• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Electric Planes

Why would only the compressor be electric driven?

I don't know? You're telling the story

Huh. I assumed that the "turbo" in "turboprop" came from adding energy by compressing the air and then using that energy to drive something. And that electricity rather than combustible fuel could be used to add energy in the compression step. I.e., one could use an electric motor to drive a turboprop.

I really can't see how that would work. The energy density of even the highest energy-density batteries would not be great enough to do what you are asking. The losses would be huge.

I really do not understand what you are arguing about here.

The example linked to by RanB is an electric aircraft called the "Eviation Alice". It uses two, rear-fuselage mounted, 100% battery operated electric motors that directly drive propellers for propulsion. In air inlet ports in the nacelles (that Ziggurat asked about) are to allow air inflow for the Thermal Management System (because these motors work very hard, and get very hot).

EviationAliceMotor.png


Front view of the starboard engine with its nacelle removed. The TMS heat-sink is
visible inside the air inlet.
 
Why would only the compressor be electric driven?

Why would you want a compressor if you don't have the combustion part? The energy is generated in the combustion stage, and then you use some of it to drive the turbine, which drives the compressor. In an electric plane all that is replaced by an electric motor that simply drives the propeller.

Hans
 
Yes, the energy in the compressed air is used to spin the turbine. I know all this. I had just sort of assumed that the compression stage could be electrically driven.

When you compress air, you store some energy in it, but it also heats up, and some of that heat transfers, so you lose some of that energy. So if all you're doing is compressing air, you're getting out less than you put in when you let it expand again. In order to get more out, you need combustion. The combustion is what gives you the net energy output.

But if you're doing combustion, there's no reason to add electricity to the equation in a jet engine. Making it hybrid by adding an electric generator to the output and using that electricity to do the initial compression just adds two conversions (mechanical to electrical and electrical back to mechanical) between the output and the compression, which is going to add weight and inefficiency. There's absolutely no point to doing that rather than just powering the compression straight from the combustion output.

Now you might ask, if we don't do that for jets, why would we do that for cars? Why are hybrid car engines more efficient than straight combustion engine cars? And the answer is that car engines don't operate like turbine plane engines. A turbine plane engine (be it jet, turbofan, or turboprop) spends most of its time operating near its peak efficiency, under fairly constant load. That's the way you design it, so that normal flight conditions match peak engine efficiency.

But cars don't do that. You're operating cars under wildly different engine outputs on a regular basis, so it's not possible to keep a combustion-only car operating at peak efficiency. If you're driving in the city, you may spend a lot of time burning fuel at zero efficiency as you idle at a stop light. A hybrid car engine doesn't have the electric motor take over part of the engine cycle, it substitutes for the entire engine cycle. It allows you to only run the combustion engine only at peak efficiency, and use the electric motor for the rest. You do lose some energy in the conversion process, but because most driving involves so much inefficient engine use that you can eliminate, there's still a net gain to be had. But if you were to run at peak engine efficiency constantly, a hybrid car would actually lose out compared to a combustion only engine.
 
Under development...

Heart Aerospace EC-30
A full-size four-engine 30 seat short-range airliner. Its expected to have a fully electric range of 200km, which can be extended to 400km on hybrid power. If payload is cut to 25 people, range rises to 800km, all with normal safety reserves. Those ranges are likely to improve as battery technology advances.

EC30.jpg


It also it will also have two turbine powered APU's that run on sustainable aviation fuel (to supply extra electrical power) which would only be used in an emergency, or in the case of an aircraft needing to divert to an alternate airfield out of its normal range.

United Airlines has ordered a number of EC-30s* for their short haul services (conditional on it meeting safety, business and operating requirements). Air Canada have ordered 30, and they and Saab have invested in the project. Nordic airlines Braathens Regional Airlines (BRA), Icelandair and SAS have given letters of intent to buy. In New Zealand, Sounds Air has expressed interest in buying some for their Picton to Wellington run. Its just 71 km across the Cook Straight and would be ideally suited - it could make the return run with 25 passengers without recharging.

*The EC-30 is expected to enter service in 2028
 
Last edited:
I think we should go back to the energy source for planes Richard Feynman nearly got a patent for.

nuclear
 
Under development...

Heart Aerospace EC-30
A full-size four-engine 30 seat short-range airliner. Its expected to have a fully electric range of 200km, which can be extended to 400km on hybrid power. If payload is cut to 25 people, range rises to 800km, all with normal safety reserves. Those ranges are likely to improve as battery technology advances.

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/p1c5q72l0hihuf05q9l6s/EC30.jpg?rlkey=8cbehlpwotqx6524989kp0n20&raw=1[/qimg]

It also it will also have two turbine powered APU's that run on sustainable aviation fuel (to supply extra electrical power) which would only be used in an emergency, or in the case of an aircraft needing to divert to an alternate airfield out of its normal range.

United Airlines has ordered a number of EC-30s* for their short haul services (conditional on it meeting safety, business and operating requirements). Air Canada have ordered 30, and they and Saab have invested in the project. Nordic airlines Braathens Regional Airlines (BRA), Icelandair and SAS have given letters of intent to buy. In New Zealand, Sounds Air has expressed interest in buying some for their Picton to Wellington run. Its just 71 km across the Cook Straight and would be ideally suited - it could make the return run with 25 passengers without recharging.

*The EC-30 is expected to enter service in 2028

The APU's certainly solve the problem of emergency range, but of course at the cost of extra weight and complexity. I think that project looks very promising but we must see how it pans out in practice. My guess is that economy will be a problem; commercial air transportation is a fiercely competitive business, and I fear such a project will need some form of government subsidiaries. ETA: A clear problem is that such a short range will be under heavy competition from modern train technology, which will be safer, cheaper, and in many instances, faster.

Still, very interesting.

Hans
 
Last edited:
And can you refuel them in Flight?

It seems that they plan for APUs (Additional Power Units) using conventional motors, which will probably produce charge for the batteries, if the plane for some reason needs to divert outside its normal range.

Another possibility is for the APU to drive the propeller directly, which is more efficient, but requires a bigger motor.

Hans
 
I saw a video recently about airships such as dirigibles. It's a very old idea and one that has mostly been shelved as impractical and obsolete but some people have ideas to bring them back for I guess hauling cargo mostly. Not sure it can ever really be a practical mode of transport though. Maybe for a few niche cases. The electric angle is that there would be a lot of surface area on the outsides of these balloons where you could have thin solar panels to generate electricity.

 
Under development...

Heart Aerospace EC-30
A full-size four-engine 30 seat short-range airliner. Its expected to have a fully electric range of 200km, which can be extended to 400km on hybrid power. If payload is cut to 25 people, range rises to 800km, all with normal safety reserves. Those ranges are likely to improve as battery technology advances.

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/p1c5q72l0hihuf05q9l6s/EC30.jpg?rlkey=8cbehlpwotqx6524989kp0n20&raw=1[/qimg]

It also it will also have two turbine powered APU's that run on sustainable aviation fuel (to supply extra electrical power) which would only be used in an emergency, or in the case of an aircraft needing to divert to an alternate airfield out of its normal range.

United Airlines has ordered a number of EC-30s* for their short haul services (conditional on it meeting safety, business and operating requirements). Air Canada have ordered 30, and they and Saab have invested in the project. Nordic airlines Braathens Regional Airlines (BRA), Icelandair and SAS have given letters of intent to buy. In New Zealand, Sounds Air has expressed interest in buying some for their Picton to Wellington run. Its just 71 km across the Cook Straight and would be ideally suited - it could make the return run with 25 passengers without recharging.

*The EC-30 is expected to enter service in 2028

I'm straggling to think of any short haul flights in Canada that are under 200km. Only Montreal to Ottawa come to mind.
 
Under development...

Heart Aerospace EC-30
A full-size four-engine 30 seat short-range airliner. Its expected to have a fully electric range of 200km, which can be extended to 400km on hybrid power. If payload is cut to 25 people, range rises to 800km, all with normal safety reserves. Those ranges are likely to improve as battery technology advances.


Those are some strange-looking figures. Seventeen percent of the passengers use fifty percent of the power? With 5 people can it fly 4000km?
 
Those are some strange-looking figures. Seventeen percent of the passengers use fifty percent of the power? With 5 people can it fly 4000km?

I don't think that means that if you just board fewer people, the plane can fly that much farther. I think it means that they have an alternate configuration with larger fuel tanks but fewer passengers.

But all of this is still just projections. As far as I can tell, they don't even have an operating prototype yet. I've seen plenty of electric vehicle plans fail to pan out, I wouldn't be surprised if this one fails too.
 
I'm straggling to think of any short haul flights in Canada that are under 200km. Only Montreal to Ottawa come to mind.

If you add cross-border flights you get Vancouver to Seattle and Toronto to Buffalo or Rochester. I'm sure there's some smaller airport routes, but yeah, doesn't seem like there's actually very many routes at that range.
 
I don't think that means that if you just board fewer people, the plane can fly that much farther. I think it means that they have an alternate configuration with larger fuel tanks but fewer passengers.

But all of this is still just projections. As far as I can tell, they don't even have an operating prototype yet. I've seen plenty of electric vehicle plans fail to pan out, I wouldn't be surprised if this one fails too.

This. Goes for any plane, really: If you carry less payload, you can carry more fuel.

Hans
 
If you add cross-border flights you get Vancouver to Seattle and Toronto to Buffalo or Rochester. I'm sure there's some smaller airport routes, but yeah, doesn't seem like there's actually very many routes at that range.

Well, Canada is a big place. Europe would be more interesting for this. Still, I bet electric trains could out-compete it hands down. We are looking for somewhere with poor surface infrastructure.

But yes. 200 km is .... ridiculous. If they can't improve on that, forget it.

Hans
 
True, but it is a much smaller part of the equation. Over 80% of the efficiency gains from flying at altitude come from greater engine efficiency

Flying at altitude might give you better drag efficiency, but you have to get there first. Most of those gains are eaten up by the losses incurred in using battery power. It costs more power to climb than it does to fly level, and in the case I am making, short haul, very little of the flight time is spent at high altitude.



The Eviation Alice has a cruising speed of 481 km/hr. The type of aircraft it would be competing against are

ATR72 - 510 km/h
Cessna Skycourier - 389 km/h
Piper PA31 Navajo - 383 km/h

That's not a lot of difference

Also means not needing to worry about pressurization. Not sure what the cost saving there are though.

2 of the planes you listed though, all have much large cabins. I cannot see the Eviation being used for regional/feeder airline routes. It'll be for executives, and celebrities. And a Piper Navajo costs much less than this plane will.
 
I cannot see the Eviation being used for regional/feeder airline routes. It'll be for executives, and celebrities.

That's hard for me to imagine. If you're rich and you want a private plane, why would you buy one with such a pathetically short range? You can't get anywhere with that. And if you're only flying it occasionally, it's not like any fuel savings are going to be important. The only real advantage this plane seems likely to have is lower operating costs, but you need to fly a lot to make those operating costs exceed a higher purchase cost. And longer ranges are only unnecessary if you're always going to be flying short routes. So regional routes seems like the only use case scenario I can see.
 
That's hard for me to imagine. If you're rich and you want a private plane, why would you buy one with such a pathetically short range? You can't get anywhere with that. And if you're only flying it occasionally, it's not like any fuel savings are going to be important. The only real advantage this plane seems likely to have is lower operating costs, but you need to fly a lot to make those operating costs exceed a higher purchase cost. And longer ranges are only unnecessary if you're always going to be flying short routes. So regional routes seems like the only use case scenario I can see.

Yeah... good point. I mean some celebrities might buy one like the buy a Prius, doesn't mean they always drive a Prius.

It looks like DHL has ordered some and a regional airline that does island hopping in the Caribbean, plus a charter co. And thats about it. 8 passengers*, and 290 miles is not good enough for all but a few edge cases. Sight seeing maybe?

When I think of feeder aircraft, I'm thinking like ~40ish people. Thats the smallest one I've evern been in myself.

*considering a cabin of 9 will have 1 flight attendant.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom