
All-electric Cessna Grand Caravan makes maiden flight - prostoalex
https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers/all-electric-grand-caravan-makes-maiden-flight/138600.article
======
clueless123
Fantastic Skydiving vehicle.. If you can get 9 people (+ gear) 12'000ft on a
30 minutes flight, then you can glide all the way down for the next load. at
$6 worth of fuel it would be a game changer.

~~~
rmk
A lot of the expenses in flying arise out of regulatory requirements. Want to
carry passengers? Pilot needs a license that take several hundred hours
minimum to obtain. Want to use a part in an airplane? Getting it through the
FAA certificating process will inflate its cost by several multiples. Want to
operate an aircraft? You need to get it inspected every $fixnum number of
hours of operation by a mechanic who in turn has to do everything the
'certified' way and is himself certified by the FAA.

It's these costs, not fuel costs, that account for a _big_ percentage of the
cost of flying. There's no meaningful way to reduce the cost of flying without
reducing them. Perhaps electrics will incur _much_ lower costs in maintenance,
reducing costs somehow.

~~~
yovagoyu
Gas is a huge deal in large passenger planes where instead of miles per
gallon, they actually measure efficiency in gallons per mile.

The 747 for example eats about 1 gallon per second (~3600 gallons per hour)
according to this source:
[https://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/qu...](https://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/question192.htm)

~~~
jeltz
We measure fuel efficiency for cars in "liters per 10 km" in my country.

------
flyGuyOnTheSly
Amazing that the only thing you hear is the wind rustling by.

Silent planes would be welcomed by many people living in densely populated
cities with high air traffic.

They're almost giving away apartments near Pearson Airport in Toronto, for
example.

The price per square foot in that area is ~10x lower than the rest of the city
and for good reason. (You are constantly bombarded by the sound of jet engines
passing by).

~~~
jeffbee
Considering the rate at which the general aviation fleet turns over (~none in
~forever), and that the typical Cessna is flying around with a World War 2
engine or its closely related descendant, I predict that it will be roughly
infinity years before people who live at the ends of airports stop cursing the
noises.

Of course, if they just outlaw 100LL avgas and pass some noise regulations the
problem will solve itself.

~~~
perl4ever
I was never clear on why leaded avgas wasn't banned long ago. I know I've run
across information on the internet about aircraft engines that can run on
unleaded.

~~~
jeffbee
You can read these other replies, but the shorter explanation is that the AOPA
is in all relevant respects the NRA but with aircraft instead of guns, and the
owners have achieved cold-dead-hands status with their obsolete planes.

~~~
PunksATawnyFill
Not accurate. The AOPA typically takes positions that protect public safety,
such as opposing Trump’s attempted giveaway of our ATC to the airlines.

However, the GA industry should be condemned for its failure to face the
writing on the wall about leaded gas, which has been obvious since the ‘70s.
On the other hand: Until recently, stifling certification requirements made it
nearly impossible for these low-volume manufacturers to innovate.

Nobody wants leaded gas.

The other sham being perpetrated is advertising some plane engines as running
on “automotive” gas. This is BS, because that means only PURE gasoline, not
gasohol. I challenge you to find a gas station selling 100% gasoline. I
haven’t seen that in decades. So the touted “mogas” is nearly as much of a
niche fuel as 100LL.

~~~
pathseeker
[https://www.pure-gas.org](https://www.pure-gas.org)

------
ggm
_" The weight of the batteries makes swapping infeasible"_ comment makes
absolutely no sense. Make them modular, In sub units which can be handled,
mount them at the right points for C.G and design an airframe to permit module
swapping with suitable equipment.

~~~
PaulDavisThe1st
This, by the way, has to be the future of electric ground vehicles too. A
standardized external battery format, automated/mechanical battery
replacement. In theory "filling up" vehicles like could be quicker than
refilling a fuel tank with gasoline or diesel.

And to ensure that I get marked down, I'll add that I'm fairly certain that
only government(s) can make this happen (enforced standardization of the form
factor across the industry).

~~~
CydeWeys
People keep saying this but it never gets more practical. Meanwhile, battery
ranges get longer and recharging gets faster. I'm not convinced that swappable
batteries are the future of EVs at all.

~~~
adrianN
In addition, charge time is pretty much irrelevant in all applications except
long distance road trips. The typical electric car uses 15-20kWh/100km. A car
spends more than 20 hours a day parked and almost nobody travels more than
100km a day regularly. Charging at low single-digit kW as you can get from a
normal socket is sufficient. For the rare trips that exceed normal battery
capacity you can just rent a plug-in hybrid or deal with a small number of 45
minute breaks while you super-charge. Or take a train.

~~~
PaulDavisThe1st
In the western US (at least), although most car journeys are short and daily
charging makes the most sense, not being able to use a single vehicle for
longer journeys without enforced long-ish breaks currently acts as quite a
deterrent to the all-electric car vision of the future. Currently, with
gas/diesel vehicles, the same car can function more or less equally well for
just about every type of journey, and it has long been a dominant habit of the
US consumer to target what they perceive as their most demanding use. In the
US, at least, one version that most demanding use is "driving for two days or
more".

I love trains, but train travel across the western half of the US is a joke,
and isn't a lot better in the eastern half. When the train can take you, it's
great - we used it to get from Santa Fe to Chicago last thanksgiving. But
change the destination or origin just a little bit, and it becomes almost
absurd to thiking about using it.

~~~
adrianN
I guess rural locations have a harder time. Maybe once we replaced all cars in
cities with electrics we'll have something figured out that helps people who
really need 800km of range.

~~~
woodandsteel
Agreed. With the rate that batteries are improving, in the not-too-distant
future range will no longer be a problem for the vast majority of the public.

------
mceachen
From the article: "charging times correlate closely to flight times, says
Ganzarski. That means the batteries would need about 30-40min of charging
following a 30min flight. The weight of the batteries makes swapping spent
cells for fresh cells unfeasible between flights, he says."

Does utilization for these short-hop routes correlate to this sort of down
time?

~~~
ShakataGaNai
It's probably longer than required for passenger flights. The Caravan is 9-13
passengers (depending), plus a little baggage. Wouldn't be hard to unload/load
10 people in less than 30 mn. However the question is how many small commuter
airlines are operating a flight with repeated as-fast-as-possible turn around?

Cargo configuration, certainly seems like you could charge it faster than a
load/unload.

The thing about fast turn around's is that planes only make money when flying.
However a big part of flying is the expense of fuel. So if you can make your
hour flight in $12 of electricity, that brings the cost way down. That offsets
the cost of sitting on the ground for an extra X minutes.

Also gotta take into account the electric versions reduced need and cost of
maintenance. So there is reduced aircraft downtime for less maintenance, and
it costs less each time. Overall, that probably greatly increases the time
available to fly and therefor the profit potential for the plane.

~~~
dzhiurgis
> Wouldn't be hard to unload/load 10 people in less than 30 mn.

Ryanair is probably best at it, executing within time above but in a 737. You
can hate Ryanair for some things, but I admire for how affordable they make
flying.

------
jedberg
Darnit. I saw Grand Caravan and thought it was an all-electric minivan.

I've been waiting years for an electric minivan. The moment someone comes out
with one, I'm turning in my current minivan, which I love, for an all electric
van.

~~~
BrentOzar
> I've been waiting years for an electric minivan. The moment someone comes
> out with one, I'm turning in my current minivan, which I love, for an all
> electric van.

Bad news: while you can still buy minivans, they're being phased out in favor
of SUVs. Dodge just put the nail in the coffin for the Grand Caravan, and
production stops this year: [https://www.thedrive.com/news/33702/death-of-an-
icon-dodge-g...](https://www.thedrive.com/news/33702/death-of-an-icon-dodge-
grand-caravan-will-end-production-in-august)

The investments are in the SUV/CUV segment where profit rates are higher.

~~~
jedberg
Yeah I noticed that trend too. :( It’s a shame because we had both and the van
is just so much easier for hauling 6 people than any SUV out there.

------
alfalfasprout
Unfortunately the real limitation here is still weight. You can get excellent
torque and incredible reliability from electric motors vs. gas powered engines
but the biggest difference is that as you fly longer the plane gets lighter
with a gas powered plane. With an electric plane you're always at full weight
and that limits your flexibility.

Worse, batteries are still very, very heavy compared to the energy they store.
I suspect that as battery technology improves we'll see a drastic shift toward
electric planes being more appealing.

For GA aircraft they'd be amazing. Excellent power, significantly higher
reliability, much lower maintenance costs, and much lower cabin noise. But at
the weights listed, I can't imagine a Cessna 182 going electric anytime soon.

~~~
the-dude
Doesn't a full battery carry more electrons and is therefore heavier?

~~~
jbotz
No. Aside from the fact that the weight of the electrons, although not zero,
is negligible, they also don't get "lost" in the process... they just get
moved around, in the case of battery power literally from one end of the
batery to the other. Combustible fuel in contrast, gets turned into gases (CO2
and H2O) which are blown out the exhaust and thus lost.

~~~
arcticbull
Yes. A small amount. A 100kWh Tesla battery has 3.6e+8 Joules of energy. E =
mc^2 tells us that the mass of the stored energy is 4e-9 grams, so 4
nanograms.

~~~
Dylan16807
No. The number of electrons does not change. Instead, the different
configuration causes a slight fluctuation in the mass of the atoms.

~~~
arcticbull
I wasn't referring to parent's suggestion that the number of electrons
changed, of course, you're right, it doesn't. Just that the weight does in
fact change.

~~~
Dylan16807
> I wasn't referring to parent's suggestion that the number of electrons
> changed

So help me out here, am I missing something?

It's a two part question, and only half a part is actually true. "more
electrons" is false, and "therefore" is false, but "heavier" is correct.

In that situation, I think an unqualified "Yes." is extremely misleading. So I
wrote "No." as the lead-in for my comment.

Is that super rude? Am I completely wrong, and an unqualified "Yes." is
actually appropriate here? Is there some other reason for me to get multiple
downvotes for my post?

If I'm doing something wrong, I'd like to correct it for the future.

------
supernova87a
If this really represents (in general) the weight and efficiency you're going
to get, then electric planes of this size will have to remain a specialized
niche for only certain kinds of rare flights.

At 100 miles max range, the people would be better off driving, unless you're
talking about mountainous or water-crossing flights where there is no
alternative. (plus think about the added overhead of getting to/from airports,
etc)

You have to wonder why they chose a 208B -- when you would generally try for
the smallest and lightest plane to start with. Answer: because they can't fit
enough batteries in a smaller Cessna to get it to perform on a reasonable
flight. The ideas elsewhere in the thread about having electric planes lower
the cost of training flights, etc. won't work if you need a bus sized plane to
hold the batteries.

The plane has to be half empty, and even then can only eke out 100 miles.
That's like a half hour of flight. A $2-3M plane can only handle a 1 hour ~50%
duty cycle, max? That's not gonna...fly.

I'm not intending to sound discouraging, and it's an interesting
demonstration, but fundamental energy density of battery chemistry is a bitch.

Edit: why, for the love of god, would they include that ear-destroying audio
with the showcase video clip?

~~~
arcticbull
IMO this comment is pretty short-sighted.

Gravimetric energy density of batteries tripled between 2010 and 2020 and in
the same time period cost went down 87% [1]. By 2030, this plane could easily
have a range of 300mi.

[1] [https://cleantechnica.com/2020/02/19/bloombergnef-lithium-
io...](https://cleantechnica.com/2020/02/19/bloombergnef-lithium-ion-battery-
cell-densities-have-almost-tripled-since-2010/)

~~~
owenversteeg
I seem to remember being referred to as "that battery guy" here on HN, so here
I am I guess.

Unfortunately that is complete bullshit. (No offense intended to the Bloomberg
suit.) Energy densities have absolutely -not- tripled since 2010, in fact they
have barely changed. Costs have gone down, yes, but not by 87%.

Cost-wise: a simple counterexample is to look at any smartphone BOM from 2010.
Phone batteries around 10-12 Wh cost around $5. That's somewhere around
$416-$500 per kWh. And that's for a phone battery, AKA not exactly the
cheapest batteries out there, and not at massive scale (phone batteries are
tiny in capacity and almost all 2010 smartphones sold in the single-digit
millions max.) Currently, as Bloomberg claims, cheap batteries are around
$160/kWh. So that'd be a change of around 61% cheaper. Around 0.4x the 2010
price instead of the outlandish claim of 0.13x the price. Keep in mind that
this I'm just basing this off mobile phone BOMs cause I can't be bothered to
find anything cheaper - there certainly were cheaper batteries then.

Energy density wise, it's even more bullshit. TRIPLED? No, energy density has
sat around 200 Wh/kg for approximately forever. (Off the top of my head, since
at least 2009.) 200 Wh/kg batteries have been available to the -consumer- at
not-insane prices for over a decade. In 2013, anyone - business or consumer -
could purchase Panasonic cells at 224 Wh/kg. Today, the highest energy density
anyone claims is around 240 Wh/kg from Tesla's 2170. Let's take that at face
value and assume it is 240.0 Wh/kg; that's a 7% increase from 2013, and at
best somewhere around a 15% increase from 2010.

The sad reality is that batteries are extremely hard, and few things have
changed aside from price. Hell, even the form factor, the 18650, was invented
about three decades ago! Pretty much the only thing that has changed recently
is that volumes have gone up massively, driving down costs with at-scale
manufacturing. But that has happened in the vast majority of industries, and
was entirely predictable. Furthermore, the cost decrease for batteries
specifically hasn't been as fast as nearly everyone predicted. All the other
magical headlines, about energy densities skyrocketing, or fancy new
chemistries, or swappable packs, have been pure bullshit.

~~~
yellowapple
Do you happen to have sources / further reading on this?

~~~
owenversteeg
I didn't bother to give sources because everything is pretty trivial to find,
but you can Google "tesla 2170 bench test" or "Samsung INR21700-50E bench
test" for details of the best cells today, "history of 18650" to see that the
format is nearly 30 years old, and "(your favorite 2010 phone) BOM" for some
example price data. (as an example: galaxy s4, $5 and 10Wh.) That said, I'm
positive there were cheaper batteries at the time, given that cell phone
batteries are typically more expensive to make even today and are on the order
of 10,000 times smaller than car batteries.

I wish I had some quality further reading to link, but unfortunately I don't.
"battery Google" is dominated by 1) overpriced e-stores selling a few cells to
vapers, 2) news about handmade cells in a lab reaching some ridiculous
performance (yeah, and a handgun kills cancer in a lab), 3) complete
unadulterated bullshit from the news/bloggers/social media about battery
trends, 4) bullshit corporate PR of companies claiming they're a year away
from 900 Wh/kg (anyone working with batteries would give their firstborn child
for 900 Wh/kg no joke)... Sadly, it's a mess. The other problem is that an
explanation is hard - very hard. It involves manufacturing (and scaling this),
thermal properties, funding for research, an analysis of the players in the
game, etc etc. I have considered writing one, but it even for me it would be
quite a project and even posted here on HN I have a feeling it might fail to
get any attention. Nobody wants to read a complex multifaceted failure
analysis, everybody wants to read a Bloomberg headline saying we're racing
into the future, even if it's total bullshit.

~~~
yellowapple
> I didn't bother to give sources because everything is pretty trivial to find

If it was then I wouldn't be asking :)

Best I was able to find was a chart (ostensibly from NASA) comparing different
battery technologies, which is probably where the 3× claim originated, but
doesn't say much about improvements over time (only by technology):
[https://www.epectec.com/batteries/cell-
comparison.html](https://www.epectec.com/batteries/cell-comparison.html)

To your point, though, it does indicate that lithium-ion specifically hasn't
had such a 3× jump (but it does represent such a jump relative to older
technologies like lead-acid or nickel-cadmium).

> you can Google "tesla 2170 bench test" or "Samsung INR21700-50E bench test"
> for details of the best cells today

That doesn't really say much about historical trends, but good to know.

> "history of 18650" to see that the format is nearly 30 years old

Is that relevant? AAs are even older than that, and yet seem to have improved
quite a bit.

> and "(your favorite 2010 phone) BOM" for some example price data. (as an
> example: galaxy s4, $5 and 10Wh.)

That does line up with [https://www.androidauthority.com/galaxy-s4-bill-of-
materials...](https://www.androidauthority.com/galaxy-s4-bill-of-
materials-175146/) (which cites $5.60 for 2600mAh, or $4.90 for 2100mAh).

Meanwhile, the Galaxy S9+ lists $4.90 for 3500mAh:
[https://technology.informa.com/601100/galaxy-s9-materials-
co...](https://technology.informa.com/601100/galaxy-s9-materials-cost-43-more-
than-previous-versions-ihs-markit-teardown-shows)

Neither of these really say much for the mass, though, so it's hard to get a
clear picture on energy density from this.

> Nobody wants to read a complex multifaceted failure analysis

I mean, I would, but I'm well aware of my insanity.

------
brent_noorda
Even as I bet against electric flight being commercially feasible except in
extremely limited conditions, I'm excited by any news that I might possibly be
worng.

------
arecurrence
Only 6 months after the first commercial airplane electric flight.
[https://www.harbourair.com/harbour-air-and-magnix-
announce-s...](https://www.harbourair.com/harbour-air-and-magnix-announce-
successful-flight-of-worlds-first-commercial-electric-airplane/)

------
lallysingh
I'm not sure people will be as ready to go back into 200+ passenger aircraft
as before.

Small party flights could become more popular as the range goes up.

~~~
ahelwer
There's a very long way to go before safety is comparable. Last time I looked
into it, you have better odds skydiving from a small plane than landing in it.

~~~
AdrianB1
Not at all, skydiving from a plane without a parachute is almost always deadly
(very few exceptions) while landing with an engine failure is something every
student practice in the flight school (at least in my country).

The smaller the plane, the easier to land it with an engine failure, the
smaller the plan the fewer pieces that can break. yes, the average General
Aviation pilot is quite bad, that explains the huge accident rate compared to
airliners, but the reliability of the planes is not bad at all.

~~~
m4rtink
That's why I like gliders - one less component to fail (the engine) and every
landing is an engine out landing, with the plane built and pilot trained to do
that. :)

~~~
AdrianB1
All pilots are trained to land with the engine out. Some are better and most
are not, that's not the plane's fault. Yes, glider pilots are the best at this
:)

------
raverbashing
Very impressive

The Grand Caravan is one step up your average "learner aircraft" and IIRC it's
a turboprop (not a piston engine as most basic aircraft)

> As configured, the Magni500-powered Grand Caravan can carry 4-5 passengers
> on flights up to 100 miles, taking into account the need for reserve power,
> says Ganzarski.

Not bad, not bad at all

------
siliconunit
Now a compact fast-neutron lead cooled reactor would come in handy...
development has been done..like the Convair NB 36H, but with 1950 tech..I
wonder with modern specs and upgraded safety protocols..

~~~
yellowapple
The Convair NB 36H wasn't actually powered by the reactor, though; its sole
job was to validate that it was possible to shield the crew from the reactor's
radiation (which it did).

However, there were certainly successful tests of actual nuclear-powered jet
engines, like General Electric's X39 (a modified J47, and slated to be slapped
onto that NB 36H to make a Convair X-6) and J87 (a different design for a
different nuclear-powered bomber project, the WS-125).

A key issue is the shielding necessary to keep such an aircraft from
irradiating everything around it (you think neighborhoods bitching about
nearby airports are ornery _now_...); that shielding is heavy. Accidents also
make such craft much riskier, which is indeed a cited reason (other than
costs) why the USA and USSR both cancelled their nuclear-powered bomber
programs.

------
Havoc
As a workload it sorta makes senses. You want raw output for take-off and then
steady efficient power for cruise. Both of which electric motors can do.

...just a question of battery weight, which is dropping

~~~
AdrianB1
Piston engines can also do. You want max output for take-off, but to maintain
the cruise speed you need around 75% of the engine output and you fly at
"steady efficient power" (75%) for cruise; there is no difference here. It's
not like cars where you brake and accelerate many times.

------
danielfoster
This is amazing for rural communities and student pilots. And if it became
safely possible to run the plane with just one pilot onboard for commercial
service, this lower cost plane would have even more potential.

Up to 40 minutes for charging could be an issue for airlines who want to turn
planes around quickly, though I doubt Cessna operators are striving for
Ryanair economics yet.

~~~
AdrianB1
The number of pilots has no correlation with the electric propulsion.

For student pilots it is not amazing, in the flight school you need to do a
raid (this is how it is called on this side of the ocean) flying between 3
cities and 500 miles minimum; you cannot do it with the electric plane and as
a student you are not good enough to fly a different plane model (with ICE
power plant) just for the raid, so you cannot complete the school.

~~~
inamberclad
You'll still be able to do most of your pattern work and general handling
training in vastly cheaper electric aircraft.

~~~
AdrianB1
Then what do you do, transition on a different plane during school? At that
point you will need a full 45 hours or more on the second plane, negating the
cheaper first plane.

~~~
inamberclad
No you won't, there's no requirement to do the 40 hours for a US private pilot
certificate in the same aircraft type.

~~~
AdrianB1
This is what it takes to learn to fly a plane; if you want to learn to fly 2
planes in the flight school, you cannot do it in the regular 45 hours, it will
take you over 60 hours if you are good, over 80 hours for most people.

~~~
inamberclad
I flew multiple aircraft in the same class and category while doing my PPL and
had no problems. At this point there's old enough that's there's nearly as
many differences between two C-172s as there are with a C-172 and a PA-28.
Yes, it took me more than 40 hours but I blame that on scheduling, not the
aircrafts.

------
war1025
First thought seeing this was of the Dodge Grand Caravan minivan we had
growing up.

It's interesting how often names get reused.

~~~
yellowapple
Funny enough, there are all-electric versions of those, too:
[http://www.evalbum.com/2403](http://www.evalbum.com/2403)

------
umvi
Is it any quieter than gas engines? Last time I flew in a Cessna, the
propeller was bone-jarringly loud.

------
sokoloff
I’m skeptical about the $6 of electricity for the 30-minute flight, or at
least want to see the assumptions there.

Even at super cheap $0.06/kWh rates, and 100% plug-to-motor efficiency, that’s
only 100kWh. For a rated power of 560kW, that suggests an _average_ power
setting of around 35%.

~~~
goodcanadian
_. . . average power setting of around 35%_

That actually sounds about right. You only need full power for take-off.

EDIT: Thanks for the corrections.

~~~
SomeHacker44
As a pilot, I fly full power at takeoff, of course. In my usual piston plane,
I fly at 75% power until it cannot maintain that power (due to normal
aspiration and no boost from, eg, a turbocharger), and then "flat out" beyond
that.

I do not think I have ever flown at 35% power except in the short time between
final and touchdown.

~~~
goodcanadian
At the risk of sticking my foot in it even further . . .

 _I fly at 75% power until it cannot maintain that power_

Does that not mean that you are actually flying at well under 75% of the rated
power even if it is the maximum power available at that altitude?

~~~
sokoloff
Yes, though normally aspirated pistons typically stay under 8500 MSL and very
rarely exceed 12500 MSL. IIRC, you can make 75% power unboosted through around
7000’ MSL. I’d guess at least 90% of normally aspirated flight is under 7000’.
It certainly was for me, even though my previous airplane could climb higher,
it was slower up there, so I rarely flew it over 10K unless there was a
screaming tailwind up high or terrible turbulence down low.

If I looked over all my engine monitor downloads for power settings under 35%
while airborne, I bet the average would be under 1 minute per flight and it
would be between 200’ and landing.

------
ggm
How much further could an ePlane fly if it was possible to discard spent
batteries? (Serious question)

~~~
josephcsible
In your hypothetical scenario, do you care whether the batteries are
recoverable and reusable? If not, then you lose a lot of the benefit of
electrification.

~~~
crazygringo
Imagine if there were large fields (or lakes) every few hundred miles
designated as drop zones where huge battery packs would be parachuted down
into and recovered every couple weeks, from cross-country commercial flights.

I'm sure there are a million problems with it, but you never know.

~~~
squarefoot
Or flying "recharge" stations where appropriately sized drones carrying a new
set of batteries (not necessarily all of them) would dock with the aircraft,
push the new batteries into a receptacle while taking the old ones on board,
then separate from the plane and land to the closest ground station for
recharging until next plane to service.

------
GordonS
I know next to nothing about aviation, but I wonder if a "hybrid" would make
any sense for planes, or if you'd end up with the worst of both worlds?

------
purplezooey
_...receives power from a 750V lithium-ion battery system weighing roughly one
tonne..._

It's like a giant flying battery with a few seats.

------
todd8
Wow, 2000 pounds of battery. About twice the weight of a Tesla battery. This
suggests that a it could take perhaps an hour to recharge the battery for each
30 minute flight. This is just a guess extrapolating from the non-technical
article.

------
lstodd
a range of 100 miles with 4-5 passengers

where the kerosene-powered variant has about a thousand miles with ~7
passengers

~~~
briandear
You can carry 14 people in a typical Caravan EX.

------
chrisseaton
Wow that's a strange choice for a name. Can't think of anything I'd less like
to fly in than a caravan. Makes me think of boring trips and cheap flimsy
tacky boxes liable to be blown away by the wind.

~~~
anamexis
If it's any consolation, the Cessna Caravan predates the Dodge Caravan by 3
years.

~~~
chrisseaton
I don't know what a Dodge Caravan is specifically. This is what 'caravan'
makes me think of though - [https://www.practicalcaravan.com/wp-
content/uploads/2018/02/...](https://www.practicalcaravan.com/wp-
content/uploads/2018/02/6725064-scaled.jpg) \- not what you'd want to fly in!

~~~
mr_spothawk
this is what i was thinking

[https://duckduckgo.com/?q=caravan+waggon&t=brave&iar=images&...](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=caravan+waggon&t=brave&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images)

~~~
the8472
Why is everyone thinking of cars? There is a far more picturesque and older
meaning of the word.

[http://remarkablejourneys.com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/09/Day...](http://remarkablejourneys.com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/09/Day-5_Sahara-Desert-Morocco-Camel-Caravan-1.jpg)

~~~
userbinator
Because of this:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_Caravan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_Caravan)

They were immensely popular throughout the 90s and early 2000s.

