" If batteries don’t get dramatically better in the next decade, we design our plane as a hybrid with electric motors, like a Volt. It still has great cost savings as compared to today’s planes, and it doesn’t require massive battery advances.
If batteries do get a lot better in the next decade, our plane is fully-electric and has fantastic cost savings. See chart #2 below; a near-future jump to a chemistry like Li-Metal doesn’t seem beyond the realm of possibility." - https://weflywright.com/blog/
I'm glad to see they have a contingency plan for not being fully electric.
Seems like this would be a step backward in efficiency. Direct mechanical drive is more efficient than double conversion at cruise speeds. Even the Gen1 volt connected engine to wheels at highway speed because it was more efficient, Gen2 they went to a more conventional hybrid design like a Prius with mechanical power splitting because its more efficient even at lower speeds.
Airplanes are even simpler using variable pitch props the ICE just runs at it most efficient rpm with no or minimal transmission and nearly zero mechanical losses.
Also a hybrid design is heavier than a direct mechanical and airplanes would seem to not benefit from hybrid advantages such as regenerative braking and 0 rpm torque.
Aviation as a field is littered with dozens (hundreds?) of startups that have blown through millions and decades trying to build certified aircraft and going bankrupt in the process.
Not the first to say this, but there is zero chance that this startup designs and builds a certified electric airliner in the next decade. I highly doubt we'll have these in 20 years. In ten years, we might have battery technology where it starts to make sense, but the most experienced builders of large aircraft in the world generally spend at least a decade and billions of dollars developing new planes. And this will be with completely untested technologies, new safety procedures, engines, etc. Boeing spent $32 billion bringing the 787 to market. On the smaller end, Bombardier spent ~$5 billion on the C series, which looks comparable to this, and I'd expect costs on this to be MUCH higher since it's a lot of new and untested tech, instead of iterating on decades of prior experience.
This is either appallingly naive on the part of this team and / or their investors, or this is an acquisition play. I doubt the latter makes sense, and I wonder if this is just VCs not having any knowledge of the field or how unrealistic this is.
I get it, fuel costs are huge for airlines. But fuel costs are still small beans compared to capital utilization. I hope they have a feasible plan for recharging and getting back in the air without significant delays. That is a very significant amount of energy to shove into a plane in such a timeframe. If recharge times are anywhere close to an hour, this idea is DOA.
This is so clearly a great opportunity for electric tech - Airplanes can be used on fixed trips of known distance, and shooting for the 150 passenger size seems ideal for the limitations that electric would entail.
Think SF-LA, there are probably 1000 flights / week between these two areas, and some of those could be handled by a plane like this.
> Airplanes can be used on fixed trips of known distance, and shooting for the 150 passenger size seems ideal for the limitations that electric would entail
Yes and no. The major problem for electric planes (apart from the fact that the energy density of the best batteries is piss poor compared to Jet-A) is the weight does not decrease throughout the flight. This means you need more robust landing gear as the MTOW and MLW are essentially the same. More robust landing gear = more empty weight = less payload capacity = less paying meatbags/cargo.
There is also the issue of time to recharge. Short flights such as SFO-LAX that you mentioned would not require much in terms of refueling time (on the order of 20 minutes or so maximum). It would take a lot of good engineering to charge a plane this quickly.
Overall, I think all companies tend to underestimate the cost and time associated with designing a new airplane. Bombardier was billions over budget and years behind schedule for their C series.
How safe is this? Having more efficient batteries seems to imply more risks of spontaneous exposions, as we've seen in various phones, cars, and computers.
On the face of it, it's a very scary proposal. The energy density of hydrocarbon fuels is high, and they are well understood. A comparable battery, on the other hand - it sounds like a fire hazard the size of a planeload of Samsung phones.
I bet six months until they pivot to some meaningless garbage and put out a press release claiming that whatever shiny new toy they're peddling is "changing the world".
nradov|9 years ago
bsilvereagle|9 years ago
I'm glad to see they have a contingency plan for not being fully electric.
SigmundA|9 years ago
Airplanes are even simpler using variable pitch props the ICE just runs at it most efficient rpm with no or minimal transmission and nearly zero mechanical losses.
Also a hybrid design is heavier than a direct mechanical and airplanes would seem to not benefit from hybrid advantages such as regenerative braking and 0 rpm torque.
ryanwaggoner|9 years ago
Not the first to say this, but there is zero chance that this startup designs and builds a certified electric airliner in the next decade. I highly doubt we'll have these in 20 years. In ten years, we might have battery technology where it starts to make sense, but the most experienced builders of large aircraft in the world generally spend at least a decade and billions of dollars developing new planes. And this will be with completely untested technologies, new safety procedures, engines, etc. Boeing spent $32 billion bringing the 787 to market. On the smaller end, Bombardier spent ~$5 billion on the C series, which looks comparable to this, and I'd expect costs on this to be MUCH higher since it's a lot of new and untested tech, instead of iterating on decades of prior experience.
This is either appallingly naive on the part of this team and / or their investors, or this is an acquisition play. I doubt the latter makes sense, and I wonder if this is just VCs not having any knowledge of the field or how unrealistic this is.
phmagic|9 years ago
I'm not clear on how this works out economically.
Gas turbines are more efficient than electric at high altitudes and long distances. So the regional hops are where this could make an impact.
IMO regional hop planes are less efficient at moving cargo than trains (or hyperloops). America just doesn't like high speed trains for some reason.
Between trains and jet turbine planes, I'm not seeing where electric passenger planes like this make a huge image.
saosebastiao|9 years ago
jcoffland|9 years ago
djrogers|9 years ago
Think SF-LA, there are probably 1000 flights / week between these two areas, and some of those could be handled by a plane like this.
kogepathic|9 years ago
Yes and no. The major problem for electric planes (apart from the fact that the energy density of the best batteries is piss poor compared to Jet-A) is the weight does not decrease throughout the flight. This means you need more robust landing gear as the MTOW and MLW are essentially the same. More robust landing gear = more empty weight = less payload capacity = less paying meatbags/cargo.
There is also the issue of time to recharge. Short flights such as SFO-LAX that you mentioned would not require much in terms of refueling time (on the order of 20 minutes or so maximum). It would take a lot of good engineering to charge a plane this quickly.
Overall, I think all companies tend to underestimate the cost and time associated with designing a new airplane. Bombardier was billions over budget and years behind schedule for their C series.
Same for Airbus with the A350.
Same for Boeing with the 787.
tl;dr - Making planes is hard.
NikolaeVarius|9 years ago
d--b|9 years ago
And what about the lifetime?
HarryHirsch|9 years ago
analognoise|9 years ago