft as well as regen power.

~~~
asdfadsfgfdda
Variable pitch props are useful for other design conditions. The prop RPM is
typically limited to a speed that prevents the prop tip from reaching
supersonic speeds, for noise certification. On fixed-pitch props at this fixed
RPM, there's a tradeoff between climb and cruise performance, because these
operate at two very different advance ratios. Constant-speed props allow the
blade to adjust some of this difference.

There's also the engine-out design case, it's much easier to add prop
feathering than add more power to the operating engines.

This design doesn't make a lot of sense, the props are located at literally
the maximum arm from centerline, which requires bigger control surfaces for
engine-out design (heavier and more drag) and gives very little ground
clearance in crosswind landings. On the economics side, fuel costs are a small
part of operating light turboprops/jets. The biggest costs are airplane
depreciation/capital and crew. The real breakthrough would be an autonomous
turbine plane that could eliminate crew cost and achieve 2000 hours/year
utilization (versus ~200 for some privately-owned jets).

------
reacharavindh
The article makes it sound like it is made from commoditised components of
today.

Given how similar it sounds to that of a Tesla Model S + SpaceX - Battery,
Electric motor, propeller and such, Why wouldn't Tesla attempt such a thing
based on components they already build for Tesla or SpaceX?

~~~
Beltiras
While on Joe Rogan's podcast Elon Musk did say he had the design for a VTOL
electric plane that regained the energy used for lift on descent. I was a
little bit more than intrigued by that.

~~~
captainperl
Airplanes always get most of the energy from ascent back in descent.

VTOL will get less back because it's grossly inefficient.

Note that drag needs to be deducted from the potential energy. There's
parasitic and induced drag.

~~~
lmm
> Airplanes always get most of the energy from ascent back in descent.

Given that the aeroplane ends up stopped on the tarmac at (approximately) sea
level with (approximately) empty tanks, how so? A bit of heat I suppose but
that's not usable. I'd say current aeroplanes generally deliberately dump
energy to the environment (via deliberately increased drag, spoilers etc.)
during descent, no?

~~~
DennisP
They're not recharging batteries but they are extending range. The whole time
they're descending, they're moving forward and overcoming air resistance,
without needing as much fuel as if they were flying level the same distance
and altitudes.

I think that compared to energy expenditure X in level flight at cruising
altitude, the aircraft would expend X+Y in the climb and a little less than
X-Y in the descent, assuming all horizontal distances are the same.

To the extent that they deliberately increase drag, that wouldn't hold true,
but I'm guessing that's mostly on final approach.

------
dragonwriter
> But this isn’t another claim by another overoptimistic purveyor of electric
> dreams.

Really? So, it's built and demonstrated?

> the first planes are being built right now.

Oh, so when you say “Eviation’s Alice is an all-electric, nine-person
aircraft” you mean “Eviation _claims_ Alice _will be_ an all-electric, nine-
person aircraft” and when you say “this isn’t another claim by another
overoptimistic purveyor of electric dreams” you mean “this _probably is_
another claim by another overoptimistic purveyor of electric dreams.”

------
aidenn0
TFA claims electric planes are quieter, but I thought the majority of the
noise from a turboprop was caused by the propeller. Does anyone have actual
knowledge of the noise difference?

------
dev_dull
> _and they receive power from a 900 kWh lithium ion battery pack._

Wow! One of the amazing things about EVs is how easy it makes it to reason
about the energy usage. That’s about $250 in energy here in CA. I _might_
produce a mW of energy with my solar panels on a good month here.

If it actually has a range of 650 miles then that comes out to be about 50c a
mile, which would be quite amazing.

------
billbrown
Zunum Aero is also working in this space.[1] Learned about them through a
recent Breakthrough Institute talk.

[1] [https://zunum.aero/](https://zunum.aero/) [2]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1ioXfa_jpY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1ioXfa_jpY)

------
clueless123
With the engines placed at the tip of the wings it must be next to impossible
to operate with a single engine.

~~~
avmich
It has 3 engines, one is at the tail. While I agree in principle, I think
having just one engine at the tip of the wing left running is going to be a
rare event.

~~~
abakker
Aviation is all about remaining operational during rare events, though.

~~~
bluGill
Single engine failure is a rare event that you have to be operational for.
Certification generally requires you to be able to take off fully loaded with
any one engine off (except single engine planes). If two engines fail you are
allowed to turn the rest off and ditch wherever you are.

Remember airplanes have a fair amount of glide ability even with no engines.
The airplane is coming down, but the pilot has a significant choice as to
where and plenty of time to choose between alternatives and get there.

------
trhway
So, Al-air battery. While it may be not practical for a car (even just once in
2000 miles as those prototypes), refueling the plane by reloading with fresh
aluminum would be just ok. My bet was on Li- or K-air, yet I'd take the Al one
for starters.

------
Latteland
Exciting - remember that battery tech is still in the early days, it will only
get cheaper, more energy dense, and more reliable. If this company doesn't
succeed, it will get better soon.

------
mysterydip
I do like the v-tail look. Not sure on the pros and cons of the approach, but
it's my favorite tail style of aircraft (if one keeps track of such things)

~~~
miahi
Probably because it has a third propeller in the tail - not easy to spot in
the article's photo, but you can see it better on their site[1].

[1] [https://www.eviation.co/alice/](https://www.eviation.co/alice/)

~~~
perilunar
That rear propeller will be screwed by anything kicked up by the main gear.
And good luck with rotation on take off, and landing flare.

Also, the adverse yaw if you lose one of the wingtip motors or propellers will
be severe.

~~~
dotancohen
I agree with you about rotation. The main gear is so far forward of that prop
that I'm actually wondering if this thing doesn't rotate, like the B-52. As
for landing flare, those wings aren't holding any fuel so they are razor thin.
I'm having a hard time deciding about when they stall.

But I don't see asymmetrical thrust as being a real problem on this plane. It
has far fewer moving parts than the single- or dual- motor props that it aims
to replace. This is not an ETOPS aircraft, and even if an outboard motor fails
you still have that central pusher to help. Back to those razor-sharp wings:
they are quite long and it looks like this plane would have a mighty fine
glide ratio.

------
Justin_K
Another aviation rendering... Not going to take it seriously until there's a
flying prototype video.

